Political YouTube Clips Thread

Remove all ads!

The problem with that is we are turning into a society where 50 percent of the people work for a living and the other 50 percent vote for living. It isn't a sustainable way to be.

 

Well, I imagine it did get somewhat worse due to the economy tanking in the first year or so. Whether Obama could have done anything to help that, and whether McCain would have done any better, are simply theoretical questions.

 

To be fair, the worst year of the economy was 2009, and while that was Obama's first year in office, the economy really went into the tank in the fall of 2008. It wasn't Obama's policies that caused the economy to go into the toilet. So from the relative standpoint of when Obama got elected to now, the economy IS in better shape. I will concede that it is open for debate if it would have improved more or less had McCain been in office.

Snook,

Why do you think these people will like Obama because of this? It was a scam. The pre-paid debit cards all these people received had no money on them!

 

BTA gets it. This has nothing to do with the economy (good or bad). This has to do with the culture that the government is there to just give people things. There is an entire segment of our population that overwhelmingly votes for one party for the sole purpose of getting things.

 

Funny, I see a difference between someone giving you something you didn't earn and trying to prevent someone from taking something you did earn.

 

That's not entirely true. Certainly, the GOP is pro-big business, and many wealthy individuals support the party because of it. The problem with this line of thinking is that the top 5% of earners in the nation are just that - 5% of the population, and not nearly large enough of a group to swing an election unless the election was going to be very close anyway. The much larger group of avid GOP supporters are evangelical Christians - supporting the party's platform on social issues. And there are more than enough of them to swing an election - they are nearly 40% of the population in the US. In doing so, many of them are actually voting against their own financial self-interest.

 

That's not what I meant at all in terms of social issues - and I thought referencing evangelical Christians would have made it obvious. I'm specifically talking about things like abortion, gay marriage, et al. Things that will drive these people to the polls and will cause them to vote against their economic self-interest along faith-based lines.

There are far more people in the US like this than you'd think. My mother-in-law isn't even evangelical - she's Catholic, but in any political decision, regardless of where the candidates stand on any or all issues, if one is pro-life, and the other is pro-choice, she will vote for the pro-life candidate, even if she likes the pro-choice candidate better in every other way, and she will do this without exception.

Granted, there are pro-choice politicians in the GOP, but they are in the minority. Likewise, there are some pro-life politicians that are Democrats, but they are also in the minority. So it's safe to assume that when you run across a politician that is pro-life, he is almost certainly a Republican. Same with gay marriage. Thus, when someone votes on the basis of these type of social issues they are voting for the Republican. And when that is their number one priority in deciding on who to vote for (i.e., they are one issue voters), they will vote for the Republican against their self-interest.

 

I disagree. I think Democrats like to think that Republican's are unthinking automatons who vote as their priests and ministers tell them to. While I'm sure there are some, I think the vast majority of them are conservative in nature and vote for economic conservatism. As Bill Clinton said "It is the economy, stupid"

 

Tal, I think you overestimate that amount of thinking the average voter is capable of. I think most voters are single issue voters. I think most people vote for the candidate who stands for the same thing that the individual voter believes in most, at that time. Personally, I will be voting for the guy who I think can get us back on track financially. I could care less about their stance on abortion or religion or immigration(though I do think their stance on such issues can help them gain support that could help them achieve any political goal.).

 

My point exactly. I think one of the reasons that Snook has a different opinion is based largely on his geographic location. He lives in one of the most liberal (and well educated) states in the nation, and any Republican that wants to get elected has to, simply out of pragmatism, run as a moderate. Running in Massachusetts looking for one issue voters isn't going to get you very far, as compared to say, Kansas. (Not that I have anything against Kansas specifically - I think the same applies for most of the Great Plains states.)

Well, how about a liberal example then? Snook will love me for this one: 95% of African Americans voted for Obama. If you think it's just because Obama is the same race, it's not. Even when the Democratic candidate is white, he still gets about 90% of the vote.

 

Once again I have to disagree. Here in MA the vast majority of voters are single issue voters. If they are a Democrat that is good enough for them. The Republican's that win here, do so not by being a moderate (although they tend to be), but by showing how looney and far left the Democrat is.

As to your edit, you are correct, blacks vote the way they are told to. Most Jews are the same way. I have relatives that don't even have to know who is running, they will vote straight D. I'm very curious if this election will be the first time that the Jews may actually go R as many Jews do not feel that Obama has been a friend to Israel (actually many feel he has been an enemy).

 

Followed by:

So when a Democrat votes for a Democrat they are single issue voters, but when a Republican votes for a Republican, they are holding on to the Republican ideals of economic conservatism.

Wow. You've really opened up my eyes here Snook. I can't believe I never noticed this before. Is the world so black and white to you?

 

No, you are taking two quotes out of context and giving them meaning that isn't correct.

In the first quote I was talking about how I believe the majority of Republicans vote for economic policies first and then social policies second. I also mentioned how I don't believe the power of the Evangelacals is as strong as people would lead you to believe.

In the second quote I was commenting on how in MA which is is one of the most liberal and Democrat states for many people being Democrat is the only qualification the candidate needs.

I never said that any Dems are single issue voters (although I'm sure many of them are), I just said that many here are single party voters. I made no claim that there aren't many Republicans who do the exact same thing.

 

No, actually you said exactly that in post #357:

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that statement - I believe it to be factually correct. But I am pointing out that if you are a Democrat, chances are you are going to vote for the Democratic candidate, and if you are Republican, chances are you are going to vote for the Republican candidate. If you didn't vote for one party nearly all the time, you probably wouldn't be a member of that party. Someone who actually votes for Republicans and Democrats probably registers as independent.

I'm no exception to that rule. I always vote. Typically even in primaries, and I know I've never missed an opportunity to vote in a general election. That said, I can probably count the number of times I pulled a lever for a Republican candidate on my two hands and have a few fingers to spare. But I don't think there is anything unique to this type of voting, and I think you see it just about everywhere.

I'm sure I can take everything you said about MA and apply to Republicans in any of the Great Plains states. Or, for an example as extreme as MA, we can go with Utah.