Just out of curiosity, I'm not here to argue one side or the other, I'm just curious to know how people who voted for Obama feel about the next presidential election.
Please only vote if you voted for Obama last election.
Printable View
Just out of curiosity, I'm not here to argue one side or the other, I'm just curious to know how people who voted for Obama feel about the next presidential election.
Please only vote if you voted for Obama last election.
I just can't believe he turned out to be black. The people had a right to know before election day.
I would like to say that I'm going to actually wait to see who is running, but I'm quite certain that the Republican candidate (in order to draw in the conservative base) will espouse what I consider to be atrocious social policies such that I will not be able to vote for them.
I voted for Obama and if we're considering him against a random GOP candidate, I'd vote for him again. The GOP so deeply insulted me by bringing in Sarah Palin and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from when they got me to vote for Bush 6 years back.
All political ideologies aside, I will vote for the intelligent man over all others.
If I lived in a swing district I would, but since I'm in a strongly blue district I will write in Russ Feingold or Elizabeth Warren.
I didn't vote in 08 (don't worry I didn't mess up the poll) because I knew I needed more research before I understood politics, and today any support of mine for Barry has more to do with him being a non-retard supply-side conservative as opposed to a corrupt idiot supply-side conservative. If I had the option to vote for a populous-friendly demand-side liberal/socialist, I would do so and actually feel great about it
because, like wuf, I am deep in democrat country, I am considering making a protest vote.
I'd take Barry over the current republican candidates in a second.
who the fuck votes
.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
my words will sound really fucked because I'm a social studies teacher, but it doesn't matter if you vote, and it doesn't matter who you vote for
I'm talking presidential election here
unless you're undecided.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
How big of a random sample would have to be taken for the sample to predict with 99% confidence who would be elected president if everyone voted?
I'll tell you who would know the answer to your question - Nate Silver.
Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com
So people who voted for Obama. Are you guys satisfied with his administrations policies, and performance of those policies since he has taken office? If you are not what do you wish he would do differently or what do you dislike?
How close was that 2000 election in Florida again? Oh yeah...537 votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
It matters.
I didn't vote for a few reasons, but I was a pretty big supporter of his during the end of his campaign and beginning of administration. Not sure if that qualifies me to answer the question, but it wouldn't change my perspective, and that's what mattersQuote:
Originally Posted by ilikeaces86
WRT policy, I am very dissatisfied with Barry because, for all his intelligence and empathy, he doesn't know what he's doing on a fundamental level. His administration truly does believe they've been bringing change, but they couldn't be more wrong. The change they brought was a more intelligent, less corrupt trickle-down policy as opposed to the previous idiotic and corrupt trickle-down policy. Most people who voted for him wanted systemic and philosophical change, but he did nothing of the sort and brought us management change instead.
His policies are actually very good WRT supply-side theory. The problem is that supply-side isn't that effective, yet nobody in Washington has realized it for decades now.
WRT politics, I am even more dissatisfied with Obama than with his policy. IMO, the defining characteristic of his administration will be his inability to get his message out. It's so bad that even most Democrat voters don't know the majority of the valuable stuff he's done. They whisper their success then let Fox hammer it away. A great example is that the teabaggers lament Obama for raising their taxes, yet he actually lowered them. Or in a recent Geithner interview, Charlie Rose asked him over and over again about the Administration's failure to communicate, and Geithner obviously didn't even understand the point, and felt that devising policy itself is adequate political media.
It's a disaster. The administration's failure to communicate and politick is their defining characteristic, and it defines them as pathetic and wasted opportunity. With Bush's political strategists, the Obama administration would still be pretty loved today
So basically, the details are uncountable, but the basics are that I want him to learn politics 101 and actually fight back/make his case. And learn econ 101 and focus directly on the poor and middle class instead of the wasteful proxy theory of trickle-down. Sadly, I'm not sure the latter President is even possible to get anymore. The last two Democratic administrations had the same give-the-wealthy-more philosophy as the Republicans.
The populace is slowly but surely drowning in our excessive for-profit society, and Obama has done little to change that largely because he thinks it doesn't need changing.
Yeah and AA never wins cause this one time I got it in vs 72o and 72o won!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpe
1) That was a very very rare occurrence and 2) Regardless of whether 5% of the US or 90% of the US votes we are still very likely to have the same outcome...
Your vote really doesn't matter.
One individual vote almost never matters in isolation, but the propagation of this attitude en mass does matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
...quite the conundrum we have here...
explaining to people the statistical probability that their vote will ever matter has more of an influence than actually not voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
i'm not saying you should or shouldn't vote, just making an observation.
disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbr2intheWorld
if 5% of the US voted for a presidential candidate, the republican would win.
if 90% of the US voted for a presidential candidate, the democrat would win.
the above would very likely to be the case regardless if those percentages were based on total people or total eligible voters.
Depends who the Republicans nominate. I support the Republican party in general but I voted for Obama in 2008 because Palin was so completely unqualified and McCain proved himself to be unqualified based on the fact that he selected her. If they nominate another "social conservative" retread like Palin or Huckabee then I'll probably vote for Obama again.
I wasn't getting into the statistics of how insignificant your vote is, but that's true too. I was getting more into how for presidential elections, it doesn't matter WHO you vote for because the outcome has already been decided.....or the outcome doesn't matter because "the powers that be" are happy with either candidate you'll end up choosing (no third party candidate has a chance). p.s. yes I wear a tinfoil hat
Well, the answers to both your posts are that it depends and there are degrees. Emphatic categorical statements in either direction are false, but can be true under different relevant and known situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
Just because your vote or your neighbor's vote may not count during your tiny sample, doesn't mean that democracy isn't rife with situations of unpredicted solitary votes changing things. The same goes for the differences between presidents. In some ways, Obama and McCain are very similar, but in other ways very different. Don't equate similarities with exactnesses, especially given the phenomena of exponential and cascading effects
Overall, to claim these things don't matter is myopia. Not only is it empirically false, but theoretically as well. The course of history is made up on single actions by unimportant people. If you had complete god-like omniscience over the Universe, you could break down the happenstance of the Dred Scott decision to just one insignificant previous action.
Could be worse... Living in western Canada the polls are still open as the results from the East (much higher population areas) are coming in. Often by the time the polls on the west coast close, things are pretty much already decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
IMO UG wasn't saying Obama =McCain.
The question is whether anything would change substantially if you replaced one with the other.
Your saying basically that the sample isn't random, that most people who do not vote are democrats?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
what I'm getting at is what Wufwugy pointed out in this thread, just in a different way. wuf says that Barry is pleasing the rich, not focusing on the lower/middle class, trickle-down economics but spun with different language, etc. show me a presidential candidate that will do the opposite of that, and I'll show you a candidate that will never have even a glimmer of hope to win the election (the media and TPTB will bury him/her). or show me a president that starts doing all of that and I will show you a dead/assassinated president.
rumors of a Barry/Hillary ticket have me shuddering, but I doubt whoever the republican party puts out there will be much better--so Barry will probably get my vote. a wasted vote, for sure, at least in my state (Kansas), as the republican candidate historically dominates in KS.
p.s. the Bush/Gore election is still controversial to this day, Warpe. I've read things that say Gore should have actually won, but obviously didn't, which is scary stuff.
yepQuote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
nvm, not turning this thread into the these people are our future thread.
Obama hasn't done anything remotely radical or even unique. His policies have been very standard right of center supply-side. The only reason this is 'radical' is because Rupert, Rush, and Goldman are upset that the money they're getting isnt as free as under Bush
FWIW, I wouldn't say it's spun with different language. Top-down econ policies can be beneficial in certain scenarios, yet US hasn't reflected that kind of scenario for a very long time. The difference between Obama and Bush isn't just a rebranding of top-down policy, but that Obama is focusing more on top-down investment whereas Bush focused on top-down giveaways and corruption. Where Bush gives a bunch of money to war mercenaries with terrible multiplier effects, Obama puts money into companies restructuring electrical grids which brings great multipliers.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
The problem is that no level of intelligent top-down policy can fix our issues. The problem is an enormous gap between take-home wealth between the classes and labor abuse i.e. basic problems of demand. Some of what Obama has been doing is trying to increase living standards and capacity for demand for the non-wealthy, but it's piggybacking on propping up supply, and ultimately is not that powerful.
It's tough to argue against his approach though because if he actually did what needs to be done (massively increase top rate taxes and labor rights*) then there would be hell to pay from the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the world's history, and he would most likely go the way of Carter (be vilified, defeated, and swept under the rug). There isn't much evidence that bottom-up, egalitarian policy works on the political level anyways. Over half of the world's population lives in poverty for a reason
*I should add that heavy investment in primarily infrastructure is equally important, which Obama is sorta doing. His level of investment is a bare minimum, really
that is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan