Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not voting for Clinton in '92 is understandable. He was an unknown, up from nowhere. Voting for Dole in '96 can only be attributed to an absurd amount of whisky, or temporary loss of all cognitive faculties.

I figured Hank for a Perot voter. On the intertubes, at least.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Is "devaluing a vote" a thing? I don't see how I've done that, and if I have, I don't see why you would care.

And yes, this is generally true of almost every candidate.

As for there being just as many people "who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad" - I don't think there is a distinction. If he is less bad, then he is the better candidate.

Devaluing a vote as TM described it is not a thing. Votes have no value in our two party system. People are compelled to compromise between candidates neither of whom represent over 60% of what most voters want. A candidate that bridges the gap between the warring factions risks making the warring factions obsolete.

What the majority of people quietly want is a candidate who is socially liberal, fiscally conservative. We came close with Clinton, which is why the GOP loathed him so much, and the Lefties in the Democratic Party hate him.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Is "devaluing a vote" a thing? I don't see how I've done that, and if I have, I don't see why you would care.

And yes, this is generally true of almost every candidate.

As for there being just as many people "who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad" - I don't think there is a distinction. If he is less bad, then he is the better candidate.

ETA: I think Hanks point is that the swing voters, the people who decided the election, voted for Obama because the GOP's social attitudes scared the shit out of them.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

*and both parties devalued all of our votes- they campaigned in 10 states- that really bothers me. i know it won't change, but it just seems wrong.

Being or not being a swing state is not a permanent condition.

Also, Sebby --- psssst: Clinton's first act in 1993 was to raise taxes. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnib...on_Act_of_1993

[Hank Chinaski]

http://metrotimes.com/columns/the-pe...ster-1.1406395

this is a column by a guy I normally detest but the story is true, and amazing (plus the added bonus of a brief history of the Mi Gov who took over after romney (I think)).

There is a bridge and a tunnel that connect Winsor and Detroit. The bridge is old. A billionaire owns it. Our current Republican Governor got a new bridge financed and authorized. the billionaire was somehow able to get a ballot proposal that would require the people to vote to approve ANY bridge ever. i think it was a constitutional amendment.

It sounds like the paranoid story one imagines if one truly hates rich people, but it actually happened.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

ETA: I think Hanks point is that the swing voters, the people who decided the election, voted for Obama because the GOP's social attitudes scared the shit out of them.

Those aren't swing voters. Those are fools. If you think the GOP is going to flip Roe, you're nuts. The party that does that destroys its future. Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide. Hence, the GOP always manages to avoid putting an anti-Roe vote on the Court when it would matter. Every time it's been able to do so, it's put a strange moderate on the Court, who upholds Roe's essential premise.

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

And Akin? He's an idiot, but unless you live in his state, who cares?

Regarding gay marriage, perhaps Romney would have been problematic. But I don't think so. He was such a vote whore I can't seem him doing anything but punting on the issue by saying, "It's a states' rights thing." Which is, given the way states are leaning on the issue, shrugging at inevitable across-the-nation legalization, state by state.

Immigration was the only social issue I see with which a rational, shrewd voter could find concern with the GOP. Romney would have to take a harsh line on that to placate the SW GOP voters, and right wingers in TX. That one would be a problem.

But generally, save immigration, in times like these, social issues are for whiffle voters... easily manipulated, emotional minds. The most frivolous of unserious citizens. If you aren't putting jobs and the economy above everything else - by miles - you're a nerf intellect, and your guilelessness and pliability in the face of spin and media messaging is fucking this country up. And that goes for the Left and the Right.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those aren't swing voters. Those are fools. If you think the GOP is going to flip Roe, you're nuts. The party that does that destroys its future. Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide. Hence, the GOP always manages to avoid putting an anti-Roe vote on the Court when it would matter. Every time it's been able to do so, it's put a strange moderate on the Court, who upholds Roe's essential premise.

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

And Akin? He's an idiot, but unless you live in his state, who cares?

Regarding gay marriage, perhaps Romney would have been problematic. But I don't think so. He was such a vote whore I can't seem him doing anything but punting on the issue by saying, "It's a states' rights thing." Which is, given the way states are leaning on the issue, shrugging at inevitable across-the-nation legalization, state by state.

Immigration was the only social issue I see with which a rational, shrewd voter could find concern with the GOP. Romney would have to take a harsh line on that to placate the SW GOP voters, and right wingers in TX. That one would be a problem.

But generally, save immigration, in times like these, social issues are for whiffle voters... pliable, easily manipulated, emotional minds. The most frivolous of unserious voters. (Don't like that? I don't give a shit. If you aren't putting jobs and the economy above everything else - by miles - you're a nerf intellect, and I'd take any derision from you on the subject as a compliment.)

Call them whatever you want to call them. I wasn't one of them. But I think your ideal candidate, the socially liberal but fiscally conservative one, could have beaten Obama.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those aren't swing voters. Those are fools. If you think the GOP is going to flip Roe, you're nuts. The party that does that destroys its future. Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide. Hence, the GOP always manages to avoid putting an anti-Roe vote on the Court when it would matter. Every time it's been able to do so, it's put a strange moderate on the Court, who upholds Roe's essential premise.

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

And Akin? He's an idiot, but unless you live in his state, who cares?

Regarding gay marriage, perhaps Romney would have been problematic. But I don't think so. He was such a vote whore I can't seem him doing anything but punting on the issue by saying, "It's a states' rights thing." Which is, given the way states are leaning on the issue, shrugging at inevitable across-the-nation legalization, state by state.

