The "irrational" voter

jdanton · 04-14-2008, 01:26 PM

Remember when Bush fired a number of much needed translaters, because they were gay?

My friend related to me this morning an argument he overheard at work Saturday. One of the participants would not vote for anyone who believed the military should have homosexuals in it.

I've posted here often that we have a large number of people in this nation who, come election day, believe keeping gays from getting married is more important than having health insurance, or keeping their right to own an assault weapon is more important than keeping their job.

There are two types of issues in this country; the rational issues, and the emotional issues.

We've seen elections won by turnout based on emotional issues.

It seems impossible to argue rationally with some of these people. They, I'm sure, feel the same about the rest of us.

I remember Phil Donahue did a show on health care, and lost his audience to a show on cross dressers.

It's ironic, I think, that the party who tells us they want less government intrusion is the party that wants the government to define marriage to prevent same sex couples from marrying.

Democratic candidates don't dare support gay marriage, as they will lose ALL these voters who oppose it.

We can likely discuss and arrive at concensus' on things like health care, but these other areas offer less optimism.

neptune · 04-14-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdanton

Remember when Bush fired a number of much needed translaters, because they were gay?

My friend related to me this morning an argument he overheard at work Saturday. One of the participants would not vote for anyone who believed the military should have homosexuals in it.

I've posted here often that we have a large number of people in this nation who, come election day, believe keeping gays from getting married is more important than having health insurance, or keeping their right to own an assault weapon is more important than keeping their job.

There are two types of issues in this country; the rational issues, and the emotional issues.

We've seen elections won by turnout based on emotional issues.

It seems impossible to argue rationally with some of these people. They, I'm sure, feel the same about the rest of us.

I remember Phil Donahue did a show on health care, and lost his audience to a show on cross dressers.

It's ironic, I think, that the party who tells us they want less government intrusion is the party that wants the government to define marriage to prevent same sex couples from marrying.

Democratic candidates don't dare support gay marriage, as they will lose ALL these voters who oppose it.

We can likely discuss and arrive at concensus' on things like health care, but these other areas offer less optimism.

"What's the MAtter With Kansas" meets "Don't Think of an Elephant."

ibex · 04-14-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdanton

Remember when Bush fired a number of much needed translaters, because they were gay?

My friend related to me this morning an argument he overheard at work Saturday. One of the participants would not vote for anyone who believed the military should have homosexuals in it.

I've posted here often that we have a large number of people in this nation who, come election day, believe keeping gays from getting married is more important than having health insurance, or keeping their right to own an assault weapon is more important than keeping their job.

There are two types of issues in this country; the rational issues, and the emotional issues.

We've seen elections won by turnout based on emotional issues.

It seems impossible to argue rationally with some of these people. They, I'm sure, feel the same about the rest of us.

I remember Phil Donahue did a show on health care, and lost his audience to a show on cross dressers.

It's ironic, I think, that the party who tells us they want less government intrusion is the party that wants the government to define marriage to prevent same sex couples from marrying.

Democratic candidates don't dare support gay marriage, as they will lose ALL these voters who oppose it.

We can likely discuss and arrive at concensus' on things like health care, but these other areas offer less optimism.

You know, I don't think this has ever been discussed here or anywhere else, ever....

RK77 · 04-14-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdanton

Remember when Bush fired a number of much needed translaters, because they were gay?

My friend related to me this morning an argument he overheard at work Saturday. One of the participants would not vote for anyone who believed the military should have homosexuals in it.

I've posted here often that we have a large number of people in this nation who, come election day, believe keeping gays from getting married is more important than having health insurance, or keeping their right to own an assault weapon is more important than keeping their job.

There are two types of issues in this country; the rational issues, and the emotional issues.

We've seen elections won by turnout based on emotional issues.

It seems impossible to argue rationally with some of these people. They, I'm sure, feel the same about the rest of us.

I remember Phil Donahue did a show on health care, and lost his audience to a show on cross dressers.

It's ironic, I think, that the party who tells us they want less government intrusion is the party that wants the government to define marriage to prevent same sex couples from marrying.

Democratic candidates don't dare support gay marriage, as they will lose ALL these voters who oppose it.

We can likely discuss and arrive at concensus' on things like health care, but these other areas offer less optimism.

You are making the point that Barack was making---are you sure you won't turn into a pile of ashes?

ibex · 04-14-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RK77

You are making the point that Barack was making---are you sure you won't turn into a pile of ashes?

I think I saw danton's point on a Hallmark card once.

