Time to Shut Up, Suck It Up and Vote for McCain?

[someone1980]

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

His 'R' doesn't mean anything.

OK so who else are you going to vote for that has a chance and is better then McCain?

The only hope is that someone other then McCain is nominated, thus all the belly aching at the moment.

[princewally]

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

His 'R' doesn't mean anything.

OK so who else are you going to vote for that has a chance and is better then McCain?

The only hope is that someone other then McCain is nominated, thus all the belly aching at the moment.

I'm going to vote my conscience this year. Whether it's a write-in or the libertarian candidate, I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. If conservatives toe the party line, year after year, the party has no reason to listen. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

I will, however, vote R across the board for any Congress seats, hoping for gridlock.

[someone1980]

I'm going to vote my conscience this year. Whether it's a write-in or the libertarian candidate, I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. If conservatives toe the party line, year after year, the party has no reason to listen. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

I will, however, vote R across the board for any Congress seats, hoping for gridlock.

Why are you drawing the line at the President is to vote your conscience, and Congress vote the party line?

Are you just hedging your bet?

[plblark]

In MN, barring some unforeseen miracle, it looks like the Electors are NOT going to the R candidate. Look at Caucus turnout. 230K D, 60K R. o, that essentially makes the Presidential protest vote a SAFE vote as far as not costing anything.

Congress, on the other hand, every vote counts. So 1 less vote for a R is the same as 1 vote for a 3rd party while 1 vote for a D is -2 for the R.

[someone1980]

In MN, barring some unforeseen miracle, it looks like the Electors are NOT going to the R candidate. Look at Caucus turnout. 230K D, 60K R. o, that essentially makes the Presidential protest vote a SAFE vote as far as not costing anything.

With numbers like those it is very hard to argue not voting with who you actually want at this point.

[plblark]

With numbers like those it is very hard to argue not voting with who you actually want at this point.

I'm having trouble parsing that ...

[princewally]

I'm going to vote my conscience this year. Whether it's a write-in or the libertarian candidate, I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. If conservatives toe the party line, year after year, the party has no reason to listen. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

I will, however, vote R across the board for any Congress seats, hoping for gridlock.

Why are you drawing the line at the President is to vote your conscience, and Congress vote the party line?

Are you just hedging your bet?

Because gridlock between the legislative and executive branches is perfectly in line with my conscience. I would like to have a congress that can't manage to accomplish anything and a president whose agenda goes nowhere.

[someone1980]

Doing too many things at the same time will do that.

We might get more data in the future that changes this evaluation.

That skew is very large. With those numbers *at this time* there is little hope of an R getting elected president out of this state. As per my previous post, it makes a lot of sense to vote for who you would want to see elected president, instead of playing the game.

[someone1980]

Because gridlock between the legislative and executive branches is perfectly in line with my conscience. I would like to have a congress that can't manage to accomplish anything and a president whose agenda goes nowhere.

Other then the wasting lots of money, I like your idea. If they can't do anything, they can't break anything.

[princewally]

Because gridlock between the legislative and executive branches is perfectly in line with my conscience. I would like to have a congress that can't manage to accomplish anything and a president whose agenda goes nowhere.

Other then the wasting lots of money, I like your idea. If they can't do anything, they can't break anything.

Exactly. Look at the design of our government...the branches, checks and balances, defined powers...gridlock is in the design.

[plblark]

it makes a lot of sense to vote for who you would want to see elected president, instead of playing the game.

I'm going to eat crow from friends who I criticized for voting Nader and Perot in MN.

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

As for the disparity between the parties on Tuesday, non binding "beauty contest" would explain lack of turn out for the R;s.

[Fast351]

I think McCain will have a pretty good chance of winning the general election. I'll tell you why. McCain is far closer to the center than Clinton or Obama. Clinton will capture the looney left, but there are many folks I know that are moderates or slightly left leaning that can't stomach the thought of putting Clinton in office that wouldn't hesistate to pull the lever for McCain after looking at him saying "hmm, he's not an extremist, the far right wing nutjobs don't like him, good enough".

While being at one extreme or another is useful for securing the nomination, it doesn't win general elections. The independent voters decide the election, and if New Hampshire is any indication, the independents will turn out in droves.

I personally thing McCain is a shoe-in for the presidency. He won't win with my vote, but I do think he will win.

Polls show it too:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

The picture isn't as rosy if he runs against Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

His "change" campaign is hitting home with people who are tired of the same old **** year after year. Of course unless he actually comes out with some clearly outlined plans on how he's going to go about making that change happen, I think reality will bite some of those people in the rear and make them realize Obama is just saying what the majority wants to hear. But he hasn't secured the nomination.

Personally I hope Clinton gets the nod for the nomination. She's an easily impeached politician.

Isn't this fun? We live in the greatest country on earth, God bless the USA!

[Pinnacle]

I think McCain will have a pretty good chance of winning the general election. I'll tell you why. McCain is far closer to the center than Clinton or Obama. Clinton will capture the looney left, but there are many folks I know that are moderates or slightly left leaning that can't stomach the thought of putting Clinton in office that wouldn't hesistate to pull the lever for McCain after looking at him saying "hmm, he's not an extremist, the far right wing nutjobs don't like him, good enough".

While being at one extreme or another is useful for securing the nomination, it doesn't win general elections. The independent voters decide the election, and if New Hampshire is any indication, the independents will turn out in droves.

I personally thing McCain is a shoe-in for the presidency. He won't win with my vote, but I do think he will win.

Polls show it too:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

The picture isn't as rosy if he runs against Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

His "change" campaign is hitting home with people who are tired of the same old **** year after year. Of course unless he actually comes out with some clearly outlined plans on how he's going to go about making that change happen, I think reality will bite some of those people in the rear and make them realize Obama is just saying what the majority wants to hear. But he hasn't secured the nomination.

Personally I hope Clinton gets the nod for the nomination. She's an easily impeached politician.

Isn't this fun? We live in the greatest country on earth, God bless the USA!

You wanna put a case of Summitt on that prediction? McCain is going to be slaughtered and as for Hillary being easily impeachable - i dont think that she is. People are scared of her and what it is that she can really do.

I think that Barak Hussein Obama is going to be our next president.

[GregM]

Obama has enormous appeal. He's young, non-white, and a gifted speaker. JFK was young, Catholic, and a gifted speaker.

But I think a lot will depend on how much consideration voters give to foreign policy. If they think our enemies can be reasoned with (which they can't) or that we have no enemies (that it's all just a big neocon hoax) they'll vote for Obama.

If one candidate is offering peace, prosperity, and progress (even though he has no idea how to achieve it) and the other candidate is offering more war (because we're not done yet), who will pick up the so-called swing votes?