which is better for disgruntled Republicans to do?

[ButterflyBlood]

on the one hand we could need every vote against * we can get. On the other hand if they turn out they could vote for Republicans for other positions on the ballot, whereareas if they stay home, it's a net vote loss for Bush and all other Republicans. Tough to say

[poskonig]

1. Sit their asses home!

Even though every vote that switches to the dems gives us a net 2+ vote, we really need to win some close congressional races too.

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. vote against Bush

I think this is pretty simple math.

A vote against Bush is a vote for a Democrat.

Staying home helps Democrats, but not as much as directly voting against Bush.

I'll take losing local races as long as they vote out Bush as well.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. If they vote against Bush and they see the nominee campaigning

with other office seekers, it may spill over.

[JVS]

4. If disgruntled Democrats are supposed to be ABB shouldn't they be NBB?

By the principle of what's good for the goose being good for the gander.

[mb7588a]

5. Voting is a civil privelege,

regardless of party,age,gender,whatever ... the bigger the turnout, the better for society as a whole. Nobody can deny that. Anyone who can vote, should.

[ithacan]

6. if only rove believed that

the GOP has and will do everything in their power to reduce voter turnout among Dems

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Historically, the bigger turnout usually helps Democrats.

Cuz there's more of us.