The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future? Psychic visions? Dreams?
Oh, that's why it's reasonable to be undecided going into the voting booth! The psychic visions don't come along until after you've closed the curtain!
Don't YOUR voting booths contain a supply of Melange?
Is there some sort of study somewhere that showed that 10% of voters don't have any idea what they are voting for until they literally close the curtain behind them, or are we just assuming that? It wouldn't really further the points being put forth in this thread, but it would be nice to know.
Exit polling numbers for 'decided on voting day'
Right on, thanks. Someone earlier in the thread said it was ok to vote in this manner because they would have spent a couple hours reading up on the issues before they went into the voting booth. In fact, I imagine anyone that did some good, solid research the day of the polls would show up like this.
A few hours of good, solid research appears to have an extremely high correlation with voting for Hillary.
Because if there's anything Americans are known for, it's their predisposition for taking a few solid hours out of a work day to do research.
Where do you get off with your smug condescension, Thanatos.
I'll tell you where. At the stop in Elitistville. That is where you get off.
The fact of the matter is, though, that there is no guarantee that the digging would have been enough to convince me in one direction or other beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly possible to be informed and undecided at the same time. Just because you personally feel that a certain ammount of information is enough to come to a conclusion based on does not mean that it is enough for EVERYONE else.
The campaigns have been going on for over a year. If you don't have enough information to decide at this point, you're a fucking idiot.
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future?
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Except we're discussing undecided voters on election day. So, is the idea that the candidate will somehow go back in time, and say something before he or she started campaigning that would influence the vote? That Obama and Hillary are going to go have a debate before they started campaigning right before the person walks into the voting booth?
Evander was suggesting you pick a time other than when they are campaigning (presumably because this would be the time when they are trying hardest to appeal to a large base of people, at the expense of what they might actually do when they get into office) Obviously you can't really say "Well senator X might run for President one day, let's see what he thinks about some shit" but you can look back at McCains political history or something and say "I think he sacrifices too much of his issues to appeal to voters" I am not saying it is the best strategy for picking who you want, but I am saying that there is a way to make a decision that is not rooted in this:
If you're basing your vote on who a candidate is while campaigning, you're an even bigger idiot.
What should you be basing your vote on, then? Things that happen in the future?
Theoretically, you could base it on things they have done before they were campaigning, as they are likely to have some sort of political track record. People jumped on this post of Evander's with the whole "LOEL LETS WAIT FOR THE FUTUER THEN" strawman. He is trying to indicate that they are more likely to say something that would appease potential voters while they are actually campaigning for a new position, and that isn't much of a stretch to assume. He chose a very terrible way of phrasing it but that doesn't excuse a bunch of knee-jerk strawmen.
Except we're discussing undecided voters on election day. So, is the idea that the candidate will somehow go back in time, and say something before he or she started campaigning that would influence the vote? That Obama and Hillary are going to go have a debate before they started campaigning right before the person walks into the voting booth?
Evander was suggesting you pick a time other than when they are campaigning (presumably because this would be the time when they are trying hardest to appeal to a large base of people, at the expense of what they might actually do when they get into office) Obviously you can't really say "Well senator X might run for President one day, let's see what he thinks about some shit" but you can look back at McCains political history or something and say "I think he sacrifices too much of his issues to appeal to voters" I am not saying it is the best strategy for picking who you want, but I am saying that there is a way to make a decision that is not rooted in this:
Okay, one more time, since you are clearly not reading what I am writing:
In what way does the existance of this already available information suddenly make deciding who to vote for as you walk into the election both a rational, well-thought-out decision?
Evander was suggesting you pick a time other than when they are campaigning (presumably because this would be the time when they are trying hardest to appeal to a large base of people, at the expense of what they might actually do when they get into office) Obviously you can't really say "Well senator X might run for President one day, let's see what he thinks about some shit" but you can look back at McCains political history or something and say "I think he sacrifices too much of his issues to appeal to voters" I am not saying it is the best strategy for picking who you want, but I am saying that there is a way to make a decision that is not rooted in this:
In some aspects, this is true but committee seats and politics tend not to touch on a lot of issues that are germaine or are representative of their personal stand given the need to tow a party line. The detailed policy proposals that they come up with over the course of the campaign are hardly meaningless. Obama's voting record in the Senate really isn't going to tell me that he supports expanding nuclear power, nor will Clinton's or McCain's tell me about their view towards the nuances of universal healthcare. It will let me know just how horrible they are at naming post offices, though.
In what way does the existance of this already available information suddenly make deciding who to vote for as you walk into the election both a rational, well-thought-out decision?
"Rational" and "well-thought-out" are heavily loaded terms (if he makes the decision like I made my decision it is rational, but if he decides based on something I feel is arbitrary (even if it is extremely important to him/her) it is irrational), some person deciding as they walk into the election booth makes some sort of 'rational' decision, even if that rationalization is "his name sounds Jewish", and they obviously feel it is 'well thought out' enough to stake their vote on it.
Keep in mind I never said some guy who runs in and blindfolds himself and scribbles all over the ballot is a benefit either, just that making a thread talking about it is just bound to turn into a circle jerk.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Don't YOUR voting booths contain a supply of Melange?
Where do you get off with your smug condescension, Thanatos.
I'll tell you where. At the stop in Elitistville. That is where you get off.
On the black screen
Evander was suggesting you pick a time other than when they are campaigning (presumably because this would be the time when they are trying hardest to appeal to a large base of people, at the expense of what they might actually do when they get into office) Obviously you can't really say "Well senator X might run for President one day, let's see what he thinks about some shit" but you can look back at McCains political history or something and say "I think he sacrifices too much of his issues to appeal to voters" I am not saying it is the best strategy for picking who you want, but I am saying that there is a way to make a decision that is not rooted in this:
In what way does the existance of this already available information suddenly make deciding who to vote for as you walk into the election both a rational, well-thought-out decision?
In some aspects, this is true but committee seats and politics tend not to touch on a lot of issues that are germaine or are representative of their personal stand given the need to tow a party line. The detailed policy proposals that they come up with over the course of the campaign are hardly meaningless. Obama's voting record in the Senate really isn't going to tell me that he supports expanding nuclear power, nor will Clinton's or McCain's tell me about their view towards the nuances of universal healthcare. It will let me know just how horrible they are at naming post offices, though.
"Rational" and "well-thought-out" are heavily loaded terms (if he makes the decision like I made my decision it is rational, but if he decides based on something I feel is arbitrary (even if it is extremely important to him/her) it is irrational), some person deciding as they walk into the election booth makes some sort of 'rational' decision, even if that rationalization is "his name sounds Jewish", and they obviously feel it is 'well thought out' enough to stake their vote on it.
Keep in mind I never said some guy who runs in and blindfolds himself and scribbles all over the ballot is a benefit either, just that making a thread talking about it is just bound to turn into a circle jerk.