I don't think it's semantics. They are basically 'for' the same things. The only difference is the cult of personality and how a voter believes they would go about achieving these similar goals. I, along with many here, feel Obama would probably achieve more because of how he would go about them, but not voting for Clinton if she were the nominee when you would've voted for Obama is sort of juvenile. It's like 'my guy didn't win so I'm taking my ball and going home'. That's just how I feel about the whole thing. She may be your first choice, but would McCain be your second?

The above paragraph is aimed towards Obama fans.

I agree that it's somewhat silly to not vote for Clinton if you'd vote for Obama, however the voting populace doesnt exactly think in terms of rational thought. Think about it- our president is really decided by "swing" votes, which means he/she is elected by mainly stupid reasons.

Mostly my opinion of the government, I'd prefer to like the person running my government, but admittedly, it's not necessary (see Bill Clinton).

I don't know what to tell you about the commander of very bad stuff, except to say that if 911 and Katrina hadn't happened, I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about our country's situation as I do. I don't think we would be at war with Iraq. Even if we were, there was no way to tell that based on the campaign Bush ran in 2000. Hell, a great argument could be made that Gore was more hawkish. As for sexism, I don't think Bush fell to pieces, nor do I think Hillary would. I just think he messed up terribly and I don't trust Hillary to do better.

I view a policy as an "answer." Ok, so what do you do if you can't get your answer implemented? How do you solve the problem when you don't get your way?

Finally, I'm confused, is it about getting things done or voting for what you believe in, because they're sometimes different (often times?) But if it's mostly about getting things done,l I don't think Hillary can get things done, I trust the guy who talks about reaching across the aisle (admittedly, it's faith) and the guy who actually regularly did reach across the aisle then the woman who couldn't get her health care policy done when the dems controlled the white house and congress - and the reason she couldn't is because she was so ham-handed.

I've honestly never believed in the concept of a swing voter. I think it's just like Chris Rock's one bit: You know who you're going to vote for, you're just not going to tell me.

pacino wrote:I've honestly never believed in the concept of a swing voter. I think it's just like Chris Rock's one bit: You know who you're going to vote for, you're just not going to tell me.

trust me they exist

pacino wrote:I don't think it's semantics. They are basically 'for' the same things. The only difference is the cult of personality and how a voter believes they would go about achieving these similar goals. I, along with many here, feel Obama would probably achieve more because of how he would go about them, but not voting for Clinton if she were the nominee when you would've voted for Obama is sort of juvenile. It's like 'my guy didn't win so I'm taking my ball and going home'. That's just how I feel about the whole thing. She may be your first choice, but would McCain be your second?

The above paragraph is aimed towards Obama fans.

I don't think I'm being juvenile. I'm just not a party line person. Ultimately, if Hillary wins it all, I'll say, oh well, I guess it won't be so bad. But I bet you McCain fans said that about Bush in 2000. Oops.

philliesphhan wrote:You're the one who makes random accusations like saying someone is "sexist" if they don't think Hillary would make a good leader.
And you said 99% of the Obama camp will vote for Hillary. That sounds more like people vote along party lines rather than policy.

I do think that it is general sexism when someone says that they don't think Clinton would perform well under pressure. I haven't seen one instance where she has buckled (and she has faced a tremendous amount of pressure in her life). Seems like a false line of reasoning unless you are going for the woman angle.

Isn't party lines in tune with policy for the most part? I am not being on the democrats. But they certainly are more inline with what I believe than anyone else. Do I want my #1 candidate to be president? Sure. Does that mean I'd rather allow #7 to win over my #2?

I don't even think McCain would be a horrible option, and though he was the best of a bad lot on the Republican side. I agree with him on several things, but those are the things that make him somewhat of an outcast in his own party (jerseyhoya aside).

I just think that we do take the cult of personality a little far when we won't vote for an unlikeable candidate simply because we don't like them, even if we agree with them.

I like Huckabee, won't vote for him. I don't like Clinton, will vote for her if it comes to that.

pacino wrote:I don't think it's semantics. They are basically 'for' the same things. The only difference is the cult of personality and how a voter believes they would go about achieving these similar goals. I, along with many here, feel Obama would probably achieve more because of how he would go about them, but not voting for Clinton if she were the nominee when you would've voted for Obama is sort of juvenile. It's like 'my guy didn't win so I'm taking my ball and going home'. That's just how I feel about the whole thing. She may be your first choice, but would McCain be your second?

I think for a lot of people, more than enough to swing an election, it's that Obama is their first choice and McCain is their second. Otherwise we wouldn't have all these polls showing that Obama wins states that Clinton would not. It's possible that those numbers will move... I just haven't been convinced that there's *anything* the supposed geniuses of the Clinton campaign can do to change opinions of a woman with 100 percent name recognition and 16 high-profile years on the national stage.

More generally, what the Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans refuse to accept is that most people feel little to no loyalty to a political party. In that sense, Stu is right that they vote the person, not the policies. And I'm actually not sure this isn't rational: the person who occupies the presidency, her/his political skills and broad popularity and capacity to change people's minds (or coerce them to go along) has as much or more to do with whether some policy is enacted or not than any other single factor.

As for "juvenile," I don't necessarily think that's the case. For me, in New York, my vote absolutely won't matter; to co-opt a phrase, if Clinton can't win here, she can't win anywhere. So is it juvenile or principled for me to withhold my meaningless support from a candidate whose tactics I deplore, even though I agree with most of her policy positions?

That said, if I lived in PA or Ohio or Florida I'd probably hold my nose and vote for her. But even there I wouldn't call it "juvenile" so much as, I dunno, self-defeating.

People lie during polling. Often, they don't really even know what they are answering.

The Red Tornado wrote:

pacino wrote:I've honestly never believed in the concept of a swing voter. I think it's just like Chris Rock's one bit: You know who you're going to vote for, you're just not going to tell me.

trust me they exist

There are pure undecideds--people who really don't, even when pushed, have a preference one way or the other. But that number is pretty small, and they tend to vote at very low rates.

Depending on the poll, undecideds are often "leaning" one way or the other.

The dynamic in a primary is different from that in a general. First, primary voters tend to be more politically aware than general election voters. However, they do not have the party label to help them decide. In the general, probably about 80% of voters are party voters.

Juvenile might've been the wrong word, I just couldn't think of the word I wanted to write so I picked that one. Anyway, you(dajafi) make a good point, as always. I suppose, like jeff2sf basically implied, that voting for a politician is voting for the whole package: what they want to get done, what they actually get done, and how they go about it. I guess I can ultimately understand why one would not vote for someone they don't like, but I can't agree with it.

Disco Stu wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:You're the one who makes random accusations like saying someone is "sexist" if they don't think Hillary would make a good leader.
And you said 99% of the Obama camp will vote for Hillary. That sounds more like people vote along party lines rather than policy.

I do think that it is general sexism when someone says that they don't think Clinton would perform well under pressure.

Thinking someone would make a shitty president isn't sexism.

pacino wrote:I've honestly never believed in the concept of a swing voter. I think it's just like Chris Rock's one bit: You know who you're going to vote for, you're just not going to tell me.

That's Dave Chappelle.

philliesphhan wrote:

pacino wrote:I've honestly never believed in the concept of a swing voter. I think it's just like Chris Rock's one bit: You know who you're going to vote for, you're just not going to tell me.

That's Dave Chappelle.

You're right.

philliesphhan wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:You're the one who makes random accusations like saying someone is "sexist" if they don't think Hillary would make a good leader.
And you said 99% of the Obama camp will vote for Hillary. That sounds more like people vote along party lines rather than policy.

I do think that it is general sexism when someone says that they don't think Clinton would perform well under pressure.

Thinking someone would make a $#@! president isn't sexism.

Stu was talking about the, mostly male, people that won't vote for a woman simply because they feel she wouldn't be a 'strong leader' due to her having a vagina and no balls.

pacino wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:You're the one who makes random accusations like saying someone is "sexist" if they don't think Hillary would make a good leader.
And you said 99% of the Obama camp will vote for Hillary. That sounds more like people vote along party lines rather than policy.

I do think that it is general sexism when someone says that they don't think Clinton would perform well under pressure.

Thinking someone would make a $#@! president isn't sexism.

Stu was talking about the, mostly male, people that won't vote for a woman simply because they feel she wouldn't be a 'strong leader' due to her having a vagina and no balls.

True, but a lot of those people also fall under the "they're not white enough to be president" philosophy in regards to Obama

pacino wrote:Juvenile might've been the wrong word, I just couldn't think of the word I wanted to write so I picked that one. Anyway, you(dajafi) make a good point, as always. I suppose, like jeff2sf basically implied, that voting for a politician is voting for the whole package: what they want to get done, what they actually get done, and how they go about it. I guess I can ultimately understand why one would not vote for someone they don't like, but I can't agree with it.

Vulture can link to the studies about how appallingly low-information most voters are, and remain; the one I remember from '04 was that something like a quarter of Bush voters thought he was pro-choice. Basically most Americans know less about their voting choices than the toothpaste they buy.

This does work in the primaries too, though, just on a different scale. Earlier today I read a new charge the Clintons are making against Obama that struck me as among the most dumbassed things I've ever seen: he "plagiarized" a bit of a speech from Deval Patrick, the MA governor who's a friend and supporter of Obama. Patrick was asked about it, and said that he and Obama talk all the time and share ideas about politics and he wasn't at all bothered if Obama used a couple lines from his speech.

End of story? Not exactly. As I'm walking out of the gym tonight I look up at the monitor and see the banner "Clinton: Obama Plagiarized Speech" on CNN. Someone who just sees the screen, doesn't read the tubes for his political news and is a Democrat undecided between the two might just vote against the dirty thief...

Good thing you're not Ed Rendell. He got blasted for saying as much.

You know why I wouldn't vote for Hillary? Because she cried when she thought she was on the losing end of the primary, but not when her husband cheating on her.

On top of that is her dirtball tactics and let's not forget that her husband bombed a country to hell for the sole purpose of hoping people forgot that he was getting more ass in the white house than Pat Burrell in Center City.

Plus Hillary in the White House=united Republicans (split Dems? that depends on how hillary gets in though I suppose) which means that nothing will get done during her years anyway, so what's the point?