Another reason Obama won't win...

InfinityGoddess said:

It's just me, but if I thought the Democrats had a sure-fire loser on their ticket, I know I wouldn't have bothered.

Click to expand...

Why? If you show up at the polls and vote for Obama, and he doesn't win, how are you any worse off than you would be not voting at all?

I voted for Kucinich in the caucus. You think I believed HE was going to get the nomination?

It's just me, but if I thought the Democrats had a sure-fire loser on their ticket, I know I wouldn't have bothered.

Click to expand...

So, in other words, you want to cast your vote for a winner. If Obama was down by double digits, you wouldn't bother to cast your vote because you'd percieve him as a loser.

I'm reasonably sure that you'll understand that--after all your commentary about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan earlier in the campaign, this statement is so contradictory that it is truly frightening. Americans exercise their right to vote as a way to use their voices in the creation of our government. If you don't vote, you don't have a voice. Right?

God forbid that voice be centralized in a 'loser' though. *sigh* No wonder we can't get a viable third party candidate.

*goes back to editing*

tiny terror said:

And IG, I'm a little shocked that you would just sit out any election considering voting was a right women had to fight for. Seems odd to me.

Click to expand...

Susan B. Anthony was arrested, tried, and convicted of voting. All we have to do is show up.

maestrowork said:

Sample size notwithstanding, the "battleground" stats are interesting. That's the one that McCain is actually leading (albeit within margin of error). In a close race where the election might very well be determined by one of these battleground states (as it did in 2004, and 2000), I think Obama should pay attention.

Click to expand...

In the eleven "battleground states" (so identified by RCP), McCain currently leads for 77 electoral votes, Obama for 66. The closest poll numers in these states are in Ohio, Virginia and Florida, all big EV states currently with slender leads for McCain. Strategically, Obama needs to pick off one of those; if McCain wins all three, or manages to pick off one where Obama leads, say Pennsylvania or Michigan, he probably wins. But Obama's leads in those states are a big larger, and have remained pretty steady since the primary season. The numbers from Florida actually surprise me a little; I would have projected a bigger lead for McCain, and I still think he'll win there. Ohio and Virginia will be way interesting on election night.

Even with those three big states (Ohio, Virginia and Florida) in the McCain column, however, as of today's poll numbers, Obama still wins the electoral vote 273-265. In any event, this is shaping up as yet another single-state electoral victory for one or the other of them. And, just for speculation, it doesn't seem that the Palin pick has helped McCain anywhere in the EV count; continuing to make me wonder why he didn't pick Tim Pawlenty, and maybe pull Minnesota out of the Obama lineup.

The debate performances probably will be the most crucial aspect of the campaign from here forward, not unexpectedly. Speeches, rallies and ads will just be the standard campaign theater.

Of course, as we all know, the polls could be completely wrong everywhere, owing to conspiracies and lies and the position of Saturn within the Zodiac and god knows what other conjectural nonsense some are willing to postulate.

And, btw, I'm quite sure Obama is "paying attention". So is McCain. On that much, I'd say everybody here can agree . . . except maybe Takvah.

caw

mscelina said:

So, in other words, you want to cast your vote for a winner. If Obama was down by double digits, you wouldn't bother to cast your vote because you'd percieve him as a loser.

I'm reasonably sure that you'll understand that--after all your commentary about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan earlier in the campaign, this statement is so contradictory that it is truly frightening. Americans exercise their right to vote as a way to use their voices in the creation of our government. If you don't vote, you don't have a voice. Right?

God forbid that voice be centralized in a 'loser' though. *sigh* No wonder we can't get a viable third party candidate.

*goes back to editing*

Click to expand...

Don't forget our lovely, amazing electoral college! Vote blue in a red state or red in a blue state and your vote ain't worth squat.

Celia Cyanide said:

What? Why vote for Obama if you think he's not going to win? Maybe because you think it's the right thing to do? Because you want you and your demographic to be represented at the polls? Because if everyone who wanted Bush out of office but sat out the election in '04 because they thought it was useless had actually voted, Kerry would probably be president right now?

Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between voting for someone you don't think will win, and voting for someone who has not the slightest chance in hell of winning.

