Do you have trouble maintaining an election?

[MattZ]

seems to me that Hillary supporters will be more than happy to get behind Barack if he wins the nomination but Obama supporters dont seem so loyal.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? They don't have to be loyal to anyone but themselves. Stop identifying yourself by your political party. Loyalty shouldn't mean anything in politics.

 

People can rip IRDB if they want (since that appears to be in fashion now), and maybe "loyal" is a poor word choice, but I agree with the general sentiment behind his statement.

 

I am a Hillary supporter who will gladly vote for Obama in November against the Republican nominee (whoever that is). But many Obama supporters that I have met and debated have such a visceral hatred for Hillary that they have stated that they will refuse to vote for her. That they'd rather sit out the election than vote for her.

 

bobbob - it has less to do with "identifying yourself by your political party" and more to do with the fact that, jeez, at the end of the day, the differences between the two on policy is not all that great. They both want universal health care, they both want to repair our image abroad, they both want to get us out of Iraq. If you stand for those things, why would you sit out of an election that could result in McCain getting elected? Thereby resulting in 100 yrs in Iraq, conservative Supreme Court justices, etc? Because she's a "bitch" with a "fake laugh"? One more conservative justice on the Court and bye bye Roe v Wade. Happy now?

 

EDIT: there seems to be so much focus on how fractured the Republican base is right now. Look around. I am not so sure the same can't be said for the Dems. And if that results in a McCain presidency we (Dems) will all be screwed for it. Ugh.

[Good Old Neon]

I am a Hillary supporter who will gladly vote for Obama in November against the Republican nominee (whoever that is). But many Obama supporters that I have met and debated have such a visceral hatred for Hillary that they have stated that they will refuse to vote for her. That they'd rather sit out the election than vote for her.

 

And that, I think, is completely valid. If we do as we are always told, and vote our conscience, sitting out an election in which one finds their parties candidate unappealing seems perfectly reasonable. And certainly makes more sense than simply voting for your party out of blind loyalty.

 

Based on what I

[MattZ]

And that, I think, is completely valid. If we do as we are always told, and vote our conscience, sitting out election in which one finds their parties candidate unappealing seems perfectly reasonable. And certainly makes more sense than simply voting for your party out of blind loyalty.

 

Based on what I

[Good Old Neon]

I understand what you are saying. I really do. And I vocally supported the folks that voted for Nader in 2000 (even though I voted for Gore) for the same reasons. But looking back 8 years, I think history has shown that standing for principles needs to be balanced against the very real effect that that can have. If you are pro-choice, and you insist on sitting out for your conscience, what will happen if the balance on the court shifts?

 

I don't mean to throw out scare tactics. It would be tough for the court to overturn Roe v Wade since it is pretty well established precedent. But then, so was needing warrants before wiretapping American citizens.

 

Excellent point(s).

 

Fortunately, I think, the end of Bush

[MattZ]

if this is what the country wants

 

If you sit out, you want it too. Respectfully.

[bobbob1313]

I honestly don't know how people remain so undecided for so long......it's not like we are really going to hear anything new over the next few months. Most of these guys have been in the running for coming up on a year. I can't imagine having any radical shifts in my thinking that I would end up voting with the GOP.

 

I haven't made up my mind because I'm not entirely convinced a McCain Presidency is going to destroy our country. I think he would make a good president, and I actually agree with him on numerous issues.

[bjorn_skurj]

Roe v. Wade, specifically, the power to appoint Supreme Court justices unlikely to overturn it, is a big, if not talked about a lot, issue this year. If the women of this nation want any chance at holding on to reproductive rights, they better pray a Dem wins the White House.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Joe Klein, who wrote the Obamaphiles piece, makes the case that Obama is the best executive so far as campaigns go:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1713497,00.html

 

I spoke with prominent Democrats in the caucus states, and the story was the same all over: Obama had organizers on the ground, advertising on the air and in the mailboxes--and made crucial personal appearances at the right times. Clinton was late to the game or absent entirely. "It seems as if they simply hadn't thought out what was going to happen after Super Tuesday," said a Nebraska Democrat who supported Clinton. "Obama paid attention. He courted [senator] Ben Nelson and got his endorsement. He spoke in Omaha; Michelle went to Lincoln. I'm not saying Clinton could have won here, but she sure could have made it closer, won a few more delegates. Now you just have the sense that this campaign is over. She looks like a loser."

 

If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate's ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining--Obama, Clinton and John McCain--and Obama has proved himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility. McCain has been effective only when he runs as a guerrilla; in both 2000 and '08, he was hapless at building a coherent campaign apparatus. Clinton's sins are different: arrogance and the inability to see past loyalty to hire the best people for the job and to fire those who prove inadequate. "If nothing else, we've learned that Obama probably has the ability to put together a smooth-running Administration," said a Clinton super-delegate. "That's pretty important."

[MattZ]

Roe v. Wade, specifically, the power to appoint Supreme Court justices unlikely to overturn it, is a big, if not talked about a lot, issue this year. If the women of this nation want any chance at holding on to reproductive rights, they better pray a Dem wins the White House.

 

How about instead of praying they just vote for the Dem that wins the nomination? Instead of sitting out or voting Green party?

[bobbob1313]

How about instead of praying they just vote for the Dem that wins the nomination? Instead of sitting out or voting Green party?

 

This is ridiculous to me. You should vote for who the best candidate is, regardless of if they have a chance to win.

 

Be true to yourself. If you don't want to vote for Hilary or McCain, even if you like Hilary more, you shouldn't vote for her. You should vote for the candidate that represents you best, regardless of party. I just can't understand this line of thinking...

[Mr. Heartbreak]

But looking back 8 years, I think history has shown that standing for principles needs to be balanced against the very real effect that that can have.

I have to agree with MattZ here. I was disgusted with the more right-leaning aspects of the Clinton admin (NAFTA, "Don't ask, don't tell," etc.), and consquently, I voted for Nader in 2000 ... in Florida. Who would have imagined those symbolic "protest" votes would have proven so pivotal?

Looking back, I wish I'd held my nose and voted for Gore. I wish we'd all voted for Gore and been spared 8 nightmarish years. Not that I think he would have made a great president. He just couldn't possibly have been as bad for America and for the world, really, as GWB.

[MattZ]

This is ridiculous to me. You should vote for who the best candidate is, regardless of if they have a chance to win.

 

Be true to yourself. If you don't want to vote for Hilary or McCain, even if you like Hilary more, you shouldn't vote for her. You should vote for the candidate that represents you best, regardless of party. I just can't understand this line of thinking...

 

I look at it differently. I am being true to myself by voting for someone who I dont love, but someone that I know will fight for the causes that I believe in, because I know the alternatives are too grave to consider.

 

Pick the one issue you feel most strongly about. You'd vote for a 3rd party candidate or sit out so that you are true to yourself? The result being that the candidate who will fight against your issue gets elected? How is that true to yourself? You've shot yourself in the foot.

[cryptique]

Be true to yourself. If you don't want to vote for Hilary or McCain, even if you like Hilary more, you shouldn't vote for her. You should vote for the candidate that represents you best, regardless of party. I just can't understand this line of thinking...

Really? You can't understand it? Seriously?

 

You can't understand that after eight years of George W. Bush, people might think twice about voting for a Green candidate who represents more of their personal views, opting instead to vote for a Democrat to prevent the Republicans from re-taking the White House?

 

Sorry twobobs, but you're either bullshitting or very na

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I always figured that the candidate that best reflected my views was myself. Given that I have no shot at winning, it's never as simple as that.

[MattZ]

you're either bullshitting or very na

[gogo]

I'm hereby endorsing MattZ.

[bjorn_skurj]

How about instead of praying they just vote for the Dem that wins the nomination? Instead of sitting out or voting Green party?

Y'know, if someone must vote third party, it's hard to argue them out of it, but one would think Iraq put paid, finally, to the notion that there's no substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[Good Old Neon]

Y'know, if someone must vote third party, it's hard to argue them out of it, but one would think Iraq put paid, finally, to the notion that there's no substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

I would agree that there is a vast distinction between your average run of the mill democrat and George Bush and Co

[Edie]

seems to me that Hillary supporters will be more than happy to get behind Barack if he wins the nomination but Obama supporters dont seem so loyal.

 

I am a Barak supporter who will gladly vote for Hillary if she fairly represents the democratic party. I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court needs a little left love to keep the balance, and I don't trust McCain to deliver that. Otherwise, it'll be just more "turn back the clock" on the last 50 years of legislative efforts. That's enough for me.

 

 

This is fucking creepy.

 

It's a poster

[bjorn_skurj]

I would agree that there is a vast distinction between your average run of the mill democrat and George Bush and Co

[Sir Stewart]

It's a poster

 

You mean it's a poster be creepy?

[OOO]

Obama is "leading" in wisconsin, but it hasn't been called.

[bobbob1313]

I don't mean for this to be taken the wrong way but I have to think that people who cast symbolic votes or sit out to make a statement in this election are just naive. Not in an insulting way. What I mean is that there just isn't an issue out there that really imapcts them directly.

 

If bobbob was a woman terrified of losing her right to control her body, he might feel differently. Or if bobbob was terrified of being drafted and sent to Iraq, he might not be so willing to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

 

If one is willing to get on a soapbox to yell about how he/she stayed true to him/herself by throwing a vote away, I have to think there just wasn't any issue out there that he/she needed to stay true to.

 

And 2000/Nader was different. Now we see the consequences.

 

The only way for the minorities not represented by the two parties (Believe it or not, there are people who don't fit within the constructs of a 2 party system) to have a say in what happens within a two party system is to vote for 3rd or (and, at rare times in history) 4th parties and have them take even a small amount of the vote. Enough where they force one of the two major parties to take their stances seriously.

 

I'm not saying I'm going to vote 3rd party, but I can't bring myself to say that is throwing away a vote. Voting to perpetuate a system that breeds complacency and incompetence (2 party, being that system) is much less morally justifiable than "throwing a vote away".

[OOO]

Also, Obama wins wisconsin.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

A breakdown of some little-discussed policy differences:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8573.html