# Very seriously: why would anyone vote for McCain? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2008, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013 "2008-10-15T07:08:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/141 "2008-10-17T06:45:29Z")
To all of your righties responding here, you’re coming across as whiny victims. You don’t win by proving everyone’s being mean to you. Save your dignity and just ignore the people that bother you so much (like I do with Shodan), and respond just to the people who are reasonable. If you don’t think anyone on the left is reasonable, I hope you realize that you’re in the same mindset you’re accusing us of having. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/142 "2008-10-17T06:47:01Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I suppose my underlying assumption is that people are honest enough not to do that sort of thing if they want to have a meaningful discussion and maybe learn something. But I could be wrong. People favor data that supports their position. It happens all the time, and it’s not an underhanded evil conspiracy. It’s just confirmation bias, which nobody actually recognizes in themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/143 "2008-10-17T06:54:20Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > People favor data that supports their position. It happens all the time, and it’s not an underhanded evil conspiracy. It’s just confirmation bias, which nobody actually recognizes in themselves. That’s not true, I recognized it in myself once… \*Although \*I was looking for it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/144 "2008-10-17T08:14:30Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > I personally prefer McCains stance on nuclear power. I’m tired of it being demonized and would like to see new construction occur, since wind and solar are simply not good baselines. Nuclear waste will increase with reprocessing. [Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive | Union of Concerned Scientists](http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html) And storing nuclear waste is a debt burden that will be with humankind for 1000 generations. That makes 500 trillion in the derivatives market look manageable by comparison. > [@silenus](#): > > Guns. Lots of single-issue people on this one. Even though McCain is only ranked a C+ by the NRA on gun rights, Obama ranks F. This is an issue I am very concerned about, but I’m willing to take my chances because McCain is fucking nuts and the Republicans have run the country into the ground. I’m a liberal democrat and I support the USSC’s recent ruling interpreting the right to own guns. There is no non-trivial movement to take away guns other than fully automatic weapons. Having been in SF in 1993 when a madman killed most of a floor of a law firm with automatic weapons (I was four blocks away), I’ve gotta say that I’m against people owning machine guns. > [@Bricker](#): > > I can think of many reasons that a reasonble voter would choose Senator Obama. > > And I can think of many reasons a reasonable voter would choose Senator McCain. I’ve got to disagree with the OP. There are reasonable people who will be voting for McCain. What the reasons are, I cannot personally identify with, but I have friends who always vote republican, just as I always vote democratic. I think that the recent response of the republicans to the economic crisis would make them abandon most of their rationale that the republicans are the last bulwark against socialism and big government, but I’m not them. > [@Lightnin](#): > > To be fair, a lot of us lost a quite a bit of respect for you when you went through your “I’m gonna vote for Obama… I can’t vote for Obama because not all of his voters behave as nicely as he does” tantrum. It was several pages of trolling, and it appeared to me to be that from the get go, but I haven’t seen Bricker do that elsewhere, so maybe it was an isolated incident. His posts usually are pretty good contributions. > [@mlees](#): > > Heh. > > I bet if you got on FDR’s bad side, he could be pretty scathing in demeanor when he chose to. 🙂 Cite? I’m a big fan of FDR’s, and the only time I can come up with him not being as nice to someone as possible was when he made Churchill the odd man out to try to gain Stalin’s confidence. He apologized to Churchill before and after, and it was very deliberate. Churchill was quite hurt, knew what was going on and why and thought it a wasted effort. Other than Churchill’s feelings, no other damage was done, and nothing known was gained. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/145 "2008-10-17T09:20:43Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Yet others have no reasonable doubt about anthropogenic climate change. I’m a little confused. By “anthropogenic climate change” do you mean CAGW or something else? If it’s something else, what is it? > [@](#): > > Using particular beliefs and particular standards of evidence as criteria for “reasonableness” is very arbitrary. I’m confused by this too. Do you agree that there is no reasonable doubt that the moon landing took place? > [@](#): > > Apparently I misspelled “unsurprisingly”. I’m confused by this too. Are you saying that you are not surprised that I do not claim to have expertise in climatology? Honestly, I have no idea what you are arguing at this point. Please just spell out your arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/146 "2008-10-17T12:26:09Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Nuclear waste will increase with reprocessing. [Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive | Union of Concerned Scientists](http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html) And storing nuclear waste is a debt burden that will be with humankind for 1000 generations. That makes 500 trillion in the derivatives market look manageable by comparison. That page’s information is misleading. While the total volume of waste is increased, the types of isotopes needed to be put into storage are different. The isotopes that remain after reprocessing have half-lives that are orders of magnitude smaller than non-reprocessed spent nuclear fuel. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/147 "2008-10-17T12:30:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Telling” of what? > > Pray tell. ‘Could’ is a lower threshold than ‘would’. Your argument in a single word. ---
**Author:** ![Truus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Truus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/148 "2008-10-17T12:55:38Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Not going to offer my own opinion right now, but an interesting observation from yesterday. > > I was in a place of business with a large lobby and reception area. CNN was on in the background. You could just barely hear the yammering of the anchors, etc. over the normal din of the lobby. > > There were two young-ish (25-30 yrs old) receptionists working at the desk, and a slightly older woman behind them doing something. All were busy, answering the phones, talking to customers, filing stuff away, talking to each other, etc. I was sitting a ways away in a chair with a cup of coffee, reading something and occasionally stealing a glance at the TV. > > Obama came on and said something, McCain came on and said something, Wolf Blitzer-or-somebody came on and said something, and the workers went about their business. It was just white noise in the background as far as the workers were considered. > > Then they cut to Sarah Palin saying something at a rally. And the joint came to a standstill. The three women immediately stopped what they were doing, put down the phones, and had their eyes glued to the screen for the 15 seconds or so she was talking. Then it was over, and they went back to work. > > I don’t even remember what Palin was talking about. I wasn’t watching her. I was watching the reaction of the workers. > > THAT…my friends, is what some of us will never understand. I don’t live in the USA, so my datapoint is even of less significance than data points usually are but I have been actively seeking out clips of Palin for social reasons. There was an ongoing discussion in my social circle about how she performed in public appearances, and I wanted to see for myself because I wanted to join in. So that could have been me, paying close attention for ‘homework’ reasons. I can also think of reasons why these women paid so much attention to Palin but ignored the other clips. I get the impression from discussions on the internet that there’s the feeling Palin was specifically selected to appeal to female voters and that might have as a result that women pay extra attention to Palin as well. Not necessarily because they are fans but out of curiosity about the person that has been selected to appeal to the great female monolith or as as a result of being repeatedly asked “as a woman what do you think of Palin” type questions. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/149 "2008-10-17T12:57:29Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Nuclear waste will increase with reprocessing. [Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive | Union of Concerned Scientists](http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html) And storing nuclear waste is a debt burden that will be with humankind for 1000 generations. That makes 500 trillion in the derivatives market look manageable by comparison. If that page is anything to go by, I wouldn’t trust the UCS as far as I could throw them. For instance, even if you take it as a given that nuclear reprocessing cannot recycle _any_ uranium from the waste being processed, you’d still have to dispose of it regardless! It is misleading to suggest that new facilities would have to be built to dispose of this uranium if plans for reprocessing go ahead. And even if it can’t significantly reduce the amount of high-level waste per unit of fuel, it is still increasing the energy produced per unit of fuel, which means less units of fuel are required. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/150 "2008-10-17T13:49:44Z")
Palin is a celebrity. Avoiding paying attention to her is somewhat like being turning away from news about Brittany Spears latest breakdown or not slowing to look at a gruesome traffic accident. It is morbid but we just can’t stop ourselves and can’t stop ourselves from talking about what we just saw. Obama may have been labeled a celebrity but to a large extent he is not _news_ any more, not in the gossipy sense anyway. We all kinda know him by now and he has if anything endeavored to be sort of boring at this point in the cycle. Palin though … what she next does will be talked about at the water cooler for sure! ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/151 "2008-10-17T14:08:38Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’m a little confused. By “anthropogenic climate change” do you mean CAGW or something else? If it’s something else, what is it? I am talking about the global warming controversy. Temperature is rising, mankind is largely responsible. > [@](#): > > I’m confused by this too. Do you agree that there is no reasonable doubt that the moon landing took place? Good grief. The moon landing issue is a complete non-starter. I am arguing that it is arbitrary and nonsensical to use certain handpicked beliefs as a litmus test for reasonableness. The criteria for reasonableness ought to be a certain internal consistency of belief and human interaction and a Bayesian ability to update beliefs in the presence of observation. Nobody is a perfect Bayesian, so obviously this ability is on a continuum. We all have our biases and our blind spots. But it is not how we feel about certain issues that make us reasonable, but how we think and rationally update our beliefs and expectations. > [@](#): > > I’m confused by this too. Are you saying that you are not surprised that I do not claim to have expertise in climatology? Somehow my sarcasm was lost on you. Yes, I am saying that I am not at all surprised that you have no expertise in climatology. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/152 "2008-10-17T14:08:56Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I’m a liberal democrat and I support the USSC’s recent ruling interpreting the right to own guns. There is no non-trivial movement to take away guns other than fully automatic weapons. Having been in SF in 1993 when a madman killed most of a floor of a law firm with automatic weapons (I was four blocks away), I’ve gotta say that I’m against people owning machine guns. That madman didn’t use a machine gun, he used semi-automatic guns. There have been two homicides committed with legally owned machine guns since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer. Are you now against ownership of semi-automatic guns? Is it all right if the definition of a machine gun is changed from a fully automatic weapon to be any semi-automatic handgun, resulting in their being banned? If that’s allowed, what’s to stop re-defining a machine gun to be anything that shoots bullets? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/153 "2008-10-17T14:35:21Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Good grief. The moon landing issue is a complete non-starter. > > I am arguing that it is arbitrary and nonsensical to use certain handpicked beliefs as a litmus test for reasonableness. The criteria for reasonableness ought to be a certain internal consistency of belief and human interaction and a Bayesian ability to update beliefs in the presence of observation. Nobody is a perfect Bayesian, so obviously this ability is on a continuum. We all have our biases and our blind spots. But it is not how we feel about certain issues that make us reasonable, but how we think and rationally update our beliefs and expectations. Ummm . . . does that mean yes or no? It’s a very simple question really. I’m not trying to trap you, I’m just trying to understand your position. Do you agree with me that there is no reasonable doubt that the moon landing took place? I’m not using the moon landing as a “litmus test.” Just as a simple example which I thought everyone would agree on. Do you agree with me that there is no reasonable doubt that the moon landing took place? > [@](#): > > Somehow my sarcasm was lost on you. It’s often hard to convey sarcasm through a computer message board. In general, please just spell out whatever you want to say. If you are trying to insult me, however, I would suggest that this forum is inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/154 "2008-10-17T14:54:55Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Ummm . . . does that mean yes or no? It’s a very simple question really. I’m not trying to trap you, I’m just trying to understand your position. I don’t feel particularly trapped. I have articulated my position several times. Let me try it once more. Really simply. Occasionally, reasonable people believe crazy things. It does not make them unreasonable people. > [@](#): > > Do you agree with me that there is no reasonable doubt that the moon landing took place? I believe that the preponderance of evidence required to make me update my beliefs about the veracity of the moon landing has not been met. I think it is very unlikely that there ever will be enough evidence to conclude that the moon landing was a hoax. This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Reasonable people make misjudgments all the time. It is a side effect of humanity. > [@](#): > > It’s often hard to convey sarcasm through a computer message board. In general, please just spell out whatever you want to say. No, actually, I have a very easy time conveying sarcasm in writing. You might have some difficulty interpreting it. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/155 "2008-10-17T15:31:31Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I believe that the preponderance of evidence required to make me update my beliefs about the veracity of the moon landing has not been met. I think it is very unlikely that there ever will be enough evidence to conclude that the moon landing was a hoax. Again you evade my simple question, but I believe can make use of your formulation. For the sake of argument, I will define “one-sided” to mean a situation where it’s “very unlikely that there ever will be enough evidence” to reach the opposite conclusion. My statement in Post #130 stands. > [@](#): > > No, actually, I have a very easy time conveying sarcasm in writing. You might have some difficulty interpreting it. Perhaps, but again I would ask you to simply spell out whatever argument you are making. And again, if you are trying to insult me, please refrain. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/156 "2008-10-17T15:36:41Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Again you evade my simple question, but I believe can make use of your formulation. > > For the sake of argument, I will define “one-sided” to mean a situation where it’s “very unlikely that there ever will be enough evidence” to reach the opposite conclusion. > > My statement in Post #130 stands. But obviously, people disagree on what “very unlikely” means. It is an entirely subjective judgment. I think it is very unlikely that enough new moon landing evidence will emerge, and if I were Autarch, I would make everyone agree with me. But I’m not. Your statement about reasonable people may be of some practical value to you, but aside from that, it is worthless. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/157 "2008-10-17T15:37:26Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Cite? I’m a big fan of FDR’s, and the only time I can come up with him not being as nice to someone as possible was when he made Churchill the odd man out to try to gain Stalin’s confidence. He apologized to Churchill before and after, and it was very deliberate. Churchill was quite hurt, knew what was going on and why and thought it a wasted effort. Other than Churchill’s feelings, no other damage was done, and nothing known was gained. [http://internetreviewofbooks.com/apr08/the\_making\_of\_fdr.html](http://internetreviewofbooks.com/apr08/the_making_of_fdr.html) > [@](#): > > Levin [author] organizes her mountains of information well, generally chronologically, and tells the story lucidly. But she falls into lazy writing from time to time, using the same expression repeatedly. **“Towering temper” keeps recurring. We are told on many occasions that Early [FDR’s press secretary] was left “to keep the lid on.”** Levin says more than once “shards of hope” emerged from the war news. When he needed to keep something secret, Early “tap-danced” around the subject. (Bolding mine.) FDR was pretty careful in public/in front of the press. I don’t think this makes him an evil President. Just human. Is it your impression that he would “suffer fools”, if he had that opinion of someone? ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/158 "2008-10-17T15:39:23Z")
I think we’ve gotten way OT here. I’m voting for McCain because he’s a (mostly) conservative Republican. And I don’t like Obama, he’s like a punk-ass kid that thinks he knows better than everyone else. There, I said it, don’t hate me because I’m conservative. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/159 "2008-10-17T16:14:40Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > But obviously, people disagree on what “very unlikely” means. It is an entirely subjective judgment. I think it is very unlikely that enough new moon landing evidence will emerge, and if I were Autarch, I would make everyone agree with me. > > But I’m not. Your statement about reasonable people may be of some practical value to you, but aside from that, it is worthless. To me, people who believe that the Israelis are behind the 9/11 attacks or who believe the moon-landing was a hoax or who believe the Holocaust never happened or who believe that income taxes are optional are simply deluded and engaging in self-deception. As I understand your argument, such people are – to you – simply exercising highly subjective judgment about probabilities. If that’s your view, then so be it. But it doesn’t undermine my basic point about the Religious Left. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013/160 "2008-10-17T16:45:18Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > To me, people who believe that the Israelis are behind the 9/11 attacks or who believe the moon-landing was a hoax or who believe the Holocaust never happened or who believe that income taxes are optional are simply deluded and engaging in self-deception. > > As I understand your argument, such people are – to you – simply exercising highly subjective judgment about probabilities. > > If that’s your view, then so be it. But it doesn’t undermine my basic point about the Religious Left. Whatever floats your boat. The “Religious Left” might be an arbitrary category that you find useful. If other people like it too, great. Personally, I find it to be a useless concept that means little more than “people who reflexively disagree with **brazil84** on issues x, y, and z”. This orthogonal to their “reasonableness”, as is their voting choice. What one believes is a very complicated interaction of axiomatic preferences and information thresholds. I wish I had a good theory on it. I am not a psychologist nor a philosopher, so I don’t. Your particular preferences might be a useful yardstick for you, but they have little value aside from that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/very-seriously-why-would-anyone-vote-for-mccain/468013.md?page=9)