The StarDestroyer BBS 2012 US Presidential Election Poll

[General Mung Beans]

How is Obama actually different from Romney on any of these issues? You can't paint Mitt Romney as some kind of right wing radical when he's the most bland and boring candidate imaginable. He's a Republican John Kerry who's practically identical to Obama in every way. Why the fuck do I care whether or not Romney is in favor of tax increases? Obama has been extending Bush's tax policies for the last four years.

Romney's practically chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran. I can't imagine that he'd even consider attempting a diplomatic approach before sending in the troops.

How much of it is just posture to win the Jewish and Evangelical vote? I mean Bush didn't go to war against Iran.

[General Zod]

How is Obama actually different from Romney on any of these issues? You can't paint Mitt Romney as some kind of right wing radical when he's the most bland and boring candidate imaginable. He's a Republican John Kerry who's practically identical to Obama in every way. Why the fuck do I care whether or not Romney is in favor of tax increases? Obama has been extending Bush's tax policies for the last four years.

Romney's practically chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran. I can't imagine that he'd even consider attempting a diplomatic approach before sending in the troops.

How much of it is just posture to win the Jewish and Evangelical vote? I mean Bush didn't go to war against Iran.

I don't see that it matters much if it's posturing or not. Bush didn't go to war against Iran but he went to war with a host of other places.

[Simon_Jester]

How is Obama actually different from Romney on any of these issues? You can't paint Mitt Romney as some kind of right wing radical when he's the most bland and boring candidate imaginable. He's a Republican John Kerry who's practically identical to Obama in every way. Why the fuck do I care whether or not Romney is in favor of tax increases? Obama has been extending Bush's tax policies for the last four years.

Romney's practically chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran. I can't imagine that he'd even consider attempting a diplomatic approach before sending in the troops.

I'm not sure Romney's going to have nearly enough political capital left over from his domestic program to gamble it on invading Iran, which is a tougher target than Iraq was anyway.

I bet most of his eagerness goes 'poof' if he wins. The rest will probably go 'poof' the first time he actually talks to his new generals; we're not the same country we were before Iraq. When it's Pentagon brass telling him we don't have the manpower to hold down Iran instead of antiwar protestors telling him it's a bad idea on principle...

After what happened in Florida in 2000, party leaders would have to be on crack to not worry about it.

Florida isn't a Bastion state, at least not when it comes to Presidential elections.

Put this way. In 2000, Nader won 400,000 votes in California. Suppose you are a Democrat. You can lose four hundred thousand voters in the bastion state of California. You're really dodging a bullet if you don't manage to lose at least 10-20 thousand voters in Florida to the Greens, or to just plain apathy and "who cares?"

And indeed, 17 thousand people voted for Nader in Florida. Plus some indefinite number of left-wing Democrats who stayed home because of apathy.

Now, does this invalidate whatever strategy the Democrats used in Florida in 2000? Not necessarily. If you can pick up 50 thousand guys with a move to the right that only pisses off 20 thousand guys, so be it. But the closer those numbers get, the less you want to keep making those calls. If you expect to lose thirty and gain forty- well, what if your ad campaign isn't as effective as you hoped? Maybe you'll just break even, and the money would be better spent pushing voter turnout among your hardcore supporters.

So you can't just laugh it off, if hundreds of thousands of your base voters are defecting to third parties in safe states. You need to at least think about it, try to make some kind of cost/benefit calculation. And for people on the outer fringe of a party, creating any kind of cost for the party moving to the center... that's priority #1. Even if they say "fuck it, we're doing it anyway," at least you gave them a reason to think about it, and they may not make the same decision next time.

No matter what, the message the Dems have recieved over and over again is that in order to get independents, they have to take generally conservative stances. Yeah, in some ways they are more progressive, but topics like "gay marriage" aren't the kiss of death like they were even ten years ago. As long as they can be conservative on other topics they'll be "okay".

Hell, the 2010 election was a reinforced that message big time.

