Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 01:53:35 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Torie, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?  (Read 974 times)
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22200
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.09

View Profile
« on: July 13, 2012, 05:17:38 pm »
Ignore

I was thinking today about why I chose to support Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson.

I definitely agree with Johnson more than I agree with Romney, so why support Romney? Well, because Romney has a better chance of winning.

I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't. In the end, the economy is what matters most. I am of the belief that Romney would handle the economy better than Obama has/will. That's just me. Will Romney lower unemployment to 5%? Of course not. Will he eradicate the debt? No way. But would he better than another term of Obama? I think so.

So what makes you support one candidate over another? Do you factor in all of their positions or do you preference certain issues over others?
Logged


Also, it's so R-Money to unabashedly ruin a thousand dollar suit with ice water and laugh about it.
GM Napoleon
Napoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15413


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2012, 05:46:35 pm »
Ignore

Gary Johnson is Candidate C or D.

 
I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.

That isn't true.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 05:48:30 pm by President Napoleon »Logged

When I was in the third grade, I thought that I was Jewish
Because I could count, my nose was big, and I kept my bank account fullish
I told my mom, tears blurring my vision
He said, "Mort, you've loved God since before circumcision"
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2012, 05:55:45 pm »
Ignore

Presidents govern on social issues all the time.

The reasons why Obama wouldn't get weed legalized are-
a. he doesn't want to, and
b. even if he did, he couldn't get legislation to do that passed through the Congress.
Logged
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22200
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2012, 08:51:56 pm »
Ignore

I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.

That isn't true.

How so?



Presidents govern on social issues all the time.

The reasons why Obama wouldn't get weed legalized are-
a. he doesn't want to, and
b. even if he did, he couldn't get legislation to do that passed through the Congress.

He did have a super-majority for two years...
Logged


Also, it's so R-Money to unabashedly ruin a thousand dollar suit with ice water and laugh about it.
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2508
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2012, 09:29:18 pm »
Ignore


I figure my process of deciding who to vote for goes something like this:


1.  Which candidates, based on their stances on issues, envision a future for society closer to
     what I favor than if the prevailing order were to be left completely intact for another term?

2.  Among those candidates, which can I most confidentially voice public support for without a
     nagging suspicion my pick lacks an inspiring vision, decent principles, or reformist strategy?

3.  To choose from the remaining folks, or in lieu of using the previous step due to uncertainty,
     which candidate fancies (personally, or via party membership) the ideology most like mine?

4.  If it is too hard to pick one person in the previous step, endorse the one most likely to win.


Applying this to the 2012 Presidential race, step one would rule out Romney (R), Goode (C), and every independent I have any knowledge about seeking the presidency. Gary Johnson (L), Barack Obama (D), and most other left-of-centre picks with any name recognition at all make it to step two, but only Rocky Anderson (J), Stewart Alexander (S), and Jill Stein (G) make it to step three. The latter two of them were difficult for me to choose from. Stein seemed slightly closer after some time to ruminate over it, and that preference became solidly reinforced in the weeks afterward because of her stronger campaign.

On a related note, I only seriously consider candidates with party nominations after the primaries.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 09:33:03 pm by Redalgo »Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2012, 11:02:12 pm »
Ignore

I was thinking today about why I chose to support Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson.

I definitely agree with Johnson more than I agree with Romney, so why support Romney? Well, because Romney has a better chance of winning.

I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't. In the end, the economy is what matters most. I am of the belief that Romney would handle the economy better than Obama has/will. That's just me. Will Romney lower unemployment to 5%? Of course not. Will he eradicate the debt? No way. But would he better than another term of Obama? I think so.

So what makes you support one candidate over another? Do you factor in all of their positions or do you preference certain issues over others?
Can Romney make gay marriage or pot legal?
Logged
FBF
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3939
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2012, 11:09:21 pm »
Ignore

I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.

That isn't true.

How so?


Remeber how he helped repeal DADT, and is still blocking the war on women?


Presidents govern on social issues all the time.

The reasons why Obama wouldn't get weed legalized are-
a. he doesn't want to, and
b. even if he did, he couldn't get legislation to do that passed through the Congress.

He did have a super-majority for two years...

That's more of a state issue.  Besides, a lot of Dems in congress don't support the legalization of pot (even those who aren't blue dogs).  Tongue
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 11:19:06 pm by Fuzzybigfoot »Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2012, 11:44:57 pm »
Ignore

drug control is an economic issue (II)
Logged
Robb the Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30633
France


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2012, 04:46:11 am »
Ignore

I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.

That isn't true.

How so?

Even with majorities in both houses, modifying the constitution (in whatever direction) is near-impossible nowadays. Bush didn't stand a chance at passing a constitutional ban, nor did Obama stand a chance as passing an amendment forcing States to recognize gay marriage.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13831
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2012, 06:33:29 am »
Ignore

My god, my head hurts.  Either it's the alcohol induced hangover, or this thread just really really f***ing sucks!

Seriously Jake dude, are you reading your arguments?  I mean, are you physically scrolling down on the page and looking at your arguments bro?

I was thinking today about why I chose to support Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson.

I definitely agree with Johnson more than I agree with Romney, so why support Romney? Well, because Romney has a better chance of winning.

First of all, might I ask what is even the point of bringing this up?  Most everyone by now has accepted the fact that you want to vote for the rabid flip-flopper because (like all liars and politicians do) he has the better chance of winning than say the principled not at all contradictory Gary Johnson, whose claim to fame was being Governor of a Mountain West state with (at the time) 1.5-1.8 million people.  You have repeatedly staken the claim to wanting to go with Romney due to his statistically higher chances of winning.
Big freaking whoop.  Again what is the point of repeat this bullschnooze?

Quote from: JakeMatthews
I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.
WHAT THE FREAKING HELL DO YOU THINK THE JUDICIAL BRANCH DOES?  Sit around and play pool all day and smoke crack rock?  Why do you think that branch of government exists?  Too look pretty in freaking black robes and for men to fantasize about what 70 year old women look like naked?  My god man!  I'll just stop right there due to the sickening images coming into my head!
Anyway, now that I've calmed down, the reason Bush didn't go all the way with the gay (pardon the rhyming scheme) marriage ban or overturning Roe v. Wade is because he simply didn't have the ability to do so.  I mean, this is the Republican Party of 2004 you are talking about, not the one of 2012.  A party that still had quite a few pro-choice pro-gay moderates still left in it.  Sure, one could argue that the Republicans would have enough conservatives in the caucus to push for either of these two bills, but that disregards the pragmatism of an earlier era.  The Republican Party needs more than the South and Great Plains to have a majority in the House of Representatives and in the US Senate, a fact that is obviously not dawning on some people.  Anyway, I could imagine a number of Republicans, even a few conservative ones, being kind of iffy on either voting for a gay marriage ban or overturning Roe v. Wade.  The electorate could perceive either as being far far reaching and it could have dangerous consequences for Republicans in swing districts who care mostly about economics and could give a whiff about social issues like gay marriage or abortion.
Now onto Obama:
Quote from: JakeMatthews
He did have a super-majority for two years..
Yeah, if you consider 256 House seats and barely having 60 Senate seats (made possible by the defection of one Arlen Specter) to be a "super-majority" for less than 180 days.
Anyways, it's ridiculous to assume that a party with a large white union base would be overly thrilled about passing either marijuana legalization or gay marriage.  Obama would quickly be painted as a radical by many of his own party members and he would likely face a primary challenge that wouldn't win against him, but weaken him enough in the long run to make defeat in the general pretty much a done deal.  Marijuana legalization, as much of a "you've got to be crazy to be opposed to it" issue it is, would be even less likely to pass through Congress, considering how much pandering Democrats do towards the "soccer mom" crowd.
Both issues are popular with Americans, however Congress is too much ruled by special interests to make it happen.
And I say this as somebody who supports drug legalization and gay marriage.
The problem here is that, Americans on average tend to not like the social issues boat being rocked.  Bush or Obama pushing for social issue legislation on the national level would've been rocking the boat being rocked quite a bit.

Quote from: Jake Matthews
In the end, the economy is what matters most. I am of the belief that Romney would handle the economy better than Obama has/will. That's just me. Will Romney lower unemployment to 5%? Of course not. Will he eradicate the debt? No way. But would he better than another term of Obama? I think so.
And how would Romney handle the economy?

Because, given his record, I'm drawing blanks here.  Seriously, does this guy play lotto numbers with policy or something?  Were you even paying attention the past few years and have you even bothered to look at wikipedia to see how his principled campaign for Mass. Gov went?  Or how about his even more principled and not at all big spending liberal pro-universal healthcare term in office went?  Or how about his attempts to out liberal Ted Kennedy in 1994, insisting he was an Independent during Bush/Reagan?
How the hell am I supposed to know if he's going to operate like a communist or a libertarian?  Given his vicious record of blatant flip floppery (that keeps up the grand Massachusetts tradition nonetheless)?
.....Oh wait.  I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here as to why YOU think Romney is a good choice for President.  After all, Romney also seems to be of the mind "principles be damned!  Let's just get elected!"

I guess if I lived in Weimar Germany I would vote National Socialist.  After all, I disagree with like 98% of what they say, but hey at least they could operate the economy better than the Communists and have a chance to win, unlike the Conservative People's Party!

Yes, slippery slope.  And a bit a Godwin for you.  But necessary.

I hope you genuinely understand how dangerous this line of thought really is Jake.  Because, people who think like you do (aka "non-Democrat and non-Republican votes DON'T MATTER") are why it's gotten to the point where third party votes really don't matter anymore.  You know, I was thinking the other day that I'm a political apathetic, but the more I think about it people who vote "lessor of two evils" are the REAL APATHETICS.  Because, at least when I don't vote I'm doing it out of principle.

Just a closing thought for you.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 06:41:56 am by James Badass Monroe »Logged



23:19   Xahar   you're literally a white dude Mechaman
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21987
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2012, 07:37:12 am »
Ignore

Indeed.  Vote for the guy closest to your views.  To do anything less is just supporting the current rigged system.  I'm not ignorant enough (though I try) to think that the two parties are the exact same, the clearly aren't, but on the important issues, the issues that matter the most, they are, for the most part, the exact same.
Logged

Quote from:   Martha Gellhorn for The Atlantic 1961
The unique misfortune of the Palestinian refugees is that they are a weapon in what seems to be a permanent war...today, in the Middle East, you get a repeated sinking sensation about the Palestinian refugees: they are only a beginning, not an end. Their function is to hang around and be constantly useful as a goad. The ultimate aim is not such humane small potatoes as repatriating refugees.
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22200
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2012, 07:38:55 am »
Ignore

Mecha basically handed me my ass on a platter lol

WHAT THE FREAKING HELL DO YOU THINK THE JUDICIAL BRANCH DOES?  Sit around and play pool all day and smoke crack rock?

Although this seems pretty accurate.
Logged


Also, it's so R-Money to unabashedly ruin a thousand dollar suit with ice water and laugh about it.
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2012, 07:56:40 pm »
Ignore

For the record, Obama probably couldn't have even gotten a Freedom Of Choice Act passed (not impossible, but definitely improbable), let alone legalization of marijuana or same-sex marriage rights thanks to all the hardcore moderates.  Would I have wanted to see all those things pass?  Yes, but it just isn't that simple.  And we all saw what happened when the Republicans tried to pass the FMA back in '06.

But yeah, Mecha pretty much explained it best. Tongue
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 08:01:07 pm by Senator Scott »Logged
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22200
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2012, 07:58:24 pm »
Ignore

This thread blows.
Logged


Also, it's so R-Money to unabashedly ruin a thousand dollar suit with ice water and laugh about it.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38849
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2012, 08:08:35 pm »
Ignore

Obviously I'm not going to vote Republican, so I'll vote for whoever isn't the Republican.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2012, 08:36:25 pm »
Ignore

Obviously I'm not going to vote Republican, so I'll vote for whoever isn't the Republican.

there may well be a dozen candidates on the ballot who fit the criterion "not a Republican".
Logged
Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2012, 11:28:10 pm »
Ignore

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.
Logged

TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3637
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2012, 11:56:11 pm »
Ignore

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

That's easy for a Canadian to say. Tongue
Logged



Economic score: -6.26
Social score: -7.74
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8866
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2012, 07:11:45 am »
Ignore

You can vote for Johnson over Romney because who wins your state (PA) is pretty much decided already, so strategic voting doesn't mean anything.
Logged

Robb the Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30633
France


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 07:37:59 am »
Ignore

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

That's a prisoner's dilemma : the best option on a collective standpoint is for everybody to vote for their conviction. However, for a single individual who has a realistic notion of probabilities, switching to a slightly less liked candidate with much more chances to win is clearly profitable. The sum of individual preferences is what generate stable two-party systems. Since two parties constantly get more votes than everybody else, the single individual has no interest in voting for a smaller party, even though if taken as a whole voters might actually prefer minor parties.

The real problem, in the end, is the voting system.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Senator-elect Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13148
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 07:58:36 am »
Ignore

Having said that, voting to avoid an opposing candidate is not exactly uncommon.

Personally, my vote at the next Federal election will be to AVOID my vote going to the Liberal candidate, and I know a lot of progressive voters will be doing the same. It's certainly not the ideal, but it's just as legitimate.

But to vote for someone who you genuinely dislike, just because he's more likely to win... makes you a little bit of a coward... Wink
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31364
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2012, 07:59:03 am »
Ignore

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

So you'd want me to vote Liberal in a really tight NDP-Tory marginal where the Liberals poll 1-3%?
Logged

Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6907
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2012, 10:33:57 am »
Ignore

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

So you'd want me to vote Liberal in a really tight NDP-Tory marginal where the Liberals poll 1-3%?

Sure. Stay true to your convictions. Why choose the "lesser of the two evils" when you have someone you fully agree with, or agree with the most?
Logged

R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22200
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.09

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2012, 10:45:42 am »
Ignore

You can vote for Johnson over Romney because who wins your state (PA) is pretty much decided already, so strategic voting doesn't mean anything.

I'm not even old enough to vote this time around Tongue By 2016, if I don't like the Dem or GOP nominee, I might vote Libertarian or Constitution.
Logged


Also, it's so R-Money to unabashedly ruin a thousand dollar suit with ice water and laugh about it.
АverroŽs Nix
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9878
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 10:57:19 am »
Ignore

You'll be a more effective advocate for the positions that are most important to you if you work through one of the major parties.

Voting, however, is an extremely superficial and low-impact form of political engagement. Your vote in a Presidential election is insignificant. (And it's anonymous!) Vote for the candidate with whom you are most comfortable.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines