It’s worth a lot. But he’s got a great chance right here and now.
If Romney becomes president, I will be moving to Canada or farther as soon as I get my degree.
If McCain becomes president, I will be glad and proud I’m from Arizona, but I may want to escape the country.
If Clinton becomes president, I will be disappointed but will be fine in America.
If Obama becomes president, I’ll be as happy as a clam.
IMO, and I am a young person, Obama and Paul have been getting the most support from my peers. Both of their messages are about changing the status quo, and they both are honest-talkers (or at least they do a great act). I think both those traits are why we like them so much.
Yes, I would agree there would be many disheartened youth if Obama didn’t get the ticket. And as much as I hate to say it, and I am certainly not one of them, there are those who would become apathetic and just hang out instead of go vote on election day.
I think this quote sums up why most of us support Barack:
“At this moment in history, the stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result.”
I worked at a small college during the 2004 election. Myself and the other advisors registered many of our students, we publicized the election and were to go to vote, and generally did all we could to get our student out.
Their turn out was terribly disappointing. It was a case of them enjoying talking about politics and voting, but being unwilling to actually make an effort to act.
Again, Kerry didn’t exactly inspire a nation. I mean, I hated Bush with the best of them, and I would have voted if I could, but really - Kerry? That’s the best you could do? Clinton is a step up from this in my opinion, if it helps.
While the turnout of young voters (aged 18 to 24) in 2004 was higher than in 2000, it was 44% turnout for males and 50% turnout for females. This compares to 68% of male citizens 25 and older and 65% of females 25 and older who voted. Cite. 53% of the voters 18 to 24 stayed home. I’m not impressed by those numbers.
I’m not a Democrat. In fact I’m fairly conservative, but I hope you’ll listen to my 2 cents all the same.
The 2004 election showed that people want to vote for something, not against something. John Kerry was nothing more than a not-Bush, and he lost. Hillary, while she talks about change, is still basically just a not-Bush. And Bush isn’t even running! She hasn’t learned at all. Obama seems to have a real vision of doing things differently, and people like that. So does McCain, for that matter. He’s far from being a party apparatchik, and many independent voters like that.
I suspect that if Obama eventually drops out, turnout among blacks will be historically low. Hillary’s strategy of using Bill as her attack dog backfired bigtime, and many blacks accused them of being racist. (That’s why Hillary has been afraid to say anything bad about Obama recently.) I think that many blacks are now soured on the Clintons, and might stay home rather than vote for Hillary.
BTW, I read today that the Democratic party has 800 “super-delegates,” who theoretically can vote for anybody, but who usually vote for the person the party bigwigs like. That means that you can probably give Hillary another 800 delegates on top of her official total.
It’s also people like Ted Kennedy, who have already endorsed Obama.
Hillary’s support isn’t anything close to unanimous. Obama even has a few former Clinton cabinet members on his side. The party bigwigs are going to get behind whoever is going to win.
I’ve tried posting this twice and lost it both times. It’s weird. Almost nothing else I post gets hung up or results in an error message. But the truth will out.
I won’t take my ball home, but I’ll be tempted. Why? Because the Republicans are a fractured party suffering through an administration with very little support anymore from the public. Because the Democrats have a dynamic, charismatic candidate. Because if Hillary gets the nomination and loses, the stories will all be about how the Democrats were even able to piss that election away, confirming forever that they are the party of whiny losers. And I’ll believe it.
Oh, sure. I know there’s all these good reasons to want a woman to win (the only argument I hear from Hillary supporters) or to be wary of someone you know so little about. But the results of any of those reasons is President McCain, Vice-President Huckabee. And the question will still be, how could the Democrats blow an election when they had a dynamic, formidable candidate and were running against a bunch of dorks in a period where Republicans had derailed the country and the only thing anyone wanted was someone else. So perhaps people who really want to know the answer will say that Democrats insist on being skeptical and ponderous and symbolic and fractured and idealistic. But I’ll think, no, they just want to be a bunch of pissy negative losers.
I won’t take my ball and go home (I’ll vote for Hillary), but after she loses it’ll be time to shop around for a new party.
Gimme a break. Hillary’s campaign isn’t anywheres near Rovism. Political battles are always a tough slog. They’ll never be truly civil affairs. Get used to it. And what’s at stake? Uh, the soul of the free world?
So, you’ll go to the trouble of actually going to vote, just not for President? That’ll show 'em! :rolleyes: Look, you don’t get moral superiority points for that shit. You don’t get to say, “I didn’t vote for him/her”, if the next President sucks.
Sigh. They all run as outsiders these days. None of them ever really are, and if they are, forget it. Outsiders in politics usually disappoint. It takes them 1-2 years just to figure out how to get anything done. Then they play the game…as insiders.
Not that I disagree with anything you said, but by what stretch of the imagination are you one of the “young people?”