The weird thing is that a lot of Americans are turning 'liberal' and 'progressive' into curse words while still deciding to shrug on gay marriage, grumble about tax cuts for Wall Street, and wish there was more Big Gubmint meddling in health care. The poll numbers on "what do you want the country to look like" don't tell quite the same story as the poll numbers on "are you a conservative?"

It's been an article of faith that trying to win by playing ideological hardball is a stupid way to try and win an American presidential election for Democrats. Since 2000, the Democrats have won one and lost two elections. And the one they won, they could probably have won by nominating a bag of shredded lettuce as long is it had a (D) after its name. Because that's about how popular Bush was in 2007. The calculations are about the same if we look at the last several midterm elections- the only unmitigated Democratic victory was 2006 under Bush the Unpopular.

If this is such a brilliant strategy, why aren't the Republicans trying to do the same thing? How many times does a strategy have to give you mediocre results before "you didn't do it hard enough" stops being the only possible answer?


So yes, I get your prediction. The Democrats have always tried to run to the right in order to win swing states, because they're more afraid of losing 0.1% of America that's in the middle than of losing 0.1% of America that's in the far left. Therefore, they will always continue to do so.

My point is that if you're a member of the American political fringe, and you want any influence at all, you have to at least get party planners to notice who you are. The Tea Party did this very effectively, and went from an ineffective force in 2008 to a very effective one in 2010. The left hasn't done the same so far. If they never even try, then that 0.1% loss of far-left Americans will never pop up on the Democrats' radar, and they'll definitely keep doing what they were doing.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm not sure Romney's going to have nearly enough political capital left over from his domestic program to gamble it on invading Iran, which is a tougher target than Iraq was anyway.

I bet most of his eagerness goes 'poof' if he wins. The rest will probably go 'poof' the first time he actually talks to his new generals; we're not the same country we were before Iraq. When it's Pentagon brass telling him we don't have the manpower to hold down Iran instead of antiwar protestors telling him it's a bad idea on principle...

Romney has reportedly planned to heed the advice of the Pentagon on the plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan. I can't imagine he wouldn't listen to them in Iran. Their is a plan to start downsizing the Army with the upcoming budget cuts and overall, the posture of the military indicates a trend towards de-mobilization over the next 20 years. So I imagine the Pentagon is not in an optimistic mood about war with Iran. Shit they weren't even optimistic about Iraq either, but Rumsfeld ignored them at every point and we got a near Vietnam 2.0 because of it.

And indeed, 17 thousand people voted for Nader in Florida. Plus some indefinite number of left-wing Democrats who stayed home because of apathy.

A number of Americans though simply feel that politics is beyond them, and they trust or like neither side. When you see some of the shit the Clinton's pulled during the run up to the DNC, you can see why some people just become disillusioned. A good way to rehabilitate these kinds of people though is to expose them to low level local politics and then gradually turn them back towards Federal level politics. Watching CSPAN every now and then is pretty eye-opening to people who haven't the foggiest clue how a leadership organization even functions. All of this of course hinges on said people having some small interest in politics, that are just suffering from low morale.

Their are plenty of apathetic voters who simply don't care at all about politics, and are entrenched in the belief that what happens in Washington doesn't affect them. You can't make people vote after all. I'd rather people who were not motivated and therefore not informed to positively contribute to the American political process not vote either really.

[Broomstick]

How is Obama actually different from Romney on any of these issues?

Civil Rights: Romney wants to outlaw abortion, rollback what gains same-sex marriage has made, and panders to the religious right who think "freedom of religion" means "freedom of Christian religion to ride roughshod over everyone else".

Rendition/torture: evidence less obvious here, but given Romney's get tough rhetoric I'm assuming that at best he'll maintain the status quo, and may think more of this is better.

