Tweet
I should be an Obama supporter. I’m sure the polls have me voting for Obama. If I’m automatically one of those people who are thrown in the Obama basket, there must be millions of others just like me.
Some of us will vote, but think about 2010; why should this be any different? I’m poor, although it was because of what Bush did wrong that initiated my poverty, it’s because of what Barack Obama has failed to do, that has kept me in poverty. If he had tried to do right by the working man, I would vote for him, but he didn’t even try. All he’s been doing is joy riding on Air Force One going to celebrity fund raisers. How many times have you heard of him holding meeting with his colleagues trying to solve problems? Does he think we’re all morons?
Mit can get as stupid as he wants to, because he still can’t “outstupid” Obama. He hasn’t been president for four years and done absolutely nothing for his constituents. Not to mention Obama’s failure to address any of the crimes of the Bush Administration. While the public at large is unaware of “all” the crimes of the Bush Administration, Eric Holder and Obama’s colleagues are aware of “all” of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Even Obama’s colleagues have lost their inspiration for the man, they try to fake it, but something is missing.
Barack Obama reminds me of the king who was naked as a J bird, but was convinced he had clothes on. Far too many of Barack Obama’s constituents see him as naked as a J bird. While this campaign will go his way, those people will not show up on election day.
40 Comments
very eloquently expressed lakota.
Rec’d
Our imperial president has no clothes. And he will not be getting my vote this time.
And that’s why you vote third-party.
A vote for evil is a vote for evil.
A vote for an alternate evil is still a vote for evil.
And no vote at all is seen by the elites as quiet submission to their rule.
You can’t stop the 1% from winning in 2012 just as they won 2001 thru 2010… whether it is Obama or Romney that is selected… but you can make damn sure it’s without either your overt or tacit endorsement.
Thanks, lakota.
I second the sentiments above.
This will be the first election in my entire lifetime, that I will be voting for a “third party” candidate. I am looking forward to it.
Blue
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
Really? You’re a progressive who has never voted for a third party before? Forgive me, but I have never trusted “born agains”.
Best of luck to your new found liberalism.
I’m for the greatest impact in regard to “no vote” or third party. If I can see where the majority here is voting for a particular third party, then I’ll vote for that party.
…I thought so too. Thank you lakota.
I’m ready to boogy with “The boogy man”.
demi–
I don’t know what to say. I can only figure that you haven’t read many of my comments (and my diaries, are few).
Admittedly, I was like many people here, today. ‘Too afraid’ to vote third party, even though I’ve been sick and tired of Democrats since Perot ran against Clinton.
Voted once for a Republican in a primary. Otherwise, a loyal Democrat all my life. (I think the term is “yellow dog,” although “stupid” might be more appropriate, looking back! LOL!)
Anyway, Mr. Blue and I are probably “left of” the late Howard Zinn. We’re strongly considering retiring to a much more left-leaning country, shortly.
So, I’m truly amazed at your observation, but it’s interesting, to say the least.
Blue
Not voting is pretty much guaranteed to have zero impact. In 2008 101 million voting age people and 58 million registered voters didn’t vote. It never has any impact.
In deciding among third party candidates you may want to consider who is actually on the ballot in your state. With all the other concerns about accurate counting of votes, in some states there isn’t even a legal requirement to count a write-in vote if the candidate isn’t actually on the ballot or hasn’t filed the paper work as a write-in.
Stein http://www.jillstein.org/ballot
Anderson http://www.voterocky.org/ballotaccess
Thanks for the history, but I was responding to your saying that this was going to be the first time you voted for a 3rd party candidate. Maybe I misunderstood that.
No adrenaline needed. Sorry I got you a’goin’.
Im just trying to clarify…Are you saying one must have been “born again” to vote 3rd party for the 1st time? I don’t mean to interfere; was curious. (Im not sure Ive ever voted 3rd part; really do not recall;)
No problem, Demi.
Just didn’t want my political views to be (inadvertently) mischaracterized, or misunderstood.
Blue
Cool.
I believe you’re right.
After Mit gets elected, a real genuine leader with the heart of a lion will emerge. Not some lying politician, but a man who has the strenth of his convictions and is willing to die for them. He will imbue us with his faith and courage. Out of necessity, he can be neither Democrat nor Republican. The will of the people will replace the dollars of the corporatocracy.
ROTFLMAO!
Yeah, me too, pretty much.
Hi Peg.
I agree lakota that you make some very fair points, though I don’t agree that Willard is going to win. Though things can certainly change, right now that’s a pretty absurd prediction, based on current evidence. I think I’ll leave it at that. One more thing though to so-called “Progressives” who are spewing nonsense that somehow Rmoney would be better: I have a word I use for people who vote for Republicans but insist they are Progressive. I call them “Republicans”.
Phsssah. Rmoney won’t win. the PTB like O way too much. Romney’s worse than McCain/Palin.
He’s so embarrassing SNL won’t even touch him…just another stalking horse like McCain was.
No kidding
I’m actually going to apologize for commenting on this diary.
I don’t think you need to.
Hey Deb!
x2
Hey.
I’m finding myself with a less than adequate tolerance for some attitudes lately.
I’m hep. I’m equally frustrated with some of it too.
Dude.
Dudette.
Margaret.
(((Peg.)))
I understand there are some posts, particularly on the week-end, where talking any politics is considered out of place. And I understand there are some posts which are primarily criticism of Republicans where it’s considered inappropriate to interrupt with “Dems are just as bad” comments or accuse everyone of being Obamabots. Whether I agree with those community standards or not is irrelevant, though I happen to think they’re reasonable (though I pushed the envelope myself a couple of times). So, I don’t understand why a diary that’s about not voting for Obama (whatever the diarist’s or commenter’s reasons), should be something not to be tolerated. Maybe not to be taken too seriously or to be ignored or to be argued with, I can see any or all of that, but should it be a question of tolerance?
