'08 Obama Voters

Bebop said:

Don't mind at all- welcome. But your post does beg the question, what is Romney's grand vision, if he will get your vote? You one of those 3rd party voters? I have been in the past, so I won't hold it against you.

Click to expand...

Admittedly a problem. I don't see a viable 3rd party candidate in the race. I do like Gary Johnson, but the Libertarian party hasn't figured out how to win over enough voters to be taken seriously.
Like most on the right, Romney wasn't my first choice - they didn't run- but far better than Newt et al (I might have gone for Pawlenty). But Romney is who we have...
So my vote is a large part anti Obama and part acceptance of who won the GOP race.

Gregg said:

Admittedly a problem. I don't see a viable 3rd party candidate in the race. I do like Gary Johnson, but the Libertarian party hasn't figured out how to win over enough voters to be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

How are they ever supposed to win over enough voters if people like you who like them won't start voting for them because they haven't won over enough voters?

Chrissy said:

How are they ever supposed to win over enough voters if people like you who like them won't start voting for them because they haven't won over enough voters?

Click to expand...

When someone polls at 1%, there's simply no chance they will ever win, under any circumstances.

One needs to face reality.

Well, nobody polled me

Chrissy said:

Well, nobody polled me

Click to expand...

I was a fan of Jon Huntsman. I wouldn't have voted for him over Obama, since I actually like Obama, but I surely would have voted for him over, say, John Kerry.

He polled at what, 3%? Another lost cause.

rugcat said:

I was a fan of Jon Huntsman. I wouldn't have voted for him over Obama, since I actually like Obama, but I surely would have voted for him over, say, John Kerry.

He polled at what, 3%? Another lost cause.

Click to expand...

I was pulling for Huntsman, seriously. I was even set to register as a Republican (I'm one of those "independents" everyone seems to want to attract) so I could vote for him in the primary. He's experienced, articulate, didn't appear to jump off a cliff just because something went BANG, and has some serious foreign experience under his belt. When his campaign tanked so badly, that's when I lost all hope for the GOP.

If it had come down to Huntsman vs. Obama, I'm not sure who I'd've voted for, but I also knew that simply wasn't going to happen.

rugcat said:

When someone polls at 1%, there's simply no chance they will ever win, under any circumstances.

One needs to face reality.

Click to expand...

What's the tipping point where people start taking a third-party candidate seriously? He's polled at 7% recently both nationally and in New Hampshire, and in Arizona at 9%, IIRC.

I don't get the "wasting your vote" argument. I figure it's a wasted vote if I'm voting for somebody I really don't want in the office just to avoid somebody even worse. But even that argument's only valid in the swing states, where one's vote might actually mean something.

I think people who live in a solidly red or blue state could safely vote for any third-party candidate as a way of showing their displeasure with the two-party system. I'd even argue that anyone displeased with the current offerings who lives in a solid (non-swing) state and doesn't vote for a third party is one of those who are wasting their vote.

Don said:

What's the tipping point where people start taking a third-party candidate seriously? He's polled at 7% recently both nationally and in New Hampshire, and in Arizona at 9%, IIRC.

I don't get the "wasting your vote" argument. I figure it's a wasted vote if I'm voting for somebody I really don't want in the office just to avoid somebody even worse. But even that argument's only valid in the swing states, where one's vote might actually mean something.

I think people who live in a solidly red or blue state could safely vote for any third-party candidate as a way of showing their displeasure with the two-party system. I'd even argue that anyone displeased with the current offerings who lives in a solid (non-swing) state and doesn't vote for a third party is one of those who are wasting their vote.

Click to expand...

Oh Don. I couldn't agree more, and you said it so well. So true!!

Don said:

What's the tipping point where people start taking a third-party candidate seriously? He's polled at 7% recently both nationally and in New Hampshire, and in Arizona at 9%, IIRC.

I don't get the "wasting your vote" argument. I figure it's a wasted vote if I'm voting for somebody I really don't want in the office just to avoid somebody even worse. But even that argument's only valid in the swing states, where one's vote might actually mean something.

I think people who live in a solidly red or blue state could safely vote for any third-party candidate as a way of showing their displeasure with the two-party system. I'd even argue that anyone displeased with the current offerings who lives in a solid (non-swing) state and doesn't vote for a third party is one of those who are wasting their vote.

Click to expand...

It's not a waste of a vote in a solid state, you're right. But it certainly has the potential to be in a swing state.

Death Wizard said:

It's not a waste of a vote in a solid state, you're right. But it certainly has the potential to be in a swing state.

Click to expand...

The only real wasted vote is casting it for a candidate you couldn't give two shits about. Because, theoretically, you don't care which one of them wins your swing state!

If there was ever an election where both candidates disgusted me so badly that I couldn't care less which one of them won, I'd write in Macho Man Randy Savage before I'd cast a Republican or Democratic vote.

Florida is considered a swing state this year, aren't they?

Don said:

What's the tipping point where people start taking a third-party candidate seriously? He's polled at 7% recently both nationally and in New Hampshire, and in Arizona at 9%, IIRC.

Click to expand...

I don't buy the "wasting your vote" argument, either, but to be a viable candidate with a chance to win, a candidate had better be polling a lot more than 7%. Or 9%. He had better be polling similarly to what Ross Perot did in 1992. John Anderson in 1980 was doing a lot better than 7% at this point.

I can't ever think that a vote cast is a vote wasted.

Remembering '92 - the last election in which I resided in the US - Ross Perot had quite the mojo for a while. Then it got crazy: Stockdale got stage fright in his debate, Perot pulled out of the race for reasons I recall sounding like paranoia, then re-entered with weeks to go.

But I remember two recurring phrases that bemused me then, and still do:

- "I can't vote for a third-party candidate; it's a wasted vote."

- "I want to vote for someone who has a chance to win."

The second one, particularly, I found bizarre. This isn't WWII, and you're not Italy. It's an election! If they're going to win anyway, why do they need your vote? And is that what a vote is for?

I know that in a multiple-candidate race, splitting votes between two similar candidates gives the advantage to the third. This is why I like the Australian preferential voting system: number your votes in order of preference. Something similar could be used in a Presidential election, so that, say, if one candidate were eliminated, the votes would be redistributed to the second-preferred candidates.

So, yeah. Electoral college or not, I believe in voting for the candidate I prefer.

Thank you poet, quite well said.

Your vote is your voice.

Bird of Prey said:

Oh Don. I couldn't agree more, and you said it so well. So true!!

Click to expand...

Imagine the impact on the two party-system if third parties finished second in California and Texas, or even had a respectible showing. Not even the same party necessarily. CA is lost to the Reps, and TX to the Dems, right? Might as well vote for somebody they're really like to see in office.

Imagine Austin, TX going for the Green Party. Now that would shake up the establishment.

Don said:

Imagine the impact on the two party-system if third parties finished second in California and Texas, or even had a respectible showing. Not even the same party necessarily. CA is lost to the Reps, and TX to the Dems, right? Might as well vote for somebody they're really like to see in office.

Imagine Austin, TX going for the Green Party. Now that would shake up the establishment.

Click to expand...

It could happen in a legislative race in California, actually, now that we have a system in place where the top two candidates in the primary face off in the general election regardless of party affiliation.

clintl said:

I don't buy the "wasting your vote" argument, either, but to be a viable candidate with a chance to win, a candidate had better be polling a lot more than 7%. Or 9%. He had better be polling similarly to what Ross Perot did in 1992. John Anderson in 1980 was doing a lot better than 7% at this point.

Click to expand...

Libertarians face the third-party catch-22. It takes 15% in a number of national polls to get into the national debates. But many of the polls offer only Obama and Romney, and most of the legacy media don't find that a point worthy of discussion, so a lot of people never hear of him or his views. It's the same problem he had during the Republican debates. The polling companies kept leaving him off the list, and the media wasn't talking about him.

I think Johnson should run his next triathlon naked or something just to get his name in the news. Climbing Mount Everest again might just seem like a stunt, since his leg isn't healing from a break the way it was the first time he climbed it. He's still got three of the Seven Summits to go, maybe he could pick another one. He could hang glide back down. And he built the house he lives in.

Dude sounds like Chuck Norris, doesn't he?

Chrissy said:

How are they ever supposed to win over enough voters if people like you who like them won't start voting for them because they haven't won over enough voters?

Click to expand...

They'll win over enough voters when they have a message that can compete with the two major parties. Its up to the third parties to make themselves viable...not the voter.
The next President will be either Obama or Romney. I'd like my vote to help decide which one.

Don said:

Imagine the impact on the two party-system if third parties finished second in California and Texas, or even had a respectible showing. Not even the same party necessarily. CA is lost to the Reps, and TX to the Dems, right? Might as well vote for somebody they're really like to see in office.

Imagine Austin, TX going for the Green Party. Now that would shake up the establishment.

Click to expand...

Great point. Are the third parties doing this - going after the vote in solid GOP and Dem states? There have to be 30 or more of them.

I live in a swing state..my vote might decide the next President. Makes a difference to me.

In answer to the original question, no, he hasn't lost me. I'm satisfied with what I consider a solid performance. I didn't expect perfection.
I've lived under 13 presidents now, seven Democrats and six Republicans. Not one was without flaws. Not one was able to satisfy every citizen. Every one of them had to try to lead the country, some against extreme odds, and lead a political party at the same time. It's not a clean, idealistic business. It is, IMO, a constant juggling and balancing act, with dropped balls and other mishaps a foregone conclusion. If the main character, and his or her party, manages to keep in the air more than a few of the balls that represent my own political and ethical leanings, then I'm satisfied.
I'm very satisfied, under the circumstances, with the performance of President Obama in his first term. He was far from perfect. I assumed he would be. But he kept most of the balls in the air that I wanted kept there, and I hope he gets the opportunity to get some of the others up there next term. But I don't expect all of them in the air, certainly not immediately nor all at the same time.

Bebop said:

Has he lost you?

Click to expand...

No, he has not lost me. Not only am I okay with his performance in his first term (it's not perfect by any means, but it's not bad either, all things considered), I am also equal parts disgusted and terrified by the available alternatives. I will vote for Obama again this year, and I'll feel good about it.

The reality is that both the dem and the rep partisans want the voters to buy into the ‘wasted vote’ thinking. If they can keep the narrative that people are wasting their vote by voting for the person they really want, then both the dems and the reps are pretty secure in their position.

So, for the people that have a vested interest in keeping either the dems or the repubs as a dominant party in a two-party system, the narrative is a useful tool to marshal the independents and undecided either to the couch on election day, or to one of the candidates. I imagine that both parties would even have an understanding to cooperate with that.

Personally, I find the notion of voting for the lesser evil pretty repugnant. That’s a failure of democracy. It is never ever the voter’s fault for backing the candidate that matches their views, regardless of whether that vote means one less vote for the main contenders.

A vote for a Nader or a Perot, or a Johnson in this election, is an ethical vote if that vote is cast because the voter believes in the platform. A vote for a candidate that the voter needs to hold the nose over is an unethical vote. Arguing for a system where the voter needs to hold the nose is unethical.

rugcat said:

I was a fan of Jon Huntsman. I wouldn't have voted for him over Obama, since I actually like Obama, but I surely would have voted for him over, say, John Kerry.

He polled at what, 3%? Another lost cause.

Click to expand...

When the country is stable, the economy chugging along, and all right with the world, I say vote for the 3% runner. If a vote is a statement of belief then one should vote one's belief and maybe, it'll rise in the world and win over more voters in time.

But when we're in the disaster we're in now, and there are political factions attempting to tear the government to pieces, then votes are not about belief. They're about government. And sometimes they're about saving the country. That is when voting for the Johnsons or the Huntsmans or the Pauls is a waste of a vote.

That's my take on it.

For me Obama is the right choice for us now. But aside from that, Romney and the GOP are the wrong choices, in all contexts, as they stand now.

I don't see the question of wasted/not wasted votes as voting for the lesser evil. I see it thus: Your house has no fire suppression system and is equipped only with water buckets. You could have upgraded it over a period of many years, but you didn't. Now your house is on fire and the fire is spreading. What do you do? Do you sit down at the drawing board to draft up plans for a more integrated suppression system? Or do you haul buckets?

It's not a matter of caring for this candidate or that one. It's not a matter of lesser or greater evils. It's a matter of what will do the job that needs doing now.

Though, as a disclaimer, I should say that I really don't give a shit about any candidate of any party.

I only care about the country.