War: As we have recently seen, Romney's international skills suck. Obama is much more adept at foreign relations than Romney. Obama hasn't started a war in his term, and is trying wind down/bring home the troops from the two wars underway when he took office. Romney talks about "respecting" a strike on Iran and blames a nation under occupation for the suck situation they're in instead of the occupier. This leads me to think Romney is far more open to starting another fight than Obama is.

Why the fuck do I care whether or not Romney is in favor of tax increases? Obama has been extending Bush's tax policies for the last four years.

Actually, it's Congress that's been extending the Bush tax cuts, not Obama, who has repeatedly stated the top percentages should pay more but hey, thanks for swallowing the Faux News propaganda. Obama is in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts and maybe modest increases in some cases. Romney not only wants to extend the Bush tax cuts he wants even more tax cuts.

Why should you care? National debt, funding cuts for the government stuff you like, disaster relief funding...

But that isn't the case now. I don't see how a Romney presidency will be appreciably different from an Obama second term,

Then you aren't paying attention. Please go back and do some research. Other than on Fox.

[TronPaul]

A few months ago I complained about our two party system to my friend who just finished up his Political Science undergrad and starting his graduate degree. He sent me this paper, which is pretty interesting.

The author seeks to explain why

There are two features of elections under plurality rule that observers regularly note: some voters vote, and two parties generally receive almost all of the votes cast. Attempts to provide a formal theoretic explanation for each phenomenon have occupied the attention of formal modelers for the last 30 years.

In short, he argues that given a finite set of voters with perfect knowledge, a spherical policy space, and with votes incurring a small cost to voters that voters will either gravitate to one of two positions or abstain due to voters seeking to optimize the value of their vote, or abstain if the value of their vote is not larger than the cost to vote.

It's a really good paper and I suggest reading it.

[Spoonist]

A few months ago I complained about our two party system to my friend who just finished up his Political Science undergrad and starting his graduate degree. He sent me this paper, which is pretty interesting.

That is ignorant. It adress none of the usual arguments/solutions to the US system so its not any kind of response to complaints vs the US system.
How come you thought that had any relevance? Or did you simply not argue specificly instead of just ranting?

[Thanas]

In some cases it's not idealism but pragmatism

There is nothing in Romney's record that would indicate that he is a massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut. At the worst, he will be Bush sr in my opinion.

I am not going to tell you who you should vote for. It is not my place.

What I am going to say however is that you should be aware that if you are voting for somebody in a system like this, you are voting for all his policies and supporting all his policies. If you feel that you supporting torture and outside-the-law executions of citizens is worth it, then by all means. Just don't go all holy like the board did when Bush was voted in, declaring that the Republican voters must obviously be all evil etc. Because guess what? So are you if you vote for Obama, at least by those standards.

EDIT: It is the saddest tale of this century so far how much the USA has slipped from the time of Clinton and that the official democrat candidate is such an utter hypocrite.

[wautd]

Who I'd like to win? I honestly don't know. Not that Obama is all that great, but Romney will probably even worse (what with his War on the Environment/Wind Power the other day just as a reminder).

I don't know anything about the other two

[CaptHawkeye]

In some cases it's not idealism but pragmatism

There is nothing in Romney's record that would indicate that he is a massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut. At the worst, he will be Bush sr in my opinion.

The more I read about Mitt Romney the more true this is. He's been dancing around more progressive social issues like gay marriage and stem cell research now but he clearly would rather not alienate the Tea Party part of his base. He's supported the Log Cabin Republicans historically so who knows? I mean he was Governor of Massachusetts which was by no means a right-leaning state.

On other issues he's just as Left Wing, in some cases more Left Wing than Obama is. It's too bad he's thrown in his lot with a party that hates gay people, women, and minorities. Or I might vote for him since that modest Republicanism is closer to my own views. As it is now it would be too much of a gamble to just assume that he could rise above his own party's demands of him. He could get in the White House and be a complete Tea Party, corporate puppet. He might not, I just don't like having to guess though.

[CaptHawkeye]

Who I'd like to win? I honestly don't know. Not that Obama is all that great, but Romney will probably even worse (what with his War on the Environment/Wind Power the other day just as a reminder).

I don't know anything about the other two

You know Romney has actually admitted he believes Global Warming is happening. Once or twice even admitting humans are behind it. He stopped saying that once Rush Limbaugh of course turned the heat on him for it, but he very well might still believe it. Again, must pander to crazy right. When he was Governor of Massachusetts he did stop the creation of a wind farm off Nantucket, but then he threatened to shut down a coal plant if it didn't meet emissions standards. Clearly he's not at war with the environmental camp.

[Broomstick]

In some cases it's not idealism but pragmatism

There is nothing in Romney's record that would indicate that he is a massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut. At the worst, he will be Bush sr in my opinion.

In your opinion.

Romney doesn't have to be a "massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut" to be lesser choice.

I am not going to tell you who you should vote for. It is not my place.

Last time we went around with this I asked you what you thought Americans should do to improve the system since the voting system isn't effective for your purposes. You never answered me. I don't expect you will ever answer me because you don't have an answer other than "America sucks".

What I am going to say however is that you should be aware that if you are voting for somebody in a system like this, you are voting for all his policies and supporting all his policies.

No, we're not. No one in this country has ever had that notion, that you support 100% all the things the candidate you vote for supports or promotes. That comes strictly out of your own mind. The major political parties have dissenting factions within them and often publicly disagree with the chosen candidate/elected official.

Such a position is ridiculous. Who ever agrees completely with anyone else? By that rationale no one should ever vote for anyone anywhere.

Protest and dissent is a sport in the US. Assault and death threats aren't allowed, but just about anything verbal is. Where on earth do you get this notion that when an American votes for someone they support that person's positions on everything? That might work in a system with multiple viable parties where you can find a more nuanced choice but when the PotUS election comes down to one, maybe three, candidates for over two centuries that's just not going to happen. You need to re-examine your assumptions here.

If you feel that you supporting torture and outside-the-law executions of citizens is worth it, then by all means.

The problem with that statement is that regardless of whether Romney or Obama is voted in that will continue. And I fully agree that is despicable, reprehensible, and unacceptable. I think what we disagree on is whether or not there's anything the average voter can do about it at this point. I don't think there is. A vote for Romney is equally a vote for all that.

When it makes no difference on an issue which candidate I vote for then, if I vote at all, I must choose based on something else, some issue(s) where there is a difference between them.

Just don't go all holy like the board did when Bush was voted in, declaring that the Republican voters must obviously be all evil etc

Don't worry, I'm one of the least likely to do that, having seen this bullshit come round every four years for nearly half a century.

Now, in return, kindly agree to judge Americans posting here on their own stated opinions and positions rather than attributing a particular suite of positions to them simply because they are Americans and therefore are all mental clones marching in lockstep. We're not. We're 300 million people and you'll find more than a few differences of opinion among us.

[Vaporous]

Civil Rights: Romney wants to outlaw abortion, rollback what gains same-sex marriage has made, and panders to the religious right who think "freedom of religion" means "freedom of Christian religion to ride roughshod over everyone else".

The president can't outlaw abortion, and neither can Congress. There hasn't been much in the way of gains for same sex marriage at a federal level for him to roll back. And "panders to the religous right" just means "He's going to say batshit crazy things now and again because that's what they want to hear".

Rendition/torture: evidence less obvious here, but given Romney's get tough rhetoric I'm assuming that at best he'll maintain the status quo, and may think more of this is better.

Who cares about his rhetoric? Obama's rhetoric about executive power was great, until he got into office and decided that the only thing more cool than privilege and secrecy was having an army of murder-bots. Hell, there's no knowing that Obama's second term wouldn't see an expansion of these programs anyway. The difference is that Romney says he might do it and that Obama has actually done it.

War: As we have recently seen, Romney's international skills suck. Obama is much more adept at foreign relations than Romney. Obama hasn't started a war in his term, and is trying wind down/bring home the troops from the two wars underway when he took office. Romney talks about "respecting" a strike on Iran and blames a nation under occupation for the suck situation they're in instead of the occupier. This leads me to think Romney is far more open to starting another fight than Obama is.

What are President Obama's major foreign policy successes?

If Israel attacks Iran, is Obama less likely to intervene than Romney? (Hint: The answer is no.)

Actually, it's Congress that's been extending the Bush tax cuts, not Obama, who has repeatedly stated the top percentages should pay more but hey, thanks for swallowing the Faux News propaganda. Obama is in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts and maybe modest increases in some cases. Romney not only wants to extend the Bush tax cuts he wants even more tax cuts.

You can tell Obama is against tax cuts because he talks about how much he dislikes tax cuts in between extending tax cuts, which can't be done without his signature. Makes sense. Or maybe after four years of watching him govern we can try to judge his actions instead of his words.

Why should you care? National debt, funding cuts for the government stuff you like, disaster relief funding...

My point is that Romney being in favor of tax cuts is a useless piece of information given that Obama has also signed or extended tax cuts over and over for four years. I understand why he did it and I'm not horrified by it. But since there isn't a difference, I can't use it to differentiate between them.

Then you aren't paying attention. Please go back and do some research. Other than on Fox.

Yes, I think Barack Obama is a shitty president, ergo I am a conservative who only watches Fox News. Flawless victory. I am undone.

If I were a conservatard parroting Faux news talking points, why would I be characterizing Obama as a center-rightist (which he plainly is and said he was) instead of as a screaming radical kenyan communist?

i'm not voting for Obama because I don't want to be morally culpable for supporting executive privilege, the assassination of American citizens, the lessening of transparency, the war on whistle-blowers etc. Let someone else decide between two people who believe in those things. That's no choice at all for me.

[Block]

My point is that Romney being in favor of tax cuts is a useless piece of information given that Obama has also signed or extended tax cuts over and over for four years. I understand why he did it and I'm not horrified by it. But since there isn't a difference, I can't use it to differentiate between them.

Yes you can, very easily. Obama was ok with extending current tax breaks, although it looks like that willingness has reached its breaking point for the upper class portion of them, Romney wants to extend the current ones and add new ones for the wealthy, that's a pretty big difference

[Broomstick]

Civil Rights: Romney wants to outlaw abortion, rollback what gains same-sex marriage has made, and panders to the religious right who think "freedom of religion" means "freedom of Christian religion to ride roughshod over everyone else".

The president can't outlaw abortion, and neither can Congress.

The president and Congress can making getting a legal abortion so difficult it might as well be banned - hell, we've seen some states do that over the years. Actually, while governor of Massasschusetts he claimed to be pro-choice but since 2005 he's officialy pro-life so there you go, he's on record as being in the camp that wants to restrict abortion access as much as possible if they can't actually outlaw it.

Remind me - do the Repubs still have that plank in their platform about passing a constitutional amendment against abortion or did they finally get rid of it?

There hasn't been much in the way of gains for same sex marriage at a federal level for him to roll back.

Obama doesn't have a litter of puppies every time it's legalized in some state or other. The Republican puppetmasters do, and thus Romney gives at least lip service to it.

Romney was in favor of don't ask, don't tell, and would still support it if it were in place. Obama repealed don't ask, don't tell.

Romney is opposed to same sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Obama is for civil unions conferring the same social rights as marriage for same sex couples. When he first elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996 he was in favor of same sex marriage. He has wavered on it a bit, however, he did vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment (a proposal to amend the Federal constitution to prohibit same sex marriage) and has called for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also is on record as opposing California's Proposition 8 defining marriage and solely between one man and one woman.

So, true, there hasn't been much action at the Federal level, but what there has been Obama has been involved in, and he has a record dating back to 1996 as being either neutral or in favor of SSM. Romney... not so much.

Rendition/torture: evidence less obvious here, but given Romney's get tough rhetoric I'm assuming that at best he'll maintain the status quo, and may think more of this is better.

Who cares about his rhetoric? Obama's rhetoric about executive power was great, until he got into office and decided that the only thing more cool than privilege and secrecy was having an army of murder-bots. Hell, there's no knowing that Obama's second term wouldn't see an expansion of these programs anyway. The difference is that Romney says he might do it and that Obama has actually done it.

I suppose that explains why that bastion of torture and oppression known as the ACLU gives him an 80% score on civil liberties. Personally, I wouldn't score him so high.

War: As we have recently seen, Romney's international skills suck. Obama is much more adept at foreign relations than Romney. Obama hasn't started a war in his term, and is trying wind down/bring home the troops from the two wars underway when he took office. Romney talks about "respecting" a strike on Iran and blames a nation under occupation for the suck situation they're in instead of the occupier. This leads me to think Romney is far more open to starting another fight than Obama is.

What are President Obama's major foreign policy successes?

Winding down the two wars we're still sunk into is a big one as far as I'm concerned.

If Israel attacks Iran, is Obama less likely to intervene than Romney? (Hint: The answer is no.)

If Israel attacks Iran it doesn't matter who is in the Oval Office, the US is going to be involved whether it wants to or not. I think Obama would be working prior to that to avoid war/open conflict whereas I do not have that confidence about Romney. I don't think he's in the camp that wants Israel to get into a war to fulfill Armageddon myths, but that's not saying much.

Actually, it's Congress that's been extending the Bush tax cuts, not Obama, who has repeatedly stated the top percentages should pay more but hey, thanks for swallowing the Faux News propaganda. Obama is in favor of ending the Bush tax cuts and maybe modest increases in some cases. Romney not only wants to extend the Bush tax cuts he wants even more tax cuts.

You can tell Obama is against tax cuts because he talks about how much he dislikes tax cuts in between extending tax cuts, which can't be done without his signature. Makes sense. Or maybe after four years of watching him govern we can try to judge his actions instead of his words.

There is this thing called "compromise" which all too many people have forgotten about. I view some of the tax cut extensions as attempts to engage the Republicans in some give and take, which obviously failed.

It still remains, though, that Romny not only wants to extends the current cuts he wants more cuts on top of that. For the wealthiest Americans, and kick the poor to the curb.

Or - What Block said.

Yes, I think Barack Obama is a shitty president, ergo I am a conservative who only watches Fox News. Flawless victory. I am undone.

I don't think he's a particularly good one, but I think Romney would be worse.

i'm not voting for Obama because I don't want to be morally culpable for supporting executive privilege, the assassination of American citizens, the lessening of transparency, the war on whistle-blowers etc. Let someone else decide between two people who believe in those things. That's no choice at all for me.

So you've decided not to vote in November? OK, your choice. You can vote not to vote.

I realize some people think that by opting out they're removing themselves from moral stain, however, not voting is just as much a choice as voting. Whoever wins will STILL be your president whether you like him or not. If he turns into a tyrant/reincarnated Hitler/devil incarnate/champion asshole doing hookers and blow in the Oval Office/whatever and you had some clue he'd be that bad prior to his win and you did nothing to prevent that you are still on the hook. Not as much as if you had actually voted for the greater evil, but still culpable for not attempting to prevent whatever Bad Thing occurs.

Of course, that only applies to known threats. Those who voted for Bush, Jr. the first time get some slack because we didn't actually know what sort of asshole PotUS he would be. Those who voted for him the second time don't get any, because we knew what sort of executive he'd made based on actual experience.

So yes, we have a pretty good idea of what Obama will be like in his second term and it's far from perfect. I was hoping for a great president, what we got was mediocre at best, and probably not up to that line on quite a few issues and subjects. Thus, the only question is whether to settle for Obama (flaws and all) or take a chance on Romney.