Just for the record, I also think that if people truly believe Romney is the greater evil (as opposed to differently evil) they should certainly not vote for him, that would be immoral and/or foolish, though in this post I don’t think it has been recommended.
I have a word I use for people who vote for Obama but insist they are Progressive. I call them “Republicans”.
Have it your way. But I haven’t yet decided for whom I’m voting. Just for whom I’m not.
IMO, it’s always in bad form, (and it’s supposed to be against site rules), to make specious attacks or start in on name calling. I don’t know if it’s “inappropriate” to bring up the “Dems are just as bad” meme in some cases but for me it’s the constant, non-stop using everything remotely political as a segue into how much somebody hates Obama. I have never been fooled by the man so perhaps I’m not as disappointed as some other are. But the hijacking of every thread to tell us how much he/she disapproves of Obama has gone beyond a running premise, all the way to a premise running thin. I fully get that people are upset with the guy. I acknowledge that for the most part, they have good reason. On the other hand, I was never taken in by his hopey-changey bullshit and not only that but I went further and tried to point it out to others and got called “racist” for it. When he was elected, I gave him a chance to prove me wrong but he never has. I’m sorry there were so many people taken in but he was also unquestionably the better of the two main party candidates then too. It just gets soooooo old. I mean, how many different ways can some of these people describe their blind, reflexive, visceral hatred? I’m sorry that they feel so miserable by being fooled. What he is was easily visible for anyone to see from the time he surfaced as a possible candidate in 2006. Haranguing me nonstop from May, 2009 to November, 2012 is not going to influence my vote, (no matter who I ultimately decide to cast a ballot for), so I wish they’d just stop.
That’s true of quite a few people, not just yourself.
Romney’s base is as crazy as he is. Normal people might think he screwed up, but not his base. They will vote for Mit come hell or high water. Obama and the general public, think Obama’s got a base, but he threw us under the bus. While he talks a good game, too many of the people who would be his base, are suffering. Most of those people will vote for him, but this ain’t horseshoes. The pollsters are assuming that “all” of the people who would be Obama’s base are going to vote for him, and we know that ain’t gonna happen, because we are part of Obama’s base.
I think you’re confused about how polling works. There aren’t assumptions made except as to how to weigh the results. For example, some use a filter that discounts everybody who uses a cell phone only. As most land lines these days tend to be used by older, white Americans, the results are consequently biased to the conservative side. In sampling, all relevant data is collected and then that sample is extrapolated over the general population. There are many ways to do sampling but for the most accurate sample taking, it needs to be a large sample and it needs to be a representative sample, unlike disregarding cell phone users. It should also be a sample that asks people about their preference, rather than one posted online, something which isn’t scientific at all. Nobody assumes you or anybody else is going to vote for Obama. That question is asked and those samples are disregarded except as a measure of enthusiasm, hence the most common, “likely voter” polling. Whether measuring “registered voters” or “likely voters”, if the results add up to 100% they are discarding the part of the sample that is undecided or not participating, not making assumptions about it, (unless they are FOX “News” perhaps). For those that do not add up to 100%, they lump not participating voters, third party voters, (unless otherwise noted), and undecided voters into the “undecided” category. Polling is by no means perfect but polling only works as you describe when they are poll trolling for a specific result.
Yes, I hope it was clear that I don’t see anything wrong with people objecting to the behavior you describe, when it diverts the topic of the thread, or accuses people of motives that aren’t necessarily true.
I was just saying a similar standard should be the goal on a threads specifically about not voting for Obama, or about third party voting, not assuming people taking those positions are Republicans or cost Gore the election, or disenchanted Obots, any more than people considering voting for O this time around are now Obots themselves.
I just think it’s something we all need to be mindful of in both directions, and I say this as a guilty unintentional thread disruptor a few times myself. But since I’m on the third party side of the argument now, it’s a little easier for me to see when that point of view is subject to possibly unfair assumptions.
I’m really trying to keep an open mind that people who are critical and realistic about O and the D’s but considering voting for them anyway are doing so for good reasons, so I hope they can keep an open mind that there can be some good (non “bring on the apocalypse”) reasons to vote third party. (which open mind I know you have, this isn’t a criticism, just a note that similar things happen on both sides of the argument).
Oh I agree but there is a huge difference between “Dems are just as bad”, (which I don’t agree with but don’t necessarily object to in some cases), and “Why don’t you hate _____________ as much as I do? You must be some kind of ___________”. It’s the rage and hatred I can do without.
Probably too late for this string, but . . .
Yes, margaret, the far left is just as vicious as the far right if anyone has a different opinion than they do. They are quick to attack and name call. I expressed the opinion on a different post that it was wiser at this time to vote for Obama than to risk a republican victory, and among other things was compared to a Nazi sympathizer.
Don’t let it get to you. It’s important to remember that the extremes of the Left or the Right both lead to totalitarian government. That’s the logical outcome when people are so sure they are right, that it is morally acceptable for them to impose their will on others.
Since posting this diary, I’ve gone from “not voting” to actively seeking a third party.
We have entered a new era, no longer is a third party unfeasible. Nature abhors a vacuum, something always fills it. Today, we have a vacuum of the highest magnitude and it must be filled. Now is the time for a third party and the internet has made this feasible.
That’s the plan… to frighten people into voting for Obama despite the extremely obvious fact that he has his nose so far up the nearest billionaire’s ass that his ears are blocked.
And when this plan succeeds the terrorists will have won yet again.
Whoever would make such a comparison in the situation you describe would seem to be either trolling or brainless… either way not helpful.