I won’t, trust me. I don’t need no moral superiority points. If the decision is between:
-
an established name that has no real accomplishments besides being a career politician who became the Senator of a state she had no linear affiliation to, along with being a first lady
-
or, an established name that used to have a fairly solid, albeit a bit overtly conservative, record - except in the past few years has shown he’s nothing but a yes man
…I don’t see why I should make a choice. If I vote for one, they don’t win, the other one is evil incarnate, what have I really won? If I vote for one, they win, and they are evil incarnate, haven’t I really lost? Now I’m in depressed territory, "I did that?!" It’s almost like Pascal’s wager, applied to politics. It’s best to not care.
Also, don’t hit me with any of that “Democracy is about compromise” clap-trap. I realize that. That’s why I would consider voting for Clinton, based on her stated policies. But she is hawkish, decisive, dividing, and I see her as ultimately unfit for what the country needs right now. IOW, I like her policies, but if she is - by some last minute deux ex machina - elected, I ultimtely think she’ll be worse for the country, because of the partisanship. Is it fair? No. Is politics fair? No.
I’m doing the best I can to care about politics, I’ve been trying to be a good American for as long as I was conscious of the democratic process. But it’s hard to give a shit when you become politically aware under the atrocities of Bush’s first term and then you see the country reelect the mashed potato. Pardon me for becoming cynical.
This script is a bit confusing. You’ll abandon the party if Clinton loses her presidential bid, because that will prove that the Democrats didn’t really want to win the election in the first place?
But if Obama doesn’t get the nomination, doesn’t that mean that his supporters didn’t really want to win either?
If he does get the nomination, and loses, won’t that also prove that Democrats are pissy negative losers?
I’m trying to envision a scenario in your model where a Democrat can honestly believe that Clinton would be a better choice than Obama.
Whatever gave you the notion that “Obama loses”. He’s currently the new democratic frontrunner.
He raised 3 million dollars today. That’s in one day, and Hillary had to borrow 5 million from herself. Game over for Hillary. I’m calling it now.
Um, what if they win and they turn out okay? It’s happened.
Too cynical, eh? Okay. One day a candidate comes around that you believe in fully. He or she is intelligent, honest, sincere, and politically astute. His or her candidacy comes at a time of difficulty or crisis either for you personally, the country as a whole, or both. You decide to commit.
Then you meet lots of people that don’t like any of the choices. They are not convinced of your candidate’s qualifications, although they largely share your political beliefs. They are like you are now. They say “it’s best not to care.” How will you respond? And how will you look them in the eye when you do?
No, that scenario is not different. You’re saying, “one day a candidate will move me, but not now”? That’s what they’ll say…
Exactly.
No.
It’s about rejecting a charismatic candidate who’s got a real shot at winning for a symbolic candidate you don’t expect to win. Even if they “thought” Clinton had “a better chance,” I would think they were just not paying any attention to public sentiment. Which is another losing habit of the Democratic party. Remember when Dukakis was more electable than Gary Hart?
Ulp! I didn’t notice the word “young,” I kind of read it as “do you take your ball and go home.” No, I’m not young (not one of those “young Obama supporters” anyway.)
I’m not sure if I count as one of the young people - I’m 25 and this is my third Presidential election cycle. But if you insist on calling it “taking my ball and going home,” that’s most likely what I will do if Clinton wins the nomination. There’s no circumstance under which I could vote Republican, and “Clinton is better than the Republicans” is not reason enough to vote for her in my book. I’ve had this debate with myself a lot of times, which is why I registered Green and voted for Nader in 2000, then switched to the Democrats and voted for Kerry in 2004, and I decided not to become an independent because I’d have a shot at voting for Obama in the primaries, which I did.
My ultimate allegiance isn’t to the Democratic party or the electorate at large, it’s to my own conscience. If the options are two people I find unacceptable, I think the correct and principled thing to do is reject the scenario. This election, believe it or not, is not the most important thing in the world, and I do not feel obliged to make compromises that I find unacceptable. I’ll compromise on a lot of things, but some are too important.
In general, the young are not going to drop out en masse if Obama doesn’t win. Some will, but others will get sucked in by the whole world of politics and principles and activism (it happened to me, at least to some degree). This generation is perhaps a little less cynical and a little more traditional than the Gen X crowd.
FWIW, I take the opposite view. I’m a “young person,” I suppose (well, I was definitely a young person for the 04 election), but if Obama gets the nomination, I will be voting for McCain (assuming he gets the GOP nomination… I’m all but calling this one right now).
Should we face an Obama vs. Romney ticket, I can’t say in good conscience that I would be comfortable voting for either.
Since your model doesn’t allow for a Clinton victory, why even bother voting for her?
Ah, so these Democrats either don’t really expect that Clinton has a chance, or else they “think” Clinton has “a better chance.”
“Thanks” for your “clarification.” It really “makes sense.”