Anonymous
10/03/2011 21:07
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican, moving toward independant. Considering voting for Obama because of the GOP candidate freak show. Guessing Obama will win only because of his public speaking skills. No one can compare to that. His message is awesome but not so much in practice.
I think it is perfectly rational for republicans to vote for Obama. He is a republican. He supports smaller government and fewer regulations, prefers deficit reduction over unemployment, and based on the recent debt ceiling debate, he wants to reduce taxes, The republican choice is between voting for lunatics (Perry, Bachman, Christie) or Obama. For Democrats or center-left leaning individuals who support radical ideas like the social safety net (social security, medicare, unemployment insurance) and sane financial, environmental, and consumer regulations, we have a tough choice. If you are like me and think Romneycare/Obamacare is not good enough and that unemployment is our top national issue, then you vote against Obama.
President is too important. I don't want to settle for something less than what I believe. I plan to vote third party, if a reasonable candidate runs, or I plan to write-in.
And thus, you become completely meaningless in the general election.
I already am meaningless. The debate I would like to see never happens, even with a democrat holding the presidency. I don't even care if I win the debate, I just want to hear someone with my views make an argument.
It's obscene that common sense, rational ideas are even part of the debate. I actually would prefer the republicans to drive this country into the ground, rather than fake democrats.
I should have said....
It's obscene that common sense, rational ideas are NOT even part of the debate.
Anonymous
10/03/2011 21:05
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican, moving toward independant. Considering voting for Obama because of the GOP candidate freak show. Guessing Obama will win only because of his public speaking skills. No one can compare to that. His message is awesome but not so much in practice.
I think it is perfectly rational for republicans to vote for Obama. He is a republican. He supports smaller government and fewer regulations, prefers deficit reduction over unemployment, and based on the recent debt ceiling debate, he wants to reduce taxes, The republican choice is between voting for lunatics (Perry, Bachman, Christie) or Obama. For Democrats or center-left leaning individuals who support radical ideas like the social safety net (social security, medicare, unemployment insurance) and sane financial, environmental, and consumer regulations, we have a tough choice. If you are like me and think Romneycare/Obamacare is not good enough and that unemployment is our top national issue, then you vote against Obama.
President is too important. I don't want to settle for something less than what I believe. I plan to vote third party, if a reasonable candidate runs, or I plan to write-in.
And thus, you become completely meaningless in the general election.
I already am meaningless. The debate I would like to see never happens, even with a democrat holding the presidency. I don't even care if I win the debate, I just want to hear someone with my views make an argument.
It's obscene that common sense, rational ideas are even part of the debate. I actually would prefer the republicans to drive this country into the ground, rather than fake democrats.
Anonymous
10/03/2011 19:32
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
TheManWithAUsername wrote:Re “protest vote,” I didn’t think that anyone was trying to be offensive, and I don’t take great offense. I just wanted to point out that, for me, I’m not voting in protest of anyone or anything. I’m voting for whom I think would be best for the job, subject, as I said, to the significant limitations of my research.
jsteele wrote:At this point, I probably will cast my vote for TheManWithAUsername.
So weird, dude – I was going to write you in. (This is where those who think I’m your alias can have a field day.)
Re the rest of Jeff’s post about the respective strategies of Obama and the Reps, I wanted to point out that it could just as well have been written about the Clinton administration. This has been the pattern for decades.
Anonymous wrote:Let's assume for a moment that you would like your vote to count as something other than a protest vote
We might not be able to get far past that, b/c I suspect we have different ideas of what “count” means. As I said in our past exchanges, no individual vote for president “counts” in a practical sense.
Anonymous wrote:Let's further assume that there are, interspersed among the nutcases and corporate whores running on the GOP side, one or two candidates who still have the interest of this country at heart and would feel compelled to address its fundamental problems (I'm thinking for instance of Buddy Roemer and campaign finance laws).
At this point, I would consider compromising on an awful lot to support someone who wasn’t a corporate whore; Buddy Roemer is a good example. I doubt that I would compromise enough to support any modern Rep though, especially since there’s no need – I can just vote for a person of integrity who also agrees with me on lots of other things. I’m very glad that Roemer – and for that matter Ron Paul – is out there, though.
Anonymous wrote:In the absence of a worthwhile candidate among the Democrats, do you see someone like that being able to work with, say, a completely Democratically controlled Congress, to address the rot that is pervading our institutions?
To some degree. I don’t know if one leader could fix things like campaign financing – and if s/he could, the Supremes are dead set against democracy – but many other things are possible. Reid and many others like him are destructive hacks, but I’ve always acknowledged that the Dems differ from the Reps in that the latter are lunatics seemingly willing to say and do literally anything, from exposing undercover CIA agents to holding our economy hostage. I think a FDR or LBJ could reliably ride herd on the Dems, and I guess the right Rep could as well.
Anonymous wrote:Once we get to the general election in November and it is obvious that one of two people is going to win, you are simply wasting your time voting if you do not choose one or the other.
Let’s modify that just slightly: “Once we get to the general election in November and it is obvious that exactly one candidate is going to win, you are simply wasting your time voting if you vote for anyone other than the winner.” For example, anyone voting for Obama in a decisively red state will be wasting his or her time with a “childish” vote.
Ridiculous. So why is it less ridiculous to say that you must vote for one of the top two? Why not top one or top three? At what point does it become legitimate, not “childish,” to vote for someone – only once s/he becomes at least the second-most popular candidate? Someone explain that principle.
Anonymous wrote:It is childish at this point to vote for a third candidate. It has no impact, no one cares.
Unlike your individual, secret vote for the Dem, which regularly decides the election. That’s why everyone does care about your vote.
jsteele wrote:I live in DC. My presidential vote will be insignificant regardless for whom I vote.
As it will everywhere else as well. Whether a candidate takes your state by a 70% or 1% margin, an individual presidential ballot secretly cast in a voting booth will be insignificant.
Anonymous wrote:And thus, you become completely meaningless in the general election.
As opposed to the case if you were to vote for a major party like a good boy. THEN your individual, secret vote would be deeply meaningful. Voters for nominee Bachman or Santorum, for example, would be casting legitimate, meaningful votes, unlike those degenerate freaks on the left voting their consciences.
Anonymous wrote:But if I lived in Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Florida, or Virginia (although Virginia may be a lost cause), I wouldn’t dream of it.
There is no reasonable chance that any of those states will come down to one vote, or even to 500. If you honestly believe that the election may come down to one vote, then there's nothing for us to discuss, because we simply have a fundamental difference in what constitutes odds worthy of consideration. If you agree that there’s no reasonably likelihood of it coming down to one vote, you're wasting your vote exactly as much as I am.
Anonymous wrote:Let me ask the protest/principled voters a question – in hindsight, what do you think the lefties in Florida that voted for Nader 2000? Are you pleased with their principled votes? I’m not. Do you wish Gore had been elected instead of Bush? I do. Why is this situation any different?
Similar discussions occurred here a few months ago, and as I said then, if I were controlling 50,000 (or maybe even 1,000) votes in Florida this would be a very different conversation. Why is this situation different? Because, as I've beaten to death, my vote won't decide this any more than any one of those Florida votes did.
Assuming a hypothetical single person holding the fate of one state, I'm not sure what s/he should do. Bush was one of the worst things ever to happen to this country. But the lesson learned there, and in 2004, and then without any doubt in 2008, is that the country keeps moving to the right and the Dems keep struggling for votes because they keep abandoning the left. As someone said before the 2000 election, whichever candidate won, the other guy was the only one who could have lost to him. If the Dems had put up someone with true principles and backbone in 2000 or 2004, things may have been very different.
If you think, as the Dem leadership has for decades, that the lesson of these elections is that the Dem voters need to keep compromising, I’ll just ask: how’s that working out for you? Are you happy wishing that a leftist Democrat – say, about where Nixon was on the spectrum – would run instead of Obama?
So, I don't know what I would do this election if I controlled one swing state. It would probably depend in part on whether I was going to control it forever, so that my threats would have some meaning.
But I don't have that tough decision; I have one vote, which I will cast secretly. I cast it as if I am deciding the entire election. I don't cast it as if I control 50,000 votes in Florida, or as if I can only vote for one of two people.
Yawn.
Anonymous
10/03/2011 13:49
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Anonymous wrote:I feel like Obama is going to lose, and I wish some democrat would run against him, because I know when it comes time to, I will have to vote for Obama because despite the fact that his likelihood of winning is low, I can't vote for one of the republican nutballs who are currently running.
I wish Hillary would run. However, no matter what, I will not vote for Obama again. The "Change you can believe in" was not the change most of us had hoped for. Another four years of him and the Depression will be looked upon with nostalgia.
TheManWithAUsername
10/03/2011 13:05
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
takoma wrote:When we discuss the issue, especially in a popular online venue, we have the potential of affecting the actions of many. So when some of us respond to Man and try to change his mind, we have not only his vote as our goal, but those of the MD, VA, and other voters who might read what we write.
I think that's a very interesting point. I haven't tried to convince anyone to vote the way I do, but then again I am here announcing it, so there's something of an implicit message there.
Like with many things, the categorical imperative gives different answers here depending on how one defines the act. When I'm voting, I think that everyone should vote for the candidate I've chosen. But would I say that everyone should vote for whom s/he thinks would be best? When I think of that, I start thinking, "Well, wouldn't it be better if these people and those people compromised just a little and pooled their votes?"
This is why I'd like a non-geographical parliament. We could vote for declared candidates, but get much closer to our actual views. Then the negotiation and compromise would happen somewhat out in the open, among the representatives, instead of what happens now, where the party leaders, the contributors, and the media decide from whom we can choose from and which values must be compromised.
TheManWithAUsername
10/03/2011 12:57
Subject: Re:What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Anonymous wrote:When you break it down to the individual, it makes all the sense in the world to vote based exclusively on principle. I'm sure many, if not most of the Nader voters viewed it like you do - my one vote won't matter, so let me help him try to get to the minuimum required vote to get federal funding. They were wrong. Or rather, 538 (one half of one percent of Nader's voters) collectively were wrong - if they had voted a different way, we'd live in a very different world right now.
I'm not sure what "collectively were wrong" means. The question (if we're talking about how I will vote) is whether each was wrong about his/her individual impact, and no one was.
I believe that if I walked down to the Capitol on my own and started yelling about campaign finance reform, it would have no impact. Just about everyone would agree. Are we all "collectively wrong" about that?
I don't think the problem is in the judgment; it may be in the failure to act more. If anyone wants to criticize me for being politically lazy, not campaigning, etc., I won't argue. When the discussion occurred here recently, I suggested that the most ethical course might be to campaign for Obama in a swing state while voting for whom I truly think should be president. I don't know if I could comfortably do that, but it's convenient that my compunction about that would spare me the work.
Anonymous wrote:I suspect a lot of this comes down to personality type, rather than ideology....I'd guess that you're more optimistic, less risk averse, and motivated by a desire to win.
That's interesting. I'm certainly the latter two.
takoma
10/03/2011 12:32
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
I usually agree with TMWAU, and do not question his right (or anyone's) to vote his conscience. But let's distinguish between one vote, which, as he says, is almost surely not going to be decisive, and the 500 plus votes that decided the 2000 election.
When we discuss the issue, especially in a popular online venue, we have the potential of affecting the actions of many. So when some of us respond to Man and try to change his mind, we have not only his vote as our goal, but those of the MD, VA, and other voters who might read what we write.
And when I go into that booth and make my decision, I often think of myself as a statistical sample whose thoughts may be indicative of many others, and I take my lone vote a bit more seriously. It may be a fiction, but it's one of those "if everyone acted like that ..." fictions that democracy needs in order to work.
When we discuss the issue, especially in a popular online venue, we have the potential of affecting the actions of many. So when some of us respond to Man and try to change his mind, we have not only his vote as our goal, but those of the MD, VA, and other voters who might read what we write.
And when I go into that booth and make my decision, I often think of myself as a statistical sample whose thoughts may be indicative of many others, and I take my lone vote a bit more seriously. It may be a fiction, but it's one of those "if everyone acted like that ..." fictions that democracy needs in order to work.
Anonymous
10/03/2011 11:53
Subject: Re:What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
TMWAU, I hear what you're saying, and I have used some variation of that argument several times myself, as an excuse for not voting, for not being a vegetarian (the animal's already dead, so why not eat it?), etc. And of course, statistically it is extraordinarily unlikely that any state will come down to one vote. But under your rationale, it's pointless for anyone, anywhere, to vote, because any one individual vote is statistically meaningless. And while that may be true, it's not exactly the best civics lesson. (I understand you're not advocating not voting, and that you are arguing the opposite, in fact.)
When you break it down to the individual, it makes all the sense in the world to vote based exclusively on principle. I'm sure many, if not most of the Nader voters viewed it like you do - my one vote won't matter, so let me help him try to get to the minuimum required vote to get federal funding. They were wrong. Or rather, 538 (one half of one percent of Nader's voters) collectively were wrong - if they had voted a different way, we'd live in a very different world right now. I bet that if you did a survey of those voters, with the benefit of hindsight, you'd easily find 538 who's like to change their votes.
I suspect a lot of this comes down to personality type, rather than ideology. I'm risk averse, a little pessimistic, and more likely to manage against the worst possible outcome than seek the best possible result. I am motivated more by a fear of losing that a desire to win. I fear the consequences of Republican control of all three branches of government (yes, I'm including the Supreme Court) more than I want to vote for my preferred candidate. I'd guess that you're more optimistic, less risk averse, and motivated by a desire to win. Or maybe I'm just a shitty armchair psychologist.
When you break it down to the individual, it makes all the sense in the world to vote based exclusively on principle. I'm sure many, if not most of the Nader voters viewed it like you do - my one vote won't matter, so let me help him try to get to the minuimum required vote to get federal funding. They were wrong. Or rather, 538 (one half of one percent of Nader's voters) collectively were wrong - if they had voted a different way, we'd live in a very different world right now. I bet that if you did a survey of those voters, with the benefit of hindsight, you'd easily find 538 who's like to change their votes.
I suspect a lot of this comes down to personality type, rather than ideology. I'm risk averse, a little pessimistic, and more likely to manage against the worst possible outcome than seek the best possible result. I am motivated more by a fear of losing that a desire to win. I fear the consequences of Republican control of all three branches of government (yes, I'm including the Supreme Court) more than I want to vote for my preferred candidate. I'd guess that you're more optimistic, less risk averse, and motivated by a desire to win. Or maybe I'm just a shitty armchair psychologist.
TheManWithAUsername
10/03/2011 10:22
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Re “protest vote,” I didn’t think that anyone was trying to be offensive, and I don’t take great offense. I just wanted to point out that, for me, I’m not voting in protest of anyone or anything. I’m voting for whom I think would be best for the job, subject, as I said, to the significant limitations of my research.
So weird, dude – I was going to write you in. (This is where those who think I’m your alias can have a field day.)
Re the rest of Jeff’s post about the respective strategies of Obama and the Reps, I wanted to point out that it could just as well have been written about the Clinton administration. This has been the pattern for decades.
We might not be able to get far past that, b/c I suspect we have different ideas of what “count” means. As I said in our past exchanges, no individual vote for president “counts” in a practical sense.
At this point, I would consider compromising on an awful lot to support someone who wasn’t a corporate whore; Buddy Roemer is a good example. I doubt that I would compromise enough to support any modern Rep though, especially since there’s no need – I can just vote for a person of integrity who also agrees with me on lots of other things. I’m very glad that Roemer – and for that matter Ron Paul – is out there, though.
To some degree. I don’t know if one leader could fix things like campaign financing – and if s/he could, the Supremes are dead set against democracy – but many other things are possible. Reid and many others like him are destructive hacks, but I’ve always acknowledged that the Dems differ from the Reps in that the latter are lunatics seemingly willing to say and do literally anything, from exposing undercover CIA agents to holding our economy hostage. I think a FDR or LBJ could reliably ride herd on the Dems, and I guess the right Rep could as well.
Let’s modify that just slightly: “Once we get to the general election in November and it is obvious that exactly one candidate is going to win, you are simply wasting your time voting if you vote for anyone other than the winner.” For example, anyone voting for Obama in a decisively red state will be wasting his or her time with a “childish” vote.
Ridiculous. So why is it less ridiculous to say that you must vote for one of the top two? Why not top one or top three? At what point does it become legitimate, not “childish,” to vote for someone – only once s/he becomes at least the second-most popular candidate? Someone explain that principle.
Unlike your individual, secret vote for the Dem, which regularly decides the election. That’s why everyone does care about your vote.
As it will everywhere else as well. Whether a candidate takes your state by a 70% or 1% margin, an individual presidential ballot secretly cast in a voting booth will be insignificant.
As opposed to the case if you were to vote for a major party like a good boy. THEN your individual, secret vote would be deeply meaningful. Voters for nominee Bachman or Santorum, for example, would be casting legitimate, meaningful votes, unlike those degenerate freaks on the left voting their consciences.
There is no reasonable chance that any of those states will come down to one vote, or even to 500. If you honestly believe that the election may come down to one vote, then there's nothing for us to discuss, because we simply have a fundamental difference in what constitutes odds worthy of consideration. If you agree that there’s no reasonably likelihood of it coming down to one vote, you're wasting your vote exactly as much as I am.
Similar discussions occurred here a few months ago, and as I said then, if I were controlling 50,000 (or maybe even 1,000) votes in Florida this would be a very different conversation. Why is this situation different? Because, as I've beaten to death, my vote won't decide this any more than any one of those Florida votes did.
Assuming a hypothetical single person holding the fate of one state, I'm not sure what s/he should do. Bush was one of the worst things ever to happen to this country. But the lesson learned there, and in 2004, and then without any doubt in 2008, is that the country keeps moving to the right and the Dems keep struggling for votes because they keep abandoning the left. As someone said before the 2000 election, whichever candidate won, the other guy was the only one who could have lost to him. If the Dems had put up someone with true principles and backbone in 2000 or 2004, things may have been very different.
If you think, as the Dem leadership has for decades, that the lesson of these elections is that the Dem voters need to keep compromising, I’ll just ask: how’s that working out for you? Are you happy wishing that a leftist Democrat – say, about where Nixon was on the spectrum – would run instead of Obama?
So, I don't know what I would do this election if I controlled one swing state. It would probably depend in part on whether I was going to control it forever, so that my threats would have some meaning.
But I don't have that tough decision; I have one vote, which I will cast secretly. I cast it as if I am deciding the entire election. I don't cast it as if I control 50,000 votes in Florida, or as if I can only vote for one of two people.
jsteele wrote:At this point, I probably will cast my vote for TheManWithAUsername.
So weird, dude – I was going to write you in. (This is where those who think I’m your alias can have a field day.)
Re the rest of Jeff’s post about the respective strategies of Obama and the Reps, I wanted to point out that it could just as well have been written about the Clinton administration. This has been the pattern for decades.
Anonymous wrote:Let's assume for a moment that you would like your vote to count as something other than a protest vote
We might not be able to get far past that, b/c I suspect we have different ideas of what “count” means. As I said in our past exchanges, no individual vote for president “counts” in a practical sense.
Anonymous wrote:Let's further assume that there are, interspersed among the nutcases and corporate whores running on the GOP side, one or two candidates who still have the interest of this country at heart and would feel compelled to address its fundamental problems (I'm thinking for instance of Buddy Roemer and campaign finance laws).
At this point, I would consider compromising on an awful lot to support someone who wasn’t a corporate whore; Buddy Roemer is a good example. I doubt that I would compromise enough to support any modern Rep though, especially since there’s no need – I can just vote for a person of integrity who also agrees with me on lots of other things. I’m very glad that Roemer – and for that matter Ron Paul – is out there, though.
Anonymous wrote:In the absence of a worthwhile candidate among the Democrats, do you see someone like that being able to work with, say, a completely Democratically controlled Congress, to address the rot that is pervading our institutions?
To some degree. I don’t know if one leader could fix things like campaign financing – and if s/he could, the Supremes are dead set against democracy – but many other things are possible. Reid and many others like him are destructive hacks, but I’ve always acknowledged that the Dems differ from the Reps in that the latter are lunatics seemingly willing to say and do literally anything, from exposing undercover CIA agents to holding our economy hostage. I think a FDR or LBJ could reliably ride herd on the Dems, and I guess the right Rep could as well.
Anonymous wrote:Once we get to the general election in November and it is obvious that one of two people is going to win, you are simply wasting your time voting if you do not choose one or the other.
Let’s modify that just slightly: “Once we get to the general election in November and it is obvious that exactly one candidate is going to win, you are simply wasting your time voting if you vote for anyone other than the winner.” For example, anyone voting for Obama in a decisively red state will be wasting his or her time with a “childish” vote.
Ridiculous. So why is it less ridiculous to say that you must vote for one of the top two? Why not top one or top three? At what point does it become legitimate, not “childish,” to vote for someone – only once s/he becomes at least the second-most popular candidate? Someone explain that principle.
Anonymous wrote:It is childish at this point to vote for a third candidate. It has no impact, no one cares.
Unlike your individual, secret vote for the Dem, which regularly decides the election. That’s why everyone does care about your vote.
jsteele wrote:I live in DC. My presidential vote will be insignificant regardless for whom I vote.
As it will everywhere else as well. Whether a candidate takes your state by a 70% or 1% margin, an individual presidential ballot secretly cast in a voting booth will be insignificant.
Anonymous wrote:And thus, you become completely meaningless in the general election.
As opposed to the case if you were to vote for a major party like a good boy. THEN your individual, secret vote would be deeply meaningful. Voters for nominee Bachman or Santorum, for example, would be casting legitimate, meaningful votes, unlike those degenerate freaks on the left voting their consciences.
Anonymous wrote:But if I lived in Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Florida, or Virginia (although Virginia may be a lost cause), I wouldn’t dream of it.
There is no reasonable chance that any of those states will come down to one vote, or even to 500. If you honestly believe that the election may come down to one vote, then there's nothing for us to discuss, because we simply have a fundamental difference in what constitutes odds worthy of consideration. If you agree that there’s no reasonably likelihood of it coming down to one vote, you're wasting your vote exactly as much as I am.
Anonymous wrote:Let me ask the protest/principled voters a question – in hindsight, what do you think the lefties in Florida that voted for Nader 2000? Are you pleased with their principled votes? I’m not. Do you wish Gore had been elected instead of Bush? I do. Why is this situation any different?
Similar discussions occurred here a few months ago, and as I said then, if I were controlling 50,000 (or maybe even 1,000) votes in Florida this would be a very different conversation. Why is this situation different? Because, as I've beaten to death, my vote won't decide this any more than any one of those Florida votes did.
Assuming a hypothetical single person holding the fate of one state, I'm not sure what s/he should do. Bush was one of the worst things ever to happen to this country. But the lesson learned there, and in 2004, and then without any doubt in 2008, is that the country keeps moving to the right and the Dems keep struggling for votes because they keep abandoning the left. As someone said before the 2000 election, whichever candidate won, the other guy was the only one who could have lost to him. If the Dems had put up someone with true principles and backbone in 2000 or 2004, things may have been very different.
If you think, as the Dem leadership has for decades, that the lesson of these elections is that the Dem voters need to keep compromising, I’ll just ask: how’s that working out for you? Are you happy wishing that a leftist Democrat – say, about where Nixon was on the spectrum – would run instead of Obama?
So, I don't know what I would do this election if I controlled one swing state. It would probably depend in part on whether I was going to control it forever, so that my threats would have some meaning.
But I don't have that tough decision; I have one vote, which I will cast secretly. I cast it as if I am deciding the entire election. I don't cast it as if I control 50,000 votes in Florida, or as if I can only vote for one of two people.
Anonymous
10/03/2011 08:50
Subject: Re:What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
In DC, the protest vote, or "principled” vote, whichever you prefer, is completely understandable. In a swing state, it's indefensible, in my view. Here's why:
I don't think there's any question that the Republicans will continue to control the House, and will take control of the Senate. In that situation, I have zero confidence that a "moderate" Republican like Romney or Huntsman would have any say in the agenda (and that I'm using the term moderate to describe either of them is appalling, I get that - perhaps sane would be more appropriate). In fact, I think they'd be completely irrelevant. The Republican House would control the agenda - and we've seen what they envision for the country. The only thing preventing those Ayn Rand fantasies from becoming law would be the fortitude of the Senate. Although I don’t think the Republicans will obtain a filibuster-proof majority, I am not comfortable with putting the fate of the Republic in the hands of the weakest links in the Senate Democratic caucus. In 2014, there are 33 Senate seats up for election – 20 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Many of those Democrat seats are in red states, and the Democrat incumbents simply can’t be counted on to take a principled stand against the tea party lunacy that will be driving force in the Republican agenda. Do you really want to have to depend on Mary Landrieu, Max Bauchus, Mark Begich, Tim Johnson, Kay Hagan and Mark Warner to keep their fingers stuck in the dike, when they have elections coming up? Me neither.
Never mind the prospect that in 2014, the Senate could easily become a filibuster-proof majority for the Republicans – then we’re off to the races, with Eric Cantor effectively running the country. Urk.
Let me be clear – Obama has been a horrible disappointment, and the country deserves better. This is in no way an endorsement of his actions as President. But I’m resigned to play defense at this point, for the short term. I live in DC too, and I may cast a protest vote, simply because there is no conceivable way Obama will lose these three electoral votes. But if I lived in Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Florida, or Virginia (although Virginia may be a lost cause), I wouldn’t dream of it.
Let me ask the protest/principled voters a question – in hindsight, what do you think the lefties in Florida that voted for Nader 2000? Are you pleased with their principled votes? I’m not. Do you wish Gore had been elected instead of Bush? I do. Why is this situation any different? I’m all for principle, but realpolitik can’t be ignored, especially when the other side had lost it’s freakin’ mind.
I don't think there's any question that the Republicans will continue to control the House, and will take control of the Senate. In that situation, I have zero confidence that a "moderate" Republican like Romney or Huntsman would have any say in the agenda (and that I'm using the term moderate to describe either of them is appalling, I get that - perhaps sane would be more appropriate). In fact, I think they'd be completely irrelevant. The Republican House would control the agenda - and we've seen what they envision for the country. The only thing preventing those Ayn Rand fantasies from becoming law would be the fortitude of the Senate. Although I don’t think the Republicans will obtain a filibuster-proof majority, I am not comfortable with putting the fate of the Republic in the hands of the weakest links in the Senate Democratic caucus. In 2014, there are 33 Senate seats up for election – 20 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Many of those Democrat seats are in red states, and the Democrat incumbents simply can’t be counted on to take a principled stand against the tea party lunacy that will be driving force in the Republican agenda. Do you really want to have to depend on Mary Landrieu, Max Bauchus, Mark Begich, Tim Johnson, Kay Hagan and Mark Warner to keep their fingers stuck in the dike, when they have elections coming up? Me neither.
Never mind the prospect that in 2014, the Senate could easily become a filibuster-proof majority for the Republicans – then we’re off to the races, with Eric Cantor effectively running the country. Urk.
Let me be clear – Obama has been a horrible disappointment, and the country deserves better. This is in no way an endorsement of his actions as President. But I’m resigned to play defense at this point, for the short term. I live in DC too, and I may cast a protest vote, simply because there is no conceivable way Obama will lose these three electoral votes. But if I lived in Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Florida, or Virginia (although Virginia may be a lost cause), I wouldn’t dream of it.
Let me ask the protest/principled voters a question – in hindsight, what do you think the lefties in Florida that voted for Nader 2000? Are you pleased with their principled votes? I’m not. Do you wish Gore had been elected instead of Bush? I do. Why is this situation any different? I’m all for principle, but realpolitik can’t be ignored, especially when the other side had lost it’s freakin’ mind.
Anonymous
10/03/2011 06:58
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican, moving toward independant. Considering voting for Obama because of the GOP candidate freak show. Guessing Obama will win only because of his public speaking skills. No one can compare to that. His message is awesome but not so much in practice.
I think it is perfectly rational for republicans to vote for Obama. He is a republican. He supports smaller government and fewer regulations, prefers deficit reduction over unemployment, and based on the recent debt ceiling debate, he wants to reduce taxes, The republican choice is between voting for lunatics (Perry, Bachman, Christie) or Obama. For Democrats or center-left leaning individuals who support radical ideas like the social safety net (social security, medicare, unemployment insurance) and sane financial, environmental, and consumer regulations, we have a tough choice. If you are like me and think Romneycare/Obamacare is not good enough and that unemployment is our top national issue, then you vote against Obama.
President is too important. I don't want to settle for something less than what I believe. I plan to vote third party, if a reasonable candidate runs, or I plan to write-in.
And thus, you become completely meaningless in the general election.
Anonymous
10/02/2011 23:39
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican, moving toward independant. Considering voting for Obama because of the GOP candidate freak show. Guessing Obama will win only because of his public speaking skills. No one can compare to that. His message is awesome but not so much in practice.
I think it is perfectly rational for republicans to vote for Obama. He is a republican. He supports smaller government and fewer regulations, prefers deficit reduction over unemployment, and based on the recent debt ceiling debate, he wants to reduce taxes, The republican choice is between voting for lunatics (Perry, Bachman, Christie) or Obama. For Democrats or center-left leaning individuals who support radical ideas like the social safety net (social security, medicare, unemployment insurance) and sane financial, environmental, and consumer regulations, we have a tough choice. If you are like me and think Romneycare/Obamacare is not good enough and that unemployment is our top national issue, then you vote against Obama.
President is too important. I don't want to settle for something less than what I believe. I plan to vote third party, if a reasonable candidate runs, or I plan to write-in.
Anonymous
10/02/2011 23:24
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
I feel like Obama is going to lose, and I wish some democrat would run against him, because I know when it comes time to, I will have to vote for Obama because despite the fact that his likelihood of winning is low, I can't vote for one of the republican nutballs who are currently running.
Anonymous
10/02/2011 22:17
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
I'm a republican, moving toward independant. Considering voting for Obama because of the GOP candidate freak show. Guessing Obama will win only because of his public speaking skills. No one can compare to that. His message is awesome but not so much in practice.
Anonymous
10/02/2011 21:49
Subject: What do you do if you know you are a one-term president?
Jeff lives in DC. HE has the luxury of writing in Roger Rabbit and Obama will still get 90% of the vote and its electoral vote.