A Question for Conservatives: For whom should I vote in the upcoming Texas primary?
 

As a conservative, I am having a time reconciling myself to John McCain. I don't like him. I find him to be opportunistic, egotistical, and untrustworthy. Still, when push comes to shove, in the general election, I will cast my vote for him because he is obviously better than anyone the Dems will put forward.

In the meantime, I plan to cast a tactical vote in the primary for either Hillary or Obama.

Should I pull the lever for Hillary, hoping that she will be easiest to beat in November? Or shall I vote for the empty-suit Obama, knowing that if he gets elected he'll not be able to get any of his destructive ideas passed into law?

I am leaning toward Hillary, because her negatives are through the roof-- the perfect Democrat candidate, methinks.

Vote for the empty-suit Obama.

Although I probably shouldn't be answering the question, since I'm not a conservative.

You posted this in a public forum, so you invited this upon yourself...

Doing what you're contemplating is one of the worst, most mean-spirited, unethical, and downright disrespectful things an individual voter could possibly do in an election.

Is it legal? Sure. Does it happen? Of course. Does that mean it's OK? NO.

It's one thing to hope that the Democratic voters choose the candidate you feel most confident about defeating, but by actively working against whoever you decide is most likely to defeat McCain in the general election, you're actively working against the candidate you implicitly admit may be the candidate most citizens prefer. The level of self-importance and superiority required to take such action is...staggering. It is completely disrespectful to your fellow citizens, and to the idea of democracy in general.

Even contemplating such things simply infuriates me.

And since I know the likely response will be "Democratic voters do it too"...I think they're equally reprehensible.

How defeatist.

I guess the conservative faction really is out of gas. And if that is the case, you, as conservative, are screwed either way.

Thanks for actually answering my question, ratbastid. May I ask why I should go for the empty suit?

Because he wants Obama to win.

This is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't.

I agree Obama is an empty suite. If he were an identical white man he would have been left in the dust by Hilary, and he really has nothing to offer this country needs unless 'hope' and 'change' are more than buzzwords.

Hilary of course is Hilary.

If you are going to go this route, I would vote on which one of these two you would rather see as president. There is a very strong chance that McCain will lose this, so think, 'which of these two socialists will help in the long run'?

Hilary would be the least damaging to the country. She will govern by polls.
Obama, being a nice sounding suite, is more of a wild card. If he tries to do what his voting record indicates, he will be the best ally the republicans could ask for, but who knows, he may just continue sounding good while doing nothing.

Personally I'd wash my hands of it and stay home playing video games.

Five points for Slytherin.

Talking point nonsense. Go to his website and read the PAGES AND PAGES of very specific policy. Some people just can't handle inspiration and HAVE to respond to it with cynicism. It's sad really, to think of what small lives such people must lead. Fortunately, this isn't an Obama thread, so that's all I'm going to say about it.

Please do that.

Quoted for fucking truth. Jesus christ.

Vote for Obama. It doesn't make much difference who the president is and I'd rather see and hear him for the next 4 years instead of Hillary. The Republicans would probably prefer to run against Hillary though.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule against open primaries for this very reason? I can no longer vote as an Independent in Washington State for that reason.

ASane, are you really saying that you despise your candidate but are willing to do something unethical to cause him to win? Seriously?

Did I insult your new cult of personality? I'm sorry. Just another socialist, who if white would be NO where, and we all know that.

Obama is more than a black man's empty suit. You might have realized this by now if you were to hear him speak, or take ratbastid's advice.

Obama is Obama, Hillary is Hillary, and McCain is McCain. Of course. What are you trying to say? I'm really not sure, because you've called two of them socialists. That would be like calling McCain a fascist, making Romney a kind of Lord Vader.

Of course he is, but his race is why he is where he is. I've read his blueprint for change or whatever he calls it, and guess what, of course it sounds all nice and good and all the problems will end. All hail Obama because we have words that says he will slay the dragons, right the wrongs, and pay for it somehow with other peoples money as he raises taxes through the roof to do so. I personally am really looking forward to paying double the social security tax I'm currently paying.


