Why the FUCK is AARP running ads for "DONTVOTE.COM????"

[Redstone]

Is this voter intimidation aimed at old people?

Sure seems like it to me.

Redstone

[babylonsister]

1. Lame, isn't it. They want oldsters (?moi) to examine the issues

prior to voting, but I didn't like it either.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

2. It's "Don't Vote" - until you know the candidates.

Not the best slogan though.

[PCIntern]

3. this started a couple of weeks ago

I posted a whole diatribe against it at its inception. The one frigging year when we need turnout and they come up with a don't vote moniker.

fuck 'em.

Not a dime for them as dues. Ever.

[truthisfreedom]

4. did you visit the site?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. How many seniors who saw the ad have NO internet access?

To me, the slogan is like "voter ID". Maybe some people would consider it a good idea in the abstract, but a careful look at the REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES would show hundreds of thousands or millions of Democratic votes surely would be lost because of it.

[MissB]

5. It is perhaps the shittiest marketing slogan ever.

[Rick Myers]

6. Roger that! Dumbest ad campaign I've ever seen! n/t

[Claire Beth]

7. Not at all....

it's actually a good website. AND if you listen closely, the ad says DON"T VOTE until you know where the candidates stand. If people would check it out, it actually would HELP the democrats, since the dem's are concerned about Social Security and medicare, etc. I was taken aback when I first heard the "don't vote" ad on TV, but I understood after checking it out.

:dem:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. Do you also agree with "Voter ID"? And when this ad is run on Election

Day, isn't it saying something quite different from what might have been intended when it was shown a month ago?

Today, IMO, "Don't vote until ..." flat out means, "DON'T VOTE!"

And the ad is directed at a very reliable Democratic constituency, the same way "Voter ID" is targeted at them.

[stray cat]

8. I love the ad campaign - don't vote until you get informed.

Isn't that what people claim we need in the US - an informed voting public?

[unpossibles]

17. it's what America needs and the NeoCons fear

they'd rather have an uninformed base who can't vote easily.

[Melynn]

9. Some people won't watch the entire ad

and only hear the words, "Don't Vote". Stupid commercial indeed.

[Bluebear]

10. I understand the sentiment, but why such heavy rotation TODAY?

I have seen this shit about 20 times already today, literally. What do they want seniors to do, find out about candidates a couple hours before the polls close?

[KSU Wildcat]

11. What is wrong with the slogan???....

NOBODY should vote until they know the candidates and the issues. They are not pushing any one candidate, they just want you to study what each candidate stands for and make a knowledgeable vote. That makes more sense than all of the negative ads the politicians have been running.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Ask yourself, how many seniors have TV to see the ad, but no Internet

access to the dontvote.com site that's touted inthe ad? My guess would be TENS OF MILLIONS. See post #13,

[KSU Wildcat]

24. If a person does not know the

candidates or the issues they should not vote..That is how the repubs get elected, ignorant voters. Uninformed, ignorant voters is why this country is in such a mess today.

[Swede Atlanta]

12. Actually I agree with them

If a voter doesn't know what he or she is voting for or against, they should sit that issue or office out. I'm not suggesting these voters shouldn't go to the polls but if they have no reason to vote or against an issue (e.g. a constitutional amendment) or for or against a candidate, then don't vote in that specific issue.

Here at DU we complain about the religious right or other kool-aid drinkers who vote a straigt ticket just because that's what their preacher told them on Sunday. Well the same thing should apply to all of us.

If I go to the polls and I haven't taken the time to understand the issues or the candidates, I skip that particular issue on the ballot. Today in Georgia we had 3 constitutional amendments and a handful of other ballot measures. There had been no television, radio or print ads for or against any of these in or on the local media. I was just glad I did some pre-voting research on the issues last night so I could make an informed decision.

For example, I might have been inclined for vote for the "eminent domain" amendment proposal if I hadn't taken the time to carefully read the amendment and researched some pro and con. I decided that Georgia law sufficiently protects personal property today, I am not in favor of amending the constitution at the people's whim (e.g. gay marriage ban) and had good reason to believe the construction of the amendment might actually play in the favor of land developers and others.