This question is always posed as if the choice is between someone who reflects your beliefs and someone who does not, but has a chance to win.

But it's more like this, at least for me. Candidate A reflects my beliefs 90% of the time, Candidate B reflects my beliefs 80% of the time. Candidate C reflects my beliefs 5% of the time.

If I and others like me vote for my favorite, candidate A, it assures Candidate C will win. If we vote for candidate B, it's likely he will win. To me, the choice is obvious.

If you truly despise both Obama and McCain, I would say that voting for a third (or fourth) party candidate is logical. But if Bob Barr is your hero, but McCain is certainly acceptable to you, I think you're making a mistake not to back McCain. Same goes for the left.

I personally don't have to make that kind of choice, since I find either Obama or McCain infinitely preferable to Nader, McKinney, or Barr.

kuwisdelu said:

Actually, in chess it's good etiquette to resign when you're in a clearly losing position. Playing all the way to a checkmate in an already-lost game is considered bad form.

Click to expand...

I forgot my political example.

See Hillary Clinton.

Carry on.

rugcat said:

I think there is a difference between voting for someone you don't think will win, and voting for someone who has not the slightest chance in hell of winning.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is, but either way, you are voting and participating in the political process. You are showing the candidates that you are part of their constituency, and your opinion should matter to them. If you stay home, you don't do any of those things.

kuwisdelu said:

Don't forget our lovely, amazing electoral college! Vote blue in a red state or red in a blue state and your vote ain't worth squat.

Click to expand...

Echo this, for emphasis. Meaning that 12-15 states, at the most, will be where the interest is, election night. At least for the Presidential race. Everybody should be mindful of the fact that there are 34 Senatorial races and 400-some Congressional races and assorted Governorship races and local legislative races and local bond/referendum issues, all over the place. Anybody eligible to vote who doesn't go to the polls at all is a moron, with no basis for further bitching about how bad our government is.

caw

Jimmyboy1 said:

I said it here when I first joined up, even before Sarah Palin came on board: We're going to witness the biggest political upset in the history of the USA.

Click to expand...

Is your planet part of the Oort Cloud, or just within the Kuiper belt?

Neither McCain nor Obama could claim winning an election that will be this close as some kind of "upset". An upset would have been Walter Mondale beating Ronald Reagan in 1984, or George McGovern beating Richard Nixon in 1972, or Barry Goldwater beating Lyndon Johnson in 1964. An upset this year would be Republicans taking control of the Senate. But this Presidential election has shaped up as close to 50-50 for two full years now.

But it is entertaining to hear from people so endearingly distanced from the gritty realities. Carry on.

caw

An upset would be a Huckabee/Colbert victory. Sweet, Doritos-y victory.

I've been kinda meh about who wins, since I figure either way, taxes will be higher, we'll have less freedom, and the dollar will be worth less in four years than today.

However, I think it's becoming apparent that most who vote for McCain are holding their nose to do so, and figure it'll be politics as usual if he gets elected.

Therefore, I'm starting to pull for Obama, primarily for the entertainment value when he fails to pull any rabbits out of his hat after six months in office. If McCain wins, Obama's supporters will never get over the fantasy that he's somehow different and will deliver the country from all evil.

Don said:

I've been kinda meh about who wins, since I figure either way, taxes will be higher, we'll have less freedom, and the dollar will be worth less in four years than today.

Click to expand...

The dollar will always be worth less in four years than it is today. It's called inflation, and except for the worst years of the Great Depression, inflation of currency has been a fact of our history. The real issue isn't whether it will be worth less, but whether the rate of that inflation remains within acceptable (and constructive) limits.

As for the other piece of rhetoric: "we'll have less freedom", I'm always amused at how often it gets used and how empty it always seems. What "freedoms" do you expect to lose? What "freedoms" do you not have now that you once did? And if you can identify those, how did government action bring their curtailment about?

caw

tiny terror said:

And IG, I'm a little shocked that you would just sit out any election considering voting was a right women had to fight for. Seems odd to me.

Click to expand...

The only reason I would is because third parties just aren't viable enough to take on Democratic and Republican forces. They simply serve as spoilers either way.

And for the record, I didn't vote in 2000 and I wasn't politically active then as I am now.

blacbird said:

The dollar will always be worth less in four years than it is today. It's called inflation, and except for the worst years of the Great Depression, inflation of currency has been a fact of our history. The real issue isn't whether it will be worth less, but whether the rate of that inflation remains within acceptable (and constructive) limits.

As for the other piece of rhetoric: "we'll have less freedom", I'm always amused at how often it gets used and how empty it always seems. What "freedoms" do you expect to lose? What "freedoms" do you not have now that you once did? And if you can identify those, how did government action bring their curtailment about?

caw

Click to expand...

Inflation is an increase in the money supply, and it's 'intrinsic' only in fiat money systems. That people have been hoodwinked into believing that steadily debasing their medium of exchange is healthy is one of the 'big lies' of government.

As for freedom -- what can you do today without being shackled by a huge list of regulations telling you what you can do and how to do it? Breathe? maybe. Take a walk? Perhaps, if you remember to carry doggie bags, stay off the grass, and walk only on the approved pathways.

Open a business, buy or sell property, form an organization, even protest what our government does? No friggin' way, and if you violate the regulations you'll pay a fine or find your freedom restricted to a cell until you do.

tiny terror said:

And IG, I'm a little shocked that you would just sit out any election considering voting was a right women had to fight for. Seems odd to me.

Click to expand...

Not to mention die for...

Mason said:

From the article:

"The survey was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling."

=====

I don't put a lot of stock into polls because of sample size issues, and the above. As I understand it, traditional telephone polling excludes mobile phones. I don't know what the numbers are nationally, but I know a lot of folks where I live don't have land lines anymore, so they wouldn't be accounted for in a poll.

Click to expand...

And then there are the ol' curmudgeons like me and Ol' Boy who, when annoyed by calls from the staff of politicians who are not encumbered by the 'Do Not Call' list, lie.

Don said:

Open a business, buy or sell property, form an organization, even protest what our government does? No friggin' way, and if you violate the regulations you'll pay a fine or find your freedom restricted to a cell until you do.

Click to expand...

I have done all of these things, each on more than one occasion, and have never had an iota of real "interference" from government. Now, if you want real "interference" in personal freedom, try going back to, say, 1968, and being a young male eligible for the draft, and see how that "freedom" feels. Try going back to, say, 1953, and see if you can obtain a copy of Tropic of Cancer for your own private reading, and see how that "freedom" feels. Try going back to, say, 1950, and being a black person in the American South, and try using a Whites Only bathroom, or getting food at a Whites Only restaurant, and see how that "freedom" feels. Try going back to, say, 1958, and purchase for investment some gold bullion, and see how that "freedom" feels.

Yeah, the good old days were just replete with freedoms we don't have now.

caw

Early voting. Apparently that's a factor no one's talking about. Virginia's just begun with that, and other states are following.

InfinityGoddess said:

The only reason I would is because third parties just aren't viable enough to take on Democratic and Republican forces. They simply serve as spoilers either way.

And for the record, I didn't vote in 2000 and I wasn't politically active then as I am now.

Click to expand...

Still, very odd to me that you would even consider not voting.

maestrowork said:

Democrat registration means crap if 42% of Clinton supporters are not going to vote for him. Worse, 20-some percent is voting FOR McCain! More Demcrats mean more votes for McCain in addition to his Republican base.

Remember, Clinton got 18 million votes. Can Obama bridge that gap and win since 87% of Republicans are going to vote McCain anyway? The economic crisis is not going to hurt McCain by his base. The uncertainty is the independents/undecided. They're not in Obama's bag either, especially if the Democrats themselves are not voting for Obama!

Click to expand...

Well, this is not entirely correct. Even if a portion of Dems is going to vote McCain, if the total numbers of Dems voting will be sufficient, total votes for Obama will be able to overcome the "For McCain Democratic votes". For example: say 20% of Dems and 100% Repubs are voting McCain, the rest vote Obama. If there are 90 repubs voting and a 100 Dems, McCain wins 110:80. If there are 90 Repubs and 200 Dems, however, Obama wins 160:130.

maestrowork said:

Those who consider or choose not to vote seem to be the loudest with their discontentment, too.

Click to expand...

And have the least right to be.



(love your avatar, though the one with sunglasses made me feel all summery)