[Lateralus]

Thoughts?

For me, its a mixed bag. I liked Clark quite a bit and felt he would have been an excellent president, it is sad to see him leave the race. On the other hand, it cuts down the field a little and brings things one step closer to a 2 man race which Kerry does not want to happen yet.

[Wiskedjak]

I think Kerry is the worst possible choice for the Democratic candidate. Bush will really have to mess up for Kerry to win the election.

[Evan_11]

Clark's biggest mistake was his flip-flopping on the Iraq war. I don't believe he was ever a good canidate but he showed a lack of principle in this regard. Regardless his MTV toned 'anti-war general' campaign was a big joke. Michael Moore showing up to endorse him was the kiss of death.

[Evan_11]

The only guy who has the charisma to beat Bush is Edwards but he way to green behind the ears.

Kerry is Dukakis 04.

[Lateralus]

All things considered, and given the fact that Clark has never run for anything before, I think he ran a good race.

And yes, I agree that his flip flopping was essentially what killed the interest in him from the beginning. I think he just tried to please too many different types of voters at once, and when you do that you end up contradicting yourself and losing the interest of everyone.

I'd certainly like to see him run again in the future. I imagine that what he has learned in this campaign has made him a veteran of politics essentially, and that he would not repeat the same mistakes again.

[zigzag]

He said his favorite album is Journey's Greatest Hits. Draw your own conclusions.

[Lateralus]

Better than what Kerry would say.

'While I have no favorite album specifically, I must say that I very much enjoy a multitude of works from the Baroque Period. Though on some days, when feeling adventurous, I have been known to delve into the delights of the Early Romantic Period. Haha. My my...'

[pooka]

You're creeping me out, maing.

[ThinkInsane]

That's unfortunate. I was planning on voting for Clark if he won the nomination. None of the other Democratic candidates pique my interest too much, and I have decided I'm not voting for Bush, so it looks like I sit home on election day.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Better than what Kerry would say.

'While I have no favorite album specifically, I must say that I very much enjoy a multitude of works from the Baroque Period. Though on some days, when feeling adventurous, I have been known to dwelve into the delights of the Early Romantic Period. Haha. My my...'

If Kerry dwelves in anything, I say we hwang him by his bwalls.

Seriously, I was just teasing about Clark's musical tastes. He's a better man than I, I'd vote for him, I was just surprised to learn that he's a power ballad kinda guy. Maybe it reveals something about his failure to connect with voters. Or not.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
That's unfortunate. I was planning on voting for Clark if he won the nomination. None of the other Democratic candidates pique my interest too much, and I have decided I'm not voting for Bush, so it looks like I sit home on election day.

Oh come ON. That's no sport. Tell you what - how about you start a poll here on forums and let the majority decide for you

That way we all win, you vote and there is a certain entertainment value to it all

[rjenkinson]

when did "dwelve" become a word?

-r.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
That's unfortunate. I was planning on voting for Clark if he won the nomination. None of the other Democratic candidates pique my interest too much, and I have decided I'm not voting for Bush, so it looks like I sit home on election day.

so in other words you're voting for bush, effectively.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so in other words you're voting for bush, effectively.

I have decided not to vote for Bush, even though I have for the most part supported his policies. I do feel that another four years with him as pres will continue to adversely affect our relationship with the rest of the world. For that reason and that reason alone I have made the decision not to vote for him.

That being said, I am far from being any "anyone but Bush" person, and I will not vote for a candidate that I do not support/believe in. SO I won't cast a vote. IF that's effectively voting for Bush, so be it, but ultimately that's my decision to make.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I have decided not to vote for Bush, even though I have for the most part supported his policies. I do feel that another four years with him as pres will continue to adversely affect our relationship with the rest of the world. For that reason and that reason alone I have made the decision not to vote for him.

That being said, I am far from being any "anyone but Bush" person, and I will not vote for a candidate that I do not support/believe in. SO I won't cast a vote. IF that's effectively voting for Bush, so be it, but ultimately that's my decision to make.

I agree its your decision, but you're the one who brought it up for discussion, right?

Just as Nader supporters found in the last election, not uniting against the worst possible outcome brought about the worst possible outcome.

[Turias]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I have decided not to vote for Bush, even though I have for the most part supported his policies. I do feel that another four years with him as pres will continue to adversely affect our relationship with the rest of the world. For that reason and that reason alone I have made the decision not to vote for him.

That being said, I am far from being any "anyone but Bush" person, and I will not vote for a candidate that I do not support/believe in. SO I won't cast a vote. IF that's effectively voting for Bush, so be it, but ultimately that's my decision to make.

There's gotta be at least one candidate that you would prefer. I find it hard to believe that you dislike all of them equally.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Better than what Kerry would say.

'While I have no favorite album specifically, I must say that I very much enjoy a multitude of works from the Baroque Period. Though on some days, when feeling adventurous, I have been known to delve into the delights of the Early Romantic Period. Haha. My my...'

Is that real quote?

If it is, it's the first time he's ever said anything without bringing up his time in Vietnam. I swear, everytime I hear him interviewed he brings up his military record -

Q: Senator Kerry, what's your position on the new Medicare bill?
Kerry: Well, when I got back from Vietnam....blah, blah, blah

It doesn't matter what the question is. It's driving me nuts. Quit the talking points and act like human being.

I'm not that thrilled with his ascension either. Although I heard some talking heads on the radio yesterday speculating on a Kerry-McCain ticket. I don't know if they were just blowing it out their a** but it sounds intriguing to me.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree its your decision, but you're the one who brought it up for discussion, right?

Just as Nader supporters found in the last election, not uniting against the worst possible outcome brought about the worst possible outcome.

I have made a conscious decision not to vote for Bush. I never said that I thought Bush winning a second term is the worst possible outcome. That's your opinion, and I don't share it. I will not vote for a candidate I don't support, so at least for now I have made the decision not to vote.

I never meant to imply that I wasn't willing to discuss it. I was just pointing out that I have as much of a right not to vote as I do to vote. For me, as things are right now, it's the most conscientious thing to do, given my feelings on the candidates.

Truth be told, In the last election, I was a John McCain supporter. He was the man I wanted for President. When he lost the nomination, I voted for Bush because I didn't want Gore. I wasn't really comfortable with that. I didn't like the fact that I had to vote for a man I couldn't get 100% behind just because he was the lesser of two evils (so to speak). I'm not doing that again.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I have made a conscious decision not to vote for Bush. I never said that I thought Bush winning a second term is the worst possible outcome. That's your opinion, and I don't share it. I will not vote for a candidate I don't support, so at least for now I have made the decision not to vote.

I never meant to imply that I wasn't willing to discuss it. I was just pointing out that I have as much of a right not to vote as I do to vote. For me, as things are right now, it's the most conscientious thing to do, given my feelings on the candidates.

Truth be told, In the last election, I was a John McCain supporter. He was the man I wanted for President. When he lost the nomination, I voted for Bush because I didn't want Gore. I wasn't really comfortable with that. I didn't like the fact that I had to vote for a man I couldn't get 100% behind just because he was the lesser of two evils (so to speak). I'm not doing that again.

Fair enough.

I'm in the thought for myself that I have just as much responsibilty to oppose candidates I disagree with as I do to support those I agree with. I think all candidates are a tally of variables, so I doubt any of them would address my issues 100%. I go for the best percentages I can get, but I am also keenly aware that some candidates are more dangerous than the issue of whether the opposing candidate would have been my first choice among other nominees in the same party.

If I do not work against Bush, then I am not voting my conscience.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Is that real quote?

If it is, it's the first time he's ever said anything without bringing up his time in Vietnam. I swear, everytime I hear him interviewed he brings up his military record -

Q: Senator Kerry, what's your position on the new Medicare bill?
Kerry: Well, when I got back from Vietnam....blah, blah, blah

It doesn't matter what the question is. It's driving me nuts. Quit the talking points and act like human being.

