Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Milwaukiedave]

How would you vote if these two were the only ones on the ballot?

This poll is not scientific and to make it fair, I won't participate.

[Ya-ta Boy]

While it looks at this point like Senator Clinton has the edge to be the nominee, it isn't wrapped up yet. And it isn't at all certain that Romney has the nomination.

I understand the sentiment of not voting in protest, having voted 3rd party in protest a couple of times, and I don't respect it. It's just a temper tantrum. It's the old, "If I can't have my way, I'm taking the ball and going home" strategy. Petulance is not a good political move. As I've mentioned, I tried it.

[Gopher]

Very premature. Romney could very well be an unknown name by November, for example.

Ya-ta Boy: calculated abstention is different from "not voting in protest," right?

[Czarjorge]

This possibility would work best for the Dems as a choice between two Rich, WASPy, New England elites would likely fall in their favor, in no small part based on Hillsy's ability to cash in on the economy during Bill's admininstration. Plus, can you really imagine President Mitt?

I wouldn't count out McCain. South Carolina is still very close, and who know's what will happen in Florida. The GOP field is so wide at this point that it could go any direction. This may work in their favor. As a party they may have the opportunity to wait until the Dems have a clear candidate, and then run individually against that candidate rather than against each other. Thereby choosing their candidate based on who would beat the Dem candidate.

[Kuros]

Tsk. Where's the Bloomberg option?

[Ya-ta Boy]

Re: calculated abstention (added because two posts appeared while I was typing)


No, not really.

There is going to be a president elected in November no matter what a person does. It may not be your first choice, and it might not even be your second or third choice, but one of the two nominees is going to win. Swallow your pride and vote. A few weeks back I posted a list of about 40 3rd parties. If nothing else, vote for one of them. And it is pretty much nothing to vote for one of them.

As you mentioned just now in another post, idealism has to bump up against reality. Idealism has its place, I believe, but must give way to the practicalities of the real world. Our system offers the best method of changing. It's glacially slow, but it is designed to be that way. Politics is change by increments. Revolutions are the other way.

[Czarjorge]

As in Bloomberg announcing next week and jumping in? Who knows, it's been a crazy politics season so far, so anything is possible. But if it won't work for Giuliani why would it work for the rich guy? (Sorry, I should say richer guy.)

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

One major advantage the Democrats have is no matter who wins the nomination, Clinton or Obama, their candidate will be making history. I think that's a very powerful pull.

I am 100% sure both of them have a humdinger of a speech about his/her particular fulfillment of the American Dream that will be delivered at some point...maybe the convention?

I also wonder about the Lysistrata Stategy. How many husbands will want to spend 4 years in the dog house if they refuse to vote for a woman.

[bucheon bum]

In this scenario I'd pray for Bloomberg to run.

[Ya-ta Boy]

It looks like Bloomberg is putting his toe in the water.

Bloomberg has harsh words for Washington http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bloomberg2008

LOS ANGELES - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who says he's not a candidate for president, chose electoral vote-rich