Who's Obama running against?

[CharlestonChad]

I really can't tell anymore. All anyone is talking about is Obama. Not McCain or Clinton. It's interesting. I guess the race issue might actually be growing roots, because the woman issue with Clinton isn't being discussed, and McCain's pro-war issue isn't either. All anyone even talks about anymore is Obama as a racist.

It's been pretty comical to read some of the posts on this forum. Everyone wants to talk about Wright and racism, yet I doubt too many on here actually thinks Obama is a racist. So the whole discussion is about a Rev. who may be racist, but obviously didn't instill racist values in Obama. I'm thinking that if the only dirt people have on Obama is that his Rev. was racist, and he has support from a few socialists, then he's in a good position to win the presidency. As with everything in political races, time heals wounds. The Obama smear tactics started wayyyyy too early and by November they will be irrelevant. Now if the Republicans could have waited until maybe July or August to start slinging mud, then they probably could have beaten him. Kerry was beat that way, with the swiftboat info.

So thank you Republicans. Your misguided political "strategery", with the sole purpose of making sure Hillary gets the nomination, will afford America the leadership of Barack Obama as our president for at least the next 4 years.

 

[BrianH]

I'm not bashing you, but I have a serious question. And don't be smart-alec about it...I'm sure there are many smart-alec answers that can come from this question--but I want an honest answer.


How can someone be a one party person.

What makes them pick one side and stay there?

(Not talking about this specific race)--How can someone vote strictly for their desired party, even if they hate the candidate?

If you do a study on political parties, you'll see that they've almost completely flipped around since the Civil War. THe South were blue states, and the North were Red states. The Southern Democrats were in support of the confederacy. Robert E. Lee was a Democrat.

I guess I'm just confused on how someone can be so caught up in their party. I see alot (from you) about Republican this, and republican that. I'll admit that my family and I are more conservative in values, but we vote for them man/woman. We voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole.

How can strict party loyalty benefit the country?

 

[Shogun]

(Not talking about this specific race)--How can someone vote strictly for their desired party, even if they hate the candidate?


thats a great question.. Im curious to see if republican support for mccain reflects an answer in 08.

 

[Ravi]

How can strict party loyalty benefit the country?

If you believe one party's interests serve the country overall better than the other party's interests it is possible to convince yourself to vote along party lines.

For instance, if civil rights is the most important issue, then it's easy to see why one would vote mainly for Democrats at this point in time.

 

[BrianH]

How can strict party loyalty benefit the country?

If you believe one party's interests serve the country overall better than the other party's interests it is possible to convince yourself to vote along party lines.

For instance, if civil rights is the most important issue, then it's easy to see why one would vote mainly for Democrats at this point in time.

I agree with you on that. But how do people vote for "their" party no matter what. My great-grandpa was a staunch republican, and my great-great uncle was a staunch Democrat. I would hear them argue for hours on end about which was better, and who was doing the right thing. (Sound Familiar?)

I can understand voting a certain way based on an issue that you support at that point in time. But what about those that support their party no matter what?

Shogun,

I agree with you, I'm debating voting for McCain myself. I'm more conservative, but I'm not loyal to one party. Especially if I don't agree with someone's policies. That's why I'm having trouble picking a candidate to vote for, because I find reasons why I don't care for any of them.

 

[Ravi]

I can understand voting a certain way based on an issue that you support at that point in time. But what about those that support their party no matter what?

My point in time comment was referring to the fact that Democrats are now more liberal than Republicans though it hasn't always been the case.

Support their party no matter what - I can only repeat myself. If you see one party as being for nation building, for a hugely incompetent federal government, willing to legislate from the bible instead of the constitution...it's very hard to vote for a member of that party. Sure, there are some party politicians that don't toe the party line, but they are few and far between.

I haven't voted for a Republican in about eight years because none of the ones I had the option to vote for had minds of their own that I could see. Though I'm having second thoughts about my gov.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I'm not bashing you, but I have a serious question. And don't be smart-alec about it...I'm sure there are many smart-alec answers that can come from this question--but I want an honest answer.


How can someone be a one party person.

What makes them pick one side and stay there?

(Not talking about this specific race)--How can someone vote strictly for their desired party, even if they hate the candidate?

If you do a study on political parties, you'll see that they've almost completely flipped around since the Civil War. THe South were blue states, and the North were Red states. The Southern Democrats were in support of the confederacy. Robert E. Lee was a Democrat.

I guess I'm just confused on how someone can be so caught up in their party. I see alot (from you) about Republican this, and republican that. I'll admit that my family and I are more conservative in values, but we vote for them man/woman. We voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole.

How can strict party loyalty benefit the country?

Fair question. I'm sure it appears I'm a straight ticket Democrat, but I'm actually not. I'm a strong supporter of Obama because I think he represents idealism and has the leadership skills to get the changes made that our country needs as we progress into the 21st century. I'm not a supporter of Clinton, and many other Democrats. I'm from SC and I like Mark Sanford.

I agree that a devout devotion to one party is not beneficial. But, I think you might be drawing the conclusion that Obama is favorable to me and others just because he is a Democrat. I haven't seen much of that in the people that I've discussed politics with. This may be due to a small sample size, but I've found that the straight ticket Democrats actually like Clinton. This, if a true generalization, might be because she was married to Bill Clinton, who is considered to be a good Democrat president. I personally do not see the leadership qualities in her, and I don't think she has the qualities to be a great president. She seems to have the drive to be president, but I think her drive is more focused on her success and not the nation's success.

