Lesser of 2 evils

[skcin]

What do you think is worse? Someone voting without having a real clue about what the candidates views & plans are, or not voting BECAUSE they feel they aren't informed enough to make the decision.

Ordinarily, I would say it's almost worst to vote if you don't know why you're voting for someone. BUT, the way things are now, I feel that the last 2 elections went the way they did because lots of people didn't bother. I'd rather have someone say "I'll vote for any democratic candidate" and do it instead of not vote at all. Of course, if someone says "I'm voting Republican no matter who it is" they can keep their ass at home. :p

Seriously, though, how do you feel? And does anyone know of a good website that clearly explains the candidates' views on & plans for important issues? Anyone?

[David]

What do you think is worse? Someone voting without having a real clue about what the candidates views & plans are, or not voting BECAUSE they feel they aren't informed enough to make the decision.Interesting question. However, I don't consider either one of those situations to be an evil -- not in the slightest. The typical gaggle of candidates in both major parties don't clarify opinions -- theirs or anyone else's. They merely offer platitudes, slogans & vagueness. It's unfair to expect anyone, never mind the serious followers of campaigns, to understand just which candidate wants what or doesn't want what. Candidates market themselves for a solid year the way movie stars market themselves, so it's hardly surprising if the majority of the populace picks & chooses based on who was more entertaining.

As for not voting, I consider that a perfectly legitimate -- & indeed sensible -- prerogative in a free republic like this. There are many reasons why you might not vote: disgust with candidates, accident on voting day, sheer lassitude. Voting is a right. If you choose not to exercise it, it's nobody else's business. That's my stand.

Seriously, though, how do you feel? And does anyone know of a good website that clearly explains the candidates' views on & plans for important issues? Anyone?Offhand, I don't. That may be part of the whole "problem"! Politics -- particularly national politics -- is a football game, a media circus. The belligerent, yapping pundits alone will drive you nuts. In other words, it's actually politicking (the sleazy scramble after power & influence) rather than politics (the reasoned enquiry into the nature & possibility of wise government).

Them's my views.

[Nixxxed]

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

This one is well organized, and provides you with links to the actual candidate quotes from which the analysis was derived. I've seen several other sites without supporting info.

This is definitely shaping up to be an exciting election. I saw a report last night that because of the current primary/caucus results, it is mathematically impossible for the Super Tuesday primaries (Feb. 5th) to decide the nominee for each party. So those of us in states with primaries afterwards - TX is March 4th - get to keep thinking our vote matters!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-delegate-math_N.htm

[vermicious knid]

Yes, I live in Texas, and although I voted in 2000 and 2004, I never voted in a primary. Um. . . did they even have them in those years in Texas? Or were the races for the two nominations over by the time it got to Texas?

[skcin]

Interesting question. However, I don't consider either one of those situations to be an evil -- not in the slightest. The typical gaggle of candidates in both major parties don't clarify opinions -- theirs or anyone else's. They merely offer platitudes, slogans & vagueness. It's unfair to expect anyone, never mind the serious followers of campaigns, to understand just which candidate wants what or doesn't want what. Candidates market themselves for a solid year the way movie stars market themselves, so it's hardly surprising if the majority of the populace picks & chooses based on who was more entertaining.

As for not voting, I consider that a perfectly legitimate -- & indeed sensible -- prerogative in a free republic like this. There are many reasons why you might not vote: disgust with candidates, accident on voting day, sheer lassitude. Voting is a right. If you choose not to exercise it, it's nobody else's business. That's my stand.

Offhand, I don't. That may be part of the whole "problem"! Politics -- particularly national politics -- is a football game, a media circus. The belligerent, yapping pundits alone will drive you nuts. In other words, it's actually politicking (the sleazy scramble after power & influence) rather than politics (the reasoned enquiry into the nature & possibility of wise government).

Them's my views.

Good points, all of them. To clarify, I used the term "evil" loosely, just a figure of speech. Maybe I should have said "which is more lazy" or "what's the dumber thing to do?" But, then I read your post & it makes me realize that people who make either choice are not necessarily dumb OR lazy - maybe they're just confused, or frustrated. :shrug:

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

This one is well organized, and provides you with links to the actual candidate quotes from which the analysis was derived. I've seen several other sites without supporting info.

This is definitely shaping up to be an exciting election. I saw a report last night that because of the current primary/caucus results, it is mathematically impossible for the Super Tuesday primaries (Feb. 5th) to decide the nominee for each party. So those of us in states with primaries afterwards - TX is March 4th - get to keep thinking our vote matters!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-delegate-math_N.htm

Thanks for the links, hon! :angel: EDIT: Wow, I just checked out the first link - that's exactly what I was looking for!

Yes, I live in Texas, and although I voted in 2000 and 2004, I never voted in a primary. Um. . . did they even have them in those years in Texas? Or were the races for the two nominations over by the time it got to Texas?


I've never voted in a primary either - when I was younger I didn't understand them & that I could actually participate, and later I was one of those "any democrat" people. Now, I want to make an educated decision & I definitely plan on voting in the primary (or causus or whatever the hell they call it here.....)

[i_am_legend]

this is a really good question. ideally it's great to know all the issues and where the canidates stand on them. i think most people go on pure emotion - you either feel a connection to a canidate or not. i guess i would rather people vote then not vote at all.
maybe just vote your party is better than being apathetic.

[Richard B]

The latter. Do not vote if you have no idea WTF you're doing. Our country is messed up as it is. Blind help is not needed.

In this day and age, it is very easy to gather information on the web (candidates websites are a good start) to decide which presidential candidate gets your support. Obviously they can only offer their opinions on current issues (things change as time goes on and when their in office), but you can also get a vibe as to their experience level since they began in politics and what time of choices they have made in the past.

The one who talks the smoothest, looks the best, and has a nice smile is not a good reason to vote for them. But alas, I fear many people go off that superficial vibe in casting their wayward vote.

[strandinthewind]

This questions more than the obvious IMO. People will vote for Obama because he is black - South Carolina proved that. I cannot say I blame them. Ditto for Hillary and women - the primaries are proving that. On the R side, the situation is the same. People cannot vote for a pro choice and/or gay sympathetic person. They can be down the line conservative in fiscal policy, but the loathing of anti-Jesus baby muerders and faggot lovers is too much to overcome. So, I think party line voters are in a little trouble in this upcoming election - or, at least in the primaries.

Personally, I think that anyone who things Obama can or wants to make significant changes is deluding themselves. His actions to date and the people he surrounds himself with in his campaign prove my point ( http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html ). But, he is intelligent, energetic, and inspiring, not to mention electrifyingly charismatic - so, I think people are beguiled by that. I am not saying I do not think he would be a good President. I think he would. And, I will vote for him against anything the R's have now. But, call it the jaded voice of experience, Obama's seemingly earnest claim that he is the avenue for significant change is bogus. Put it this way, since I have been alive, every single President has been the candidate for BIG change and the lobbyist still run Washington and Big Oil's a$$ is wiped by the Congress.

So, I think both scenarios you posit will happen and they are equally was awful. But, it is what it is and in the end, you have to vote for the candidate you like. In this particular election, that will be divided on Christian, race, and gender lines - and IMO regardless of the actual effectiveness of any candidate.

[mylittledemon]

What do you think is worse? Someone voting without having a real clue about what the candidates views & plans are, or not voting BECAUSE they feel they aren't informed enough to make the decision.

Ordinarily, I would say it's almost worst to vote if you don't know why you're voting for someone. BUT, the way things are now, I feel that the last 2 elections went the way they did because lots of people didn't bother. I'd rather have someone say "I'll vote for any democratic candidate" and do it instead of not vote at all. Of course, if someone says "I'm voting Republican no matter who it is" they can keep their ass at home. :p

Seriously, though, how do you feel? And does anyone know of a good website that clearly explains the candidates' views on & plans for important issues? Anyone?

I feel not voting is the greater of the 2 evils. It's a privilege that we live in a country where we can choose our leaders (even if it's an illusion...)

[skcin]

This questions more than the obvious IMO. People will vote for Obama because he is black - South Carolina proved that. I cannot say I blame them. Ditto for Hillary and women - the primaries are proving that. On the R side, the situation is the same. People cannot vote for a pro choice and/or gay sympathetic person. They can be down the line conservative in fiscal policy, but the loathing of anti-Jesus baby muerders and faggot lovers is too much to overcome. So, I think party line voters are in a little trouble in this upcoming election - or, at least in the primaries.