It should be obvious. Hilary is not a wild card, we don't need to explain her.

I don't quite know why democrats don't like the term 'socialist' its what they are. If someone can explain to me the difference between a European socialist and say Obama let me know, I'm still waiting for this explanation the last time a democrat had a hissy fit I called the socialists.

IF someone can tell me how they differ substantially PLEASE let me know.

This is the philosophy that I follow. If you're not voting for the best possible choice in your mind you're hurting the system IMO. Voting lesser of two evils or voting for the liberal candidate that can be beat isn't helping anyone. If you vote Hitlery how does that help a conservative get elected? All that does is put Mccain vs. Hillary. Mccain is not a conservative, but will continue to ruin the name of the GOP while acting as a conservative but implementing very left wing/moderate policies.

If you're a conservative, the only choice is Ron Paul. Mccain is already getting the nomination, but by voting for Paul you will represent a disenfranchised Republican voter which will help move the GOP back to conservative views. He's the only conservative left in the race.

From Social Liberalism:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...l-spectrum.png

Social liberalism [i.e. Modern liberalism in the United States] versus social democracy
The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong scepticism for capitalism, which needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

Bear in mind that the American Democratic Party is not a purely social liberal party, as they have centrist and right-of-centre leanings. This is how they differ from their European counterparts.

You might be thinking of social democracy, which has its roots in socialism and Marxism. Think the NDP in Canada, the Labour Party in the U.K., and the Democratic Socialists of America in the U.S. But also bear in mind that some members of the Democrats are arguably social democrats (e.g. Dennis Kucinich). Most party members would consider themselves non-socialist, if not anti-socialist.

Again, calling a liberal (even with socially progressive ideals) a socialist is like calling a conservative a fascist. Don't fall into the trap of binary opposition. The world doesn't work that way.

I understand that, as a conservative, you disagree with some of the Democrats' social policies, but they aren't Marxists, and they aren't trying to start a revolution. They respect private property rights and other trappings of capitalism; no need to worry.

My general advice for elections is to vote for the person whom you think will handle the position in the best way. So in a presidential election, vote for the person whom you think will be the best president - and that is NOT necessarily the person who most agrees with your positions. The reason is that no one has any idea what will happen over the next four years, so the issues a presidential candidate runs on may have no relationship whatsoever to what the president, once elected, needs to do.

You don't have to go back any further than 2000 to see what I'm talking about. If Gore had become president, his presidency would have looked nothing at all like the presidency he was campaigning for in 2000. The world tossed the US President a curve ball. That certainly was the case with Bush, who I believe had zero to say about terrorism in 2000 and IIRC next to nothing about foreign policy in general. The issues positions in that campaign had little to do with the reality that ensued.

So vote for the person, not the position. Abilities and character count for more than statements of positions. Positions are changeable and malleable based on circumstances, but basic character is not.

Socialist does not have to equal communist.

If you haven't gone to barackobama.com and read the PAGES AND PAGES of policy, you can't speak sensibly about whether he's an "empty suit". If you have, and you disagree with his PAGES AND PAGES of SPECIFIC policy, then we can talk. But if you haven't, and you say he's all flash and no substance, then you're being spoonfed far-right-echo-chamber content, and you're not thinking, and there's no talking with you.

(That's a generic "you", Ustwo, not YOU-you. ;) )

I find it surprising that anyone calling him/herself a conservative hopes to find stewardship in the republican party. If you were really a conservative you'd vote for ron paul, and if you were really paying attention you wouldn't vote in the republican primary at all because the republican candidate is essentially already decided.

Voting in the democratic primary for the reasons you cite kind of makes you a douche, which you know, you have every right to be.

Ustwo, Democrats aren't socialists. Democrats are centrists and leftists. If you're looking for socialism, look at me and Strange Famous. Look at the Labour Party in the UK up until about 1992. In Europe, most Democrats would be centrists and some would be conservative. Look to Europe for socialism. And health care that works.

Believe me. Socialists know their own kind immediately, just like black people.

I agree.

The Democratic Party has socialist elements. They also have centrist, and nearly conservative elements as well. But to call them purely socialist is erroneous because they do not uphold the core socialist ideals as do social democrats (and communists).

Read: The Democratic Party of America is not a social democratic party. A social democratic party is socialist. A party that espouses social liberalism are not socialists by definition. They are progressive and often, as is the case of the Democrats, centrist, and sometimes right of centre. Social liberals and social democrats often disagree on a number of issues because their ideals are quite different.

Trust me, you'd hate (and fear?) the Democrats far more than you do now if they were social democrats. If you want a taste of socialism in America, check out this platform (NSFW if you're a conservative :thumbsup: ).

OMG, socialist intellectual porn. :eek:

I'm not calling everyone in the Democratic party a socialist. There are some who don't have the disease. I am calling Obama, and Hilary (to a lessor extent) socialists.

Obama's blue print is all about creeping socialism, its about wealth redistribution via putative taxation, its about government control of industries, its about removing the tax burden on enough people so they don't have any reason not to vote for those who spend other peoples money freely.

It sounds great on paper, but its a fantasy land that will harm the economy and strength of the US after only a few years of it.

hey, bozo... it's HILLARY... two L's...

and i take offense to you bringing race into it...

A hissy fit, huh? Baraku explained the difference better than I could (Kudos to our northern neighbor)....but then again, progressive liberal Democrats here have been called socialists, communists, anti-American and anti-military appeasers of terrorism, and generally responsible for the downfall of the country.

What I have observed here at TFP since the last election (and most recently throughout this thread) is the meltdown of the conservative Republican members of our little slice of the world here.

What they are unwilling to recognize is that nearly every indicator points to more and mroe Americans leaning towards or embracing the Democratic ideals and principles and abandoning the Republican party.

The Pew Center does an annual poll on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes". From the latest (last March):
THe full report is worth reading. Other recent Gallup and ABC polls have similar findings. prefering the Democratic party over the Republican party by large majorities on every issue - from economy and taxes/spending to national security/terrorism and even family values.

So, Ustwo...call us what you want if it makes you feel better. I call us, including Barack Obama, the face of America :)

And, Alladin Sane...if you serious believe that voting Democrat is "tactical", then go for it. It certainly wont strengthen your position, your party, or the views you espouse.

Honestly if you are going to vote in the democratic primary vote for the candidate that you would like to be the candidate the most. You can try to make it easier for your candidate but really know one knows who would be easier to defeat. If you voted for one candidate you didn't like in order to make things easier for McCain and they end up beating Mc'cain you have no one to blame but yourself.


If you view the Democratic party as damaging then you should try to minimize the damage.

I believe white guilt and 'Wow hes black!' has a large part to do with his popularity.

You can take offense if you like, that doesn't change how I feel about it.

What is offensive? That I mentioned its a aid to him?

Would Oprah have done her bit for him were he white?

I think not.

I don't judge a mans character by the color of his skin, but I can see how that skin color may effect others perception of him.

And thank you for correcting my spelling, would you like to apply to be my secretary? I'm sure with Bill gone my time is limited anyways, but why did you just troll?

Actually, Obama is an unbelievably charismatic guy. I was amazed, the first time I saw him on TV, how he almost seems to leap out of the screen at you. He also has a non-combative personality, which is very much in contrast to Hillary Clinton. I disagree with Ustwo about how much his being black is a factor in his popularity; it's not a zero factor, but he'd be impressive as hell no matter what his ethnic background.

