I'm only 19 years old. I'm somewhat new to elections. I remember the 2004 elections with John Kerry and George W Bush and reading about John Kerry. I don't remember seeing much campaign ads or people getting this crazy in 2004. I imagine there was a lot of hate on both sides. I just wonder if it's always like this. If so, then what can we do to tell people the truth about these politicians and how they have always been doing this and the only way that they'll stop being manipulated is to hold these politicians accountable for their actions. I'm just curious because I saw a lot of people who I thought were smart, or, I know usually are smart, be ignorant of the Republican side, or of the Democrat side. Most of the Democrats I know voted for Obama because they didn't like Bush and since they're Democratic, but, I think John McCain hurt the GOP a lot, as I saw a lot of hate for the Republicans on the internet. I gained some respect for the GOP because it was during that election cycle that I found out about Ron Paul and I started to read about politics after I read his book. I felt inspired by his movement. But then, all these other people remained ignorant. Is it always like this? One candidate comes along and wakes some of us up and then the rest of the masses remains ignorant? What can we do about this? Can something be done?

Election days in the western world are are chance to see the oppinions of people their votes will never have any bearing on the result, its all pre-determined.

The MSM controls the masses. The independent journalist ceased to exist a long time ago.

I think even u-tube was caught fixing the numbers of times videos were viewed, basically keeping Ron Paul's off of the front page, where they display those that have been watched the most.

People just aren't going to wake up to the facts if they simply have no idea they exist.

Peace

I've been voting well umm for a while now lets just say that most have been average campaigns but I remember a few heated ones I think this last one had been one of the better ones.

IMO

One election that was very similar to this was the Kennedy-Nixon fracas. Kennedy's claim to fame was that he was from a political dynasty and he'd manned a PT boat during WWII and had a ghostwriter turn it into a dynamic book where he was the Greatest American Hero.

The affection for Kennedy and Jackie was every bit as over the top as the affection for Obama.

And if you want to get into REALLY wild electioneering, read up on some of the elections of the 1800's.

I believe it was Molly Ivins who said that politics is one of the finest blood sports around.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Is every election like the 2008 election?

In what aspect? If you mean this - Is every election like the 2008 election in that the Bildebergers put their boy in so they really control the country - then YES. This has been going on for a very long time.

Originally posted by Byrd
The affection for Kennedy and Jackie was every bit as over the top as the affection for Obama.

It was very strong and it was misplaced for them as well.

I thought this one was tame compared to 2004, at least here on ATS.

What was unique about this one was the use of the internet. Obama was ALL over that.

Well I voted for the second time last year . The common thread between the New Zealand and US elections was the generation shift and the mantle of change . In New Zealand at least the mantle of change is or was a hoax. Nether(SP?) the mantle for change or the generational shift is seen at every election . In the US the generational shift was more transparent or in the extreme because Obama knows what an iPod is and it was reported that McCain doesnt know how to operate a computer . Well that is my take any way .

I agree with intrepid 100%

Very tame compared to 04 or even for that matter 00...

"We" as a group saw and experienced a lot of controversy due to the internet, but I think the average citizen felt this was a mild election.

Semper

One thing that was unique about this election was that the campaigning on the democrats side started in 2006.
That's a long time for the media to work on peoples opinions.

64' was more of a bitter election that 2008 was... in my personal opinion I would add the 80' and 92' elections as comparitively fierce. Oh yes and ofcourse Kennedy and Nixon, now that was another bitter race to compare to 2008.

This is one of the bit fierce presidential campaigns though, the 2008 one.

Perhaps YOU don't.

Those of us that have lived through several elections, do.

Allegations are simply that.

Remember:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

This election got very heated for three big reasons:

1. The MSM relentlessly painted the Bush administration as war mongerers and evil men and women while giving Congress a pass for years before the election

2. Because of #1, hate levels for the Bush administration grew to astronomical proportions; people wanted them out and didn't care who replaced Bush, even if it was a tyrant

3. A black man was the front runner for president. Argue this point all you want but race had MUCH to do with the 2008 election

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
64' was more of a bitter election that 2008 was... in my personal opinion I would add the 80' and 92' elections as comparitively fierce. Oh yes and ofcourse Kennedy and Nixon, now that was another bitter race to compare to 2008.

This is one of the bit fierce presidential campaigns though, the 2008 one.

You know what was funny about the Nixon Kennedy debate most people who watched the debates on TV thought Kennedy won and most of the people who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won.

I wonder how much appearance makes a difference? Also most people did not really know Roosevelt was as handicapped as he was like we know now I wonder how many people today would vote for somebody in a wheel chair?

Just a thought


[edit on 2-2-2009 by SLAYER69]