Will you vote for your party's candidate?

banzini · 07-28-2007, 07:26 PM

(Note to Mods: not really sure if this belongs here or in The Floor; please move as necessary)

I've been reading other forums/boards and have noticed w/ substantial frequency that there are those who profess they will vote for the candidate of their party regardless of whether or not they agree w/ them or what they stand for. I must admit that I am guilty of having done so in the past, (I regrettably voted for McCaskill last fall even though I do not agree w/ her on a great variety of issues. It was simply a matter of getting rid of that asshole Jim Talent and restoring Dem control to the Senate) but regarding the Presidential Elections of 2008 I do not feel willing to do the same for other candidates though the stakes are admittedly much higher this time.

I feel that neither Clinton or Obama share the same values as myself nor do I believe that either would represent what I feel a POTUS should. I am not inclined to give either of them my vote. However, were Thompson, Romney or Guliani to win the GOP nomination I would feel strongly compelled to vote Dem simply because it is my belief that none of those three would be any good for the country. It would be a case of voting against the other nominee at the expense of my own conscience.

If there were a GOPer or Dem w/ the nomination who I felt worth voting for then I would do so w/o any hesitation. For me it is not a matter of having my party win the presidency, but of having the best person for the job, no heed to affiliation. As I have seen on other sites that does not seem to be the case, as many are willing to vote for whomever their side chooses. Many Dem friends of mine will not vote for Ron Paul simply because he is running under the banner of the GOP, even though he is clearly a better candidate and more in line w/ their values than the Dem front-runners.

All of this is really sort of moot at this point w/ no one having secured any nomination and the elections so far of, but it seems that many have already made their choice. What will you do? Do you plan to blindly support your party, whether or not you truly agree w/ the candidate, or will you vote for the person you think is best for the position?

motivez · 07-28-2007, 08:00 PM

Unless Paul is the Republican nominee (and he wont be), I wont even consider voting for a Republican.

There's too much at stake in the next four years to leave it in the hands of someone likely to continue Bush's policies.

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2007, 08:04 PM

I think Obama is better than Clinton...

But I'm holdin out for Fred!

Thorgrim · 07-28-2007, 09:07 PM

There is too much to risk with the supreme court to consider voting anyone else besides a Democrat...

We have at least 2 justices ready to retire...do you have any idea how much power El Presidente Rudy would have? You thought Bush was bad...

And then no more abortion rights, forced prayers in school, restrictions on all our liberties...

ballz2wallz · 07-28-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is too much to risk with the supreme court to consider voting anyone else besides a Democrat...

We have at least 2 justices ready to retire...do you have any idea how much power El Presidente Rudy would have? You thought Bush was bad...

And then no more abortion rights, forced prayers in school, restrictions on all our liberties...

But...Rudy isn't really that conservative

Scrum · 07-28-2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Unless Paul is the Republican nominee (and he wont be), I wont even consider voting for a Republican.

There's too much at stake in the next four years to leave it in the hands of someone likely to continue Bush's policies.

Joe_Cool · 07-29-2007, 11:45 AM

I never vote for a party. I vote on the issues I care about, and cast my vote for the candidate that most closely matches my beliefs.

Well, ok. On races when I don't know anything about the candidates, I do vote for the Republican candidate, but not because of any "loyalty" to the party. It's because people who are running as Republicans tend to be more in line with my beliefs. In theory, at least, the whole point in affiliating yourself with a particular party is to signify that you largely agree with the official positions of the party. I call myself a computer programmer because I write computer programs, not because I feel loyalty to a group of people called "The Computer Programmers", you know?

This election, I'm strongly pulling for Bill Richardson, who is a democrat. I know he has no chance, but I still hope.

I voted for him in last year's governor's race, too.

motivez · 07-29-2007, 01:29 PM

Yeah, Richardson has a lot of relevant experience, but he's been really horrible in the debates so far, like he can't quite be eloquent enough to really do justice to his long list of accomplishments.. and that's where people really begin to know the candidates

Joe_Cool · 07-29-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, Richardson has a lot of relevant experience, but he's been really horrible in the debates so far, like he can't quite be eloquent enough to really do justice to his long list of accomplishments.. and that's where people really begin to know the candidates

It's sad that intelligent, well-qualified men who happen not to be great public speakers (like Washington, Jefferson, and Adams) would have a hard time getting elected today.

