Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I'm not convinced that statistic had anything to do with race because the way I heard it was that 21% of those supporting Clinton said they would vote for McCain over Obama and that 27% of those supporting Obama would vote for McCain over Clinton. The point of the news blip that I was hearing was that Clinton hoped these statistics would show she was more electable but in fact, they showed that Obama is more electable.
ETA: It was on the Today show that I heard it.
|
There are some serious questions about the validity of these statistics, as well - I'm not really sure of the utility, since in the heat of a Presidential race, many presumably have spent at least some amount of time discerning between two candidates and focusing on the "negatives" whereas this same process hasn't yet happened with McCain. Besides this, we know party affiliation is a strong force for voters, and I'm not convinced these aren't "heat of the moment" statements that don't carry over to the actual polls.
However, I do enjoy the fact that the numbers are so similar (or favor Obama) - just the kind of irony that my
Schadenfreude-addled brain loves so dearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile
Also, thank you to the people who quoted someone I have on ignore. I'd like to say that I don't put many people - if any - on a pedestal. When I used the word statesmen, I should have clarified myself. IMHO, there are a great many men who never became president, but might have made good ones (or at least, better than those elected). They walked their talk, and tried their level best to make others progress in their thought process. Presidents and presidential candidates all do the same thing as the rest of us when they get up in the morning, and until voters can look at them through realistic eyes, there will always be problems with elected officials.
|
(I don't particularly care if you have me on ignore - this is a discussion, not elementary school, so I'll continue it. I'd encourage you to stop exfoliating and get thicker.)
I have no doubt that many men (and women) could have made great Presidents but never had the chance - in fact, it's so self-evident in my mind that it borders on tautology, to be honest. To that extent, I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with what you're saying here - which is why your previous characterization of these particular Presidential candidates seems so disingenuous or awkward. This group really can't be worse than any other we've had, can it?
We've had Presidents who did a pretty good job who had serious moral, ethical and even legal failings - my point isn't to be judgmental of these failings, but rather that your somewhat draconian labeling of this group as "nutjobs" doesn't jive with the view you've given above.
In short: what makes this group so much worse?
Second point (to further discussion): is there something inherent or latent in politics or people who become politicians that leads to the sort of problematic behavior that we associate with them? Is it a power issue?
I'm not talking about cheating on your wife here, by the way - about a third of all men and women do it, so I'd expect a third of politicians as well.
To clarify a little further - I lie sometimes, because I'm imperfect - sometimes it's because it is expedient, sometimes because it gets me something or somewhere I want, whatever. I'd expect politicians to do the same - would it be fair for me to hold them to a higher standard? If a politician cheats on his wife, and my neighbor cheats on his wife, I'd still play softball with my neighbor - would I still vote for the politician?
To what extent do these things even matter? Where is the dividing line? Can a person still fulfill their civic duties with a history of moral failings (not necessarily ethical)?
Threaded Mode