So I am all for voting for a reason.

[Redstone]

23. Then why the HELL didn't they call it "informedvoter.com" or something?

Redstone

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. It's supposed to be "cute" and the site has good voter info, but I agree

with you, though I wouldn't call it "intimidation" It does appear to me to be voter suppression, giving seniors, especially seniors with TV but no internet access, another excuse not to take the effort to vote.

In perhaps the most crucial election ever for the future of social security, how could any supposed voice for seniors run such a campaign? Nobody should be told that they should not vote unless they know the issues, especially no senior whos Social Security is about to be downsized if Dubya gets to pursue his prioriities. IMO AARP should be saying the opposite: Be SURE to vote, rather than giving people an extra excuse not to bother.

Besides, how many seniors with TV to see the "Don't Vote" ad lack regular access to the Internet to visit the site that's promoted in the ad? I'd venture to say, TENS OF MILLIONS. If just 10 percent stay home because they can't visit DontVote.com, that's over a million disproportionately Democratic votes down the drain right there.

[Graybeard]

14. Stupid and counter-productive.

It's not clever it's ill concieved. Hate it.

[AbbyR]

18. We ran that ad in our paper

and had SO many complaints about it. The first week, it was just "Don't Vote" with the web site. TWO WEEKS later, the added the additional information about don't vote until you know the issues. We thought it was crazy.

[spanone]

19. They (aarp) have spent fortunes on this asinine campaign.

Dumbest fucking ads I've ever seen. Whey didn't they spend this kind of money fighting the bush* prescription drug bullshit?

[windbreeze]

21. I am a senior...

I don't believe older people are going to be intimidated by such an ad....either that or they'd have to be a hell of a lot older than I am..and be suffering from some serious mental defect...if I saw that ad, I would go check it out to see what it was all about, I wouldn't just not vote for crying out loud...I believe most of us would???...I have a TV, and I do NOT watch cable news...I have the internet...broadband, to be exact....and most of the people I know who are my age, have both also.....so I have to believe that most seniors are mmmmmm, let's see..... NOT stupid, brain dead, or handicapped...most of us are aware, that we need to know our candidates and our local issues....give us a break, please, and just a little credit too...THANKS
windbreeze

[Redstone]

22. Did I SAY old people are stupid? Or ANYTHING else negative about old people?

Jesus Christ, how some people here can put words into other people's mouths.

Redstone

[windbreeze]

25. whoops....

I wasn't trying to aggravate anyone...just trying to point out that the seniors I know, are no more likely to be disenfranchised from voting because of a stupidly put ad, than any other group of voters of any age....for more than one reason...

If I offended you, I apologize...
windbreeze

[Rex]

26. Very good question.

nt

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. More than 10 million seniors 65+ have TV but no internet

access and are registered to vote, according to Cisco and the Census Bureau. Thus, for each percent who neglect to vote because they did not think they were sufficently informed, about 100,000 seniors' votes are lost.

Does it make sense to you that AARP would do this, with privatization of Social Security on Dubya's announced agenda for 2007?

If it does, then you must not mind whether "Voter ID" disfranchises more than 11 million people in 2008. Like "Voter ID", "Don't Vote Unless ..." may sound OK to many people, but any look at its real world consequences brands it an arbitrary scheme to disfranchise disproportionately Democratic voters. Why "fix" what's not broken in the first place, especially now, especially when the "fix" is Republican-biased, and expecially when an ostensible voice for seniors is voluntarily disfranchising them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details

A 2002 University of Colorado poll (Table 9 at http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/Broadband_Demand.pdf ) found these results for NO INTERNET ACCESS by age:

65 & up 45 percent
55 to 64 24
45 to 45 12
35 to 44 7
25 to 34 15

The age distribution of 128 million registered voters last midterm election was as follows, according to http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-552/tab04b.pdf :

75+ 12 million
65 to 74 14
45 to 64 46
25 to 44 46
18 to 24 10
Total 128 million

45 percent of 26 million is 11.7 million. Knocking off the 1.7 million to account approximately for growth in internet penetration since 2002, we have an even 10 million.

[Redstone]

28. I think you're agreeing with me...aren't you?

Redstone