In the upcoming US Presidential election, who should undecided voters support, and, most importantly, why? What’s the critical issue that sets your favored candidate apart, and why should uncommitted voters care?
I wanted to throw this out for people to think about; I’ll give my answer in comments later today. I think this question is important because it can seem so damn obvious to politically active folks that we can’t even articulate it to those who are less involved. So what would you say to the thoughtful, undecided voter to win her over to your side?
Posted under Discussion Question, Politics
This post was written by Daisy on October 3, 2008
McCain is a win at any cost candidate. Obama isn’t. It comes down to: If we could win our wars, but we needed an invasive police state, would you support that? Ok, how about if we lost the wars anyway? Because once we have it, whether it actually helps us win becomes irrelevant. Its here to stay.
Another approach would be to talk about something important to you personally. I really care about health care access. The candidates couldn’t be further apart on this issue.
voters should support ralph nader. there is no single issue that sets him apart. rather, he takes the majoritarian position on many issues where obama and mccain take the position of the elite classes. he supports single-payer health care, an end to a criminally aggressive foreign policy, peace in the middle east, cutting the military budget, filling prisons with corporate criminals instead of drug addicts, gay marriage, clean renewable energy, no buying $700 billion worth of useless crap from rich people who can’t unload it in the marketplace, etc. etc. etc. also, he’s a maverick.
others will argue that because nader doesn’t have a realistic shot of winning the presidency, people should hold their noses and vote for either mccain or obama, whoever they think is less evil. (truth be told, i only hear obama supporters making this argument.) i don’t agree with this principle, but even if it’s sound, it only works in competitive states, which means it only applies to a minority of voters. voters in “safe states” should not legitimize the existing political system by voting for mccain or obama.
Sorry this is so much later than I planned! Busy weekend. Thanks for your answers, Dan and Uri.
This election is close enough that I think voters should choose one of the front-runners, especially in so called battleground states — I, for example, live in New Mexico, where the race has been a close one.
Obama is better for the people of the United States in many dimensions — including, as Dan mentions, health care — but the one that strikes me as most important today is foreign policy and war. Obama was opposed to this corrupt, useless, bloody war from the beginning; despite his service and time as a POW, McCain is a war-monger. If you’re concerned about the lives of American soldiers and the lives of innocent civilians all around the world, Obama is clearly the better pick, and by a landslide.
I trust Barack Obama to implement a thoughtful, effective, diplomatic foreign policy. As a Jew with family in Israel, I trust Obama to work towards just policies in the Middle East.
Frankly, I trust John McCain to kill thousands of innocent people for incredibly stupid reasons.
The answer is: Swing state voters should vote for Obama; everyone else should vote for Nader. I’m not an Obama supporter, Uri – so there.
Nader doesn’t have a realistic shot of winning the presidency. Nader actually admits that (the new Onion AVClub interview – you can find the link in my post).
Obama’s healthcare plan might provide access for some U.S. citizens. But it will be marginal – it’s a much weaker plan than the Clinton plan (which wasn’t very impressive and didn’t address the HMO/pharmaceutical industries). You can’t even call it a “reform”.
More on this tomorrow (Tuesday, 10/7) at 8a.m. – I wrote a post on the topic. May we never revisit it again! Except when we do.
” I trust Barack Obama to implement a thoughtful, effective, diplomatic foreign policy. ”
” Frankly, I trust John McCain to kill thousands of innocent people for incredibly stupid reasons. ”
what substantive, objective evidence do you have to support these allegations.
Hi Roger,
As I said in my comment, McCain supported the Iraq War, that is to say, he fully, whole-heartedly endorsed the killing of thousands of innocent people for stupid reasons, and he continues to support that decision. I see no reason why he won’t continue in that manner in the future, especially given his attitude about negotiating with foreign leaders (that attitude being: he refuses to talk to anybody). He seems all to eager to use violence to settle conflicts.
Obama’s record is pretty different. He opposed the war; he wants to have open negotiations with leaders, from our closest allies to our enemies (how to avoid war with our enemies if not by talking to them…?); he seems (more) reluctant to use military force.
This is all very much common knowledge, which is why I haven’t included links. If you’d like some citations and for some reason can’t find them, though, I’ll rassle some up for you.