Obama or McCain?

I think it's fairly obvious whom I'm voting for [grin]

As for tendencies, right now the race is trending towards Obama.

RealClearPolitics Electoral College Obama/Biden 286 McCain/Palin 252

Electoral-Vote.com Obama 286 McCain 252

Five Thirty Eight.com Obama 318 McCain 220

Pollster.com Obama 229 McCain 174 Toss Up 135

Gallup Daily Tracker Obama 49% McCain 44%

These polls were taken before last night's debate.

I'm following the betting odds at Centrebet to see how both candidates are going.

Obama was comfortably in the lead before the conventions, but just after McCain picked Palin the odds slid very close to parity. But since McCain's campaign melt down this week it's rebounded heavily back in Obama's favour.

It was $1.50 for Obama, $2.50 for McCain just before the debate. Now it's $1.43 for Obama, $2.70 for McCain, which is roughly where it was before the Palin effect took place.

Edit: Correction, now it's $1.42 for Obama, $2.75 for McCain. I guess there's a bout of heavy betting still going on.

[Edited by - Trapper Zoid on September 27, 2008 11:56:19 PM]

'nuff said.

Neither. I generally favor classical liberal policy. I'm not sure for whom I will vote; I'm not big on Barr, but like Baldwin even less.

Out of the two (McCain and Obama), I'd rather have Obama. They're both lying hypocrites. Obama may push for more federal social programs, but McCain will certainly increase the power of the executive and state in general. He really reminds me of a Cardassian.

oh yeah there's an election coming up. I've been asked to register to vote like 6 times in the past month. Just got asked again yesterday. If I do vote, and I probably won't then I'd have no idea. Neither politician has my vote at the moment because I agree and disagree with them both and choosing the best of two evils has never been my strength.

Obama.

Quote:

Original post by mhamlin Neither. I generally favor classical liberal policy. I'm not sure for whom I will vote; I'm not big on Barr, but like Baldwin even less. Out of the two (McCain and Obama), I'd rather have Obama. They're both lying hypocrites. Obama may push for more federal social programs, but McCain will certainly increase the power of the executive and state in general. He really reminds me of a Cardassian.

I concur with all that is said above.

Ron Paul was my man. Now I think I will just be using my American right not to vote; voicing my opinion that I shouldn't have to choose between a "turd sandwich or a giant douche" (as it is eloquently put by southpark). Considering that I have a greater chance to be killed on the way to vote than I do of having the a deciding vote, I don't think it matters much anyway. I found both candidates dramatically underwhelming.

I won't be voting for either, though I seem to dislike McCain most.

Quote:

Original post by visage Ron Paul was my man. Now I think I will just be using my American right not to vote; voicing my opinion that I shouldn't have to choose between a "turd sandwich or a giant douche" (as it is eloquently put by southpark).

I only hope that the rich vein of libertarian petulance inadvertently tapped by the 2008 elections will continue well into the next decade.

Quote:

Original post by Sirisian oh yeah there's an election coming up. I've been asked to register to vote like 6 times in the past month. Just got asked again yesterday. If I do vote, and I probably won't then I'd have no idea. Neither politician has my vote at the moment because I agree and disagree with them both and choosing the best of two evils has never been my strength.

You should pay more attention, but remember this, if you don't and everything goes belly up, you have no real right to complain.
You would not have the right to complain to the president for not keeping his word to those who voted for him, cause you didn't.
And you can't complain to those who didn't vote against him, cause technically neither did you.

I can never understand people who don't vote, in fact i think there should be a no voting tax, you pay $100 to not vote, with that money going to a system that will enable America to make everyone eligible automatically registered to vote.
You know like most of Europe does.

Quote:

Original post by lc_overlord I can never understand people who don't vote, in fact i think there should be a no voting tax, you pay $100 to not vote, with that money going to a system that will enable America to make everyone eligible automatically registered to vote. You know like most of Europe does.

Because it's a "right" to vote, not a "requirement". If you don't agree with either of the candidates why should you give them your support? The problem with the current system is that there is no way of telling those who don't agree with the candidates apart from those who just can't be bothered. I think the addition of a 'none of the above' option would be a good idea and I suspect it would lead to a higher voter turn out (I know I'd certainly vote in such a situation) as people might feel their voice is being heard. As to what should happen if NotA happened to win however I don't know [grin]

Quote:

Original post by lc_overlord You should pay more attention, but remember this, if you don't and everything goes belly up, you have no real right to complain. You would not have the right to complain to the president for not keeping his word to those who voted for him, cause you didn't. And you can't complain to those who didn't vote against him, cause technically neither did you.

That's exactly what I think about voting too. If the candidates you vote for get in, then you can hold them responsible because they're your guys and gals. If they don't get in, then you've already expressed your displeasure. But if you don't vote, then you aren't really part of the process. Democracy is a two way street, and the responsibility of the politicans needs to be matched by the responsiblity of the voters to intelligently cast their votes.

The two major presidential candidates have some big differences between their platforms and styles; enough that you should find something to make you favour one over the other. If both aren't to your style or you want to break the status quo, there's a bunch of third party candiates all over the political spectrum. And if I remember the U.S. election system there's a whole bunch of other positions to vote for. If you really, really want to show you don't know who to vote for, you can turn up and cast an invalid ballot (at least in Australia; this mightn't be possible in some states in the U.S.; I don't know how the system works everywhere over there). But you need to be part of the process to make a difference, even if it's just a little tiny bit.

My gut feeling is that the choice of president this time round will be one of the more important decisions in U.S. politics, so the very least you can do it be part of the process and get a little bit of ownership of history.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid That's exactly what I think about voting too. If the candidates you vote for get in, then you can hold them responsible because they're your guys and gals. If they don't get in, then you've already expressed your displeasure. But if you don't vote, then you aren't really part of the process. Democracy is a two way street, and the responsibility of the politicans needs to be matched by the responsiblity of the voters to intelligently cast their votes.

Which is all well and good but what if you don't want to give your support to either candidate? Voting should be about giving your support to the person you want to, not throwing at the lesser of two evils just so you have some bizzare right to complain.

Quote:

Original post by phantom Which is all well and good but what if you don't want to give your support to either candidate? Voting should be about giving your support to the person you want to, not throwing at the lesser of two evils just so you have some bizzare right to complain.

Because a lesser evil is a better situation than a greater evil. And because of the way the political system works, if you keep voting for lesser evils you'll get the option between a slight evil and an even slighter evil. And eventually if you persevere you'll get the choice between not-evil and mildly good [smile].

In reality, I think the vast majority of politicans aren't an "evil". While it's true many politicans may be after power and prestige, even those care about doing good for their country. Of course they've all got different ideas about what consitutes "good for their country", but they're not actively seeking harm.

The thing is that by not voting, you're also making a choice: that of apathy. You're effectively casting your vote for "I don't care who is in charge". I think of that as an even greater evil, because you're effectively disenfranchising yourself from the process and abdicating your responsibility as a citizen of a democracy. I think it's your job as a voter to pay attention to politics, even if it's just a teensy bit, so you can make an mildly informed very small decision about the direction your country heads in at the ballot box. If intsead you throw your hands in the air and think it's all too hard, then someone else will be making the decision for you.

See, you've just made what can be consider a typical assumption; by not voting you are showing apathy.

While I'm sure there is alot of it around the big question in my mind has been for some time 'how many people don't vote because they don't support the candidates?'

Which brings us back to my 'none of the above' idea which could weed out the apathy and give those who don't think the candidates are the right people a voice.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I think it's your job as a voter to pay attention to politics, even if it's just a teensy bit, so you can make an mildly informed very small decision about the direction your country heads in at the ballot box.

That would be a reasonable position if the candidates weren't lying their asses off. Given the fact that television, print and web advertisements regularly present deliberately false statements, that means a person who pays only a "teensy bit" of attention is likely in a position where they're making a vote based on who tells the better lies. Or picks a candidate based on who gets the most fun poked at watching Saturday Night Live. I think that a citizen who doesn't take the time to really understand the issues and facts should probably stay home.

Quote:

Original post by phantom While I'm sure there is alot of it around the big question in my mind has been for some time 'how many people don't vote because they don't support the candidates?' Which brings us back to my 'none of the above' idea which could weed out the apathy and give those who don't think the candidates are the right people a voice.

In Australia you can technically cast an invalid vote by spoiling your ballot and these are tallied up. Usually though in the elections I've voted in there's enough candidates that there's a fair range of options. There certainly seems to be in the case of U.S. president.

I'm sure you could vote "none of the above" as a write-in candidate in the U.S., even if you had to do it by postal ballot. If you really, really wanted to make a change you could make your own party yourself - although that is more than enough work for most people (but it would remove any charges of apathy [smile]).

Quote:

That would be a reasonable position if the candidates weren't lying their asses off. Given the fact that television, print and web advertisements regularly present deliberately false statements, that means a person who pays only a "teensy bit" of attention is likely in a position where they're making a vote based on who tells the better lies. Or picks a candidate based on who gets the most fun poked at watching Saturday Night Live. I think that a citizen who doesn't take the time to really understand the issues and facts should probably stay home.

My philosophy is that there enough people voting for stupid reasons like the choice of a candidates tie that the amount I know about the issues is enough for my vote to be cast. I also think that if you make up your mind to vote, it helps you focus on making the right decision. Of course in Australia there's compulsory voting, so I'm somewhat forced into it.

And I feel I should point out that I'm a hypocritical weasel in all this discussion, because I'm trying to wiggle out of voting in the upcoming A.C.T. election (I've just moved interstate and haven't been keeping up with Canberra issues and don't particularly think my opinion should hold much weight now I've moved back to Victoria and it doesn't affect me at all now. And I just don't particularly want to vote [grin]).

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid My philosophy is that there enough people voting for stupid reasons like the choice of a candidates tie that the amount I know about the issues is enough for my vote to be cast.

I don't understand this sentence.

Quote:

Original post by SiCrane Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid My philosophy is that there enough people voting for stupid reasons like the choice of a candidates tie that the amount I know about the issues is enough for my vote to be cast. I don't understand this sentence.

I mean that if you know something about the issues - anything at all - then there is someone else who will be voting in the election that knows even less. And if they're voting, then you might as well cast your own more informed vote.

Plus generally I find that the sort of people who worry about whether they are informed enough to cast a decent vote actually are amongst those who understand the issues better than most.