[nitrovieques]

i was watching the people being interviewed about their choice for president and some would say Hillary and some Obama....but when asked why they would vote for them i have noticed that they said, "because i think they are most electable.." and thinking back i remember hearing this from many others around me. now correct me if im wrong.....but popularity is not what the competition is about is it?......i thought its about what is right and what is needed....WOW...."well i don't really like that guy but he is electable so im gonna vote for him"....uhhh...NO. vote for what is right and who represents our unwaivering American detication to personal freedom...no matter how outnumbered you are. well thats the way i see it. even if i don't have a prospect on election day i'll do a write in, but i'll be damn if im gonna vote for a commie....

later

 

[Flash-hider]

I think people have been conditioned to think in that frame of mind. You also have heard don't, waste your vote on this or that candidate, they can't get elected anyway.
We're deciding elections on symbolism over substance.

 

[slowfire]

I look at it like this, it's whoever the canidate is that would be more able to lead this country, regardless of party, that person is worthy of my vote..........yes worthy, I did not miswrite that.

And from what I have seen, during all the debates, and speeches, not one of these assclowns that are running would even make a decent dog catcher in some backwater hilljack town.

my choice, NOBODY IN 08

 

[nitrovieques]

you may be on to something there....NOBODY in O8.....perhaps that would be like just letting go on the model plane...they tend to straighten themselves out when the novice lets go of the controles.....hmmmm...not a bad idea at all....after all...WE run this country....might do us some good for them to take about 8 years off!

 

[Colorado1919]

It's the same as saying I'm going to vote for the lesser of three evils. All three are antigun and with an antigun congress might be bad for us the next eight years.

 

[comanderfritz]

3? what happened to huckabee.

 

[Bill S]

.. "because i think they are most electable.." and thinking back i remember hearing this from many others around me. now correct me if im wrong.....but popularity is not what the competition is about is it....

"Electable" isn't the same as "popular". "Electable" simply means they have a good chance of winning against the opposition. As it happens, I see three potentially electable candidates out there - McCain, Hillary and Obama. And none of them are popular with me.

 

[nitrovieques]

correct

true, i meant that in the since that if they are more popular among the voters....they are, well.....more electable....but if there is one standing for the right thing...then it shouldn't matter how "electable" he is....he should get the vote....what im saying is that "electability" should not enter this...its about what they believe and stand for.

 

[tomt]

nobody in 08

i like that slow-nobody in 08, sounds sorta catchy !! i always thought there should be a "C" none of the above !!! jmo. tomt

 

[Bill S]

....but if there is one standing for the right thing...then it shouldn't matter how "electable" he is....he should get the vote....what im saying is that "electability" should not enter this...its about what they believe and stand for.

I understand what you are saying, but it's basically what supporters of Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul said. They voted for people they beileved stood for the "right thing" - and threw their votes away in the process. Each of those candidates stood for "the right thing" (at least according to their supporters), were popular with a lot of people, and were totally unelectable.

While voting for the person who most closely stands for your beliefs is good for the heart, it is sometimes a strategically bad move. Sometimes you stand a better chance of winning if you support a candidate who can win your more important battles against serious opposition than if you only vote for the person who ineffectively supports all of your views.

 

[Lucky#13]

The "electability" argument was always used to push a McCain or Giuliani type who was far from what the base wanted, but was rammed down our throats on the false premise that we needed to move center to gain enough votes to win the general election. But recent history has proved that to be flat wrong. Bush won on a pretty conservative platform, to the point where he was hammered in the press for being some kind of zealot extremist. Too bad he didn't live up to that! Rather, he proved so liberal in many ways he has done great damage to the Republican party, though big spending incumbents in Congress helped a lot too.

But there is a great deal of truth to Bill S's Ross Perot illustration. As bad as McCain is, he is not much worse than what we have been dealing with for the past 8 years. Amnesty? No worse than Bush. Guns? Not provably worse, but that is still open. Taxes? Well, depends on if you believe him now or think he'll act as he has in the past. More social spending? Well, we've been getting that from Bush, so no worse there. The one key think about McCain is the type of Justices he will appoint. If Hillary or Obama get in, we will probably get two more Ginsberg types and that could turn the Supreme Court's authority to devastating proportions for the rest of our lives. At least we have a chance of another couple of Alito's or Roberts's under McCain. That is something we all have to consider, when thinking about not voting at all or going 3rd party. I don't even think of it now as a "lesser of two evils" thing as much as an anything-but-a-liberal-demoncrat kind of vote. I think the damage McCain can do, long term, is far less than the alternatives. I don't like the choices any more than the rest of you, but with what we have left, how can we best be served? Does voting for no one REALLY move us forward? Or does it just help our worst enemies?

I made the Perot mistake in 92. I won't do that again. He was as deceptive in the end as the party regulars. He sabotaged his own campaign by dropping out and returning later. I understood, too late, that this was a calculated move. He was afraid he might actually win, I believe.