“Don’t get me wrong, Jesus, I think you’re a great guy… really appreciate the miracles and eternal salvation and whatnot. But you’ve gotta do something to rein in your fans, or you’re gonna throw this thing to Satan…”
Phlosphr’s started yet another thread about Obama vs. Clinton. Why am I not surprised?
But, TLD, the response to your question is contained right there in your complaint. In Australia, when there is a federal election, the leaders of the two main parties have been decided not by anything even approaching a representative majority of the parties, but by a small group of politicians in an internal decision.
When the Labor Party in Australia last changed leadership in 2006, the vote that gave Kevin Rudd the job was decided 49 votes to 39. When Brendan Nelson defeated Malcolm Turnbull for the leadership of the Liberal Party, the votes was 45-42. How, then, is it reasonable to criticize the United States for having “only” 35 million people participate in the primaries, out of a voting-eligible population of about 200 million?
I realize that, because Australia operates under the Westminster system it’s difficult to make a direct comparison, but the fact is that the elections you are criticizing were primary elections and caucuses, whose only purpose was to decide who the party’s candidate will be in the general election.
Don’t get me wrong, i like Australia’s compulsory voting system. Despite the bleating of the “Don’t tell me what to do” crowd, i think it is good for democracy. I also think that there’s a lot to dislike about the American primary system, including the fact that it is so long (i think they should all be held on a single day).
But i don’t think it’s fair to criticize the primary system for being unrepresentative, or to argue that it makes a good case for compulsory voting.
Really? I mean, really? I mean, why the hell does your level of support for a candidate depend on the good manners of other supporters of that candidate?
You’re under no obligation to support Obama fully or even partially. I don’t know your politics. If you decide to support him grudgingly because of his health care proposals, or because you believe he lacks the experience to be a good international negotiator, or because you believe a country functions best with two energetically opposing political parties, or whatever, I can understand and respect that (though I disagree with it).
But withholding enthusiasm because you don’t like the attitude of some people who are enthusiastic? That seems like some sort of twisted variation on junior high school cliques, and strikes me as an exceedingly silly reason to withhold full support.
It’s possible to support something enthusiastically (such as my enthusiasm for D&D) and criticize fellow supporters (such as my criticism of stinky gamers). There’s no contradiction.
Daniel
On NPR today, a woman called in and said she would probably vote McCain even though she had been a lifelong Dem. Her reason? She didn’t like that the Obama campaign called her “Hillary” and not Senator Clinton. What a moron. Hillary encourages people to call her that-- that’s what her campaign signs say.
Absolutely. I added that deliberately by way of disclaimer. As I said, my post wasn’t so much a criticism as more an expression of culture shock.
I’ve always been a Clinton supporter. I have two reasons to vote for Obama which I’ve spelled out before. I wouldn’t really be enthused about him in any case and the attitude some have displayed quashes the little bit of it I might have.
To me it’s more like back when I went to camp and one of the activity choices was volleyball or fishing. (There were a couple others like riflery that really didn’t interest me at all. Riflery would be the McCain of those options.) I really, really wanted to play volleyball but the signup list was full before I could get to it and the only other option left was fishing. I did it because there weren’t any other choices but I really didn’t like it. Given the option I would have done nothing.
I hope not, I really hate the bears.
As I said, having other reasons, that totally makes sense. The dislike for his supporters making you “reconsider [your] voting choice and simply not marking the president part of the ballot at all” is what seems bizarre to me.
To continue your analogy: perhaps at camp the whole camp was voting on whether to do volleyball, fishing, or riflery. You wanted volleyball, but fishing would’ve been okay. There were a couple of jerks who really wanted to go fishing, along with some decent folks. You knew volleyball wouldn’t win. Are you telling me that, because of those asshole fishers (band name!), you’d consider refusing to vote, risking that riflery would be chosen?
That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Is it spite? Is it petulance? What would lead to considering a refusal to vote?
Daniel
I find it very, very hard to believe that Clinton’s supporters are not going to vote for Obama come November, no matter how hard they cry now. No one actually thinks they’ll vote for McCain or sit it out altogether, do they? It just ain’t gonna happen.
I spoke this weekend at length with a die-hard Clinton supporter who insisted that she could not ever vote for Obama, with a litany of offenses committed by him and his campaign (some with a kernel of truth, most bogus in my opinion).
I didn’t try to argue with her point by point. That would not have helped (and anyway she was armed with a battery of attack points I’d never heard of).
What I did try to do was show her a few things:
- There are Obama supporters who are not misogynist assholes like she thinks all are, and certainly Obama is not, either.
- That a McCain presidency would be a tremendous threat to many women’s causes she holds dear.
- That Obama has a profound ability to inspire people of different ideologies to a common cause, and that this alone is worth giving him a second look.
She reluctantly agreed on all counts. My feeling is that she, like many other “take my ball and go home” Clintonites, is operating on emotion: anger born out of frustration that her candidate lost, and lashing out to find fault with who won. Bashing Obama’s supporters, exaggerating negative stories about him: all are happening to help her feel better about her candidate losing. It’s a very human reaction.
Me feeling also is, that when November rolls around, she’ll realize that the best hope her ideals have is for Obama to be president. She’s not irrational, and she’s not a idiot. I think most Clinton supporters will be able to come around in the end.
Ed Rendell was just on NPR saying he thought Clinton was going to concede very shortly, and that he thought 95 to98% of Clinton supporters would eventually back Obama. He will urge them to, and he went on to say if Any democrat would turn out to vote McCain isn’t thinking about McCain’s continuation of Bushes appointments to the supreme court. I agree.
I rarely pit anyone, James Carville, and I think this is my first Clinton pitting…If you read my posts I’m not one to Bash blindly the Clinton supporters, I get frustrated like any other human being when people say and do things that reflect an ignorant thought process. Sure I may have needed to rephrase my Pant Suit comment, but I’m not calling Clinton the anti-christ.
It seems more than bizarre to me. It seems fucking stupid. I’d feel the same way if you replace Obama and Clinton with any politicians in the world BTW.
You should base you vote on how you feel about the candidate, their positions/policies and their personality.
I just don’t understand this kind of thinking. It seems very juvenile and ultimately self defeating. This isn’t American Idol for fuck sake, this is the future of your country at least the next 4 years and maybe 8.
Your decision should be based on something solid and the actions of some of the candidates supporters that is totally not in synch with the actions, words and policies of the actual candidate just seems stupid.
This is the man you are talking about, not some fucker slagging off people who support Hillary
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/03/transcript-obama-democratic-nomination-victory-speech/
BTW I’ve seen lots of comments about Obama supporters being OTT in their support for their candidate. Would you think that this alone would be a good reason to not support HC is she had of won?
Like I said, I’m not really that excited about him anyway. In that position it doesn’t take a lot to push it to apathy.
Not to mention that California is basically a lock for democrats right now anyway, so while I wouldn’t go to the point of voting McCain but I don’t know that I can really vote Obama. I probably will, but the attitudes expressed here and in numerous other threads make me wonder if I should.
I know you are normally quite rational in your comments, I only used the OP as an example since it was the most handy. No offense intended.
Many many republicans said they would never vote for McCain, but they’re coming around. Clinton supporters will also.
I gotcha - and I think your point is true. There are people [members of my own family] who are iffy on Obama. Personally, I know they would never vote McCain (mainly because of the his supreme court appointments) and voting Obama now is nearly out of the question, but I can sense these members of my family coming around sooner or later, and voting democratic come November.
I really try to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases, and I have seen things Obama supporters have done that make me wince, but I know they do not reflect his views or mine, and for me it’s good to remember we can’t pick our allies in this race.
That’s what will probably get me to vote Obama, he’s not McCain. Part of my lack of enthusiasm is that since the candidate I really was excited about and really wanted to win is now out I’m back to the prospect of voting for someone because he’s not the other guy. The only presidential election I’ve been eligible for where I could actually vote for someone instead of just against the other person was 96. I’m really tired of being in that position.
I’m one of the pantsuit-wearing old ladies who would once have been an enthusiastic Clinton supporter - if I was an American. I have been a feminist all my life, since before I had ever heard the word “feminist”. But over the course of this primary campaign, Ms. Clinton has utterly and completed erased any respect I ever had for her. She ran a poor campaign, and she lost.
Hillary: suck it up, buttercup.
If she cared about her party and her country, her speech last night would have been very different. She would have asked her supporters to transfer their allegiance to the man who is now the party’s nominee, she would have asked them to get out and work to elect Barack Obama, to defeat John McCain.
Instead she chose to spoil what should have been a great moment for Obama. I think his mind was as much on her lunatic ravings as it was on his own speech.
Well, he’ll give a great speech in Denver, and a great inauguration speech in January, I expect.
Vison - if I may. You sound like a woman I hold very dear and near to me…yep my mom. She’s a Pant-Suit woman and feminist to the core. She’s not going to change the spelling of woman to womyn but she’s very interested in keeping it real and making sure women get their due. She was an ardent supporter of Clinton until Clinton began behaving unfavorably. I would not have thought in a million years she would turn tail and vote Obama. She did it before I even asked her who she was voting for late last year.
She’s involved herself with many campaigns in the past, she’s not a women to be trifled with and she really hold her ideals close to her core. I respect that, and I respect anybody sticking by their candidate. This is the first time I am voting for a winner. I usually vote for the lesser of two evils. This time I got lucky, and ended up with the guy who won. 