# I pit undecided voters (like myself) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 10, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315 "2012-09-10T18:48:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/41 "2012-09-11T09:09:20Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Time to pay for the privilege. Yeah, it really sucks when people don’t pay for their privilege. I see the federal income tax like a turnstile; nobody should be allowed to just [ride through on the coattails of a fare-payer](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572402), regardless of what they _need_ at that particular moment and how difficult it is for them to pay. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/42 "2012-09-11T09:14:56Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > … I’m leaning toward Obama, but I still have trouble with the whole personal responsibility side of the equation. I mean, at what point do we all have to begin taking responsibility for our own success … > I just resent the notion that it’s all cut and dry and obvious. It’s not. > > Also, it’s not all sarcasm; I really do resent myself for not knowing by now. I agree that we can’t expect Average Citizen to guess the best way to proceed through economic difficulties. That’s why we choose leaders based on their priorities and philosophies. > [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > … What if we’re descending into a pattern of self-pity as a nation? What if policies reflect that? To me, these seem like odd questions unless you’ve fallen for Republican propaganda. Can you explain them? We need a hierarchical model of decision making. When applying for college I needed to decide whether to follow in my father’s footsteps as an engineer, or follow his suggestion and become an orthodontist. But ten years later I dressed in the morning and went to my engineering job – I didn’t dither about driving in the other direction and enrolling in orthodentistry school! What I’m hinting at, **A\_Nested\_Thorn** , is that you seem indecisive. Perhaps you should start a brain chemistry thread in IMHO and ask about dopamine supplements. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/43 "2012-09-11T11:48:25Z")
the people in this thread who have discarded the original subject of this thread and are prattling back and forth about their liberal/conservative attitudes and platitudes kind of underscore the OP’s point: the certitude and hostility exhibited by huge swaths of both parties is rather nauseating. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/44 "2012-09-11T13:03:00Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > I swear, there’s nothing worse than a self-righteous dumbass. Nailed it in one. OP, if you can’t figure it out between these two choices just remember: democracy isn’t for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/45 "2012-09-11T13:29:52Z")
Fuck, I can’t wait for the election to be over. That way we can start the 2016 campaign. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/46 "2012-09-11T13:40:55Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > the people in this thread who have discarded the original subject of this thread and are prattling back and forth about their liberal/conservative attitudes and platitudes kind of underscore the OP’s point: the certitude and hostility exhibited by huge swaths of both parties is rather nauseating. That’s a whole lot of words to say “Harrumph”, innit? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/47 "2012-09-11T13:42:44Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > the certitude and hostility exhibited by huge swaths of both parties is rather nauseating. What’s nauseating is using “some people were mean to me on the internet” as a valid excuse for being a dumbass about politics. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/48 "2012-09-11T14:30:35Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > That’s a whole lot of words to say “Harrumph”, innit? I didn’t get a [harrumph](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY) outta that guy! ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/49 "2012-09-11T14:38:06Z")
Give the governor a harumph! ---
**Author:** ![inedible\_knapsack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/49beb7/32.png) [@inedible\_knapsack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inedible_knapsack)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/50 "2012-09-11T15:53:52Z")
Start a thread with a difficult to defend argument…about politics…in the pit. Check. First, I want to say that I shouldn’t have included myself in the OP. I did that for humorous effect, and I suppose it looks like a desperate cry for attention. But since I am undecided and I know myself, that’s the angle I’m going to have to approach from anyway. Second, I want to reiterate my hypothesis: undecided voters aren’t universally idiots, and decided voters aren’t universally intelligent and well-informed. Just because you believe in the Democratic or Republican party platform doesn’t mean your party will be able to get anything done, or that they’ll even try to accomplish the goals stated in their candidacy. I don’t want to be a sucker. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > How about this: > > We’re responsible for our own success and failure, while at the same time we should acknowledge the social structures that have been put in place by our recent ancestors that make our success possible. We have roads and infrastructure and education and personal safety because as a _group of people together_ we decided that we should provide these things to ALL, for the betterment of EVERYONE. What we do with these advantages is then up to us, up to our own personal responsibility; some will squander them, while others will use them to succeed. > > Because we all did have a hand up due to these societal advantages, we therefore have a responsibility to future generations to maintain these social constructs that serve to benefit everyone that chooses to take advantage of them, and serve the country as a whole. > > While no political party is perfect (far from it), to my mind, the party that currently espouses a philosophy that is closest to the above is the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, particularly the latest iteration of the “Tea Bag” wing, seems to hold a position that is diametrically opposed to this; elimination of the social safety net, focusing _entirely_ on “do it yourself, don’t rely on others, that is Socialism and Socialism is self-evidently bad” seems to be their mantra. I agree with this up to a point. The Republican party is catering to the Tea Party loons entirely too much, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to consider them a viable option. However, Romney is/was a moderate governer, and who’s to say he won’t return to his principles once in office. It would be a good strategic move to try and bring his party back to sanity, assuming he was successful as president. His comments on Meet the Press indicate that he would like to retain elements of the ACA and close loopholes in the tax code for very wealthy people. He also said he would never raise taxes on the middle class. Most of the Republicans I know absolutely do not oppose taxpayer funded infrastructure, education, law enforcement, etc. The rational Republican party–may they rest in peace–simply believed that helping each other up shouldn’t be mandated by government in all cases, that given more freedom from government and taxes citizens would reach out to their fellow man and lift them up voluntarily. Maybe that’s a crazy philosophy, but I truly know people who demonstrate it daily, and who are concerned about the fiscal possibilities under continued Democratic leadership. > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Your vote is a tiny drop in a very large bucket, and whatever choice you make will make an microscopic difference to the final outcome. Er, unless you live in Ohio, or maybe Florida. Vote for whoever has the better haircut, if that’s your criteria. It’s not that big a deal. > > I’m voting (D) however. The (R)s simply don’t represent my interests, particularly on social issues. Point taken. My vote is largely useless because I live in a grossly Republican state. We don’t even see campaign adds on TV, it’s such a lost cause. But this isn’t about whether my vote is useless , it’s about whether undecided voters are morons and/or decided voters are on the ball. A goodly number of the decided voters I know think of politics like sports: just pick a team and cheer them to victory. They’ve never read the platform, and they’ve never considered the other side. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What part of Obama’s agenda causes you to think we might be awash in self-pity? The challenge for you is to present a clear, well-supported argument to show this concern of yours is rooted in something other than knee-jerk assumptions. > > I have found that a lot of undecideds are unable to do this. They make claims loaded with rhetoric and emotional appeals, but they are noticeably short on facts and specifics. And so it is no wonder why they can make up their minds about who to elect. The choice appears blurry to them because all they’re working with is blurry notions. I’m concerned about the “Fair Share” rhetoric and the general sense that Americans are being talked down to by Washington, as though we need the government to reduce our taxes and level the playing field for us to succeed. This is a losing long-term strategy, IMO. It’s a question of the degradation of the American spirit of independence. The implications of the Buffett Rule bare some serious thought. The super wealthy don’t have to stay here. They don’t have to pay higher taxes. I know it’s ridiculous to think they’ll leave en masse, but things get screwy when a lot of money is involved. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Any way you cut it, we need their tax dollars. > [@Enderw24](#): > > Fair enough answer. I’d caution that, if you sit around waiting for the best candidate or, as is the case above, the best economic policy, you’re never going to find your answer. Neither side is guaranteed to do all good, all the time. Neither side’s economic policy is guaranteed to produce the results you want…or even the results they want. > So in a search for the best it’s really just a short jump to voter apathy. “Why should I bother to vote? Both candidates suck.” Yeah, neither candidate’s perfect. But there’s a difference between the two. > > In fact, **I cannot think of another election where there’s been such a stark contrast between the two candidates.** [emphasis added] The two major political parties are almost complete polar opposites from one another just about every area that it’s really hard for most people who have made up their mind to figure out why others can’t. > > I’m not searching for the best. I know I’ll never find it. I’m searching for “the better,” and for me, that choice is easy. There’s something interesting here. You’re right, the candidates are vastly different… and I know of two people who are undecided because of this, both Republicans. Romney isn’t a great candidate. If he would moderate, the Tea Party didn’t have a stranglehold, and he had a personality I think more Pubs could get behind him. One of the people I know, a very well-educated man who earns will in the six figure range, may vote Dem for the first time in his life. He fears what is happening to his party, and Clinton bowled him over. This guy isn’t a monster, I promise. He’s a charitable and good man who–I think–most people would respect and admire. He’s undecided. The other person, another Republican, is undecided because he has come to recognize the importance of the ACA and the environmental stewardship, but he also sees that taking any significant steps on environmental policy is impossible while the economy is still struggling, and he believe the Republicans stand the best chance of improving the economy, and that the ACA could use some tweaks that the Republicans could make. > [@Acsenray](#): > > What significance does this have? We all know that nobody’s perfect, and we don’t expect anyone to be perfect. But in this case we have two choices whose differences are stark. > > I suppose it’s possible to say that the ways in which the candidates are different are irrelevant to you. That’s the position, that, just for the sake of an example, a hardcore communist or a Neo-Nazi would logically take, because neither candidate is anywhere close to either of those values. But if you’re somewhere close to the American center, then you shouldn’t have that problem. For me it’s about cutting through the election exaggerations and lies to see what lies in the gooey center. What is the elected president going to push for? Obama chose health care reform and largely depleted his political capital. What will Romney do? “Repeal and replace?” Will he bulldoze into getting the economy moving again and revising the tax code? > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I don’t get what’s so hard about this. Do you not have strong feelings on abortion, marriage equality, social programs, social security, the ACA, and military actions? I truly don’t understand how anyone can look at Obama and Romney and whine, “I just don’t know which to choose!” as they’re clearly and demonstrably different in terms of values and ideology. I have have strong positions about most of those things, but I’m pragmatic. I would like to base my vote on what I believe the candidate will actually accomplish. Mostly, I’m looking at the fiscal policies–who can start balancing the budget and continue the recovery most effectively, and who will be most likely to actually focus on that. The social issues are fodder for the election machine, IMO. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > One vote never matters, and if you don’t live in a swing state, then it’s no big deal anyway. It’s cathartic to vote, and I always do, but except in very local elections, nothing is going to be decided by one vote. I wouldn’t worry about it. Again, fair enough, but what if every voting American really considered the candidates through the lens of a skeptic, with the mindset that we should all be doing our damndest and our politicians should expect that, not talking down to us poor, poor losers “sitting around our kitchen table going over the bills?” The decisions wouldn’t be so simple, there would be more undecided voters later in the game, and maybe we wouldn’t be stuck in the position we’re in now. Good comedy comes from saying that undecided voters are arm-dragging idiots–heck, I laugh at the jokes–I just think it’s absurd to believe it’s true across the board. > [@Harborwolf](#): > > Or more apathetic. I refuse to become apathetic. This stuff matters, even if my vote is a drop in the bucket. > [@septimus](#): > > I agree that we can’t expect Average Citizen to guess the best way to proceed through economic difficulties. That’s why we choose leaders based on their priorities and philosophies. > > To me, these seem like odd questions unless you’ve fallen for Republican propaganda. Can you explain them? > > We need a hierarchical model of decision making. When applying for college I needed to decide whether to follow in my father’s footsteps as an engineer, or follow his suggestion and become an orthodontist. But ten years later I dressed in the morning and went to my engineering job – I didn’t dither about driving in the other direction and enrolling in orthodentistry school! > > What I’m hinting at, **A\_Nested\_Thorn** , is that you seem indecisive. Perhaps you should start a brain chemistry thread in IMHO and ask about dopamine supplements. 😃 The priority of the candidates is the question. Who will make the tough decisions and act on the right thing at the right time. Obama has behaved admirably, but he chose health care reform in the midst of a financial crisis. Not that he didn’t make headway on the financial front, he did, but perhaps he could’ve done more. I’ll look into that dopamine thing. Sounds pleasurable. > [@Acsenray](#): > > What’s nauseating is using “some people were mean to me on the internet” as a valid excuse for being a dumbass about politics. Yep, that’s what I said exactly. Good point. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/51 "2012-09-11T16:08:19Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > No, no, yes, meh, eek, and yes. The problem isn’t choosing who to like on each issue. It’s choosing what the sum of the scorecard is. So make a scorecard. I realize that most of us who have decided are ones who have been mentally making one for countless years already, but it shouldn’t be hard to take, for instance, your top 5 or 10 issues, weight them by importance, and see who matches up with what you believe in the most ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/52 "2012-09-11T16:11:33Z")
Yeah, you’re not convincing me that it’s anything but lazy to be undecided at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/53 "2012-09-11T16:16:22Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > Second, I want to reiterate my hypothesis: undecided voters aren’t universally idiots, and decided voters aren’t universally intelligent and well-informed. Just because you believe in the Democratic or Republican party platform doesn’t mean your party will be able to get anything done, or that they’ll even try to accomplish the goals stated in their candidacy. I don’t want to be a sucker. > : I will certainly agree with this. > [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > (Romney’s) comments on Meet the Press indicate that he would like to retain elements of the ACA and close loopholes in the tax code for very wealthy people. He also said he would never raise taxes on the middle class. You need to keep up with what Romney is [saying day to day.](http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/11/13803979-romney-reverses-course-again-on-health-care?lite) as it changes so fast. Yesterday (Sept 10) Romney appeared on a right-wing radio show to say: > [@](#): > > Well of course I’m going to repeal Obamacare. I’ve said that on the campaign trail, I think, every single day. Obamacare must be repealed – in its entirety. It’s bad policy, it’s bad law, and frankly, a $2 trillion entitlement we don’t want and we certainly can’t afford… Obamacare is a disaster in my opinion, and **has to be repealed entirely.** (bolding mine) And just what _specific_ loopholes in the tax code has Romney pledged to eliminate? (Answer: [No details whatsoever](http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12792-romney-ryan-mum-on-tax-loopholes)) So while I applaud your faith that Romney will actually do the right thing, while in fact saying just the opposite (and in fact saying multiple, mutually opposing things on different days), I have to wonder… are you just being a bit too hopeful? How do you know what Romney will _actually_ do? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/54 "2012-09-11T16:16:50Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > For me it’s about cutting through the election exaggerations and lies to see what lies in the gooey center. What is the elected president going to push for? Obama chose health care reform and largely depleted his political capital. What will Romney do? “Repeal and replace?” Will he bulldoze into getting the economy moving again and revising the tax code? This is the crux of why I think undecided voters must be fucking idiots/completely ignorant of anything having to do with politics. There’s just simply no meaningful issue that I can think of that one cannot make a strong prediction about which way a particular candidate will go. Even if you’re not sure which priorities a candidate will choose, you ought to be able to identify which positions are important to you and which way either candidate (or more importantly either party) would go on that issue. If there’s an issue that such is not clear, it’s got to be an exceedingly trivial issue, such that you’re an idiot for making it the focal point of your voting decision. And if you’re not clear which candidate would be better for the economy, you’ve simply fallen for a sales line, and are thus dismissably ignorant. One party’s entire economic mentality is based on an economic philosophy written on the back of a napkin that has led to nothing but poor outcomes in reality, whereas the other has reliably generated desirable outcomes. And what would a candidate “depleting his capital” have to do with your voting decisions? Using that as a decision making factor sounds like you’re a member of the punditry and are looking for who would make the best narrative, not who would be more likely to pursue an overall agenda in accord with your beliefs. By the way, I agree that just because someone is decided doesn’t mean that they are intelligent and informed - far from it. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/55 "2012-09-11T16:19:28Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > There’s something interesting here. You’re right, the candidates are vastly different… and I know of two people who are undecided because of this, both Republicans. Romney isn’t a great candidate. If he would moderate, the Tea Party didn’t have a stranglehold, and he had a personality I think more Pubs could get behind him. One of the people I know, a very well-educated man who earns will in the six figure range, may vote Dem for the first time in his life. He fears what is happening to his party, and Clinton bowled him over. This guy isn’t a monster, I promise. He’s a charitable and good man who–I think–most people would respect and admire. He’s undecided. > > The other person, another Republican, is undecided because he has come to recognize the importance of the ACA and the environmental stewardship, but he also sees that taking any significant steps on environmental policy is impossible while the economy is still struggling, and he believe the Republicans stand the best chance of improving the economy, and that the ACA could use some tweaks that the Republicans could make. Which leads me to believe that most undecideds aren’t REALLY undecided. They’re Republicans that hate what the Republican party currently is, but haven’t yet convinced themselves to vote Democratic because…bleh, it’s the Democractic party, and you don’t vote for _them_. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/56 "2012-09-11T16:31:17Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > I agree with this up to a point. The Republican party is catering to the Tea Party loons entirely too much, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to consider them a viable option. However, Romney is/was a moderate governer, and who’s to say he won’t return to his principles once in office. It would be a good strategic move to try and bring his party back to sanity, assuming he was successful as president. His comments on Meet the Press indicate that he would like to retain elements of the ACA and close loopholes in the tax code for very wealthy people. He also said he would never raise taxes on the middle class. > > Most of the Republicans I know absolutely do not oppose taxpayer funded infrastructure, education, law enforcement, etc. The rational Republican party–may they rest in peace–simply believed that helping each other up shouldn’t be mandated by government in all cases, that given more freedom from government and taxes citizens would reach out to their fellow man and lift them up voluntarily. Maybe that’s a crazy philosophy, but I truly know people who demonstrate it daily, and who are concerned about the fiscal possibilities under continued Democratic leadership. This is all well and good, and if the current Republican party was acting sanely I’d even agree with it; it’s why I’m registered as Independent, not Democrat. _Ideally_, the Republicans can provide a reliable counterpoint to the Democrats. In reality though, that’s not what’s happening. If Romney was elected and chose to govern moderately, he’d be hung out to dry by his party. They have been systematically attacking and eliminating anyone from their ranks who believes in compromise with the other side. That’s harder to do with the elected President, but I could almost see Tea Partiers start running against Romney in the 2016 primaries to try to force him out. They aren’t satisfied with merely being in power, they want to go to the extreme far right and tear down some truly necessary things. It’s not really a surprise that conflicted voters would tend to be moderate Republicans. Right now the Democrats represent your interests better than the GOP does. I mean, hell, a moderate conservative voter who wants to make sure government spending is kept in check should be all for universal healthcare and a single-payer system, because it would cut costs drastically and provide for a healthier workforce. Instead, UHC is despised by the people who hate the poor and/or the government. That’s ideology. That’s adhering to a belief in spite of the facts, which a solid conservative should be able to acknowledge and accept. Democrats versus Republicans is no longer wild-eyed idealists versus hard-headed realists, or at least the parties usually associated with those stereotypes have switched. It’s no longer left versus right, it’s now moderates versus far right. If you value moderation, I don’t see how you can allow the Republicans in power. (That all said, I think Romney with a Democratic Congress could actually be pretty good, but it’s unlikely to happen. Romney with a Republican Congress would be catastrophic, of that I have no doubt.) ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/57 "2012-09-11T16:40:07Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > However, Romney is/was a moderate governer, and who’s to say he won’t return to his principles once in office. It would be a good strategic move to try and bring his party back to sanity, assuming he was successful as president. His comments on Meet the Press indicate that he would like to retain elements of the ACA and close loopholes in the tax code for very wealthy people. He also said he would never raise taxes on the middle class. 1. This isn’t just about Mitt Romney himself, but also about who he chose to fill his shoes in the event that he dies in office. And like Sarah Palin in 2008, Paul Ryan is frighteningly severe in his ideologies and would not govern anything like you hope Mitt Romney would. 2. Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts as a moderate because that’s how his constituents elected him to govern. It’s the platform he ran on. In this race he’s running on a deeply regressive platform because he knows his constituents expect him to govern as a regressive conservative, not as a moderate. If he is elected, he _will_ be beholden to them. And with a regressive conservative Congress sending him regressive conservative legislation, that’s exactly the kind of law you’re going to get out of an Administration with him at the helm regardless of what he says on MTP. > [@](#): > > Most of the Republicans I know absolutely do not oppose taxpayer funded infrastructure, education, law enforcement, etc. The rational Republican party–may they rest in peace–simply believed that helping each other up shouldn’t be mandated by government in all cases, that given more freedom from government and taxes citizens would reach out to their fellow man and lift them up voluntarily. Maybe that’s a crazy philosophy, but I truly know people who demonstrate it daily, and who are concerned about the fiscal possibilities under continued Democratic leadership. Then I submit they haven’t been paying proper attention. No one who’s genuinely fiscally conservative should ever be voting for Republicans. Ever. They fuck up the economy every time they get their hands on it (even Reagan sent us into recession), loosen public protection rules to the point that the players in the game crash the market on us and _we_ end up having to bail them out, [saddle us with enormous debt by not paying for any of their programs](http://www.examiner.com/article/damning-evidence-from-cbpp-lays-responsibility-for-budget-deficit-on-republicans) despite their lip service (then blame the guy who has to spend money cleaning up their mess if he’s a Democrat [hint: they didn’t say a peep about Reagan’s deficit spending to get us out of the recession of his own making]), don’t have as good a record on policies that create private sector jobs, and are [shitty at creating the kind of confidence the Markets need to thrive](http://washingtonexaminer.com/80-year-study-democrats-better-at-economics/article/2505194). "When it comes to which party is better for the economy, Republicans talk the talk, but it’s Democrats who deliver the goods according to an unusual 80-year