Personally, I think that anyone who things Obama can or wants to make significant changes is deluding themselves. His actions to date and the people he surrounds himself with in his campaign prove my point ( http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html ). But, he is intelligent, energetic, and inspiring, not to mention electrifyingly charismatic - so, I think people are beguiled by that. I am not saying I do not think he would be a good President. I think he would. And, I will vote for him against anything the R's have now. But, call it the jaded voice of experience, Obama's seemingly earnest claim that he is the avenue for significant change is bogus. Put it this way, since I have been alive, every single President has been the candidate for BIG change and the lobbyist still run Washington and Big Oil's a$$ is wiped by the Congress.

So, I think both scenarios you posit will happen and they are equally was awful. But, it is what it is and in the end, you have to vote for the candidate you like. In this particular election, that will be divided on Christian, race, and gender lines - and IMO regardless of the actual effectiveness of any candidate.

A few comments on the race thing. It's definitely a factor, whether people want to admit it or not. But let's all remember, Obama is black AND white. People will say "well, he represents himself as black." To those that don't know his family history, they look at him & say "he's black." I'm sure he has experienced discrimination from BOTH races at some point in his lifetime, but I'd be willing to bet more from racist whites. I think he identifies with the black community because of this, and because of the work he did in Chicago. However, he has never tried to deny his white family - he is what he is. If you've never read his first book, it's very interesting. As far as his "change" campaign, I don't know if there was anything else he could have done to combat the "lack of experience" argument. :shrug:

Now. As much of a factor as it is, I really, truly hope that black people are NOT voting for him JUST because he's half black. I'm hoping that the women voting for Hillary are NOT voting for her JUST because she's a woman. And most of all, I hope that the white males are not voting for Edwards cuz he's the only white guy. :( I have heard that the majority of blacks are democrats - is this true? If so, would they vote for a black republican candidate in the general election? Do you think they would cross party lines just to vote for "one of their own?" I hope not. I hope people stay true to who they are & what they believe.

Of course, we all want "one of our own" to succeed, whether it's someone of the same sex, race, from the same geographic location, similar backgrounds, whatever. But I hope people use that as a guide to help them START their research, not as the sole basis for their vote. If that were the case, I would have to vote for Hillary, the white female NY senator - but I don't know if I'm going to do that, because I haven't done enough research to decide. I don't think it's the right thing to do.

I read something scary the other day in the local paper - there are many people (especially in the black community) who do NOT want Obama to get elected. Why? They think if he is, he'll be assasinated within the first year. :shocked: Reading that shocked me, then scared me. Now I'm angry & sad - that this could be a reality, that someone in this nation could be so hateful that they would kill our president if he weren't white.

My God. The thing that pisses me off most is that they're RIGHT! There really are people that ignorant & hateful! In a country that voted Bush in AGAIN, we expect everyone to be open minded & trustful enough of a BLACK man to allow him to lead & represent our nation? I'm worried. :(



Strand,

Tell me about the good old days, will ya? I'm too young to remember...... :laugh:

No really, I know what you mean. Every politician is going to promise change, better days, blah blah blah. BUT, the way you describe it, it sure bolsters the "Why vote at all? Nothing will ever change. They're all a bunch of crooks...." argument.

[strandinthewind]

. . . BUT, the way you describe it, it sure bolsters the "Why vote at all? Nothing will ever change. They're all a bunch of crooks...." argument.

Scary isn't it.

But, I say voting is still important because of the "imagine how much worse it could be" argument. I'd take four years of Hillary and her "centrist" if not triangulation path over four years of any R out there. I mean imagine four years under Huckabee and his inability to sep. church and state :eek: So, that is why it is important.

I am just saying that people who think that electing Obama will result in huge changes are IMO misguided. Again, why would Obama have all those lobbyist working on his campaign? The answer is he will be beholden to them regardless of whether he took money from them.

