Did anyone catch the bit on 20/20 ( I believe )

[Murphy3]

They did a little bit on whether or not it's good to get America's youth out and voting.. They went to a concert where the band was telling them to vote and there were people helping them get registered... Well, anyways, 20/20 started asking them some questions... Many of them didn't know how many Senators there were... Some didn't know how many states were in the US. To say the least, they kinda proved my point that I tried to drive home to Mavdog and Chum...speaking about how the average voter really doesn't know that much about what's going on in politics at all.. and that they really don't know much about the candidates..

Anyways, 20/20 decided to go to DC and interview your average American living or working in the nations capital. From what they showed, virtually no one recognized Biden when shown a picture of the man.

So, does anyone want to argue that the average voter has much of a clue as to what they're voting for? Like I've said, the biggest reason why the Republicans will probably lose this election is that people want change even if they don't know what that change is.. or even what either candidate represents. They know that Obama is a Democrat and that McCain and Bush are Republicans...

Truly, it's sad. Obviously, the 20/20 piece isn't all encompassing of our voters, but it is a rather interesting look at the average voter..and the average young person looking to get out and "rock the vote".

So no, I don't believe that the average person that will vote Democrat will do so because they actually like Obama or even know what he represents. It's truly sad.

[chumdawg]

I'm sure it's true, but I'm equally sure that it's nothing new. For that matter, you could make a similar argument about straight-ticket voters. Even if you are pretty well versed on policy differences between the two parties, I'd put the likelihood well above 99% that if you vote a straight ticket you are voting for some candidates you have never even heard of.

[Murphy3]

I'm sure you're right. And I by no means believe that this is something new. Hell, I know that when I was a college kid, I didn't have a clue as to what was going on in politics. Poli-sci was just another class I had to sit through...

But, I find it unfortunate that the totally uninformed will play a huge role in deciding the winner of the election.. especially since the totally uninformed seem to be looking for 'change'...

[chumdawg]

I hear you. But hey, folks were definitely looking for change in 1980, and that turned out pretty well.

I know, I know. Reagan and Obama are miles and miles apart. But still, you never know how Obama's presidency will play out. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I hear you. But hey, folks were definitely looking for change in 1980, and that turned out pretty well.

I know, I know. Reagan and Obama are miles and miles apart. But still, you never know how Obama's presidency will play out. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Gotta have faith in something, I guess.

[Murphy3]

I used to believe in the Easter Bunny. I don't think that really got me anywhere. I sure as hell don't believe in the used car salesman that is running for president. That's all Obama is..a glorified used car salesman.

[chumdawg]

Boy, you guys sound pretty cynical!

[Kirobaito]

I'm in college and I can name half of the US Senate, and most of Bush's cabinet. I could have told you half of the US Senate and most of Bush's cabinet in 2006, and I did not vote in 2006, the first time I was eligible (I'm not proud of that). There are those of us who know what we're voting for, and still need prodding to vote. If I didn't have certain help, I would have asked for the wrong absentee ballot form (I would have requested the national one I used for the primary, not the overseas one I needed to). I like to see young people voting, but I also try to make sure that my friends know as much as they should before doing it.

[Arne]

On the issue of the swingest of swing voters:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...he-Stupid-Vote

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I'm in college and I can name half of the US Senate, and most of Bush's cabinet. I could have told you half of the US Senate and most of Bush's cabinet in 2006, and I did not vote in 2006, the first time I was eligible (I'm not proud of that). There are those of us who know what we're voting for, and still need prodding to vote. If I didn't have certain help, I would have asked for the wrong absentee ballot form (I would have requested the national one I used for the primary, not the overseas one I needed to). I like to see young people voting, but I also try to make sure that my friends know as much as they should before doing it.

I'll be honest... I don't think any of the group that I hung out with could name any US senator back when I was in college. And by group, I'm talking about hundreds of people..

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I'll be honest... I don't think any of the group that I hung out with could name any US senator back when I was in college. And by group, I'm talking about hundreds of people..

Well, I guess we hang out in different crowds. One of my very best friends that I've known for ten years knows a pretty good deal about national politics, certainly more than a hell of a lot of the people who will be voting, and I don't think he has any plans to vote. He's registered in Fort Worth, goes to school in Austin, and I don't think he ever ordered an absentee ballot.

[Mavdog]

there has always been those who vote with knowledge and those who vote on a superficial basis, that isn't going to change.

is there more of it this cycle? probably not.

the prevalance does change tho, I'd expect people know more about the national candidates and their local races than state offices. do you expect that people know anything about the candidates for railroad commissioner or judges? heck, they don't even know what the rr commission does!

remember the disbarred atty from houston that won a spot on the tx supreme court a few years ago? I recall his name was sam houston or such.

why we elect our judges is a good question to start with....

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there has always been those who vote with knowledge and those who vote on a superficial basis, that isn't going to change.

is there more of it this cycle? probably not.

the prevalance does change tho, I'd expect people know more about the national candidates and their local races than state offices. do you expect that people know anything about the candidates for railroad commissioner or judges? heck, they don't even know what the rr commission does!

remember the disbarred atty from houston that won a spot on the tx supreme court a few years ago? I recall his name was sam houston or such.

why we elect our judges is a good question to start with....

Hilarious that you mention the Railroad Commissioner. While doing my ballot, I looked up the candidates, and one of them (I don't even remember who it was, at this point, I don't vote straight ticket) was advocating in his platform a change of the name of the position to something relevant. He got my vote. It's amazing how high up on the ballot Railroad Commissioner is.

Also, one of the guys running for some judgeship (Randy Turner) has a wife that used to serve on the board of Habitat for Humanity, and he goes to the same church as a friend of mine.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there has always been those who vote with knowledge and those who vote on a superficial basis, that isn't going to change.

is there more of it this cycle? probably not.

the prevalance does change tho, I'd expect people know more about the national candidates and their local races than state offices. do you expect that people know anything about the candidates for railroad commissioner or judges? heck, they don't even know what the rr commission does!

remember the disbarred atty from houston that won a spot on the tx supreme court a few years ago? I recall his name was sam houston or such.

why we elect our judges is a good question to start with....

I completely agree.

The only reason why I brought up this thread is that I had pointed out to another poster in other threads that the election will be heavily impacted by people that are voting for change even if they don't know what type of change the candidate stands for..

That's the way it has always been. It will probably never change unless there is some type of test or somesuch is put in place that you have to take in pass before you can vote. And no, I'm not advocating such a test.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I completely agree.

The only reason why I brought up this thread is that I had pointed out to another poster in other threads that the election will be heavily impacted by people that are voting for change even if they don't know what type of change the candidate stands for..

That's the way it has always been. It will probably never change unless there is some type of test or somesuch is put in place that you have to take in pass before you can vote. And no, I'm not advocating such a test.

One such test I would advocate is this one:

Every citizen has to write down the name of the candidate he's voting for. Only correctly written votes count.

Boy would that change the outcome...

[mary]

So you would penalize people who can't spell?

Nah.

I guess I'm the only that's happy with current qualifications to vote.`

[Murphy3]

I'm ok with it as well. I don't like the impact that the average voter will likely have this year... but I'm ok with it the process.

Again, my only point was that there is a large percentage of the vote that just wants change without really knowing what the candidate that's promising change really stands for. That's all. I'm also not saying that it's any different than in elections past. Am I stating the obvious? Yes, but I felt the need to post the obvious because Chum tends to argue against it from time to time just for the sake of arguing.

[chumdawg]

Murph, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Let me try to clarify. I agree with you 100% in full that a large percentage of the electorate will vote Obama this year just because they want change. Where I disagree with you is the argument you add to that, which is to say that they don't even know what their candidate really stands for.

First off, I think you are making a mistake in dismissing party affiliation. We have an exclusive two-party system in our government, and I do think that most people get that. You can look at 20th-century history and see cyclical shifts of popular support between Republicans and Democrats. We can get policy wonkish all we like, those of us who do like to be as informed as we can, and try to arrive at some sort of political ideal. But our two-party system doesn't work like that. Neither party aims at an ideal. Rather, they entrench themselves against each other in the ways they best see fit, according to the whims of the electoral landscape. That's clearly why Carter won in '76 and Reagan won in '80.

But, the biggest point is this. The kind of voter you are talking about, I believe, sees both of our two parties as generally safe choices. If they are voting in this election for "anything but a Republican," they are doing so without fear that the other party is some sort of evil entity.

You, of course, think that Obama is indeed some sort of evil entity. But I believe that the voters you are talking about see him simply as the Democrat and not the Republican. It's a system that has worked pretty well for us for a good long while. You say you get this, but at the same time you seem to think that voters should adopt a different method this time around.

[Murphy3]

I'm not dismissing party affiliation at all. I'm more focusing on those not heavily affiliated with one party or the other... that's all. I realize that a large portion of the voters have already decided who they'll vote for even before the candidates have been decided.