SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by scbelle

I don't know, maybe I come from a different school of philosophy. I think that voters absolutely should investigate fully the agendas of the candidates. Voting is a serious issue, and should not be done without being fully educated on the issues. Candidates are NOT teachers (except for maybe Ross Perot; God love him and his pie charts.). Democracy is an exercise in intellect.

Well, this is a fine opinion, but I would guess it's demonstrably false - the candidates bear the full burden of "educating" voters on the reasons to vote for that candidate, and voters bear the burden of making an informed choice, it would seem. However, I'm not sure the candidate side actually benefits from meeting that burden - and most campaign strategists seem to agree.

Originally Posted by scbelle

I'm tired of people thinking that all the information should just come to them. That could be as a result of the media age we live in, but I think it needs to be changed. Why not write to the campaigns and ask questions? I do this frequently, and do get answers. Go to a rally and ask a question. This isn't high school. It's not a popularity contest. You really need to seek the answers to your questions before you cast a vote.

While I like the aplomb with which you meet your own needs, often these questions (especially in "town meetings" and debates) are met with the same lame, hollow rhetoric that infects the speeches, web sites and publications from each candidate, are they not? In my experience, they most frequently are - and, of course, YMMV.

One thing - I think you're really ignoring the extent to which the answers people seek are hidden, intentionally obfuscated, or don't actually exist in any substantive (or reasonably accessible) form.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, this is a fine opinion, but I would guess it's demonstrably false - the candidates bear the full burden of "educating" voters on the reasons to vote for that candidate, and voters bear the burden of making an informed choice, it would seem. However, I'm not sure the candidate side actually benefits from meeting that burden - and most campaign strategists seem to agree.



While I like the aplomb with which you meet your own needs, often these questions (especially in "town meetings" and debates) are met with the same lame, hollow rhetoric that infects the speeches, web sites and publications from each candidate, are they not? In my experience, they most frequently are - and, of course, YMMV.

One thing - I think you're really ignoring the extent to which the answers people seek are hidden, intentionally obfuscated, or don't actually exist in any substantive (or reasonably accessible) form.

As far as my "teacher" comment, I just mean that the federal government is a huge beast and there are many parts to the whole that will be affected by single decisions. A candidate does not have the time (and in some cases, I would venture to say the experience or judgment) to tell you, the voter, how his platform will affect everything. That's why a voter's background reading is essential, IMHO.

I do agree that campaign strategists will want to gloss over certain areas of a candidate's platform. That is to be completely expected. They like to present a nice, lovely package to the voter, full of promises that often times turn out to be bulls#^$.

I think that it comes down to how one poses a question as to what kind of answer you get. A lot of questions I've heard at town hall meetings and debates are very generalized and do not require specific answers. People should figure out how to ask questions that require an answer in measurable terms. A few questions have been more pointed, and I can most definitely tell when a candidate is trying to "spin" to give an "acceptable" answer, versus giving the specific answer that everyone with half a brain knows is there, so I do agree with you that in part, the full truth is shrouded and all the candidates do lack the capacity for FULL disclosure.