study of the impact presidents have on growth, personal wealth, the stock market and even 401ks. “The bottom line, according to Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box: Of the five best economic presidents since Herbert Hoover, only one is a Republican. The paydirt finding: $100,000 invested during the 40 years Republicans had the White House would be worth $126,027. The same amount invested in the stock market during the Democrat’s 40 years would be $3,912,210.” > [@](#): > > I’m concerned about the “Fair Share” rhetoric and the general sense that Americans are being talked down to by Washington, as though we need the government to reduce our taxes and level the playing field for us to succeed. This is a losing long-term strategy, IMO. It’s a question of the degradation of the American spirit of independence. > > The implications of the Buffett Rule bare some serious thought. The super wealthy don’t have to stay here. They don’t have to pay higher taxes. I know it’s ridiculous to think they’ll leave en masse, but things get screwy when a lot of money is involved. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Any way you cut it, we need their tax dollars. Forgive me for saying this, but as to the second part, that’s just silly, and history bears this out. Our rich overlords never take their balls and go to other countries with their businesses when their taxes are higher for myriad reasons, among them the other laws that make being a United States business or a U.S. citizen far better economically than being in business in most other countries. Sure, you have a rogue few, but for the vast, vast majority of them, they know where their bread is buttered and they ain’t goin’ anywhere. As to the first part, the “fairness” part, I’m gobsmacked by your objection to that. It’s entirely unreasonable, and yes, unfair, that rich people have the money and power to have bought legislation that lets them get away with paying half or less in taxes on their income than you or I do. There’s simply no excuse for capital to be “valued” in our tax code as superior to labor, where, in essence, labor is _punished_ where capital is rewarded. It’s backwards, and even President Lincoln said so! _“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”_ There is no excuse for the rich to burden middle class working folk with propping up the entire country on our backs, and the tax policies of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will only double (or triple or quadruple) down on that. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/58 "2012-09-11T16:52:39Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > If you want to be a grasshopper, that’s fine. Just don’t expect the ants to keep giving you food. Whenever I think of this I think of the [muppet version](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oALidRu2akhttp://). To me the ant is the woman working two minimum wage jobs to try to put food on the table, while the grasshopper is Mitt Romney and his friends. Our whole economic system for the past several decades has been geared towards the ants at the bottom feeding the grasshoppers at the top. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/59 "2012-09-11T17:04:22Z")
Yeah the grasshoppers are the ones who brought the global economy to the brink of disaster and then wanted government money to bail them out. The ants are the workers who toil away in an unfair system and that’s just about what the GOP thinks of them: a bunch of ants who don’t matter and can be stomped on (especially the black ones). ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315/60 "2012-09-11T19:50:18Z")
> [@A\_Nested\_Thorn](#): > > I’m concerned about the “Fair Share” rhetoric and the general sense that Americans are being talked down to by Washington, as \*\*though we need the government to reduce our taxes \*\*and level the playing field for us to succeed. This is a losing long-term strategy, IMO. It’s a question of the degradation of the American spirit of independence. Okay, all right, so you have a problem with rhetoric. Rhetoric is one thing, policy is another, and you still really haven’t articulated a policy-based argument. What interests me, though, is the part of your post that I put in bold. Do you really think tax reduction is _Obama’s_ thing? Because anyone who has been paying attention to the political conversation over the past 4 to 10 years should be ascribing this platform to the Republicans, not the Dems. If anything, Obama is in favor of the opposite of tax reduction; when he says “fair share” he’s not asking the people to demand handouts but rather asking them to suck it up and take one for the team by paying their taxes. So even we ignore the fact that you’re basing your undecidedness on rhetoric rather than substance–which is embarrassing enough–you’re still looking bad by failing to demonstrate you even understand the rhetoric you’re complaining about. > [@](#): > > The implications of the Buffett Rule bare some serious thought. The super wealthy don’t have to stay here. They don’t have to pay higher taxes. I know it’s ridiculous to think they’ll leave en masse, but things get screwy when a lot of money is involved. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Any way you cut it, we need their tax dollars. Any rich person who’d abandon their citizenship just because we raise their taxes a few percentage points has either already left the country or has enough tax shelters and Cayman Island bank accounts to make a tax increase moot. Apply some critical thinking to the issue and maybe you’ll see that letting this kind of fear drive our voting decisions goes against the best interests of society. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-undecided-voters-like-myself/634315.md?page=4)