Why do you assume we haven't thought through our candidate support?

[Lucinda]

I keep seeing post after post with people slamming DU members, assuming that we haven't thought through our candidate choices. It's very insulting.

Some of us aren't single issue voters.
Some of us may even be in disagreement with our choices over key issues.
But that doesn't mean we are pulling our support.

Please try and make your arguments without assuming everyone who doesn't think the way you do is an idiot.

There....I feel better now.


Flame on.

[Atman]

1. Because Hillary Clinton is the closest dem candidate to George Bush

and considering her stated positions, which don't seem to be in contradiction to anything Bush is doing, it seems to many of us that anyone who would still supports a Bush-lite simply hasn't thought through the reasons for their support.

Just my 2¢.

.

[cleveramerican]

2. I always remain "on the fence" till the last minute

What gets said, and by whom, during the campaign matters.

[Carrieyazel]

8. Great post. She's about as bad a nominee as we'd ever have.

She can't make the distinctions against the Repuke nominee. That is a certain recipe for defeat.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Probably for the same reason many feel voters didn't think through their support of

bush in 2000 and 2004.

Does that help explain it?

Let me ask you this: Do you believe bush voters in 2000 and 2004 thought through their support for bush?

[Lucinda]

4. No...not at all.

I think someone who posts regularly on a political message board is a bit less likely to make an uninformed choice.

[havocmom]

6. Interesting theory. Heard the one about paid posters?

It happens.

[ruggerson]

7. If true

Rove has spent a fortune here at DU.

[Lucinda]

13. Yep. Unfortunately it does.

I don't think would explain all of it, but i can see where it could be a factor.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. "Informed" is a relative concept. There are a lot of bush voters who post

on right wing political message boards, after all.

I generally assume that people vote for who they do for complex reasons, generally foremost among them is a voter's self identification with a candidate.

Thus, the complaint often heard by voters who are more issue oriented than say, personality oriented is "Why do people vote against their own self interests?"

Let me use the TV show American Idol as an analogy. The premise is that viewers vote for the the most talented contestant to win. However, in reality, many viewers vote based on such non-talent related information such as family background, age, sex, personal history, hair style, clothing, song selection, etc.

Our Presidential elections have increasingly trended to the American Idol model for half a century now, placing increased emphasis on voter identification with candidates over candidates issues, solutions, and competence.

And I believe that no segment of society is completely immune to this trend, even people who post at DU.

For the record, my candidate of choice for the 08 primaries is Dennis Kucinich. I arrived at that choice earlier this year based on reading all the candidates positions on issues as defined by the candidates themselves. I went to their websites and read what they said they would do in regards to a number of issues.

Yet much of the discourse on candidates here at DU as well as on other boards seems to center much more heavily on what I would call peripheral concerns, such as polls, hair style, and other non-issue oriented concerns. And i think it is for this reason that some assume that others are basing their choices on what they consider to be non-thought through reasons. The assumption in any particular (individual) case may be true or false, yet generally speaking there is some decent basis for the assumption.

[Lucinda]

14. That may be the case a good portion of the time

but I see a lot of posts attacking people who have stated often, and clearly, why they support "Candidate A" based on the issues, and not haricuts and flag pins.

There just appears to be a lot of posts, lately, that attack the intelligence of a board member because they disagree.

[TwilightZone]

5. Because it's easier than coming up with a reasoned response.

Name-calling and hurling insults is so much easier than having a reasoned discussion. The latter requires that we actually put some thought and effort into it, and that's just too much to ask!

Edit: typo

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I'm not sure that assuming someone hasn't thought the choice of their candidate through can

be equated with name calling, in all fairness.

It could be that the assumption is true, or it could be false. However, I don't equate broaching the subject with being insulting or with name calling.

In fact, I find the suject of what motivates anyone to support any candidate facinating and worthy of discussion.

Some may find it intimidating, but I suspect those that do are also probably the least able to mount a clear and coherant explaination for why they support, or don't support, a given candidate.

[TwilightZone]

11. Not always, of course, but often.

There are a lot of "you must be a Republican if you support anyone but my candidate" posts that don't bother to provide further elaboration. Such dismissiveness seems to be occurring more and more frequently.

[Lucinda]

12. There are those posts as well

They are also disheartening.

[illinoisprogressive]

15. Hillary would be the worst thing we could do to a country sinking like the titanic.