Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:25:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?  (Read 3535 times)
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 13, 2012, 05:17:38 PM »

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
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2012, 05:46:35 PM »
« Edited: July 13, 2012, 05:48:30 PM by President Napoleon »

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.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2012, 05:55:45 PM »

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
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2012, 08:51:56 PM »

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
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2012, 09:29:18 PM »
« Edited: July 13, 2012, 09:33:03 PM by Redalgo »


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.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2012, 11:02:12 PM »

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
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2012, 11:09:21 PM »
« Edited: July 13, 2012, 11:19:06 PM by Fuzzybigfoot »

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
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2012, 11:44:57 PM »

drug control is an economic issue (II)
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2012, 04:46:11 AM »

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
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2012, 06:33:29 AM »
« Edited: July 14, 2012, 06:41:56 AM by James Badass Monroe »

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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
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.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2012, 07:37:12 AM »

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
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2012, 07:38:55 AM »

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
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2012, 07:56:40 PM »
« Edited: July 14, 2012, 08:01:07 PM by Senator Scott »

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
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2012, 07:58:24 PM »

This thread blows.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2012, 08:08:35 PM »

Obviously I'm not going to vote Republican, so I'll vote for whoever isn't the Republican.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2012, 08:36:25 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2012, 11:28:10 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2012, 11:56:11 PM »

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
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2012, 07:11:45 AM »

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
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2012, 07:37:59 AM »

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
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2012, 07:58:36 AM »

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
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,401
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2012, 07:59:03 AM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2012, 10:33:57 AM »

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
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,232
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2012, 10:45:42 AM »

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
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 11:39:13 AM »

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?

Why ? Because it is more useful.

Yours seems not to be a very rational way to view things.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 13 queries.