Who are you voting for?
- Thread starter HKCHEF
- Start date
I was using "American" in the cultural use of the word, not a political use. A new culture was forming in the colonies.
"so don't try to rationalize it". Are you an agent of the Thought Police? I will rationalize in my own mind as I wish.
Are you refering to me as a Democratic supporter? If so, why? While there are a very few Democrats I have supported, I detest the current party as a whole.
To speak of knowing history, in 1776 thirteen colonies declared themselves to be thirteen soveriegn states, not a nation. They became a nation upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.
I'm voting for Bob Barr as well. Mostly to protest the GOP. If John McCain is the best thing the republican party can offer, then they don't deserve my vote. If all the true conservatives would quit worrying about "wasting" a vote, and vote for the man they thought would be the best leader, I believe fully that Barr would be elected. But you have been trained to believe that only a republican or democrat can be elected, because they spend more money on television ads.
And, if my voting for principles causes Obama to win the election, maybe it will light a fire under republicans posteriors, and they will get back to the conservative ideology, instead of acting like watered-down democrats.
And, if my voting for principles causes Obama to win the election, maybe it will light a fire under republicans posteriors, and they will get back to the conservative ideology, instead of acting like watered-down democrats.
bojack2575
Moderator
Don't throw away your vote!
For all of you out there that are thinking of not voting or writing in someone who has no chance.
If you do that you are essentially voting for Obama and throwing away your gun rights at the same time
For all of you out there that are thinking of not voting or writing in someone who has no chance.
If you do that you are essentially voting for Obama and throwing away your gun rights at the same time
Look at history. When was the last time a third party was elected president? How many third parties have been elected president? The simple fact of the matter is Barr doesn't stand a chance for whatever reason you want to give. The next president is going to be Obama or McCain like it or not. Of those two McCain is the best man.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
For the eleventeenth time: Voting for someone other than McCain is not a vote for Obama.bojack2575 said:
A man wakes up in the morning on election day. He has never voted in a presidential election in his life, but he has maintained his voter registration for local issues. That morning, for some reason, he has a strong urge to go and vote for president. He goes to the polls and pulls the lever for Bob Barr.
Bojack - Can you or anyone else please explain to me how this man's vote counts as a vote for Barack Hussein Obama?
Citizen Carrier
New member
Ross Perot.
That is the explanation you're looking for.
On the first Tuesday of November 1992, I was your theoretical guy who woke up that day and decided to vote. I voted for that idiotic populist Ross Perot.
Why did I do that? He wasn't a conservative. Some of his "solutions" were Big Government solutions. I was 19 years old. That probably had a lot to do with it.
I couldn't vote Clinton, but I had simulataneously bought into the Clinton lie that "it can't get any worse" and the internet drugstore cowboy lies that Republicans and Democrats are all the same.
I was ignorant of one undeniable truth of American politics. One of only two men is going to the White House. Nobody else.
The reason for that isn't because of Big Media cabals or "cheating" to keep 3rd parties out on the fringes. Third parties aren't "kept" on the fringes...they station themselves there.
Because political values in America come in package deals. If you're an evangelical Christian, you're likely okay with guns too. Probably oppose abortion. Probably like tax cuts. Probably like the military. And so on and so forth.
There aren't too many gay evangelical christian black union members who favor abortion, support tax cuts, oppose school vouchers, oppose closed union shops, support free trade agreements, disbelieve global warming, and favor an elastic interpretation of the Constitution.
Why? Because political beliefs for most people come in packages. It is a function of socialization. Like how about 80% of people tend to vote the same way their parents did.
Libertarians and the like have a bizarre package of political beliefs. Right-wing on domestic stuff, as left-wing as any Berkeley radical on the foreign policy stuff. That's why they're on the fringe. They are a political minority.
What I learned from voting for the first time in 1992 that my vote could have went to one of the two men who was GOING to win who most agreed with me. By registering a stupid protest vote that Clinton was able to ignore for 8 years, I had marginalized my vote. Made it unimportant. I tiny footnote in history.
When you vote 3rd Party, even if it is for the first time ever, you serve only to aid in the victory of the one man who WILL win and who disagrees with you the most.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Hi Citizen Carrier, Thanks for the response.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So you woke up on Nov. 3, 1992 and voted for Ross Perot.
Your vote did not count for either Clinton or Bush, right?
Therefore, your vote had no bearing on the election. That is what you're saying, isn't it? But it could have if you had voted for either Bush or Clinton. Okay...
If that is true, then everybody who voted for Bush wasted their vote too, since he lost. If one of them had stayed home or if all of them had stayed home, it would not have changed the outcome of the election. Correct?
So the only way to have your vote "really count" (if I am reading you correctly) is to vote for the winner. Every vote that isn't for the winner is a wasted vote.
That is, I'm afraid, the mindset of too many Americans (not necessarily you, kind sir, I'm just running with this thread of logic and writing in generalities). Many of them are so determined to not "waste their vote" that they gravitate toward the likely winner for no other reason than to "have their vote count."
Any response to this CC? Bojack? Anyone?
You are saying that the one man who WILL win is the man that disagrees with you the most. How can you make that statement, not knowing who will win?Citizen Carrier said:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So you woke up on Nov. 3, 1992 and voted for Ross Perot.
Your vote did not count for either Clinton or Bush, right?
Therefore, your vote had no bearing on the election. That is what you're saying, isn't it? But it could have if you had voted for either Bush or Clinton. Okay...
If that is true, then everybody who voted for Bush wasted their vote too, since he lost. If one of them had stayed home or if all of them had stayed home, it would not have changed the outcome of the election. Correct?
So the only way to have your vote "really count" (if I am reading you correctly) is to vote for the winner. Every vote that isn't for the winner is a wasted vote.
That is, I'm afraid, the mindset of too many Americans (not necessarily you, kind sir, I'm just running with this thread of logic and writing in generalities
). Many of them are so determined to not "waste their vote" that they gravitate toward the likely winner for no other reason than to "have their vote count."Any response to this CC? Bojack? Anyone?
I don't think a vote for McCain or Obama will be a wasted vote since one or the other will win. I don't see a vote for a third party as a vote FOR Obama but rather a vote McCain won't get which in turn helps Obama. IMHO a vote for a third party IS wasted because the third party won't win.
Why was Bob Barr left out of the poll? If you want to have a valid poll, you should at least include the name of the ONLY conservative in the race.
Video: Bob Barr on MSNBC
Video: Is Barr a spoiler or a contender
Video: Bob Barr on MSNBC
Video: Is Barr a spoiler or a contender
So, you are saying that an American citizen, who votes for a candidate of their choice is "wasting" their vote? That is quite arrogant of you, don't you think.
Let's break this down....
If I vote for Obama, an extremist anti-gun liberal, I am "not" wasting my vote.
If I vote for McCain, a luke warm conservative who does not even own a gun, I am "not" wasting my vote.
If I vote for Barr, a "strong" conservative and NRA board member, I "am" wasting my vote???
Twisted logic you have there.
I'd say that a conservative voting for McCain, who is a liberal, is in more danger of wasting their vote than a conservative who votes for Bob Barr who is an unapologetic, 2nd amendment loving conservative.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Hawg beat me to it. I don't need to know who is going to win.
I only need to know two things in order to make that statement.
1) Who could win.
2) Who doesn't stand a chance.
McCain could win...if he gets enough support. Barr isn't going to win and there is no "if" about the kind of support he is going to get.
Barr has no "war chest" to speak of. Additionally--and this may sound strange to you--he lacks the "legitimacy" of McCain...or even Obama. Why? McCain and Obama earned their nominations. They ran in primaries against tough opposition and FOUGHT their way to the top.
Barr was merely selected. Who'd he run against? Debate against? How much fundraising and speechifying did Barr have to make? Do you think he traveled all over these United States stumping for his right to be a candidate? He was not forged in that crucible. Barr is the definition of "selected, not elected".
That is a weakness all 3rd Party candidates share.
It didn't help Bush and it didn't hurt Clinton. In retrospect, I would have preferred it to do one or the other.
Not exactly. Here's the difference. Everyone who voted for Bush was making their absolute best possible play. They were going for the brass ring. In that sense, they in no way wasted their vote.
I did. I did because I intentionally relegated myself loser status through a protest vote. I was under no illusions about Perot's chances, just as you are under no illusions about Barr's chances. I purposefully decided that "making a statement" was more important than actually making a play for the best possible President available.
When you put your best possible foot forward, your best effort, that is never a waste. When you decide before the starting pistol shot that you intend to come in dead last in the race...that is the definition of a wasted effort.
I decided to lose. I picked it. I was making a higher moral statement. A combination of fatalism and the arrogance of youth. I had the courage to lose in order to make a statement for the higher good! I was no cool-aid drinking sheeple!
Anyone else getting sick of the phrases "cool-aid drinkers" and "sheeple", btw?
This is what I've learned since then.
A guy I agree with 60% of the time in office beats a guy I agree with 90% who isn't in office. Beats the living crap out of him. Especially when the alternative is somebody I agree with only 24% of the time.
When 38-43% of the population is going to vote Republican because that is simply what they are always going to do, and a similar number is always going to vote Democrat because that is what they do [remember what I wrote, 80% of people vote the same way their parents did?], 3rd parties can only serve one function:
Spoilers.
And they inevitably spoil the election of the one guy out of the two who agrees with them more often.
I'm older now. If given a choice between making a "statement" OR maybe having a shot at getting a Judge Roberts or Alito appointed...I'm going to go with the chance at the judges.
I look at it this way. I never say that any vote is a wasted vote, because it's our own vote and each of us is free to vote as we please. However, I will say that your vote does have consequences that cannot be ignored, even if you choose to overlook those consequences. The above post regarding Ross Perot is a perfect example. This election with Obama and McCain is another.
Fact: With the political reality of today, in America, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the President, unless the Clintons blow up the dem convention, but I don't see that being too likely. I don't completely rule it out, however.
So, between McCain and Obama, who ever gets the most electoral votes will be the President, assuming minimal voter fraud and other nuances.
Let's say you live in California. Obama is assured of winning that state. Thus, if you live in California, you can vote for Barr over McCain and it will have no effect. However, in a state such as Ohio, where it's going to be really close and which will likely affect the electoral vote count, voting for Barr is a vote that could likely be counted in McCains column, and will thus help Obama.
All of that being said, far be it from me to tell any American how they should vote. I just want people to be honest with themselves about the facts and the consequences of how they vote.
Fact: With the political reality of today, in America, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be the President, unless the Clintons blow up the dem convention, but I don't see that being too likely. I don't completely rule it out, however.
So, between McCain and Obama, who ever gets the most electoral votes will be the President, assuming minimal voter fraud and other nuances.
Let's say you live in California. Obama is assured of winning that state. Thus, if you live in California, you can vote for Barr over McCain and it will have no effect. However, in a state such as Ohio, where it's going to be really close and which will likely affect the electoral vote count, voting for Barr is a vote that could likely be counted in McCains column, and will thus help Obama.
All of that being said, far be it from me to tell any American how they should vote. I just want people to be honest with themselves about the facts and the consequences of how they vote.
Last edited:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccain_with_barr_nader-957.html
From 7/9-7/13, Rueters/Zogby polling showed Obama up by 10 points amongst Likely Voters (LV). From 8/14-8/16, Rueters/Zogby showed McCain up by 5. That's a 15 point swing in one month. That's huge. Of course, it's only one poll and there is still a long time to go, politically speaking, until the election. However, the McCain camp must be pleased and the Obama camp must be upset at the recent trend in polling numbers. As the Saddleback church event sinks in with more people, that trend is likely to continue.
From 7/9-7/13, Rueters/Zogby polling showed Obama up by 10 points amongst Likely Voters (LV). From 8/14-8/16, Rueters/Zogby showed McCain up by 5. That's a 15 point swing in one month. That's huge. Of course, it's only one poll and there is still a long time to go, politically speaking, until the election. However, the McCain camp must be pleased and the Obama camp must be upset at the recent trend in polling numbers. As the Saddleback church event sinks in with more people, that trend is likely to continue.
Last edited:
Garand Guy
New member
That's the great thing about politicians: They could be mistaken for fertilizer salesmen. Tell people what they want to hear until they get voted into office. Then they can get back to doing what they want anyway.