[Simon_Jester]

A few months ago I complained about our two party system to my friend who just finished up his Political Science undergrad and starting his graduate degree. He sent me this paper, which is pretty interesting.

That is ignorant. It adress none of the usual arguments/solutions to the US system so its not any kind of response to complaints vs the US system.
How come you thought that had any relevance? Or did you simply not argue specificly instead of just ranting?

Spoonist, this seems to be yet another misunderstanding.

This is a mathematical analysis of why people vote why they do. The use of such a thing in political reform is obvious. If you can analyze voting patterns, you can deduce the best way to reform the system to give people what they want.

Why on Earth does the paper have to "adress the usual arguments/solutions to the US system?" Why can't it simply be an interesting paper about the US system, that gives us facts and logic to talk about, instead of just randomly sitting around babbling about how horrible it is?

Why does everything anyone says have to be an attempt to 'refute' what someone else says?

There is nothing in Romney's record that would indicate that he is a massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut. At the worst, he will be Bush sr in my opinion.

I am not going to tell you who you should vote for. It is not my place.

In my assessment, Romney can be depended on to do whatever the corporate-backed wing of the party pleases- which means the domestic economy will end up more tilted to hurt most Americans. He will get the chance to appoint corporatist, anti-freedom people to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, he will be under constant pressure from the radicals in his own party to adopt a "no enemies to the right" stance. If the Tea Party wants radical social conservatism in the executive branch, they'll get it. Maybe not as much as they'd get if someone like Santorum or Perry had won, but they'll get it.

Romney's personal politics are irrelevant, because the one thing we do know about Romney is that he's willing to subordinate whatever personal beliefs he has to political convenience. He's spent the past year blowing hot and cold with the same breath.

He's no more likely to jump out on Inauguration Day 2013 and tell the Tea Party "Surprise! I'm actually a moderate!" than Obama is to jump out and tell the Republicans "Surprise! I'm actually a leftist!"

I wish I thought he'd be like Bush Senior. That man had integrity, at least enough of it to know a good policy solution when he saw one and not be a slave to the rhetoric of the far right.

What I am going to say however is that you should be aware that if you are voting for somebody in a system like this, you are voting for all his policies and supporting all his policies.

Thanas, I've heard you say this before, but I still don't understand: what do you base this on? There seem to be a lot of steps you've skipped- or maybe the act of voting simply means something to you that it doesn't mean to a lot of other people.

This seems almost axiomatic to you, but it's by no means obvious to me. If the election is between two thieves, one of whom is also a murderer, is it "pro-theft" to vote for the man with only one crime on his record?

[UnderAGreySky]

I don't think anyone has brought this up so far, but.... in the event of one (or more) of the US Supreme Court judges retiring in the next four years, would you want Romney to appoint a right-winger in their place or Obama doing what he has done so far - putting definitely left-of-centre Kagan and Sotomayor in place? Because that may decide how progressive the US gets to be in the future; see what Citizens United is already doing.

[eion]

I don't think anyone has brought this up so far, but.... in the event of one (or more) of the US Supreme Court judges retiring in the next four years, would you want Romney to appoint a right-winger in their place or Obama doing what he has done so far - putting definitely left-of-centre Kagan and Sotomayor in place? Because that may decide how progressive the US gets to be in the future; see what Citizens United is already doing.

Broken mentioned that on page 1, and I concured with him on page 2.

In addition to all the usual reasons to vote for Obama over Romney, I have to place the one that scares the crap out of me; imagine a Supreme Court with a few more Republican choices on it. If that possibility doesn't keep you up at night after thinking about, by all means vote for your ideals. But I don't want another Florida recount nightmare.

Broken already gave the No 1 factor in any vote for President: The Supreme Court. If Romney wins the court will likely be packed with two more ultraconservative Justices and our country will be fucked, not for 4 or 8 years, but for DECADES.

