Why the silent majority will decide
In 2012, I voted for the Free National Movement (FNM). I voted for the FNM in every election I’ve ever voted in ... and then I woke up from my long slumber.
The crowd at the FNM rally on Fort Charlotte in 2012 was gigantic and impassioned. The PLP crowd the same week in 2012 was comparable. In my mind, based on supporter crowd size, the FNM should have won the 2012 election. They did not.
I failed to take into account, at the time, the presence of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), who no one thought would make the slightest dent in the returns, and whose crowd size I had not seen and whose supporters I did not understand.
But more than that, I didn’t realise the DNA crowd size was something that was hard to see. The people who voted for the DNA were not people who went to rallies. The people who voted for the DNA were people I knew, people who took me by complete surprise when I later found out they had voted for the DNA.
None of them would ever have attended a rally.
They are the people who support silently ... who we refer to as the silent majority of voters. They are also a large part of the group we call the swing voters. And when they vote again, you won’t know how many of them there are until the returns are in on Election Day.
It is hard to project whether the DNA or FNM will gain more votes in the 2017 general election, but I have enough reason to believe that, unless the PLP fully and relentlessly engages bribe-making and vote-buying and obeah, the PLP will not be the party to gain the most votes. Because, I also believe, the PLP has lost more supporters to the DNA and to the FNM than either the DNA or FNM has lost to the PLP.
The only real question is how many times larger is that group of silent and swing voters now, in 2017, after five years of PLP non-governance?
• You can watch and listen to Nicole Burrows talking through this article and other thoughts on fb.me/PolitiColeTV. Comments and responses to nburrows@tribunemed…
By NICOLE BURROWS
Jerome Fitzgerald’s response to reporters on Nomination Day, after The Tribune article which revealed emails he sent to Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian:
“I’ll respond to that later.
Any other questions?
Ok.”
The arrogance was and is astounding.
In other words, ‘Yeah, I said it. I wrote it, I sent it, so what? Y’all know y’all was ga do it, too. Don’t study the noise, we still run tings. PLP on erryting. So lick dat drum again, lemme dance some more, cuz das what y’all fools like ... dancing and drinking ... not thinking. Watch dis ... looka dis foot work. Perry can’t test me.’
Nomination is for representation. You nominate who you think best represents you in government/Parliament. What does that tell you about too many Bahamian people and the degree of concern they give to who represents them? They don’t give a crap; if you’re loyal to them, they’ll support you even if your behaviour is contemptible or corruptible.
Then, after the fancy foot display, Fitzgerald added, “God willing, victory will be ours.”
Because he’s not being perceived as righteous, invoking what the masses perceive as a higher power should make him appear to them to be more righteous ... turn his darkness into light. So that’s what he’ll do to absolve himself. After all, we are just sinners who repent every day, right?
Fitzgerald totally missed - or ignored, more probably - the point about his eventual statement that there was nothing incorrect in The Tribune’s publication of his email requests to Izmirlian. The public with a conscience would like Fitzgerald to know it doesn’t matter if you supposedly don’t benefit now from what you requested in emails to Izmirlian back then. The fact that you asked in the first place is the problem! Slick and unapologetic.
Moral of this story: vote for someone other than Jerome Fitzgerald.
In response to questions by reporters about his Cabinet minister’s contract solicitation to Baha Mar, Prime Minister Perry Christie said: “Thank you very much, thank you very much, thank you very much ...” and once or twice more. Avoiding the question.
That’s the answer? Ignore it and it’ll go away long enough to not matter to people they can easily brainwash, bully, or bribe to vote for them.
Sadly, this type of thing - inappropriate solicitation - is appealing to many Bahamians. How much you can get away with and how much you can get done on the side is almost a badge of honour in this corrupt little town.
The same day he gave no comment about begging Fitzgerald, Christie also chose to announce that this upcoming general election is, supposedly, the last time he will be nominating as a candidate for the Centreville constituency. But why we might believe him now? He’s said as much many times before and yet still he’s here nominating in 2017.
In the same interview tired Christie gave, he referenced John ‘Chippie’ Chipman, the grandfather of his Free National Movement (FNM) opponent in Centreville, who he believes is on his side, saying “This is a man after whom a street was named.” So friggin what, Christie? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Apparently, “it’s an extraordinary statement of support for my legacy, really ...”
Yes, it is always about Christie’s legacy.
After 40-plus years and a horrible record in public service, Christie is, unsurprisingly, still caught up in himself and still talking about his legacy. Mr Christie, your beloved ‘legacy’ is not what you want it to be, it really just is what it is. The nothing we see before us is what we’ll remember you for.
Moral of this story: vote for someone other than Perry Christie.
In the other corner, we get a news story that the FNM is more favourable amongst surveyed Bahamians, in a FNM-commissioned survey. Okay, then. Forgive me if I take the results of said survey paid for by you that favours you, with 10,000 grains of salt.
Hubert Minnis, meanwhile is talking about his “manOfesto” and “the various different things” in it and how some part of it “were certain information” but, as for other information, “those information” could not be included in the “manOfesto”. Yeah. That’s a potential leader of the Bahamas. Well, I suppose he really would be representative of Bahamians.
Minnis also lost his mind in the same interview and dared to say something works in Freeport. He says his idea of creating tax free zones in the inner city was done in Freeport and it improved the quality of life for the people in Freeport. Hold up. Created opportunities for the people of Freeport? What planet is Minnis from? He mussy been inhaling too much of that dump smoke drifting over to Killarney. And as we move along, with him stepping on his own tongue every time he speaks, the people lifting him up are probably still telling him he’s like Moses and Turnquest could be his Aaron.
Moral of this story: vote for someone other than Hubert Minnis.
And Obie Wilchcombe... the story just wouldn’t be complete without him, would it? Wilchcombe says “we’re gonna be transforming” West Grand Bahama and Bimini!
Still, Obie? You still transforming West Grand Bahama and Bimini these humteen a years later? But ain’t not a damn thing changed there that can be perceived as positive transformation. And you still singing dis same ole tired song?
Moral of this story: vote for someone other than Obie Wilchcombe.
Philip Galanis, former Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Member of Parliament, shows up to the microphone again with some very intelligent foolish comments, presumably in support of the PLP? It’s really hard to call it support.
Galanis says the PLP government has made achievements that they themselves have not properly marketed, not communicated to the Bahamian people in a way they can understand what the PLP has done. These achievements are:
1 The PLP “effectively introduced Value-Added Tax” (VAT), which is “a very positive development for the country”, but the PLP has provided “insufficient reporting of where the VAT money went”.
2 The PLP has delivered on the web shops; they “said they’d do something about web shops” and they did, “even though it went against the will of the people”.
3 The PLP said it wanted to do something about National Health Insurance (NHI), it “had a clearly defined vision, though it was not implemented”.
I’m confused. Is Galanis arguing for or against the PLP? Because if he’s arguing in their favour he is doing them no favour.
It sounds like these so-called achievements are of little or no real consequence.
Moral of this story: don’t vote PLP.
• You can watch and listen to Nicole Burrows talking through this article and other thoughts on fb.me/PolitiColeTV. Comments and responses to nburrows@tribunemedia.net
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment
OpenID