Obama will benefit from a long primary battle because, until the candidates are chosen and the national general election campaign begins, most of the electorate's mind is elsewhere. They won't have sustained exposure to Obama until late in the game. The problem with charisma is that its effect wears off over time. That means, if he is the candidate, the more compressed the general election campaign, the better for him. The longer the election campaign, the worse for him because a long stint in the public eye will diminish him just like it diminishes every other candidate - he won't be able to ride on the charisma alone, and he'll end up having scrutiny just like anyone else. That's not to say he couldn't win - it's just that the messianic fervor he seems to inspire won't last.

Thank you. You are a gentleman.

had i not thought myself excluded from posting by the op, i would have said something like loquitor did above--except that i am a more cynical fellow (too much machiavelli in my head maybe)--so how exactly do you go about imagining that you know "the character"--that dimension of someone that "does not change" (?? are you serious?) from the 24/7 marketing of an *image* tailored to *imply* a character?

and do you really connect the devolution of the bush administration since 2001 to personal attributes of george w bush?
on what possible basis?

jg ballard was right about televised american democracy--it's paradoxical effect is to turn many spectators into ultra-monarchists--the legitimacy of the order is a function of the person of the Leader--which can be derived by staring long and hard at the king's spectral body. it is very very strange.

Roachboy, part of it is that I prefer someone with a record that shows how s/he has been tested and used his/her judgment. Let me give you an example, using someone who is no longer running for President. As I've mentioned before, I live in NYC. In 1993 I was certain that if David Dinkins were re-elected there would be no NYC four years on. That was the very first time I ever donated money to a political campaign, and I donated it to Giuliani. From my perspective, Giuliani's first term was an amazing success. I happily voted for him for re-election - whereupon he promptly became a raving lunatic, and remained a lunatic until 9/11/01, when he suddenly became a giant again. But no sooner did the shock wore off than he became a lunatic again, proposing that he remain mayor past the end of his term. My conclusion about Giuliani was this: he is a terrific crisis manager and leader. But if there is no crisis, he is so activist and driven that he starts creating crises and doing crazy things just to keep his outsized personality satisfied. As NYC mayor that meant some disturbing actual and attempted breaches of civil liberties. But there are limits to how authoritarian a mere mayor can be; after all, the biggest weapon a mayor has is the police dept. But Giuliani would have been a disaster as President precisely because there would have been much less institutional constraint on his authoritarian tendencies. So - even though on a lot of issues I agreed with him (pro-choice, pro-gay, economic-growth-oriented) - I could never support him for president, precisely because of character issues.

And yes, I think the course of the Bush administration has been a direct result of GWB's character, both his strengths and weaknesses - which in some cases are the same attributes. He is an object lesson of why we shouldn't keep the presidency in families - there is too much family baggage that gets imported into the equation. GWB spent way too much time trying to avoid being his father, and he's not a flexible enough thinker to see the pitfalls of following his instincts.

This does have implications for a Hillary presidency. But she is a much more disciplined person and a much more flexible thinker than GWB. I happen to admire her quite a bit, but she will need to actively combat the tendency (which likely will be prevalent among her retinue) to think of a Hillary presidency as a Clinton restoration. It can't be.

Really? This sure sounds like you are.
Your own words right there, saying 'democrats are socialists'.
What's wrong, scared of losing your purpose as a troll here at TFP?
Ask Oprah, no one can answer that but her, any answer is just an opinion and those are like assholes, everybody has one.

loquitor:

i think the characteristics of the bus administration have derived more from the composition of the administration as a whole than from the personal characteristics of cowboy george himself--whom i do not know personally, and whom i suspect that you don't know either. this is perhaps a bit to the side of the topic here--but i just find it curious.

interesting points on guiliani, though. thinking about that one.

43 year old McCain falls in love with a 25 year old from a "mobbed up" family, serves his wife with divorce papers, leaves her and his 4 kids and moves to AZ with new wife. Accepts VP position in new father-in-law's "mobbed up" beer distributorship, but is bored and accepts financial and "mobbed up" polictical onnections network support from mob soldier/ex-con father-in-law, and runs for congress, then for senator.... Wife inherits all of father's underworld financial gains, and today, McCain is 7th wealthiest member of congress, and his wife is worth $200 million plus...definitely a "man of the people"....I've asked before...when does the stench of McCain's "dirty money", get de-odorized, was it when the last person "hit", to first make it all possible, and then cover it all up", ceased to stink up the place?

....yeah, bingo!, McCain is obviously better than anyone of the Dems.....

Vote for Huckabee, send McCain a message. Try to stop him from getting the nomination prior to the convention.

roachboy, the composition of the GWB administration was determined by GWB and was an extension of him. No, I don't know him personally - there are only two politicians I know personally - but after all this time I think I have a pretty good handle on him. Part of the education a citizen is supposed to do is a bit of due diligence on the people who are running. It will never be perfect, but still it's important. And what I see about Bush is a lack of flexibility in his thinking coupled with an inability to communicate that, in combination, are deadly. You've been watching him for as long as I have - is that a misreading of the man?

Last I checked, our economy and strength were not exactly in top form... anyway, carry on.

Not exactly horrible either by any stretch, the only place I've seen the effects of a 'bad' economy is on TV when people talk about a coming recession. In the mean time I'm fighting for parking spots trying to shop for anything in my area.

But regardless, even if the economy were poor it doesn't mean you feed it a shit sandwich of increased taxes to make it better.

What do you expect from a guy at the bottom of his class at Anapolis who almost got kicked out for discipline problems. And he's apparently not THAT good of a pilot if he got shot down....

That said, he is a good politician. And I use that word with negative connotations in mind.

I'm afraid the nomination is McCain's already. There is no stopping him at this point.
Thanks for sticking to the OP.

Its pretty much a given, if the Clinton organized crime syndicate gets elected back into office they will be almost certainly be hamstrung by scandal early on.

Vote Hillary.

I must admit this does make Billary an attractive choice. Thanks.

Not nearly as attractive as watching the Republican meltdown continue.

One of our more enlightened members here who has resorted to red baiting and playing the race card.

Another has visions of crime syndicates that only exist in his head.

Others are planning their moves to Canada.

And the OP who would rather throw away his vote and rationalize it by trying to get his fellow conservatives to convince him it would be "tactical."

Its gonna be a fun nine months!

Clintons crime is as real and as provable as GWB. How many here would say GWB belongs behind bars... and why is he not right now? Theres enough smoke in both their camps to say theres a fire, even if they cant be convited.

The Clintons are criminals through and through. No delusions here. If the Clintons get elected, the left will have zero credibility in calling shenanigans ever again, and if I were on your side, I would be very afraid of that. You'll give the right all the ammo they need to make a full recovery in a couple years.

No doubt the right is on a meltdown... but I wouldnt call any republican president in recent memory "right wing" or conservative at all and I dont see how anyone, by any stretch of the imagination could consider another Clinton presidency a win for the left. You'll be in full meltdown mode, along with the right.

Getting out of the economic nightmare the neo-cons have gotten us into won't be cheap. The cost of the war alone will be passed to many generations even if taxes are increased now. And from what I've read Obama's plan isn't to raise taxes "through the roof." But all politicians seem to claim they won't raise taxes, yet most end up doing so anyway. so who knows? What he says and what he does may be two completely different things.


Mmmm, ok?

I can't figure out why conservatives get all upset when people call them fascists. Considering the fubar Bush and Co. has sent the US into I'm willing to try a little European socialism, not a lot but a little. I used to know a Danish guy that worked on building roads in his younger years. One day over a game of cribbage he and I were talking about the difference between his country and mine. He asked me how the US usually decided which company built which highway or road. I told him it's my understanding that for the most part it goes to the lowest bidder. According to him in his country the bid goes to the company suppling the longest warranty, the government sets the price. He laughed and said "you want to drive on the road built by the lowest bidder or the guy that will stand by his work longer?"

I willing to try something else. Every time we've had a conservative in office that I can remember the debt's gone up and the governments gotten bigger and spent more. Bush Jr. is the first one I can remember that didn't go back on "no new taxes." He hasn't done shit to stop over spending, his solution has been to just borrow more money.

Exactly which Clinton crimes are provable.....particularly after the most expensive federal investigation of a president (and spouse) in history that found none....after spending over $40 million for the Starr investigation alone.

He lied to a jury about an affair.

If Hillary gets a elected we can look forward to someone taking Starr's place and four to eight more years of official "swift boating" investigation. Partly because the press is too stupid to see through it, or it just sells ads well. And partly because the Dems are so freaking weak they can't or won't fight back.

The same things going to happen to Obama if elected.

If after eight years of the scandals, one after the other, with a president whose set records for number of business partners and close colleagues in jail or fled the country... if you havnt been convinced, I seriously doubt I could. All the cronyism, the corruption Bush partakes in, Clinton did better.

But it is amusing to watch the cognitive dissonance at work on the left, when they vilify BushCo, and then put the Clintons up on a pedestal.

I am not a conservative and you all ready know my opinions about this thread from SecretMethod.

Vote Obama. Various reasons mentioned here. If you feel he is an empty suit, go for him. Personally, I don't like the way Hillary handles herself in debates. Why else? I want Obama to win.

So what you are saying is that you cant come up with any provable crimes committed by the Clintons other than having questionable friends. :thumbsup:

Certainly nothing that compares with violating FISA (spying on American citizens w/o a warrant), the Presidential Records Act (destroying millions of WH e-mails) and lying to the public to justify an invasion and 5+ year occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US.

Friends and cronies? I suspect if the government spent $40+ million investigating any political family, they would find questionable friends.

But nothing like the Bush family friends, the Saudi royal family.

BTW, I have never put the Clinton's on a pedestal. I just value a president who abides by his Constitutional oath.

Re-read my original post... I said there weren't provable crimes... if they were provable, the Clintons would be locked away but, theres enough smoke coming from that camp to warm the earth a good 20 degrees. Bill Clinton's blowjob was like tax evasion to Al Capone. It was what they tried to hang him because it had the best chance, but it wasnt what why the clintons were being investigated.

And on FISA I agree, that should be grounds enough to impeach bush, and all the congressmen who voted to retroactively give him and the telcos a get out of jail free card. Mrs. Clinton however, didnt bother to show up for that vote. And very few democrats in the senate took a stand against the bill as well.

I'm willing to bet, Mrs. Clinton is chomping at the bits to become president, and have the same kind of power just granted to the office, by way of the new FISA bill.

Your post number 44: Clintons crime is as real and as provable as GWB. So you're backtracking now.....cool!

The $40+ million investigation by the Republican Congress and an independent prosecutor found nothing else. Why is that so hard to accept.

There arent any provable crimes perpetrated by GWB. I think most of us would agree, he is corrupt as hell though, and by all appearances, pretty deserving of the title, "Criminal".

Edit: The point I was making wasnt that GWB and the Clintons could be tried in court today and be found guilty of a major crime.. Just the opposite, but both their shit stinks to high heaven.. lets not pretend the Clinton's smell like candy canes and roses. I can see where you might have easily misinterpreted what I said though.

If you want to see the left in exactly the same position the right is today, feeble and corrupt, and most likely going to lose big in the next election, then by all means vote for Hillary:) Which is why I suggested the OP he make has strategic vote for the Clinton co-presidency.

Obama did, though. Flew in special to vote against it. Here's his statement on it, which is one of the most statesmanlike things I've ever read:

Anyone who thinks Barack Obama is an "empty suite", to borrow Ustwo's quaint spelling (already got a job, Doc, don't want to be your secretary) should read this: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsid...-actually.html

Bottom line is, he's a really good guy. Smart, principled, disciplined, and oriented around cooperative approaches. The excellent campaign he's running is all the evidence I need of his capability as an executive. I just get more and more convinced that he's the right person to put in the White House.