Vicariously I · 04-14-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibex

I think I saw danton's point on a Hallmark card once.

I have a feeling we are not as amazed with his insight as he would like.

Not sure if the wide eyed guy fits but everyone else was doing it so.....

HarperLee · 04-14-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RK77

You are making the point that Barack was making---are you sure you won't turn into a pile of ashes?

Obama also thoughtfully addressed people who are pro-choice and people who are anti-abortion and made some good points. But it is true -- he did not say where the unity meetings would be held,
how many chairs should be at the meetings, what should be served for refreshments. No instructions. No details.

I was much more impressed when Hillary mentioned Terry Schiavo, being as that probably came up in her prayer group with Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback.

jdanton · 04-14-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RK77

You are making the point that Barack was making---are you sure you won't turn into a pile of ashes?

Some on Gregory's show was arguing with the others that this is what he was saying.

People are so upset with what their government does, or doesn't do, they vote based on religion or gun control

If this is what he was saying, he's, in affect, calling them idiots, no?

Isn't this a "chicken or egg" thing. You elect the "religious" guy instead of the guy who thinks you should have healthcare, and this is what you get.

I'm not sure what he was trying to say, but I'm sure he wasn't saying anything he thought would be offensive.

My view is, obviously, a bit different than his. IN 2004, the issue of gay marriage brought a LOT of people to the polls who may not have voted at all otherwise.

Scarborough tonight made a comment about "connecting" to blue collar workers. Didn't Bush do that? Wasn't he the guy they'd like to have a beer with?

I suppose there are several ways to view this. My view is that if people want to have good jobs in America, if people want to have good healthcare in America, they should VOTE based on those issues rather than on trying to make abortion illegal.

jdanton · 04-14-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarperLee

Obama also thoughtfully addressed people who are pro-choice and people who are anti-abortion and made some good points. But it is true -- he did not say where the unity meetings would be held,
how many chairs should be at the meetings, what should be served for refreshments. No instructions. No details.

I was much more impressed when Hillary mentioned Terry Schiavo, being as that probably came up in her prayer group with Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback.

He also indicated, on "Compassion" last night, that there is a limit to the extent the people for and against abortion will unite.

That's not my point.

If a voter voted for G.W. in '04 because he didn't want gays to have the right to marry, and that was this voter's most important issue, why is he now complaining that Bush screwed up the economy?

There's a long record of people voting against their own self interest.

Mock me if it makes you feel better, but there are enough of these people to sway an election.

Clinton and Obama both showed some guts even appearing in last night's "Compassion" forum, but I have to wonder if they lose votes at one end to gain them at the other.

I do understand that they have to tell a large chunk of the voters that they, too, are religious.

I'm not trying to be overly insightful, or even original. I'd like to know, if anyone knows, how a candidate reaches out to the voters who vote based upon these emotional issues rather than their bread and butter issues.

neptune · 04-14-2008, 04:23 PM

Here, Danton, don't say I never did nuthin' for ya!

Amazon.com: Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your...

04-14-2008, 01:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
jdanton Puddy Tat Watch Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 3,806 My Mood: Thanks: 38 Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts	The "irrational" voter Remember when Bush fired a number of much needed translaters, because they were gay? My friend related to me this morning an argument he overheard at work Saturday. One of the participants would not vote for anyone who believed the military should have homosexuals in it. I've posted here often that we have a large number of people in this nation who, come election day, believe keeping gays from getting married is more important than having health insurance, or keeping their right to own an assault weapon is more important than keeping their job. There are two types of issues in this country; the rational issues, and the emotional issues. We've seen elections won by turnout based on emotional issues. It seems impossible to argue rationally with some of these people. They, I'm sure, feel the same about the rest of us. I remember Phil Donahue did a show on health care, and lost his audience to a show on cross dressers. It's ironic, I think, that the party who tells us they want less government intrusion is the party that wants the government to define marriage to prevent same sex couples from marrying. Democratic candidates don't dare support gay marriage, as they will lose ALL these voters who oppose it. We can likely discuss and arrive at concensus' on things like health care, but these other areas offer less optimism. __________________ Author: Memoirs of a Sleepless Mind, a book you CAN judge by its cover.
	Top

04-14-2008, 04:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
neptune eighth stone from the sun Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Silicon Valley, CA Posts: 1,437 My Mood: Thanks: 92 Thanked 52 Times in 24 Posts	Here, Danton, don't say I never did nuthin' for ya! Amazon.com: Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your... __________________ Holy Mudhead, mackerel! Morse Science High! It's....disappeared! -- Firesign Theatre
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode