Voting for President, for the wrong reasons?

[Martinus]

Good call, CdM. I was about to quote the same article.

[The Brain]

If I were to vote in this election I wouldn't.

[derspiess]

Maybe if Berk wasn't so partisan he wouldn't have this problem.

Self-hating Republicans are the worst.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Anyway, if you do not live in a battleground state and don't like either of the two main candidates, I think the best thing to do is vote for a third party candidate that better represents your views.

The American Scipio approach.

THat's been my way of handling things.  It doesn't matter in Mass who I vote for, so I used to vote Nader.  Don't know about this time.  Not a Green party or Libertarian.

[merithyn]

So I was tlaking ot the wife, and she was remarking on the fact that I am a Republican who never seems to vote Republican, and we got to talking about this election.

I realized that I wasn't really voting for Obama because I think he is all that great personally - really, he has been mostly a significant dissapointment. I always said he had potential to be a great President, but I high likelihood of just being mediocre. Well, I think he is a lot closer to mediocre than great.

And Romeny doesn't even really bother me anymore - he did during the Primary, but that was mostly because I was really just disguested with the Tea Party bullshit, and his pandering to them. But really, he is a moderate, business oriented, pretty smart guy. Nothing really objectionable about him, but nothing really to get excited about either. Unlike Obama as a candidate in 2008, I don't think Romney has any significant "upside". What you see is what you get, and there is no real chance that once he is in office he would be excellent.

So I am left with a sitting President who I think is mediocre, even if he had potential, and a candidate who has no real potential, but no real negative potnetial either. Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.

But there is zero chance I am voting for Romney anyway. And it isn't because I am a RINO.

Rather, it is because I cannot stand the idea of rewarding the Republicans for spending the last four years holding the country hostage, and basically refusing to govern under the idea that causing the country to fail to recover is the best way of getting Obama out, and that was more important than the actual well being of the country.

More fundamentally, things like Voter ID laws and such make it clear that for the Republicans, winning is the goal, not the means to the goal. Win the election is all that matters - actually getting anything done is immaterial. That much was clear form their winning the mid-terms - they didn't want to win so they could get things done, they wanted to win so they could make sure NOTHING gets done.

SO there it is - I am not really ovting for Obama, or even against Romney. I am voting against radical partisanship and the tactics that entails.

I understand you completely. I have some philosophical differences with Romney which helped push me toward Obama anyway, but ultimately, I hate the way the Republicans have acted over the past four years and can't see voting for any of them in any office. I also despise the idea that they can claim to be about small government and getting government out of people's lives while still trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion.

[garbon]

Good call, CdM. I was about to quote the same article.

Now you know Seedy what you did wrong.

[mongers]

Only 5 days to go.   


I wonder if they'll manage putting off campaigning for the mid-terms until after the inauguration ?

[Valmy]

Yeah, pretty much.  Yours too, ain't it?  If it's close then obviously pick the better of the two, but if it's not close in your state there's no sense in helping give the winner some sense of mandate if you don't like him.

Pretty much, the Libertarians get lots of Valmy votes.  I only seriously consider my vote in local elections.  Though I think I bungled this year, I voted for a bond proposal I now realize was horrible.  I sure hope my fellow citizens help correct my error.

[Barrister]

I don't know about the "no upside" part Berk.  I think Romney has significant upside.  Here's a bit in a David Frum piece that kind of sums it up:

But I also reject the Jonathan Chait theory that Romney personally shares the beliefs of the selfish and stupid elements of the coalition. Massachusetts Mitt - the Mitt who hurled himself into the battle for universal health coverage within his state - also came from someplace real. I believe they came from the place whence also came passages like this in Romney's book, No Apology, a book whose middle sections pretty obviously were written or dictated by the candidate himself.
Following my election as governor of Massachusetts, and knowing that I now shared responsibility for the education of hundreds of thousands of young people, I studied the education literature to gain perspective. What I found was a virtual quicksand of differing opinion in which it would be easy to sink, but what was missing was an examination of data. Instead, most writers sought to convince readers by appealing to their inherent prejudices and by recounting anecdotes that supported their particular policy preferences. ... Anecdotes are illustrative, but data is compelling – particularly if it is comprehensive and presented by an unbiased source. (201)

Getty

I liked the bit about the data, but even more the calm acceptance of "responsibility." Romney has demonstrated an ability to absorb and process information we've seen in no Republican candidate for president since Dwight Eisenhower. And the finest accomplishment of his governorship, Romneycare, is the work of a man who takes seriously the obligations that society owes to each and every one of its members, the 47% as well as the 53%. Romney has the capacity to excel at the job of president.

And now that I look at the article again, he has the same objection you do about congressional republicans, but comes to the opposite result:

The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.html

[derspiess]

Yeah, pretty much.  Yours too, ain't it?  If it's close then obviously pick the better of the two, but if it's not close in your state there's no sense in helping give the winner some sense of mandate if you don't like him.

Pretty much, the Libertarians get lots of Valmy votes.  I only seriously consider my vote in local elections.  Though I think I bungled this year, I voted for a bond proposal I now realize was horrible.  I sure hope my fellow citizens help correct my error.

I voted in favor of both county levy renewals.  They're fairly modest and do a little to help out old people, drug addicts and crazies

[Razgovory]

The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.html

If the GOP proves that this is a successful strategy, why shouldn't the Dems follow it if Romney wins?  If we follow this advice, the Dems might as well hang up their hats and leave.  If they win elections they will be obstructed at every possible turn and prevented from governing, and if they lose they will be expected to be bipartisan and let the Republicans have their way because democrats are apparently the only adults in the room.  What is the point for Dems to run for office at all?

[garbon]

Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?

[Razgovory]

Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?

Why don't you tell me what that is first.

[garbon]

Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?

Why don't you tell me what that is first.

The period of time when Obama first arrived, the Dems in charge across the board still had difficulties rallying their troops.

[merithyn]

Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?

Why don't you tell me what that is first.

The period of time when Obama first arrived, the Dems in charge across the board still had difficulties rallying their troops.

Yeah. I totally blame Pelosi for that whole mess. Maybe it's just personal dislike of the woman, but it seemed like she had no idea what she was doing, and certainly no clue how to get anything pulled together and passed.