'08 Obama Voters

[Williebee]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Jonathan Winters still has my vote. . . .

+1

[Haggis]

Originally Posted by Williebee

+1

Oh, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat if he'd ever run for President.

[Magdalen]

My uncle voted for Pat Paulsen several times, or so I've been told.

[Bartholomew]

I'm probably voting for Obama.

[third person]

"Accomplished very little..." "Didn't do enough..."

People say these things like the man has absolute power. He had to deal with and appease a majority of people who hated (and outright disrespected to a degree no president in history has ever been shown) him and did everything in their power to stop or deny him from attaining his goals. Even when they were things the Republicans themselves wanted years ago. It just irks the shit out of me that so many people say this man hasn't done anything. Okay, give him absolute power so his efforts can't be blocked by the stuffy bigots who want to see him fail. Then we'll talk.

[muravyets]

Thanks for pointing that out. People in this country seem to be forgetting we don't elect a king. Can we imagine the bitching that would ensue if Obama ever did try to take and use the power necessary to do what so many either expect or accuse him of?

[benbradley]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

'68 and you didn't vote for Pat Paulsen?
You are a traitor to the Comedianist cause!



Links for those too young to know about Pat Paulsen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen
http://www.paulsen.com/pat/

I remember him on the Smothers Brothers show as well as other variety shows of the time. I specifically recall a skit he did on voter polarization (including dramatic effects such as a voter's image being replaced by its negative). Regrettably (and unlike Haggis), I was too young to vote for him.

I may still vote for Mickey Mouse. I certainly won't "waste my vote" on robeiae.

[shawkins]

Originally Posted by Maxinquaye

I totally agree with that, Richard. I've continually been amazed by why new attempts at party creation go for the top prize in politics, where they – if they actually won – would be a lame duck because they didn't invest in where the decision lays.

I think a more fruitful route for, say the Libertarian Party, would be to over the next ten years contest congressional seats and have a realistic aim of claiming 20 percent of Congress. They should forget about the Presidency. At this point in the party's evolution, it is out of reach.

Like moths drawn to a flame, every new party contest the presidency instead of congressional seats. I think it might be because congress is much messier, and the symbolic value of the presidency would be great. Until it was clear that they could get absolutely nothing done. Then the win would become negative, and the presidency would be seen as failed and horrible.

If a new party managed to gain 20 percent of the seats in Congress they could exert real power, and force the parties to compromise. Neither the democrats nor the republicans would be able to get legislation through without that 20 percent block.

But then you have the thing that libertarians aren't really interested in compromising about anything, as the “Nobody but Ron Paul”-thing shows. You have two large camps – the Paulites with maybe five percent of the vote, and the Libertarian Party with another five percent. And they refuse to cooperate unless purity is established.

Libertarians are impractical to the point that they disqualify themselves from being able to achieve their aims over time. I constantly shake my head over the libertarians.

I have nuggets of agreement, but I think the scenario would play out slightly differently.

Kind of by definition, third party candidates aren't serious people. If America ever does get fed up enough to elect more than a token few third party types to high office, I predict that their organizations will be promptly and thoroughly taken over by the exact same sort of folks they're reacting against. At that point two things will happen: 1) the agendas of whichever random serious people win the fight for power in the newly relevant organization will be suddenly and dramatically realized and 2) sad memoirs will be written by the idealists, quite possibly from a gulag somewhere. Unless they're dead.

So, basically, the whole third party thing is a random number generator. <shrug> Feeling lucky, America? Pull the handle.

[kaitie]

I was another Huntsman fan, even if he did share a name with one of the scariest spiders in existence. Honestly, I can't say how I would have felt at election time, but during the primaries I was actually leaning Huntsman over Obama.

As it stands, I'm almost certainly going to vote Obama. I haven't seen any third party candidates that have impressed me enough to consider, and I'm still mostly happy with Obama. And I really dislike Romney as an option.

That being said, considering where I live, it doesn't matter who I vote for because I already know which way the state's going to go. Does anyone else just really hate the electoral college? SOOOO stupid.

[clintl]

Yes. The electoral college is an archaic, outdated relic. And even in the beginning, it was a bad idea - it's primary rationale being that the people couldn't be trusted to pick a leader. The Founding Fathers basically weren't willing to give up aristocracy altogether.

[Death Wizard]

Originally Posted by third person

"Accomplished very little..." "Didn't do enough..."

People say these things like the man has absolute power. He had to deal with and appease a majority of people who hated (and outright disrespected to a degree no president in history has ever been shown) him and did everything in their power to stop or deny him from attaining his goals. Even when they were things the Republicans themselves wanted years ago. It just irks the shit out of me that so many people say this man hasn't done anything. Okay, give him absolute power so his efforts can't be blocked by the stuffy bigots who want to see him fail. Then we'll talk.

I hope there are many, many people who feel this way.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by clintl

Yes. The electoral college is an archaic, outdated relic. And even in the beginning, it was a bad idea - it's primary rationale being that the people couldn't be trusted to pick a leader. The Founding Fathers basically weren't willing to give up aristocracy altogether.

There are times when it's hard to argue against that distrust.

[Alpha Echo]

Originally Posted by third person

"Accomplished very little..." "Didn't do enough..."

People say these things like the man has absolute power. He had to deal with and appease a majority of people who hated (and outright disrespected to a degree no president in history has ever been shown) him and did everything in their power to stop or deny him from attaining his goals. Even when they were things the Republicans themselves wanted years ago. It just irks the shit out of me that so many people say this man hasn't done anything. Okay, give him absolute power so his efforts can't be blocked by the stuffy bigots who want to see him fail. Then we'll talk.

Originally Posted by muravyets

Thanks for pointing that out. People in this country seem to be forgetting we don't elect a king. Can we imagine the bitching that would ensue if Obama ever did try to take and use the power necessary to do what so many either expect or accuse him of?

Originally Posted by Death Wizard

I hope there are many, many people who feel this way.

All this +1.

[kaitie]

Ditto. The things I'm disappointed with aren't things that upset me because Obama did them as much as frustration with congress and the current political nonsense in general. I feel like he has worked his ass off to find bipartisan solutions and push for compromise, but the other sides (both sides--don't even get me started on Pelosi) were just working against him the whole way. Soooo frustrating.

I think what bothers me now is that initially I didn't feel like he was playing the game--he was trying to get people over the idiocy and the partisanship and the inability to agree on anything. Now he's playing the game (well, I might add), and that's just disappointing. However, I still don't hold him responsible for that. I have been absolutely appalled at the news coverage and the comments people are willing to make and the completely disrespectful ways of talking about Obama that are apparently considered perfectly acceptable.

I don't remember people ever going to the extremes with Bush even at his weakest. Were people ever mocking his name and making up stupid nicknames for him like they were in third grade the way people do with Obama? Maybe I just missed it, but I honestly don't remember. It was like there was an understanding that even if you couldn't stand the guy, he was still president. I feel like with Obama, there is an intentional talking down to him as if his position is meaningless in order to devalue him.

[DeleyanLee]

Originally Posted by kaitie

I think what bothers me now is that initially I didn't feel like he was playing the game--he was trying to get people over the idiocy and the partisanship and the inability to agree on anything. Now he's playing the game (well, I might add), and that's just disappointing. However, I still don't hold him responsible for that. I have been absolutely appalled at the news coverage and the comments people are willing to make and the completely disrespectful ways of talking about Obama that are apparently considered perfectly acceptable.

I don't remember people ever going to the extremes with Bush even at his weakest. Were people ever mocking his name and making up stupid nicknames for him like they were in third grade the way people do with Obama? Maybe I just missed it, but I honestly don't remember. It was like there was an understanding that even if you couldn't stand the guy, he was still president. I feel like with Obama, there is an intentional talking down to him as if his position is meaningless in order to devalue him.

Agreed. The one thing I thought Hilary had over Obama was that she already had a clue how the game was played and Obama would have to learn the rules--just like every newly elected politician with little-to-no experience has to. Hilary, even if she didn't personally know, had Bill as a resource, after all.

And the whole thing about disrespecting Obama, totally ignoring his position that has always gotten respect regardless of who occupied it. That just irks me. I didn't like several of the presidents who've served in my lifetime, but he always deserved the respect for the job he had. It's probably the saddest thing I can say about my country right now.

[Shadow Dragon]

While I'm not the biggest Obama supporter and I do think he made a mistake in not being more aggressive in his dealings with Republicans early on, I'm much more frustrated with congress.

I did vote for Obama in '08 but I probably won't vote for him in the upcoming election. Instead, I'll vote for a third party, probably the green party. However, I live in a state that's always blue in presidential elections. If I lived in a swing state, I'd chose Obama just to help keep Romney from winning.

[kaitie]

Originally Posted by DeleyanLee

Agreed. The one thing I thought Hilary had over Obama was that she already had a clue how the game was played and Obama would have to learn the rules--just like every newly elected politician with little-to-no experience has to. Hilary, even if she didn't personally know, had Bill as a resource, after all.

And the whole thing about disrespecting Obama, totally ignoring his position that has always gotten respect regardless of who occupied it. That just irks me. I didn't like several of the presidents who've served in my lifetime, but he always deserved the respect for the job he had. It's probably the saddest thing I can say about my country right now.

Something to keep in mind, though, is that part of the reason people like me voted for Obama in the first place was because we hated the game. I saw in him hope that maybe, just MAYBE there was a chance that the stupid idiotic system we have could be changed and intelligence and logic and compromise would be what we started basing things on. I hoped that it would be a message to the politicians out there that voters like me didn't appreciate the stupid games and that we wanted something that was more honest and more focused on what really mattered.

It's disappointing to me because when the person who was supposed to be able to change things starts doing it, it's just another sign that it's stuck this way and there's nothing we can do.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

'68 and you didn't vote for Pat Paulsen?
You are a traitor to the Comedianist cause!

Links for those too young to know about Pat Paulsen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen
http://www.paulsen.com/pat/

Originally Posted by benbradley

I remember him on the Smothers Brothers show as well as other variety shows of the time. I specifically recall a skit he did on voter polarization (including dramatic effects such as a voter's image being replaced by its negative). Regrettably (and unlike Haggis), I was too young to vote for him.

I may still vote for Mickey Mouse. I certainly won't "waste my vote" on robeiae.

As Mnemosyne is my witness, I swear I saw Pat Paulsen on Sesame Street. On the other hand, I could have sworn Oscar the Grouch was orange, too, so maybe I'm not so reliable a witness ...

[muravyets]

It was not your imagination. He appeared on Sesame Street several times. Here's the rundown: http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Pat_Paulsen

Also, after all these years, I don't know whether these Smothers Brothers editorials are hilarious, depressing, or both: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4kWLUnorTU

[Williebee]

Yeah... I'm going with both. I'm remembering the look on my Dad's face when I said that, since he was always bitching about the politicians, he should vote for Paulsen.

[Satori1977]

Nope, he didn't lose me either. I happily voted for him in '08, and even more confident in wanting to vote for him again. I am not happy with everything he has said or done, but he has accomplished a lot in the face of huge opposition. Republicans have made it quite clear they will vote against him every chance they get. Their only objective is getting him out of office. And that proves how little they care about the American people.

Not that I ever see myself voting for a Republican. They are on the opposite end of everything I believe in. They don't care about the middle class or the poor. And consistently vote against the rights of women and GBLT. Many want the Bible to be the law of the land over the constitution. The pool this election year has been scarier than any in the past. I could not in good conscience vote conservatively. It goes against everything I believe in.

I will vote for Obama again, proudly. And I share my opinion with anyone that asks. If I can change one persons opinion, I am happy.

[DeleyanLee]

Originally Posted by kaitie

Something to keep in mind, though, is that part of the reason people like me voted for Obama in the first place was because we hated the game. I saw in him hope that maybe, just MAYBE there was a chance that the stupid idiotic system we have could be changed and intelligence and logic and compromise would be what we started basing things on. I hoped that it would be a message to the politicians out there that voters like me didn't appreciate the stupid games and that we wanted something that was more honest and more focused on what really mattered.

It's disappointing to me because when the person who was supposed to be able to change things starts doing it, it's just another sign that it's stuck this way and there's nothing we can do.

I've thought about your post overnight and what strikes me is that you expected one single man to do all the work to make the changes the government seriously needs to happen. The president doesn't have that much power, by design. He has to work with the Congress, who are the ones who actually pass the laws. When that branch is stacked against him, what the president's trying to do won't get done.

It's why I'm more interested in what's happening in Congress this year. As men (party agendas aside), I see them as about equal in what they're going to be able to do. Depending on what happens in Congress determines how much the president's agenda (and promises--regardless of who wins) will get done.

I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.

[Williebee]

I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.

Perhaps that is the GOP game plan?

[Satori1977]

Originally Posted by DeleyanLee

I've thought about your post overnight and what strikes me is that you expected one single man to do all the work to make the changes the government seriously needs to happen. The president doesn't have that much power, by design. He has to work with the Congress, who are the ones who actually pass the laws. When that branch is stacked against him, what the president's trying to do won't get done.

It's why I'm more interested in what's happening in Congress this year. As men (party agendas aside), I see them as about equal in what they're going to be able to do. Depending on what happens in Congress determines how much the president's agenda (and promises--regardless of who wins) will get done.

I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.

Exactly this. Congress is the big problem. I wish we could kick them all out, change how they are able to do their job, and just start over. Make them work for the American people for a change, instead of their own agendas and best interests.

[kaitie]

Originally Posted by DeleyanLee

I've thought about your post overnight and what strikes me is that you expected one single man to do all the work to make the changes the government seriously needs to happen. The president doesn't have that much power, by design. He has to work with the Congress, who are the ones who actually pass the laws. When that branch is stacked against him, what the president's trying to do won't get done.

It's why I'm more interested in what's happening in Congress this year. As men (party agendas aside), I see them as about equal in what they're going to be able to do. Depending on what happens in Congress determines how much the president's agenda (and promises--regardless of who wins) will get done.

I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.

I didn't expect him to change everything himself, and certainly not overnight. What I had hoped, though, was that rather than bowing down and becoming what he was trying to change, he would be able to stay above the fray and use that to his advantage.

I admit a lot of it isn't his fault. I understand. A part of me even agrees. But a bigger part finds it really, really sad and a sign that we probably can't do anything about it.

I'm feeling less than optimistic about society lately. That colors my views. It seems like anytime there is hope for something to be done, it all just falls back into the old broken ways of doing things. I'm not sure what's going to happen when the Supreme Court knocks down the health care bill, considering that's one of the biggest accomplishments he'd managed (I'm a fan of a single-payer system, but I was thankful to have SOMETHING go through). It's just a matter of wait and see at this point.

I'm hoping that he'll manage to get more done in his second term without all the reelection stuff to worry about, and at the same time anytime I think about that, I get really frustrated that the president can be so hamstrung by the election process that things can't get done.