Why I am not Voting Obama

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, the obvious answer is that there is zero proof that it will bring about the results they want, and a tremendous chance that it will have the opposite effect.

Zero proof? How about American lefties in the 1850s voting Republican over Whig? How about English lefties in the 1920s voting Labor over Liberal? How about Canadian lefties in the 2000s voting New Democrat over Liberal, as ehBeth told us just a few pages ago? Republicans, Labor, and New Democrats all started out as third parties in a two-party systems. They all established themselves because their first voters were unafraid of throwing their vote away. This is far more than zero evidence. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

in order to capture a larger percentage of ACTUAL voters.

There you go again, pretending that right-of-the-Democrats voters are "actual voters" and left-of-the-Democrats voters are not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Protest votes do nothing to build this framework.

Yes they do. They inform enterprising politicians that there are votes to be gained by building such a framework.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This anger will not be assuaged by participating in a project that is specifically designed to produce a less Liberal candidate than the one who is out there.

<snip>

JPB, less so than Edgar, b/c to my knowledge she really would prefer a centrist over Obama.

IMNSHO, centrist would be more liberal than Obama.

Well, if you want words to mean whatever you want them to, I guess you can make any ol' claim you like.

Let me ask a question again, that I posed in my very first post in this topic: who is Obama being compared to, and found wanting? Specifically. Who out there would govern farther to the left than Obama has? I could go even further and say, who out there would have even a chance in hell of winning an election in America would do so? I can't name a single person off the top of my head, and I follow politics religiously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

I'll give an example re my last post. I yelled and screamed, via typing, at Slappy one time for making fun of midgets. I think he made clear in various episodes that he thinks anything can be dealt with, with humor, or that was my impression. Years have passed and I've come around to his view, though obviously I think there is a time and place element. His view was a mere twig in an expanse of forest out there about humor, but I remembered it and gradually came to agree.

I'll remember EdgarB's and JPB's stands too.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, the obvious answer is that there is zero proof that it will bring about the results they want, and a tremendous chance that it will have the opposite effect.

Zero proof? How about American lefties in the 1850s voting Republican over Whig? How about English lefties in the 1920s voting Labor over Liberal? How about Canadian lefties in the 2000s voting for the New Democrat rather than Liberal, as ehBeth told us just a few pages ago? Republicans, Labor, and New Democrats all started out as third parties in a two-party systems. They all established themselves because their first voters were unafraid of throwing their vote away. This may not be evidence you like, but it's far more than zero evidence.

Those parties established themselves not because voters were not afraid to 'throw their votes away,' they established themselves b/c people put in the hard time and effort to build a party structure so that these voters would even have a third party to vote for. Protest votes do not do that, they do nothing of the sort and lead to no similar result whatsoever.

I'll believe something will actually happen, 3rd-party wise, when I see groups of citizens actually doing a damn thing to make it happen - running for office on the state and local level on those third-party tickets, building a party framework and machine, and getting organized. Right now I see zero evidence of that happening.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
in order to capture a larger percentage of ACTUAL voters.

There you go again, pretending that right-of-the-Democrats voters are "actual voters" and left-of-the-Democrats voters are not.

If they don't vote, they are not actual voters. They are people who like to bitch and stay at home on election day. Nobody caters to them.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Protest votes do nothing to build this framework.

Yes they do. They inform enterprising politicians that there are votes to be gained by building such a framework.

[/quote]

That does nothing - how do you effectively determine who is a protest vote and who is simply another apathetic non-voter? You cannot.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Yes they do. They inform enterprising politicians that there are votes to be gained by building such a framework.

I agree that is true.
I worry though, about the minimum four years of a situation I would find hard to abide - and potentially a problem for our children's children (to me), in place because of these choices. I'd rather see a party build first.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If they don't vote, they are not actual voters. They are people who like to bitch and stay at home on election day. Nobody caters to them.

Edgar is considering third parties in addition to not voting.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That does nothing - how do you effectively determine who is a protest vote and who is simply another apathetic non-voter? You cannot.

For that, we have pollsters. Trickier statistics have been known to be compiled. For starters, a vote for whoever plays Nader in 2012 would be a protest vote, not a non-vote. Would you be okay with Edgar if he did that instead of staying home?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are making what is termed an 'underpants gnome' argument -

Step one: withhold your vote from the guy you agree with 60-70%.
Step two: ?????
Step three: get a candidate you agree with 90-95%!

Next up: The Chewbacca Defense.

0 Replies

The votes don't belong to the Democrats and Republicans, until they earn them. Up to that point, they are up for grabs by any candidates, including Nader and other third party efforts. As Mr Natural says, "You own nothing. None of it belongs to you."

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

If the Democratic party doesn't represent American liberals, they need to find a way to get representation outside of the Democratic party.

But you don't start at the Presidential level. That's like saying you'd like to learn to play the piano and you start by chomping down on some of that Mozart fellow's tunes. You, first, get your liberals elected at the State level, State Representative/Senator, or lower, school boards, town councils.....build from the precinct level up, create large swaths of voters as they see the light (that presumes that the folks elected from your new party actually know how to govern) If you don't do that you end up with the same result that every 3rd party candidate for President has ever gotten in America. Zilch.

Okay, not zilch. 6-15%. Whoopie. Then, nothing.

Ralph Nader, I will say it again, would have won for his party a great deal of influence in a Gore Presidency had he not been a complete narcissist and withheld his support for Al.

Press for the influence you want within the Democratic Party. Bring in lots of money to shore up your position. Hold people to the agreements they make with because of that influence. The Green Party would have been miles further if they learned to do that.

Hold to your unwavering ideals and concepts. Good luck with that.
Joe(the rest of us need to get things done.)Nation

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If they don't vote, they are not actual voters. They are people who like to bitch and stay at home on election day. Nobody caters to them.

Edgar is considering third parties in addition to not voting.

Not unless he's not telling the truth regarding his reasons for not voting or Obama - you don't knock someone for being too far to the left and then consider someone who is to their right, if that's your true reasoning.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That does nothing - how do you effectively determine who is a protest vote and who is simply another apathetic non-voter? You cannot.

For that, we have pollsters. Trickier statistics have been known to be compiled. For starters, a vote for whoever plays Nader in 2012 would be a protest vote, not a non-vote. Would you be okay with Edgar if he did that instead of staying home?

[/quote]

Of course! It's always better to vote than to not vote. But, if that person was verifiably to the right of Obama on issues (which is by far the most likely outcome) I would question the justification for doing so in terms of his stated initial principled objection to Obama. I would also point out that he would be voting for someone who had already displayed the organizational ability to get on the ballot and draw some measure of popular support. This is an infinitely better signal than simply not voting.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And how do you make yourself stand out by not voting?
60% of Voters don't vote.
What makes you think anybody's going to notice your extra-spicy liberal voters are staying home?

I am a medium salsa Liberal.

Joe(with some pepper flakes)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

What makes you think anybody's going to notice your extra-spicy liberal voters are staying home?

Maybe it's just me. But I seem to remember that after the 2008 elections, the newspapers abounded with reports on how the Obama campaign had been exceptional at mobilizing the extra-spicy liberal nonvoters of past elections. Somebody was able to notice those nonvoters in 2007, when they put Obama's campaign together. I'm confident that somebody will be able to notice them today.

Green salsa liberal here.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

They will notice them not voting for Obama.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
If the Democratic party doesn't represent American liberals, they need to find a way to get representation outside of the Democratic party.

But you don't start at the Presidential level. That's like saying you'd like to learn to play the piano and you start by chomping down on some of that Mozart fellow's tunes. You, first, get your liberals elected at the State level, State Representative/Senator, or lower, school boards, town councils.....build from the precinct level up, create large swaths of voters as they see the light (that presumes that the folks elected from your new party actually know how to govern)

In Canada we can start at the Mozart level - kind of have to as we don't have political affiliations below the provincial and federal levels - and the provincial and federal parties are separate entities - often with very different political positions.

You don't have to go through any other level to run for any party at the federal level.

If Canadians can figure Mozart out, I'm sure Americans can as well. Just takes desire.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

If Canadians can figure Mozart out, I'm sure Americans can as well. Just takes desire.

Amen, sistah.

So, now that we have this easy problem solved, how about a harder and more important one? Butter tarts---firm or runny? With or without raisins? Or should we think out of the cardbox altogether and switch to a five-pastry system?

0 Replies

I would love to see a 6 year term for the presidency, not 4 years.

Why you ask?

It would take a new prez 1-2 years to get the ball rolling, that leaves 3-4 years to do what they can to within their policy provisions.

With only a 4 year term, 1-2 years to get the ball rolling, and only one year of soild effort for policy's, as the 4th year is mainly used for campaigning to be re-elected.

One 6 year term per election, with no chance of re-election.

1 Reply

@Stugotz,

Problem is , S, he or she would be a lame duck from the minute he or she began the six year term.

ya?

Joe (Ya. )Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

That doesn't necessarily have to be an all bad thing.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Excellent point, Joe; most voters do not vote. I think the percentages are always below 50% of registered voters, and the GOP is out to reduce that number by making it harder for minorities to vote for lack of a picture ID.

There are a huge number of other issues other than edgar's position, and that's all this thread has addressed. If it's a democracy, edgar can do whatever he pleases with his vote. The politics of today has changed so dramatically from just a decade ago, I wouldn't be surprised if more people fail to vote in November for lack of interest or impact. Congress' performance rating is 20%? That's where we need to start; not the decision by one registered voter.

0 Replies

In the US, there is no constitutional right for citizens to vote in a presidential election.

0 Replies

Why I am not Voting Obama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know