I'm not that thrilled with his ascension either. Although I heard some talking heads on the radio yesterday speculating on a Kerry-McCain ticket. I don't know if they were just blowing it out their a** but it sounds intriguing to me.

Kerry and McCain are said to be pals but McCain has been surprisingly consistent in his public support for Dubya. I keep thinking that Dubya must have some goods on McCain to keep him from rebelling more than he does, especially after what happened in 2000.

Dick Morris is predicting a Kerry-Clinton ticket, which would make things very interesting. Makes sense - neither Edwards nor Clark would really help Kerry, but Hillary could. And whether they win or lose, it puts her solidly next-in-line.

[bewebste]

So what happens to Clark's 100+ delegates that he's won now that he's out of the race? Can they be transferred to another candidate somehow, or are they just kind of "dead" delegates now?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Fair enough.

I'm in the thought for myself that I have just as much responsibilty to oppose candidates I disagree with as I do to support those I agree with. I think all candidates are a tally of variables, so I doubt any of them would address my issues 100%. I go for the best percentages I can get, but I am also keenly aware that some candidates are more dangerous than the issue of whether the opposing candidate would have been my first choice among other nominees in the same party.

If I do not work against Bush, then I am not voting my conscience.

That too is fair enough, but if I followed your philosophy of the percentages, I would be voting for Bush, so it's a wash.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Kerry and McCain are said to be pals but McCain has been surprisingly consistent in his public support for Dubya. I keep thinking that Dubya must have some goods on McCain to keep him from rebelling more than he does, especially after what happened in 2000.

Dick Morris is predicting a Kerry-Clinton ticket, which would make things very interesting. Makes sense - neither Edwards nor Clark would really help Kerry, but Hillary could. And whether they win or lose, it puts her solidly next-in-line.

Like I said, it was just some talking heads. They could've been making it up. Although McCain is quite the maverick. He's nearing the end of his political career (he's ruled out another run for the presidency) so he might think about it. I wonder if the Democratic party would let Kerry pick McCain?

Until you said Hilary, I was thinking which Clinton is he talking about?

[boots]

Originally posted by bewebste:
So what happens to Clark's 100+ delegates that he's won now that he's out of the race? Can they be transferred to another candidate somehow, or are they just kind of "dead" delegates now?

They are free. He may make a deal with them to vote for one or another candidate, but as it stands, they are free to vote as they choose now.

At least that's how Gephard's delegates were explained on NPR the other day. Gephard has said he won't direct them to vote for anyone. I haven't heard Clark make any statements in this regard. He may have, but I haven't heard it.

[Lerkfish]

dp

[Lerkfish]

today is a day the forum is double posting me...sorry.

dp

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
That too is fair enough, but if I followed your philosophy of the percentages, I would be voting for Bush, so it's a wash.

but at least you'd be expressing your preference.
Even though you'd vote for a guy I don't like, I think everyone should vote as a general rule.
But that's just me. I respect you're not wanting to, I just think if its a wash at least you had some involvement.
I mean, I voted against Bush in the last election, but my state is predominantly republican, so it had little effect on the electoral college. But *I* know how I voted and can sleep at night.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
so it looks like I sit home on election day.

Don't shirk your civic responsibility, you putz. Friggin slacker.

When did people get this attitude that voting is somehow an "optional" responsibility? That it's a legitimate choice to not vote? That they're sending a message or some other nonsense? Very few people think any candidate is perfect, or even close. Elections are choices. It's your responsibility to make a choice, it's not the politician's responsibility to excite you enough that you get off your butt and vote.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Don't shirk your civic responsibility, you putz. Friggin slacker.

When did people get this attitude that voting is somehow an "optional" responsibility? That it's a legitimate choice to not vote? That they're sending a message or some other nonsense? Very few people think any candidate is perfect, or even close. Elections are choices. It's your responsibility to make a choice, it's not the politician's responsibility to excite you enough that you get off your butt and vote.

First off, why don't you give the name calling a rest. If I decide not to vote, it's the first time in my adult life that I do so. And it IS my choice to use my vote, or not use it, however I see fit. I am a combat veteran, and I feel I have earned that right. If you don't agree, that's great. That's your prerogative.

I am not going to vote for candidates that I am not behind, because of some ridiculous "anyone but Bush" mentality. The only person I really felt comfortable voting for is now out of the running.

You can consider me a conscientious objector in this years election if that makes it easier for you to grasp. I withhold my vote in protest of the poor candidates that have been presented to me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I have made a conscious decision not to vote for Bush. I never said that I thought Bush winning a second term is the worst possible outcome. That's your opinion, and I don't share it. I will not vote for a candidate I don't support, so at least for now I have made the decision not to vote.

That is entirely irresponsible. To not vote is to effectively cast a vote for the status quo. If you don't like the status quo, then you vote for someone else. If you don't like any of the alternatives, then at the very least go in and spoil a ballot.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That is entirely irresponsible. To not vote is to effectively cast a vote for the status quo. If you don't like the status quo, then you vote for someone else. If you don't like any of the alternatives, then at the very least go in and spoil a ballot.

yeah, make a hanging chad!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
First off, why don't you give the name calling a rest.

I agree. nothing's worse than being called names or having your family attacked just for stating your opinion.

[ThinkInsane]

I am all done with this conversation. Have fun.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
First off, why don't you give the name calling a rest. If I decide not to vote, it's the first time in my adult life that I do so. And it IS my choice to use my vote, or not use it, however I see fit. I am a combat veteran, and I feel I have earned that right. If you don't agree, that's great. That's your prerogative.

I am not going to vote for candidates that I am not behind, because of some ridiculous "anyone but Bush" mentality. The only person I really felt comfortable voting for is now out of the running.

You can consider me a conscientious objector in this years election if that makes it easier for you to grasp. I withhold my vote in protest of the poor candidates that have been presented to me.

You're a damn sorry excuse for an American.

Conscientious objector? How about I make it easier for you to grasp: you're a draft dodger. A traitor. Hanoi Thinkinsane. One who betrays your most basic responsibility to your country for some pathetic and self-indulgent unwillingness to put yourself on the line.

You know what I think? I think you'll realize this. I think you're just BS-ing here on MacNN, and in the end, if you support Bush more, you'll go vote for Bush. It's not that hard. You may even make the wrong choice. But at least you'll have thought about it and made a responsible choice, rather than sitting on your ass.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I didn't like the fact that I had to vote for a man I couldn't get 100% behind just because he was the lesser of two evils (so to speak). I'm not doing that again.

I don't understand how people develop this attitude. (I don't mean to break your balls any further TI, it's just that your sentiments are hardly unique nowadays.) It seems a little more prevalent on the Left these days (viz. Nader), but regardless: where is it written that a candidate has to be 100% aligned to your views? And more philosophically, why does anyone feel they are entitled to an ideologically pure vote? Politics is ultimately about compromise in the name of getting things done—and compromise isn't a bad word. It's an essential faculty for getting by in a world in which people inevitably have competing and mutually exclusive interests.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You're a damn sorry excuse for an American.

Conscientious objector? How about I make it easier for you to grasp: you're a draft dodger. A traitor. Hanoi Thinkinsane. One who betrays your most basic responsibility to your country for some pathetic and self-indulgent unwillingness to put yourself on the line.

You know what I think? I think you'll realize this. I think you're just BS-ing here on MacNN, and in the end, if you support Bush more, you'll go vote for Bush. It's not that hard. You may even make the wrong choice. But at least you'll have thought about it and made a responsible choice, rather than sitting on your ass.

dude, that's rather harsh over what's essentially a personal choice. I don't agree with him, either, but that's his jurisdiction to vote or not.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
dude, that's rather harsh over what's essentially a personal choice. I don't agree with him, either, but that's his jurisdiction to vote or not.

He deserves it. I'm just trying to shame him into voting.

But when did it become a "personal choice" to vote or not? Is it just because there's no law requiring it?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
He deserves it. I'm just trying to shame him into voting.

But when did it become a "personal choice" to vote or not? Is it just because there's no law requiring it?

um...basically. Its a right, not an obligation, unfortunately. Like I have the right to establish a legal brothel in certain parts of Nevada, but no one is forcing me to.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...basically. Its a right, not an obligation, unfortunately. Like I have the right to establish a legal brothel in certain parts of Nevada, but no one is forcing me to.

I agree that it's a right, and that right can be taken away. But I disagree that it's not an obligation. Just because there's no legal requirement to vote doesn't make it any less of an obligation.

And I'm just curious, what would you call your brothel?

[dencamp]

I tend to pay the most consistent attention to the campaign and election of my neighborhood ANC (about 2 square block area in DC) compared to larger elections, but I always show up and dimple a chad or two. I may not agree with the choice not to vote for a prez, but I hope that you will at least go to vote for other elected offices. Viva the dog catcher, the county treasurer, the mayor and the like.

The above message is brought to you by a man who received four votes for president in 1992. I was so close.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And I'm just curious, what would you call your brothel?

about once a week.



(/joke)

[itai195]

What's stopping you from writing in a vote for Wesley Clark? Can you even write in votes for presidential candidates, I don't remember...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by itai195:
What's stopping you from writing in a vote for Wesley Clark? Can you even write in votes for presidential candidates, I don't remember...

good question. I imagine so, but I don't know how you'd do it in a punch ballot, for example

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
I don't understand how people develop this attitude. (I don't mean to break your balls any further TI, it's just that your sentiments are hardly unique nowadays.) It seems a little more prevalent on the Left these days (viz. Nader), but regardless: where is it written that a candidate has to be 100% aligned to your views? And more philosophically, why does anyone feel they are entitled to an ideologically pure vote? Politics is ultimately about compromise in the name of getting things done—and compromise isn't a bad word. It's an essential faculty for getting by in a world in which people inevitably have competing and mutually exclusive interests.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
good question. I imagine so, but I don't know how you'd do it in a punch ballot, for example

Yeah, oddly enough I am sure that Clark will continue to get votes throughout the race. During my states primary, Gephardt was still on the ticket and while he had already dropped out of the race, he still managed to get more votes than Kucinich.

Kucinich... Poor guy.

[Turias]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Kucinich... Poor guy.

Da Kooch is da man!

[eklipse]

I don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to non-voting.

If they believe it is a worthwhile and necessary endeavor - then, 'hooray for them' - why does everyone else have to submit to their voting philosophy and political ideology?


Re: 'Politics is ultimately about compromise in the name of getting things done...'

I would say that the perpetual quest for compromise is the greatest downfall of modern-day politics and the biggest hindrance to 'getting things done'.

[itai195]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to non-voting.

If they believe it is a worthwhile and necessary endeavor - then, 'hooray for them' - why does everyone else have to submit to their voting philosophy and political ideology?

Because we live in a country that empowers us with the privilege of choosing our leaders, and instead many choose to stay home and catch the next episode of 'Friends?'

I would say that the perpetual quest for compromise is the greatest downfall of modern-day politics and the biggest hindrance to 'getting things done'.

I'd say that's unrealistic. When you've got two people with unbending allegiances to mutually exclusive principles, how are you going to get anything done without compromise?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Re: 'Politics is ultimately about compromise in the name of getting things done...'

I would say that the perpetual quest for compromise is the greatest downfall of modern-day politics and the biggest hindrance to 'getting things done'.

How does two or more parties* inflexibly refusing to grant any concessions to one another lead to "getting things done"?

* parties in the sense of interested groups, not political parties per se.

[nonhuman]

The more people vote, the fewer each vote is worth. If every single person voted, each voter would have very little power at all, because of this, fewer people vote and, as a result, those that do have more power to effect change.

Also, what about people who disagree with all the candidates? If I equally dislike the Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, whatever candidates and don't want to see any of them in office? Who am I supposed to vote for?