[Sarah]

I think SMASH THE STATE!!!!! Anarchy and survival of the fittest in the STREETS! Break stuff and light **** on FIRE! :woohoo:

Heh. Anyway. While I do wish that we could dismantle the government, that obviously will not work. So, seriously speaking, I have to say that I wish people who only based their votes on party lines.. or names they've heard.. would stay at home, but if you live here, you deserve the right to cast your ballot, even if you are an effing moron. A "basic knowledge" test showing that said voter understands basic principals of how the government is set up would be good for weeding out some of the uninformed/uneducated BS, but it's not going to happen, and it's not really fair to say the ignorants don't deserve the right to their opinions. We may not like it, but it's true. They live here and pay taxes. Sure, it screws over the rest of us, but nothing else in life is really fair, either. Any amount of analysis and bitching won't change it.

My basic rule is that if you are a twisted and power-hungry enough that you want to be the "leader of the free world", I don't like you. So, yeah, it really is just voting for the lesser of two evils. But more than that, I think the real problems of the nation lie in the house and senate. Our forefathers really ****ed us over by not setting term limits there. Throw out the bums! Presidents are just puppets anyway.

[David]

A few comments on the race thing. It's definitely a factor, whether people want to admit it or not.Not only is race a factor in every individual's decision, but virtually every other divisible quality or characteristic is a factor, too: intelligence, demeanor, age, religion, party, views (intentions, promises, creeds), experience with this or that, weight, height, hair, sound of voice, use of language, sexual orientation, style of clothing, tastes (food, movies, books, art), & on & on. These factors vary in weighting; you ascribe far more importance to Quality X than to Quality Y, &c. But you (sometimes subconsciously) register the total impression as a composite of dozens of factors -- just as you do when you choose a date or a spouse or a CPA. When was the last time you voted for someone whose personality rankled you?

I think people who say such-&-such quality is "not a factor" in their decision really mean that that specific quality is merely outweighted by other qualities.

Of course, we all want "one of our own" to succeed, whether it's someone of the same sex, race, from the same geographic location, similar backgrounds, whatever.That's true, too.

But I hope people use that as a guide to help them START their research, not as the sole basis for their vote.Exactly. It's one consideration among many.

I read something scary the other day in the local paper - there are many people (especially in the black community) who do NOT want Obama to get elected. Why? They think if he is, he'll be assasinated within the first year. :shocked: Reading that shocked me, then scared me. Now I'm angry & sad - that this could be a reality, that someone in this nation could be so hateful that they would kill our president if he weren't white.The nation wouldn't kill anybody; the nation can't kill anybody -- it's an abstraction. (If you had to put a gun into the hands of "the nation," how would you do so?) But some nut might certainly do this. Nuts live & walk among us, as even a brief scan of the front page of the paper reminds us.

[skcin]

^ That's why I wrote "someone in this nation" David, my dear. ;) And I really appreciate your comments. You're right about how most people base most decisions on whatever trait they personally feel is important. Like, I don't care if a doctor was considered the best in town - if she's an asshole, I'm not going to her. Not that I'd take the ****ty doctor just because she was the most friendly either, but I definitely weigh more than 1 factor in most decisions. Maybe others don't.

[DrummerDeanna]

^ That's why I wrote "someone in this nation" David, my dear. ;) And I really appreciate your comments. You're right about how most people base most decisions on whatever trait they personally feel is important. Like, I don't care if a doctor was considered the best in town - if she's an asshole, I'm not going to her. Not that I'd take the ****ty doctor just because she was the most friendly either, but I definitely weigh more than 1 factor in most decisions. Maybe others don't.

^^

I think a lot of people don't and that's what scares me. Ultimately I think if you don't know even the basics of what's going on with the candidates and issues then you should not vote. But that's me and that's not going to happen so it doesn't matter what I think.

There are also people who will vote solely because of somebody's stance on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. That's partly why I'd love to see Rudy get the nomination - because there's a huge evangelical arm that will never vote for him.

There was a story on NPR recently talking to Democratic voters about who they intend to vote for. I was heartened to hear many women who said they would not vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Some women were insulted to even be asked that. I'd like to think that way of thinking is the majority rather than the rule...but I fear it is not.

[SuzeQuze]

^^

I think a lot of people don't and that's what scares me. Ultimately I think if you don't know even the basics of what's going on with the candidates and issues then you should not vote. But that's me and that's not going to happen so it doesn't matter what I think.

There are also people who will vote solely because of somebody's stance on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. That's partly why I'd love to see Rudy get the nomination - because there's a huge evangelical arm that will never vote for him.