I also appreciate Chris Dodd's filibuster... even if it I think it was in no way genuine, and more of a tactical maneuver to bolster his campaign.

I plan on voting for Ron Paul when the primaries gets around to Ohio in a few days. McCain is the 21st century's Bob Dole; he's a good guy who many people respect, but can't agree with on the issues.

I will first confess that I am an Obama supporter.

That said, I would point you towards the recent polls (though I don't remember where), that showed that Obama vs. McCain led to an Obama win by 10%, and Hillary vs. McCain led to a Hillary win by 4%. Then I will point you to an old election in Georgia, where Republican voters tactically voted for the worst Democratic candidate, who then won the general election in an upset.

So this is what I would suggest:

Don't vote for the worst candidate, because if they end up winning the thing, you'll regret it. Pick whomever you can stomach more.

This might surprise you, but many times voting for the guy with a chance is a sound voting policy. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%2...bility_theorem) shows that no voting system is completely representative of the community, for example if there are 100 voters and 3 candidates, A, B, and C, and the people feel this way:

30 people like A the best, then C, then B
25 people like C the best, then A, then B
25 people like B the best, then A, then C
20 people like B the best, then C, then A

Then B would win, even though 55 percent of people liked B the least, fewer than the 25% or 20% who liked A the least.
On the other hand, look at the people who liked C, and realize that even with their combined 25% and the 20% who like B better, they couldn't get half of the vote. But those 25% of people like A better than B. Now, either they can "vote their conscience" and end up with B, or vote for A, handing the victory to A.
Now maybe this goes against your principles but deal with it. Your vote for Ron Paul really IS a waste of a vote, just like the 5% who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and handed the victory to George Bush. What did they accomplish? Were they trying to make a statement? Because that statement was something along the lines of "I made a terrible mistake."

Latest polls I've seen show McCain V. Clinton or McCain V. Obama in a statistical ties:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

Both show the Dem with a slight lead but within the margin of error, statistical tie.

Anyone thinking the Dems are going to walk away with this election is in all likely hood kidding themselves.

Oh, they'll have a fight on their hands in the General, no question about it. The Dem candidate definitely can't coast.

I haven't been back here in a day or two. I am very, very pleased with the way this tread has, after several major detours, returned to my OP.

Here's an article on the subject of crossover voting:

Texas Republicans to Vote Democratic

Say they'll support Obama to vote against Hillary
By Jim Forsyth
Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Barack Obama is not only getting support from Democrats, several Texas Republicans say they will cross party lines and vote in the Democratic primary...just so they can vote against Hillary Clinton.

"I am really opposed to the Clintons extending their dynasty any further," Hayes Kennedy, a retired business executive living in San Antonio, told 1200 WOAI news.

Kennedy says he has not voted Democratic since casting a ballot for LBJ back in 1964, but a quirk in Texas election law allows him to vote for Obama this year. In Texas you don't have to register by party, and voters are eligible to vote in either party's primary.

"If there were still a race going on with Romney and all that, I would probably vote Republican in the primary," Kennedy said.

The Republican race is essentially settled, with John McCain the likely nominee.

"For all intents and purposes, that campaign is over," Kennedy said. "So all the more reason to vote against Hillary!"


Taking the opportunity to cast a vote against Hillary is attractive to me, but has no tactical value. Oh, well. Maybe I'll flip a coin. Or call my Democrat brother and vote for the candidate of his choice.

I think you have problems reading on the intertubes.

Calling members of the democratic party socialists is the same as calling members of the republican party libertarians. Obama is a socialist in the Western European mold. Saying socialist does not mean they are communists, and your failure to differentiate is telling as to what you are after. This is not red baiting, not even close, and either your knowledge of this sort of thing is grossly lacking or you are mischaracterizing on purpose.

Obama also is a black man, and while I know we are all suppose to pretend that race doesn't matter, you would have to be an idiot to not see it has played a part in the primary, in this case to Obama's advantage. We are allowed to talk about that or are we too PC to even mention race unless its in relation to Republicans being racist (despite the fact the Republican party is the party that has done just about everything for civil rights, and the democrats created welfare vote plantations).

So if this is your 'meltdown' then so be it.

I'm not big on accusations of race-card-playing. The guy's black. He actually is. His dad is from Africa. He's a black man. He's the first black candidate who's ever really had a shot. There's no question that his race has helped him (though not, I think, so much as his charisma, oratorship, record, and policies). I say: good for him.

And how many times in our history have we had a candidate that if not white and male wouldn't have stood a chance?

Kennedy could have said all he wanted, if he'd have been anything other then white and male no one would have taken him seriously.

My apologies to Alladin and other Repubs for my comment re, playing the race-card.

It was, and is, directed at one person who repeatedly, in nearly every thread in which Obama is discussed, leads with a comment:

If Obama wasnt black.....blah, blah, blah
If a white man said/did what Obama said/did.....blah blah

Of course, his race is a factor, just as Hillary's gender is a factor. They are historic figures in US election history. But those factors are not what are driving most voters.

I stand by how I characterized that particular poster, who also repeatedly refers to Democrat, in numerous threads, as "socialists", "communists" or "america-bashers"

I do thank him for his personal diagnosis rejecting my characterization of a Republican meltdown :thumbsup:

So be it. My opinion stands. :)

/end of rant (Mods can delete if I am over the line!)

I think that it stands to reason that john mccain, and mitt romney, the entire bush family, and probably ustwo wouldn't be where they were if they were black. I mean, as long as we aren't pussyfooting around the subject of race...

So everyone owes their position to their race. Woohoo.

Very few people break away from whatever social class they're born into, regardless of race. If you're born poor you'll likely die poor, likewise if you're wealthy. But historically (and to some degree even today I would argue) in the western world being white and male has (had) profound advantages.

From the article (I've pasted only the spreads):


RCP Average Obama +4.1
Reuters/Zogby Obama +7.0
USA Today/Gallup Obama +4.0
AP-Ipsos Obama +6.0
Time Obama +7.0
CNN Obama +8.0
Cook/RT Strategies Obama +2.0
ABC/Wash Post Obama +3.0
FOX News Obama +1.0
NPR McCain +1.0
Rasmussen Obama +4.0

Many of those are not statistical ties.

The Clinton ones are more balanced, but my point still stands. The choice is between two candidates who have a very legitimate chance of becoming President. In anyone's situation, I would vote for the one who I'm less afraid of becoming President.

I follow my own advice, too. I have been rooting for McCain because I would have been scared shitless if Huckabee or Romney won. I know McCain has the best shot of the three (a moot point, now), but I'd rather support a (relatively) sane opponent with a decent shot than an insane one, because what would happen if the true lunatic actually won?

What the polls haven't really focused on yet are the state-by-state projections....ie, electoral votes.

From what I have seen, there are likely to be more "red" states in play than "blue", in part because of very strong Senate candidates for open (currently Republican) seats. In two states that were barely red in '04 (by 1-2%), Colorado and New Mexico, the Democrat senate candidates are well ahead in the polls and could very easily go blue with either Clinton or Obama.

The Democratic senate candidate in Virginia for the open (Republican) seat is so far ahead, its all but over and that could help turn the state blue, more likely if its Obama than Clinton.

And there's always Florida and Ohio, both red in 04, Clinton might be more likely to carry Ohio and either can beat McCain in Florida, now that there is no longer a Bush in the governor's office.

On the flip side, there are very few blue states that might go red.

I wonder if the networks are going to stick with the blue and red pattern they used the last two elections. IIRC there was an alternating pattern they used based on who was in and who was out, and it worked out coincidentally that the GOP ended up red in both 2000 and 2004 (the "in" party being blue in 2000 and red in 2004, which would mean the "in" party should be blue in 2008). But that might be an image too ingrained to drop now.