If Clinton gets the nomination, although I don't like her all that much, I will likely end up voting for her. The War is the biggest issue to me, mostly because I feel like if we elect a pro-war/conflict president then I will continue to see my friends and maybe myself(if a draft comes back) being sent to die in wars that I can't justify.

 

[BrianH]

Fair enough...That's a good answer, the one I am looking for. Someone can only read so deep when it comes to message boards. I just wanted to get an answer regarding the way things "seem."

Party politics have always "burned" me up...

I've had people tell me down hear that they voted for Hillary, so that she would get the nomination and McCain would beat her. IMO that's voter fraud. (I know it doesn't mean anything legally, but it's still fraud in my eyes). If everyone voted for the person they wanted, we'd be better off, and if that candidate didn't make it, vote for the one you want second most.

This topic really gets to me, also our entirely screwed up and unfair election system.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I've had people tell me down hear that they voted for Hillary, so that she would get the nomination and McCain would beat her. IMO that's voter fraud. (I know it doesn't mean anything legally, but it's still fraud in my eyes). If everyone voted for the person they wanted, we'd be better off, and if that candidate didn't make it, vote for the one you want second most.

This topic really gets to me, also our entirely screwed up and unfair election system.

I've mentioned that before on this messageboard, because I've heard the EXACT same thing, and most of the republicans tried to call my observations a conspiracy theory.

Back in '04, I was hearing Savage and Limbaugh call for republicans to vote for Sharpton so that Bush could cruise to victory. I'm sure this isn't a new concept to either party, but it is very disenfranchising to hear that there are masses of voters out there who care more about making sure their vote goes to the winner, then they care about the management of our military and federal government.

 

[BrianH]

Yeah, I'm positive this isn't a one party practice, but it's wrong none the less.
Now it is true that anyone can vote the way they choose. But this just shows the discrepancies in our election system.

Here's some more questions.

Is it fair for states (voting in a national election) to have different methods of dividing up votes? I know the states have that right, but is it fair? Ex. Some states are winner take all states-even if the candidate wins by only %45 percent, they get all the delegates. Now say a different candidate wins a more populated state, but that state divides up it's delegates- the loser still gets a significant amount of delegates. How is this fair? And super-delegates are a whole other matter.

I understand that it's a state right. IMO I think it's fine on state elections, each state can do what they want, but when it's a national election, every state should be required to count their votes the same.

 

[CSM]

Yeah, I'm positive this isn't a one party practice, but it's wrong none the less.
Now it is true that anyone can vote the way they choose. But this just shows the discrepancies in our election system.

Here's some more questions.

Is it fair for states (voting in a national election) to have different methods of dividing up votes? I know the states have that right, but is it fair? Ex. Some states are winner take all states-even if the candidate wins by only %45 percent, they get all the delegates. Now say a different candidate wins a more populated state, but that state divides up it's delegates- the loser still gets a significant amount of delegates. How is this fair? And super-delegates are a whole other matter.

I understand that it's a state right. IMO I think it's fine on state elections, each state can do what they want, but when it's a national election, every state should be required to count their votes the same.

Unless the Constitution gets changed soon, the states will continue to hold elections how and when they want. Until we develop mind reading to a scientific exercise, people will vote for what ever motive they want as well. Such may indeed be flawed but I have yet to see a better process that allows for democratic expression.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Here's some more questions.

Is it fair for states (voting in a national election) to have different methods of dividing up votes? I know the states have that right, but is it fair? Ex. Some states are winner take all states-even if the candidate wins by only %45 percent, they get all the delegates. Now say a different candidate wins a more populated state, but that state divides up it's delegates- the loser still gets a significant amount of delegates. How is this fair? And super-delegates are a whole other matter.

I understand that it's a state right. IMO I think it's fine on state elections, each state can do what they want, but when it's a national election, every state should be required to count their votes the same.

The voters really only vote in primaries for show. The delegates exist to override the population's vote in the event that the people do not choose a candidate that can win the general election.

I think the popular vote is the only one that should count in the primaries and in the general election. I was taught the the electoral college is necessary just "because", yet I'm still waiting to meet a person who can give a solid argument for the necessity of it.

 

[BrianH]

Unless the Constitution gets changed soon, the states will continue to hold elections how and when they want. Until we develop mind reading to a scientific exercise, people will vote for what ever motive they want as well. Such may indeed be flawed but I have yet to see a better process that allows for democratic expression.

I agree about the Constitution, and states rights. I also agree about not being able to read peoples minds. My point is that it's dirty voting, ( which I realize can't be enforced). And my other point is that the election system is flawed in general.

When you vote for employee of the month, the most votes wins. Simple as that.

If each state splits up their votes unequally, then it's not an equal/fair election. It's not really a full representation IMO.

 

[Shogun]

I agree about the Constitution, and states rights. I also agree about not being able to read peoples minds. My point is that it's dirty voting, ( which I realize can't be enforced). And my other point is that the election system is flawed in general.

When you vote for employee of the month, the most votes wins. Simple as that.

If each state splits up their votes unequally, then it's not an equal/fair election. It's not really a full representation IMO.

yea.. well.. welcome to the post-scotus democrat argument circa 2000.

 

[Jeepers]

I for one am voting straight ticket dem. Republicans must pay for their blind partisanship. Sandford has been pretty ineffective as a governor if you ask me. I do like him as a person however. Granted the lawn jockeys at his plantation home have to go...

 

[Jeepers]

I for one am voting straight ticket dem. Republicans must pay for their blind partisanship. Sandford has been pretty ineffective as a governor if you ask me. I do like him as a person however. Granted the lawn jockeys at his plantation home have to go...

Correction.. I might be tempted to vote for Lindsey...