Skip to main content

I personally want to vote for a person not a part. The reason Mcain did not win was that people voted against Obama not for Mcain. I fall in line with republicans but i do not think all republicans are good for my country and would not vote for them. Im assuming there are also other people that beleive that also wheather or not you are a democrat or republican. My question is to the rest of you do you belive that most Americans vote for the Party and not for the person. And if you do this can you explain to me why you do this.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Pheixising:
I'd vote for a democrat but they don't seem to represent straight white non-union males.


Hate to break this to you, but gay people are a minority group. In the last election 20% of them voted Repubican. Obama won, not because of his gay supporters, but because "straight", black and white men supported his candidacy. In addition, unions are also a fairly small minority group which have not in the last two elections been able to prevent bush from taking office. It would appear your bias is more your own and has nothing to do with electoral politics. Better watch out - those gays in the Republican party might actually HELP you win in the future.
I am a liberal, so I vote for Democrats. That is not to say that there have not been Republicans I have supported. In fact, I have given money to Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) from Maine and Arlen Specter(R)Penn. All three are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Unfortunately for the Republicans most of the moderate Republians have lost their seats in the last two election cycles to Democrats. Still there a few in the House and Senate which I can easily support. Barry Goldwater was a great traditional Republican of the more Libertarian variety who I had great affection for.
Meanasasnake I agree myself being a conservative i have voted for local democrats such as siegleman and wallace Jr. Based on that they were the stronger candidate. In my opinion if Obama had a few different polocies i could have voted for him, but he didnt fall in to line with my thoughts. In saying that Mcain did not either so he did not get my vote. So i agree voting for a person seems to me to be a better route
I really had no problem with McCain - until he picked Palin. McCain has a record which closely resembled Goldwater. He remains very Libertarian in philosophy and has a record of support for minorities. Unfortunately his choice of Palin caused many Americans to question his judgement. For all her appeal, she just does not appear "Presidential" or intellectually capable of the job. I know there are many would would disagree with that assessment, but the majority of Americans agree with me. There were many other choices who would have helped McCain's ticket much more.
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepyshoals:
I think straight party voting may be a generational thing. Our parents and grandparents were probably more likely to tow the party line--which they were raised to believe in. I think the younger (i.e. 45 and under) voters are more likely to be swayed by personality or perhaps a special interest.


What you say is true. Moderates with no definite party ties have decided the last few elections. That is why both parties move to the center during campaign season.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
quote:
In addition, unions are also a fairly small minority group which have not in the last two elections been able to prevent bush from taking office.

All union members are democrat? Who knew?

I vote person, not party.


Union members are no more "all" Democrats than are members of the gay community. I never said either group was "all" anything.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
quote:
to prevent bush from taking office.

Would republicans prevent him from taking office?


"I'd vote for a democrat but they don't seem to represent straight white non-union males."

"Hate to break this to you, but gay people are a minority group. In the last election 20% of them voted Repubican. Obama won, not because of his gay supporters, but because "straight", black and white men supported his candidacy. In addition, unions are also a fairly small minority group which have not in the last two elections been able to prevent bush from taking office. It would appear your bias is more your own and has nothing to do with electoral politics. Better watch out - those gays in the Republican party might actually HELP you win in the future."

I don't think you fully understand what I was saying. Neither gays nor unions vote in a solid block (although they do tend to support Democrats by a fairly large margin). My point was, that even if they did vote exclusively Democratic they were unable to sway the last two elections away from bush (even though Gore did win the popular vote). Both groups are minorites, but the point of my remark was that a fairly large percentage of gays AND union members vote Republican.

By saying "prevent bush from taking office" I meant through the electoral process.
I think you have a good question. For what it's worth, here's my two cents worth. There are good people in both parties and you have a mixture of belief's in both parties. You have liberal republicans as well as democrats and you have conservative democrats as well as republicans. But how far to the right or left do we go? Or should we stay in the middle? Things have certainly changed since my childhood days. I remember a time there was no way you could get anyone in Alabama to vote republican. Although you have democrats that are presently voting democrat in our state, the majority of the state votes republican when it comes to electing a president or U.S. senators and has a tendency to vote democrat on local issues. I never have understood that one.

I think religion plays a big part on how Alabama votes but I don't think religion played a part this past election as it did in 2000 and 2004. The issue of abortion, gays, and guns were only mentioned lightly considering the mention it got in 2004. As someone said, it's the economy stupid. And I think it was. Religious people being out of jobs seemed to go democrat rather than republican this time. Sometimes I think it depends on how things are going in the United States as to which way people feel comfortable voting. And this time it had to do with the pocketbooks and no jobs. And I'm not even sure if this incoming president is going to be able to straighten out the mess that we are in. I know people who are very conservative and religious that voted democrat this time. So again I think it's what's going on at the time. Just my opinion.
To address the original question of the thread:

I think the situation is not one as simple as "voting for the party as opposed to the person".

I think today's political climate has gotten to the point of three camps. To borrow a phrase from everyone's favorite TV personality, Mr. Billy O'Reilly, "idealogues" have entrenched themselves on both sides of the two-party system.

I'd say the lion's share of elections in this country, on a national level, fall into a 40/20/40 pattern. The 40 % of people who will vote Republican, the 40% of people who will vote Democrat, and the 20% of people who will actually determine the outcome of the election. They're labeled as "independents", but I believe a lot of them are often "cross-overs" who actually don't like the choice their party gave them.

Even within the 40% bloc on each side, I don't think the large majority of them just look for the word "Republican" or "Democrat" under a candidates name and make up their mind. They DO make a personal judgment about a candidate, it's often just not about THEIR party's candidate. It's a personal judgment that they "can't bring themselves" to vote for the other party's candidate, for fear of the ruinous things he/she might do to the country.

It's Karl Rove politics at its best, and it works. In today's poisonous and media-driven political cycle, you can 'sure up your base' just by making sure they're sufficiently terrified of the other guy winning.

The cause? Complacency.

Having some idea of what YOU beleive in (outside a party platform), giving a fair listen to the actual ideas presented by both sides, ignoring the character assasination and distracting fringe issues, and making an educated choice of which candidate suits your own views best. These all take time, effort, and an ability to not get sucked into the latest campaign trail scandal that you're told should make you doubt this or that about this person or that person.

It's much easier to pick a side, throw on a jersey, cook some popcorn, yell at the TV set, and call for the referee's head when a questionable call goes against your team.

And no, I'm not referring to a football game.

I'm talking about American politics.

Biggest spectator sport in the land.
Last edited by SardonicPoet
I voted based on the candidates' stated positions on issues. Had I agreed most with McCain, I would have voted for him. I did not. Had I agreed most with Obama, I would have voted for him. I did not.

I voted for Barr. Not because of labels... he was the Libertarian Party candidate, and most people who have taken the time to try to figure me out peg me as a libertarian eventually... but I didn't vote for him because he had the right label. I voted for him because his stated beliefs on policy issues most closely align with my own beliefs.

And it really *is* that simple. In any given election, from dog catcher up to the PotUSA, I cast my vote based on where the candidate stands on the issues. I am generally disappointed in whomever actually wins the election because they don't generally stand up for what they said they believe once they're actually in office, but that's a different rant for a different day.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×