Can’t bring myself to vote for a complete unknown quantity. I would rather see a Romney-like character in the White House who has shown some political skill rather than some guy off the street who might make some incredible mistakes out of sheer ignorance.
Several times I’ve gone with a third party candidate, and I might again here, unless that option is forbidden and I missed it in the OP.
I think that probably counts as fighting the hypothetical. Fair enough in this instance I think - there are some hypotheticals that are really hard to answer in good faith. Personally, I found this one thought-provoking but it was fairly clear what I think I would do.
Most Liberals see the Democratic candidate as almost as conservative as the Republican. Both parties are staunchly in the Capitalist camp, hair-triggered to recoil against anything that smacks of Socialism. Liberals consider all governmental institutions as being in bed with big business, varying on only a couple of shrill issues like gays and abortion.
I wouldn’t vote. It would be a waste of time. The other professional politician is going to win, without question.
Someone totally clueless is more likely to make the right decisions some of the time than someone from the Party of Voldemort.
Damn, Tom’s dumb. . . I guess I don’t know many average people. I might need to reach out to the dumb community and become more culturally diverse.
I’m pretty conservative/libertarian and I wouldn’t vote for him.
That was my first thought, but at least Tom is moderate in his positions. You can’t say that about Palin.
Overall, I’d consider an incompetent moderate Republican to be a pretty big step forward for the Republicans, and I say this as a Republican. Incompetent describes a lot of Republican candidates recently, so not a big change there, but being moderate is a big step in the right direction.
I don’t understand the provision about Tom making decisions without advisers. That’s so contrary to the US political system and the complexity of the modern world that it doesn’t even make sense to me. Who - regardless of experience or competency - can possibly make good decisions without advisers? It’s like a hypothetical about a surgeon that forbids him from using a team of assistants in the OR… just plain impossible. Even if it was stated outright in the election, I’d simply refuse to believe it.
So count me in for a Tom vote.
True but so might an orangutan. I’m still not voting for the non-human primate. Or a Palinesque Joe-the-Plumber clone.
Mind you I am liberal-ish, but have voted for Republican candidates in the past, so I don’t view voting for a Republican candidate teh evil.
I’d vote for Tom over Palin, or an orangutan, though.
You mean a Republican.
So far, about 42% of people on both side would rather vote for Tom than the opposition. That’s not as divided as I thought things might be.
And really Tom might be a good candidate. We know nothing about his charisma or speaking ability or sense of style. If he’s totally average he might be very likable. And I’ll stand by my theory that the coolest cat always wins the election. And if the other side can paint the opposition candidate as evil or stupid, like many of you are doing to Republicans already, then he would probably be a contender.
I voted for Tom, but really it depends on who the Republican nominee is (I’m pretty liberal). If it’s someone who is fiscally conservative but socially moderate, I’ll take the Republican. I really only care about Presidents insofar as their social policy outlook, because ISTM that they have very little control over the economy.
Yeah, the only way I would vote for a Republican in this scenario is if it’s Chris Gibson (Ha! as if), Lincoln Chafee or even Colin Powell, assuming he still swings that way. Or if we could assume it’s Chuck Hegel, Jim Jeffords or Arlen Specter from before they crossed aisles–or, hell, dig up Jacob Javitz, John Lindsay or Nelson Rockefeller. But those were all Republicans before the party turned into a Right wing paradise. The latter three are probably squarely Democrats these days, and probably farther to the left than many (D) politicians today.
So I’m reluctantly forced to gamble with Tom. If he has no views I’m gonna hope he’ll see some reason when the issues are presented to him (which is a big gamble from someone this willfully ignorant). But I’d rather deal with an ignorant with an open mind than any of the current likely Republican candidates.
jtur88’s reference to “shrill” issues such as abortion and gay rights manages to be both hilarious and offensive, so kudos to you.
I don’t trust the average american to decisively pick what they want from McDonalds, let alone run a country.
Choie-You’d have to dig up.Specter too.
When you put it that way: the judgment of an experienced politician whom I disagree with. I could just as easily disagree with the average American, but in the case of the experienced politician it’d be at least a little more likely that the disagreement is due to the fact that they’re more informed than I am.
(As a general philosophy of life, I try to be open to the possibility that, when I disagree with someone, the other person might not be the one who’s wrong.)
And, before reading these comments, I was already going to say that my impression of George W. Bush’s presidency was that he was, not that he was too Republican, but that he was too “Tom.”
I picked Tom by a small margin but it really depends on who is running. I don’t believe that all politicians are the same and that all both parties are only filled with liberal or conservative clones. There are some on the other side that I could see voting for. And this far out of an election it is impossible to tell who the candidate will be.
If the Republicans were running someone sane, I’d definitely vote for them. If they were running Cruz I’d be packing my bags.
You can’t let the country drift, not to mention all the people who would be pulling fast ones on this boob. Being president involves a tremendous learning curve, Tom seems to not be interested in learning.
Does he have a good VP?