Two seats on the Court are likely to come up in the next presidential term: Ginsburg & Breyer. Two of the most consistantly liberal voices on the court, and the thought of a Republican selecting another Alito, Thomas, or Scalia or two for the court sickens me.

[Ralin]

Just don't go all holy like the board did when Bush was voted in, declaring that the Republican voters must obviously be all evil etc. Because guess what? So are you if you vote for Obama, at least by those standards.

I'd also really like to hear you explain your reasoning on this one some more. With Bush there were clearly better alternatives like Gore and Kerry. In this election the only other serious option is Romney, who all indications are would be as bad or worse than Obama. What exactly do you think are our other options at this point?

I mean, I'm not planning to vote unless Mike Huckabee somehow miraculously appears on the ballot, but seriously. Are you arguing that we should vote for Romney or just not vote at all? You say it's not your place to tell us how we should vote, but those are pretty much our only options other than maybe setting the groundwork for slightly stronger third-parties in the future. You've lived in Louisiana dude. Do you think that us voting for Edwards over David Duke meant we were voting for and supporting all of his corruption?

[Max]

Obama. I voted for Hillary in 2008. While Obama has done a few things I'm not super pleased about, he's also done, or attempted to do, plenty of things I agree with. I'm not sure who the other two on that list are. Mitt... is just not a good choice imho. It should be interesting how this election plays out in MN, generally we go blue, but outside of Minneapolis I never hear anything positive about Obama. And the tea part is unfortunately strong here...

[General Mung Beans]

Obama. I voted for Hillary in 2008. While Obama has done a few things I'm not super pleased about, he's also done, or attempted to do, plenty of things I agree with. I'm not sure who the other two on that list are. Mitt... is just not a good choice imho. It should be interesting how this election plays out in MN, generally we go blue, but outside of Minneapolis I never hear anything positive about Obama. And the tea part is unfortunately strong here...

Minnesota's the state that's gone the longest without going Republican in a Presidential election.

[Max]

Obama. I voted for Hillary in 2008. While Obama has done a few things I'm not super pleased about, he's also done, or attempted to do, plenty of things I agree with. I'm not sure who the other two on that list are. Mitt... is just not a good choice imho. It should be interesting how this election plays out in MN, generally we go blue, but outside of Minneapolis I never hear anything positive about Obama. And the tea part is unfortunately strong here...

Minnesota's the state that's gone the longest without going Republican in a Presidential election.

True, but the majority of our in state elections have increasingly gone red. With the exception of Al Franken and Gov. Dayton, who both narrowly won their races. Also, we have a lot of people who (and I hate to admit this) still love Michele (one "l") Bachmann. Yes, Minnesota hasn't voted (R), in terms of a president, since the dinosaurs roamed the earth way back in 1972, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a strong blue state. Just my opinion and observation, with the political climate getting increasingly divisive and mean, I'm not going to just assume that our whopping 10 electoral votes will go to Obama in Nov.

[Connor MacLeod]

It's also easy to forget that aside from a few places like the Twin Cities, Minnesota tends to be very rural and contain quite a few small towns. Around where I live (St Cloud) we also have quite a bit of a redneck atmosphere, and given some of the people I've worked and dealt with before its not always a huge shock to understand why we may have voted in someone like Bachmann.

(I'm also not saying 'rural' and 'small town' is automatically an indicator of conservative/right wing thinking, but it wouldn't greatly shock me either)

[Broomstick]

There is definitely an overlap between "rural" and "conservative/right wing", even if it's not 100%

[Block]

It's also easy to forget that aside from a few places like the Twin Cities, Minnesota tends to be very rural and contain quite a few small towns. Around where I live (St Cloud) we also have quite a bit of a redneck atmosphere, and given some of the people I've worked and dealt with before its not always a huge shock to understand why we may have voted in someone like Bachmann.

(I'm also not saying 'rural' and 'small town' is automatically an indicator of conservative/right wing thinking, but it wouldn't greatly shock me either)

Boseman is the only town I've heard of where ruralish and being liberal are linked.