There was a story on NPR recently talking to Democratic voters about who they intend to vote for. I was heartened to hear many women who said they would not vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. Some women were insulted to even be asked that. I'd like to think that way of thinking is the majority rather than the rule...but I fear it is not.

What about black women, I wonder? Are they behind Obama or Hilary? I'm not behind Hilary just because she is a woman, she frankly isn't progressive enough for me. But I agree with strand that even Obama probably will not get much achieved, like health care and such, in office because of the way the machine is set up. I hope he can prove me wrong.

I don't know why people in this country are so hell bent against any social programs as if they are evil. I think that is actually pretty sick. The whole "tax and spend" talking point bears no weight for me either. Because right now we have spend and spend. We just need someone very different in power and of course a dem. And we need to keep and strengthen the dem majority in congress. Although when one party has all the power it can be scary. I hope they use it wisely when they get it.

[DrummerDeanna]

What about black women, I wonder? Are they behind Obama or Hilary? I'm not behind Hilary just because she is a woman, she frankly isn't progressive enough for me. But I agree with strand that even Obama probably will not get much achieved, like health care and such, in office because of the way the machine is set up. I hope he can prove me wrong.

I don't know why people in this country are so hell bent against any social programs as if they are evil. I think that is actually pretty sick. The whole "tax and spend" talking point bears no weight for me either. Because right now we have spend and spend. We just need someone very different in power and of course a dem. And we need to keep and strengthen the dem majority in congress. Although when one party has all the power it can be scary. I hope they use it wisely when they get it.

Well he got most of the black women vote in South Carolina...and crossed race lines...getting a substantial showing among white voters as well. I think it's just as insulting to vote for him solely on race as it would be to vote for Hillary because she's a woman.

He may not be able to change much - but I like his message, he's inspiring people in a way that has not been done in years and it's beautiful and refreshing to me.

Can you imagine if Hillary got the nom and won (which it's unlikely she could win imo) - here's the breakdown of the presidency: Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton. No. Thank. You. A change in IS needed badly - and call me a fool if you want to - but I believe Obama can bring about change. Maybe not Earth shattering fast change - but I think he's a way forward. I'm not saying Hillary wouldn't represent a way forward - but I just don't think she's electable.

[strandinthewind]

. . . he's inspiring people in a way that has not been done in years and it's beautiful and refreshing to me . . . .

Howard Dean in 04 :shrug:

The D party was on fire for him -- just look at the money he raised for nickle and dime internet donations

George W. Bush in 00 :shrug:

Granted, I did not like W and IMO he failed, but he sure did harp on change and restoring dignity to the WH so Americans could be proud again, etc.

___________________________________________________________

So, IMO, the message is there every time. In this instance, Obama happens to be black and has a great voice - so the package is slightly different, at least to me.

[DrummerDeanna]

Howard Dean in 04 :shrug:

The D party was on fire for him -- just look at the money he raised for nickle and dime internet donations

George W. Bush in 00 :shrug:

Granted, I did not like W and IMO he failed, but he sure did harp on change and restoring dignity to the WH so Americans could be proud again, etc.

___________________________________________________________

So, IMO, the message is there every time. In this instance, Obama happens to be black and has a great voice - so the package is slightly different, at least to me.

Nope the two are not comparable at all imo. Obama has so surpassed any inspiration and zeal that Dean or Bush inspired.

That is, at least, my observation. He's inspired me and pretty much everyone I know- including some very complacent friends. I know I'm not alone - I mean he's drawing Kennedy comparisons left and right...that's a pretty big statement.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

It is all about personal perception, but I think it is incorrect to say that Bush did not inspire people in 00 and, IMO, in 04, when the popular vote was clearly on his side.

As for Dean, he was heralded as the fresh voice, etc. - much like Obama is now. That energy around Dean helped him raise tens of millions of dollars in record time and from record small amounts.

In the end, I look at the significant people Obama has on his team and they are all lobbyists. I cannot fathom, and history and experience have taught me, that this method means he will be beholden to them, which in turn means it will be the same ole same ole in DC, despite Obama's cult of personality. That and all those fence riding "present votes" just IMO do not match the rhetoric coming out of his mouth in a pretty manner. Bill Clinton was the same way to me. I temember hearing all these great things, but then I looked at his record and was saw it did not support what he was saying; W too.