Immigration was the only social issue I see with which a rational, shrewd voter could find concern with the GOP. Romney would have to take a harsh line on that to placate the SW GOP voters, and right wingers in TX. That one would be a problem.

But generally, save immigration, in times like these, social issues are for whiffle voters... easily manipulated, emotional minds. The most frivolous of unserious citizens. If you aren't putting jobs and the economy above everything else - by miles - you're a nerf intellect, and your guilelessness and pliability in the face of spin and media messaging is fucking this country up. And that goes for the Left and the Right.

Have you looked at some of the shit they pass as legislation in the red states?

Sometimes, people who say crazy things really are crazy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those aren't swing voters. Those are fools. If you think the GOP is going to flip Roe, you're nuts. The party that does that destroys its future. Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide. Hence, the GOP always manages to avoid putting an anti-Roe vote on the Court when it would matter. Every time it's been able to do so, it's put a strange moderate on the Court, who upholds Roe's essential premise.

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

And Akin? He's an idiot, but unless you live in his state, who cares?

Regarding gay marriage, perhaps Romney would have been problematic. But I don't think so. He was such a vote whore I can't seem him doing anything but punting on the issue by saying, "It's a states' rights thing." Which is, given the way states are leaning on the issue, shrugging at inevitable across-the-nation legalization, state by state.

Immigration was the only social issue I see with which a rational, shrewd voter could find concern with the GOP. Romney would have to take a harsh line on that to placate the SW GOP voters, and right wingers in TX. That one would be a problem.

But generally, save immigration, in times like these, social issues are for whiffle voters... pliable, easily manipulated, emotional minds. The most frivolous of unserious voters. (Don't like that? I don't give a shit. If you aren't putting jobs and the economy above everything else - by miles - you're a nerf intellect, and I'd take any derision from you on the subject as a compliment.)

that those nuts jobs could say the stuff they said about abortion and gays and so many other things, made it clear they are fatally sick in the head. I tend to agree with you that the sane R's will never reverse Roe, but 1) there is a lot of shit they could do day to day against women, and their positions were so anti-women (and anti-gay) that you have to assume they'd slip a lot of shit in, or at least not consider the impact of laws, and 2) lots of these yokels are clearly not sane.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Are you saying more swing voters went for Obama because they thought he was a good president and deserved a second shot, than voted for him because they thoguht the Rs really cannot get any power? You may be right, I'm actually one of the few swing voters I know, and I never talk politics outside this.

I don't know if swing voters voted against Romney or for Obama. But neither do you. Hell, I could argue that 80% of Romney voters voted for him because they hate Obama. I just think its stupid to to elevate a swing anti-vote above any other kind of vote. You have to add them all up in the end.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

and both parties devalued all of our votes- they campaigned in 10 states- that really bothers me. i know it won't change, but it just seems wrong.

Seems like the same point I'm making, except you only see it when it relates to the electoral college. Can you say Obama won because of Ohio or Florida? Sure. But they sure as hell weren't more important than California or New York.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Call them whatever you want to call them. I wasn't one of them. But I think your ideal candidate, the socially liberal but fiscally conservative one, could have beaten Obama.

He'd have beaten Obama like a gong. Fuck... A candidate like that'd beat every candidate from either of these parties in the every election going forward.

Which is why you'll never see one. The parties need to keep their irreconcilable differences, their brands, to survive. A guy taking what we all want from both of them and selling it in one package is their worst nightmare.

(There are also a lot of people who fear a socially liberal/fiscally conservative candidate. That candidate would grant people a lot of personal freedom, while absolving them of the duty to be one's brother's keeper many people read into the Constitution, and marginalizing even further the power of our many officious organized religions. It would be liberty as it was intended, which a lot of people think we couldn't handle.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide.

Who do you think these idiots are, and how do they run the GOP? Boehner and McConnell look like they're just trying to hang onto their jobs.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Is "devaluing a vote" a thing? I don't see how I've done that, and if I have, I don't see why you would care.

And yes, this is generally true of almost every candidate.

As for there being just as many people "who voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate as there were who thought he was less bad" - I don't think there is a distinction. If he is less bad, then he is the better candidate.

So you were saying nothing. Got it.

Your point seemed to be that Obama won because of distaste of Romney as opposed to excitement about Obama. And you and Hank seem to think that the swing voters (people like you and Hank, apparently) are the reasons why Obama won. I think that's ridiculous. They (or you) are no more the reason why Obama won than gay voters or Latinos or women or hard-core Obama supporters.

You and Hank really just wanted to say Obama didn't win because of enthusiasm about him or the job he's doing--at least not in your very important swing voter eyes. I say that thought process is silly and devalues the impact of black voters who stood in line for 6 hours to cast their ballot or youth voters who voted for him for the first time, etc.

Whatever.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

You're just all wet here. Many private companies would like to bar coverage for contraception in their employees' health insurance. The ACA prevents them from doing that. It's the right that brought this issue to the media, as a so-called infringement on religious rights.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You're just all wet here. Many private companies would like to bar coverage for contraception in their employees' health insurance. The ACA prevents them from doing that. It's the right that brought this issue to the media, as a so-called infringement on religious rights.

see, but I get that. I get that people see abortion or contraception as against the baby Jesus, they actually see it evil. Now, when they say "people that don't believe that shouldn't be able to get an abortion or buy contraception," I say fuck their beliefs. But when the government says "we will spend your tax dollars to do something you think is dragging us all to hell," i feel a bit more sympathy for them.

They're wrong on the issue, but somehow the Gov spending money on stuff they feel is an infamnia feels different. Of course, if you take this to it's conclusion Dennis Kuchinich could stop the military from buying stuff to kill other people, so I know they can't actually sway people.