'Cause that’s what I was looking at two years ago. Hoo boy. How did that turn out.
I still wouldn’t have voted for old man McCain and nutsy Sarah Palin, but if I went back in time and there were a demonstrably competent Earth Firster or John Bircher in the mix, I’d probably hold my nose and go for that one. I wouldn’t like the direction he was driving the SUV of state, but at least he can bloody drive.
Competent at what?
Being President. Not being in over his head. Not using the present crises as an opportunity to feel sorry for himself. You know, that that old chestnut.
Absolutely not. I find it bizarre that people would rather have somebody work effectively against them, than work ineffectively for them. Its picking the greater of two evils.
Simply not voting is an option too, you know.
Pretty much, yeah. 90% of being a president is crisis management.
Put it this way: a competant president *might *do the right thing, regardless of his or her opinion. An incompetant president will never to the right thing.
Would you like to be a little more specific in case someone wants to give a serious answer? I thought you might mean competent at some particular tasks that are part of being president. Who would vote for someone who they think is not competent?
I would not vote for someone who is antithetical to me on all issues I consider important; if he or she were competent, he/she’d only be competent at doing things I don’t want done. I’ve voted for people I disagree with on some issues because I thought they were the best option. Or most competent, if you like.
I’m sure the federal government accomplishes all sorts of tasks and meets many challenges that you would want done regardless of the political stripe of the holder of its highest office. After an election with a (by your standards) distatsteful outcome, you don’t wake up every day and say, “he’s keeping the national parks open and ensuring effective air traffic control again! That bastard!” And that’s leaving aside big issues, like oh, I dunno, dealing with ecological disasters perhaps?
No.
I might respect the person’s competency. Or I might respect them for being a principled member of their party or proponent of their philosophy. But I wouldn’t vote for such a person.
So, you’re asking me if I’d vote for a racist, homophobic, sexist, corrupt, constitution-shitting douchebag who was at least competent? No. The agenda that he’d competently support would go completely against my beliefs.
It does. So we don’t need to consider those when dealing with your question.
It makes sense to blame Obama for not fixing the problems in the government that contributed to this disaster. For the people who are saying ‘he should go in there and take over’- I don’t know what they think he’s actually supposed to do. So I don’t think your complaints or your comment about feeling sorry for himself are valid. And I can’t think of any reason on earth to think John McCain would have done a better job.
No. The problem is, he’d be competent at making the country worse. I have no interest in having someone in power who wants to impose religious and corporate tyranny, remove civil rights, legalize slavery, devastate the land, promote bigotry, promote torture, hamper and destroy science, and engage in imperial conquest - who is actually good at it.
I have to go with Alessan here. Competent, to me, means acknowledging that reality trumps ideology. Ideology can sway decisions where the data is ambiguous, but too many politicians lately ignore reality entirely.
Someone antithetical to my views is by definition incompetent.
Unless you’re using some very, very precious definition of “competent,” I think you’re revealing yourself to be astonishingly small minded.
Very few states, if any, do not have third party candidates available to vote for on the ballot and disallow write-in candidates. There is rarely an excuse to vote for a “lesser of two evils” anymore.
Most of the time I have found that those who claim that didn’t vote for the person whose views were “antithetical” to their own; rather, they chose the one whose views more approximated their own and held their nose at the parts that didn’t.
Since the OP references the last US Presidential election, I can say that personal experience (and I might be able to dig up some polls that support this) was that a lot more people voted for McCain who felt that way than those who voted for Obama. And I would hate to have seen how that would have turned out. Hoo boy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I can see third party candidates are invariably ideologues and/or single issue candidates with zero experience in practical governance. Much like the major candidates in our last presidential election, in fact (though that was a bit of a historical aberration). So I don’t think the issue of 3rd party candidates has much relevance.
Relevance in being able to win an election and relevance in giving a single voter more choices that potentially fit their desires for ideaology and competance are two different concepts. Add in the ability to write in a candidate of your choice and the OPs supposed quandry is elimited entirely.
Probably not. I would be more willing to vote for such a hypothetical person for a lower office than president.
But my biggest reason for not wanting to vote for someone for president who had views which varied significantly from mine is that the President may get to pick people for the Supreme Court and whichever people they pick may significantly outlast the term of the President and shape the future.
Also, and this may reveal me as very young (or possibly naive)–I couldn’t see much difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. But as Pres., George W. Bush made policy choices which I disagreed with that Gore would not have, and then 9/11 happened, and I’m pretty sure that a different president would have handled the aftermath of that (Afghanistan and especially Iraq) entirely differently.
Given someone of my ideology (or my Party) who looked incompetent, would I vote for him/her anyway? Quite likely. While the worst they can do might damage the party, and the nation, at least in general they’ll be trying to head in my preferred direction.
I think a lot of people voted for Bush because they thought Cheney was “competent.” Ex CEO, knew all the right people, was a power broker, et al. Cheney pretty much turned out to have been, say we say, disappointing to most of the electorate on the competency front.
I didn’t vote for Bush and/or Cheney.
Oh look, a “Let’s bash Obama over the oil spill” thread. Umm… I hate to break it to you but he seems to be doing a pretty decent job. People expect instant results and that’s often not possible. BP are doing what they can and Obama is holding them to account. Operating machinery a mile or more underwater is not a trivial exercise.
Or would you have Obama follow the Russian advice, which is to close it with a nuke? Which just might make things vastly worse.
Take a step back and you’ll see that Obama’s doing just fine.