Not that I'm comparing Richardson to Washington, Jefferson, or Adams... I'm just saying that none of them was a good orator, and because of that, some of our greatest presidents would have a hard time getting into office. But the times have changed. People think "poor speaker" means "unintelligent". Just look at the way everybody mocks Bush for every slipup. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit that being a poor speaker doesn't mean you're stupid.

And Richardson is falling victim to the same thing. His intelligence and experience are being completely overshadowed by slick talkers who don't have even a fraction of his experience. Hell, Hillary's biggest qualification is that she was married to a President. Her term in the senate was BS from the very beginning. She won on pure name recognition in a heavily democratic state, and from day one, its only purpose has been to get her into position to run for the presidency. Nobody cares that Richardson was Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the UN under her husband and has experience as a chief executive.

Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, poised to sign a bill making New Mexico the 12th state to legalize medical marijuana, said Thursday he realizes his action could become an issue in the presidential race.

"So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do," said Richardson, one of the candidates in the crowded 2008 field. "What we're talking about is 160 people in deep pain. It only affects them."

Richardson says supporting medical marijuana 'is right thing to do'

thomez · 07-29-2007, 11:42 PM

I will vote for Ron Paul if he is nominated or not.

Joe_Cool · 07-29-2007, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I will vote for Ron Paul if he is nominated or not.

What a waste. I'll vote for him in the primary. If he doesn't win, I'm voting to keep Hillary and Obama out. And that means the republican candidate.

Joe_Cool · 07-29-2007, 11:44 PM

Unless Richardson gets the democrat nomination.

thomez · 07-30-2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

What a waste. I'll vote for him in the primary. If he doesn't win, I'm voting to keep Hillary and Obama out. And that means the republican candidate.

A waste is voting for a candidate based only on their chance to win. It's a waste of principle and it keeps 2 worthless parties alive in this country.

ballz2wallz · 07-30-2007, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

A waste is voting for a candidate based only on their chance to win. It's a waste of principle and it keeps 2 worthless parties alive in this country.

That depends. I believe it's wise to make decisions based on the outcome, the consequences. You should always consider the consequences when making your decisions. If the consequence of your voting for a candidate who's not really a candidate is nothing, then surely it's considered a waste? Kind of like throwing your money down a toilet where it does absolutely nothing is a waste?

thomez · 07-30-2007, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That depends. I believe it's wise to make decisions based on the outcome, the consequences. You should always consider the consequences when making your decisions. If the consequence of your voting for a candidate who's not really a candidate is nothing, then surely it's considered a waste? Kind of like throwing your money down a toilet where it does absolutely nothing is a waste?

The consequences of continuing to vote for people you do not support are grave indeed. Infact, that is likely how we have reached a 2 party system that consists of equal part terrible. When my options have boiled down to the shit we now call "front-runner candidates" I think we need to all consider bucking the system and working for real change.

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

A waste is voting for a candidate based only on their chance to win. It's a waste of principle and it keeps 2 worthless parties alive in this country.

No, a vote for Ron Paul (assuming he doesn't win the nomination) is as good as a vote for the democrat candidate. Enough republicans write in Ron Paul, Hillary or Obama is guaranteed a win.

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

The consequences of continuing to vote for people you do not support are grave indeed. Infact, that is likely how we have reached a 2 party system that consists of equal part terrible. When my options have boiled down to the shit we now call "front-runner candidates" I think we need to all consider bucking the system and working for real change.

And if you vote for 3rd party candidates, you'll get the worst of the field in office.

Publius · 07-30-2007, 08:54 AM

i'll be voting for my party (LP) candidate unless Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, and even then i may write him in.

and those of you saying it is a "wasted vote" can fuck off, who i vote for is my business and you really have no right to question the validity of my decision.

ballz2wallz · 07-30-2007, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

The consequences of continuing to vote for people you do not support are grave indeed. Infact, that is likely how we have reached a 2 party system that consists of equal part terrible. When my options have boiled down to the shit we now call "front-runner candidates" I think we need to all consider bucking the system and working for real change.

The consequences of voting for nobody are also grave. It allows people to put into power someone you REALLY don't want, as opposed to someone you kinda don't want.

Linzyhop · 07-30-2007, 09:56 AM

i'm going for McCain. of course i have no say in the primaries, but maybe i'll switch my party over before election time......