In the end, none of the people running share my beliefs, though Obama comes the closest to espousing them, no matter his sincerity. So, it will all be about the lesser of two evils for me when iI vote.

[markolas]

In the end, none of the people running share my beliefs, though Obama comes the closest to espousing them, no matter his sincerity. So, it will all be about the lesser of two evils for me when iI vote.

I agree with most of what you've been saying here - nothing is going to change - but my concern is that if McCain or one of the other Republicans gets in, they're going to appoint more SC justices in the mold of Roberts and Scalito (the few moderate to liberal ones that are left are all in their 70s and 80s), and the damage to our image overseas will keep getting worse if our foreign policy doesn't change. Those are the reasons why I'm anxious for a Democrat, any Democrat, to be elected in November. I'm not in love with HC or Obama, however I do think HC's healthcare plan is better - isn't Obama's idea of a national healthcare plan just cutting people checks? What the hell is that?

[skcin]

^ Agreed. It's really not only about how the particular candidate feels about certain things - it's how he/she can & will affect the laws of the nation.

Strand - I think that Bush may have inspired (shudder) many in the republican party, but I do not feel he inspired the country, esp. in '04. IMO, he was voted in for a second term because many people thought if they did not do so, the U.S. would look weak & indecisive about who we wanted to lead our nation. They were stilll scared. This man started a war, and was still hunting for the terrorists, still promising to smoke them out of their holes. :rolleyes: "Stay the course, vote for me so we can get the job done, blah blah blah." And people bought it. They BOUGHT it. They figured "well, he got us into this, let's make him get us out." Well, we sure f*cked that up, didn't we?

Howard Dean? Are you kidding? Sure the Dem PARTY was excited about him, but the voters weren't really - not nearly as much as they are for Obama. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that Obama's going to get in there & clean house & make everything better right away. But it's worth a shot - I want to believe that his passion is true, and I trust him a hell of a lot more than any other candidate. I hope that with the Dems in congress, they can get some things done without having a pissing contest over it until it dies.


BTW - Edwards is supposedly dropping out of the race at 1pm EST.

[skcin]

He's out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

Tha figures. I just did one of those "which candidate best matches you" quizes & Edwards was my leader. :laugh: Followed closely by Obama, then Hillary.

[markolas]

He's out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

Tha figures. I just did one of those "which candidate best matches you" quizes & Edwards was my leader. :laugh: Followed closely by Obama, then Hillary.

They're saying Guiliani is about to quit, too.

[skcin]

^ I believe he called it quits this morning. I honestly cannot believe he (or anyone else) thought he really had a chance, I just can't.

[David]

Tha figures. I just did one of those "which candidate best matches you" quizes & Edwards was my leader. :laugh: Followed closely by Obama, then Hillary.I did one of those once & it matched me up with John Locke. :shocked:

Do you remember which one you did? Is it still up?

[skcin]

^ I believe he called it quits this morning. I honestly cannot believe he (or anyone else) thought he really had a chance, I just can't.

My mistake, I just read that he'll annouce he's out after the votes are officialy tallied in FL & McCain wins. :rolleyes: Why wait, man?

I did one of those once & it matched me up with John Locke. :shocked:

Do you remember which one you did? Is it still up?


I did this one:
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

[JazmenFlowers]

He's out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

Tha figures. I just did one of those "which candidate best matches you" quizes & Edwards was my leader. :laugh: Followed closely by Obama, then Hillary.
agreed.
^ I believe he called it quits this morning. I honestly cannot believe he (or anyone else) thought he really had a chance, I just can't.
marry me?

and to weigh in on your question, I think I'd rather one not vote than vote for just anyone.

[DrummerDeanna]

Strand - I think that Bush may have inspired (shudder) many in the republican party, but I do not feel he inspired the country, esp. in '04. IMO, he was voted in for a second term because many people thought if they did not do so, the U.S. would look weak & indecisive about who we wanted to lead our nation. They were stilll scared. This man started a war, and was still hunting for the terrorists, still promising to smoke them out of their holes. :rolleyes: "Stay the course, vote for me so we can get the job done, blah blah blah." And people bought it. They BOUGHT it. They figured "well, he got us into this, let's make him get us out." Well, we sure f*cked that up, didn't we?

Howard Dean? Are you kidding? Sure the Dem PARTY was excited about him, but the voters weren't really - not nearly as much as they are for Obama. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that Obama's going to get in there & clean house & make everything better right away. But it's worth a shot - I want to believe that his passion is true, and I trust him a hell of a lot more than any other candidate. I hope that with the Dems in congress, they can get some things done without having a pissing contest over it until it dies.



Yes! Thank you - I was trying to put together a response - but you said what I couldn't think of to say.

Obama was just in Denver today - not one candidate in recent history has been able to do what this guy is doing. He is inspiring people in a different way. I was talking to a woman this morning and she was talking about how Obama gives her goosebumps...she was so passionate!

And this passion is crossing party lines, gender lines, race lines and I think that's one of the many things that makes this so different than Bush or Dean.

Also - the present votes in the Illinois legislature are not "fence sitting" nor are they necessarily a negative thing. I can't pretend to know the inner workings of the Illinois legislative process - but NPR did a pretty good story on what those "present" votes actually meant...I'll see if I can dig that up.

Anyway - that's just my opinion - I see and feel something different in Obama, and I know I'm not alone. I don't have grand illusions that he'll bring about fast and radical change- but I maintain that he'd be a breath of fresh air...and I do feel he's sincere in his want for change. Call me an idealistic fool if you must - but it's the way I feel at this time :D

[Dreamz19]

I have heard that the majority of blacks are democrats - is this true? If so, would they vote for a black republican candidate in the general election? Do you think they would cross party lines just to vote for "one of their own?" I hope not. I hope people stay true to who they are & what they believe.

It's true that the majority of blacks are democrats. Here in Maryland our last Lieutenant Governor was a black republican. He ran for the senate in 2006 and lost a lot of the black vote to a white democrat. So I think blacks are likely to stay within their party lines.

[Dreamz19]

^ Agreed. It's really not only about how the particular candidate feels about certain things - it's how he/she can & will affect the laws of the nation.

Strand - I think that Bush may have inspired (shudder) many in the republican party, but I do not feel he inspired the country, esp. in '04. IMO, he was voted in for a second term because many people thought if they did not do so, the U.S. would look weak & indecisive about who we wanted to lead our nation. They were stilll scared. This man started a war, and was still hunting for the terrorists, still promising to smoke them out of their holes. :rolleyes: "Stay the course, vote for me so we can get the job done, blah blah blah." And people bought it. They BOUGHT it. They figured "well, he got us into this, let's make him get us out." Well, we sure f*cked that up, didn't we?

Howard Dean? Are you kidding? Sure the Dem PARTY was excited about him, but the voters weren't really - not nearly as much as they are for Obama. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that Obama's going to get in there & clean house & make everything better right away. But it's worth a shot - I want to believe that his passion is true, and I trust him a hell of a lot more than any other candidate. I hope that with the Dems in congress, they can get some things done without having a pissing contest over it until it dies.


BTW - Edwards is supposedly dropping out of the race at 1pm EST.

ITA with your post. This is exactly why I think Bush won in 2004, along with the fact that he catered to a lot of conservative Christians. I remember them saying that a lot of people also voted because of moral issues.

[DrummerDeanna]

I remember them saying that a lot of people also voted because of moral issues.

Oh that IS a biggie. A lot of people (and these people scare me) vote SOLELY on the abortion and gay marriage issues. Issues that, in the grand scheme of things, are not what matter. They often don't look at the economy, health care, infrastructure etc - and vote solely on moral issues. It pisses me off that it happens - but, hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I just hate when the "moral voters" "morals" start to infringe on MY life, know what I mean?

[danax6]

He's out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

Tha figures. I just did one of those "which candidate best matches you" quizes & Edwards was my leader. :laugh: Followed closely by Obama, then Hillary.Same here.

If you at least understand the difference between republicans and democrats, by all means, go vote. I think it's worse if you don't vote simply because you haven't bothered to get familiar with each individual party. You know the basics, every human being with an ounce of intelligence knows what it's about, and really, it's about the only damn thing you're still allowed to do in this so called democracy. Go let yourself be heard.

Yikes, now I am starting to sound like my dad.

[skcin]

Finally!!! THIS is what I've been looking for. :thumbsup: And go figure, it's by a local high school student - I saw it on the new last night.

http://youngamericanvoters.com/