• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Democrats for Santorum

Puppycow said:
Here's a blast from the past:

VOTE FOR BUSH By Dan Savage
Click to expand...
I lived in MI in 2000, and voted for McCain in the Republican primary. Not because I wished to see the Republicans win the general election, but because I thought there was a good chance that they were going to take the white house anyway, and I found McCain to be the least objectionable candidate in the race.

Were I still in MI, I would have cast a vote for Santorum, this time not because I prefer him to Romney- but because I think he would be a much weaker opponent to Obma in the general election.

Anectdotal, I know, but I doubt I am the only one thinking (or voting) that way.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Spindrift that it's a bad idea. Even though I want Obama to win, I do not want to see Santorum win the GOP nomination. I'd rather see Obama debate Romney on the merits of their economic proposals, foreign policy, etc. than see Obama and Santorum debate abortion and whether or not Obama's political ideology constitutes a non-bible-base theology. I think the latter would be bad for America.

Also, I think it's dishonest for people to vote for Santorum with the intention of spoiling the GOP primary.

I would say if such incidents become effective, we'll see even more closed primaries in the future.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Also, I think it's dishonest for people to vote for Santorum with the intention of spoiling the GOP primary.
Click to expand...
It's not just dishonest (bad enough) but it's plain stupid. Trying to predict the results of a general election, especially this early, is an impossible task. If Frothy Mixture managed to win the nomination because of Democrats crossing over during open primaries (an unlikely outcome, of course) and then Obama did something to royally piss off the electorate, we could end up with the waking nightmare of a Santorum presidency. While I don't like the idea of Romney being president, I don't think there should be any question among Democrats - and most civil libertarian voters - that Santorum would be much, much worse.
 
Babbylonian said:
It's not just dishonest (bad enough) but it's plain stupid. Trying to predict the results of a general election, especially this early, is an impossible task. If Frothy Mixture managed to win the nomination because of Democrats crossing over during open primaries (an unlikely outcome, of course) and then Obama did something to royally piss off the electorate, we could end up with the waking nightmare of a Santorum presidency. While I don't like the idea of Romney being president, I don't think there should be any question among Democrats - and most civil libertarian voters - that Santorum would be much, much worse.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not only dishonest.

I think the "stupid" part applies even if Santorum doesn't stand a snowball's chance against Obama. I think the damage would be done by having presidential debates with Santorum, as I noted above.

Further, I think Santorum's surge also makes Romney seem more reasonable and sane by contrast, which is also not a good thing for our country.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I agree it's not only dishonest.

I think the "stupid" part applies even if Santorum doesn't stand a snowball's chance against Obama. I think the damage would be done by having presidential debates with Santorum, as I noted above.

Further, I think Santorum's surge also makes Romney seem more reasonable and sane by contrast, which is also not a good thing for our country.
Click to expand...
Dishonest? Really?

I don't recall any candidates refusing to accept a vote because they did not approve of the voters reason for casting that vote. Nor is there a space next to the names in the voting booth to allow for an explanation of why the vote was cast.
 
Debating Santorum on social issues is a clear win for Obama (Remember how resoundingly MISSISSIPPI voters rejected an anti-abortion measure last November), whereas fiscal and foreign policy issues are much more complicated and subject to spin- turning off many voters.

Santorums', as well as Gingrich's, role is to keep the far right engaged so they turn out and vote for Romney in the fall. Turning that around so that they wind up having to back one of those freaks is the best that could be done for Obama's re-election chances.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Dishonest? Really?

I don't recall any candidates refusing to accept a vote because they did not approve of the voters reason for casting that vote. Nor is there a space next to the names in the voting booth to allow for an explanation of why the vote was cast.
Click to expand...
The dishonesty is between the voter and the system. If you vote for or against someone/something, it should be an honest statement of your opinion. So, voting for a candidate because you think s/he's awful and is thus sure to lose in the next and final round is dishonest. The fact that votes aren't accompanied by explanatory statements also means that the only meaning that can be attributed to them is the simplest, most direct one: A vote for Santorum tells all the world that the voter supports Santorum, and not in the fun, frothy way.
 
Babbylonian said:
The dishonesty is between the voter and the system. If you vote for or against someone/something, it should be an honest statement of your opinion. So, voting for a candidate because you think s/he's awful and is thus sure to lose in the next and final round is dishonest. The fact that votes aren't accompanied by explanatory statements also means that the only meaning that can be attributed to them is the simplest, most direct one: A vote for Santorum tells all the world that the voter supports Santorum, and not in the fun, frothy way.
Click to expand...
We are talking about politics here aren't we?

Are Republicans who vote for Romney because they think he is more electable, when they prefer Paul or Gingrich being "dishonest"?
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
We are talking about politics here aren't we?

Are Republicans who vote for Romney because they think he is more electable, when they prefer Paul or Gingrich being "dishonest"?
Click to expand...
Probably, at least in some sense (there's something to be said for "courage of convictions"). Still, they're at least voting for a candidate whom they ultimately want to win, even if he's not their first choice.
 
Distracted1 said:
Dishonest? Really?

I don't recall any candidates refusing to accept a vote because they did not approve of the voters reason for casting that vote.
Click to expand...

You are obviously operating with a very different definition of "dishonest" than I am.

Yes, I believe it's dishonest to try to spoil a GOP election.

I don't claim candidates will refuse to accept any votes, and I never claimed it was illegal (or that there was a requirement to tell the reason why you voted a certain way on the ballot).
 
Who determines if a primary is open or closed? I presume the party, not the state. In that case, why would either party opt for an open primary in the first place?
 
Spindrift said:
Different states have different rules. Some have "closed" primaries where you have to be a registered voter in a particular party to vote in their primary. Other states have "open" primaries where any registered voter can vote in any primary, but I believe you can't vote for two parties in the same primary.
Click to expand...


I have learned something.
 
Babbylonian said:
Probably, at least in some sense (there's something to be said for "courage of convictions"). Still, they're at least voting for a candidate whom they ultimately want to win, even if he's not their first choice.
Click to expand...
I understand the view you, and JoeTheJuggler have on this. What I don't agree with is the use of "dishonest"- the election is open to all and is to decide a simple question: " who do you wish to be the Republican nominee for POTUS?"- for whatever reason.

I wish for the nominee to be Santorum (or Paul, or Gingrich)- there is nothing dishonest about that.

The description I find less objectionable is "cynical". I admit to that.
 
SezMe said:
Who determines if a primary is open or closed? I presume the party, not the state. In that case, why would either party opt for an open primary in the first place?
Click to expand...

The state party and the state board of elections makes the rules. The national party can set some rules too. In the end, it is the nomination of the national party.
 
Distracted1 said:
It is an open primary. open to any registered voter in the state. That makes it my election as much as it is "someone else's"
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not talking about what's allowable. I'm talking about what is dishonest. As I pointed out, if this strategy ends up being effective, the party will probably move to more and more closed primaries.

I don't think it will prove effective anyway. But it's still dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Debating Santorum on social issues is a clear win for Obama
Click to expand...

But I think debating on the silly Santorum social issues rather than the more complicated issues that matter is bad for our country.

I want Obama to win (and I don't think there is any candidate that can beat him anyway), but I want him to win because the voters understand the choices and are opting for the better candidate (or at least the candidate with better proposals).

Also, I think if you take a realistic look at the GOP race, Santorum's chances of actually winning the nomination are very slight. I think most of the spoiler votes (as mentioned in the OP) are merely trying to prop up Santorum with the intention of making it more difficult for Romney to unite the party when he inevitably gets the nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom