I like Jon Stewart’s explanation personally. They’re stupid.

What about the undecideds who simply can’t choose between the lesser of two almost identical evils, and a candidate who actually represents my beliefs but has no chance of winning?

Jose, see above.

At what point does “undecided-ness” become stupid?  In 2004, I had not decided what my vote would be for 2008.  Should a person have decided immediately upon the two major candidates being chosen by their respective parties?

Actually the research literature on undecided voters is pretty clear. They’re low information voters with few strong policy preferences. They generally vote based on a mix of candidate traits and (especially) how they feel the country is doing. Which is why everyone should stop worrying, cause McCain’s candidate favorability ratings are in the toilet and there are 80% wrong track numbers.

There’s no particularly date, but we have one of the longest election cycles in the modern world.  Obama and McCain have been running against each other for four months and running for president for over 18 months. 

If you have literally no preference less than four weeks before the election and haven’t even made a soft choice, there’s something deeply wrong.

For the past two months I have been asking myself how anyone could STILL be undecided.  If these people are so low-info, why do they vote at all?  Just for something to do?
I think this time around, a lot of the undecideds are opposed to 4 more years (or 8) of Republican policies, but can’t imagine voting for the black guy.

The only non-stupid undecideds I’ve seen so far are the people who seemed to feel that their economic interests are with McCain and their social interests are with Obama.  Given that the economy tanking hard threatens everyone’s economic interests and McCain’s erratic behavior wrt the bailout and the mortgage crisis, I imagine they’ve probably stopped being undecided by now.

At what point does “undecided-ness” become stupid?  In 2004, I had not decided what my vote would be for 2008.  Should a person have decided immediately upon the two major candidates being chosen by their respective parties?

Immediately? Maybe not. But like others have said, this has been going on for a long freaking time now. There aren’t going to be any new revelations about either of the major candidates, and if you honestly don’t believe that either of them represents you and you’re looking at a third party, you’re not really undecided. You’ve decided “no.”

I think that a lot of undecided voters just like the attention that comes from not having made a decision yet.  All the people at last night’s debate were undecided, or so they said, and only the undecideds seem to be getting a lot of media attention.  Like SarahMC though, I have a feeling that a lot of them are just disturbed by the idea of voting for a black person.  Their minds may be made up but they don’t want to confess to the reasons they used to make their decisions so they pretend not to have made one yet.

When someone says the candidates are identical lately, my “self important asshole” alarm goes off, which causes my eyes to glaze and my opinion of the speaker to plummet.

“For the past two months I have been asking myself how anyone could STILL be undecided.  If these people are so low-info, why do they vote at all?  Just for something to do?”

I suppose it is quite possible that they don’t vote.  If someone registered out of a vague sense of pressure or shame or because they got hit up by someone working a voter registration drive, it seems quite possible that they’d feign intent to vote but indecision over a candidate for much the same reason and then just “not get around to” voting.

SarahMC and Preying Mantis - you both nail it, at least as far as many people in my hometown are concerned.  Will either not vote at all (as usual), or not vote for the black man, but claim they are “undecided.” Be very afraid of the latter voters…

Well said.  I keep wondering how anyone can still be undecided less than two months from election day.  A ploy for attention makes sense as does being a voter who hasn’t paid any attention to the campaigns until this point.  I suppose there are a few people who have difficulty making definitive decisions in general, but they probably don’t make up most of the “undecideds”.

Jesse, I’ve been reading your blog for a long time through a reader, but I’ve never commented.  (Not that I can remember at least.) This post inspired me because it’s simply brilliant. 

You’re absolutely right.  I know a few undecideds, and they’re always complaining that the candidates “need to give more specifics!” or that they “need to be more personable!” On the specifics charge, I always try to point them to reading policy positions from the candidates’ websites.  Somehow they growl at me that this is totally unacceptable.  The candidate has to do it on TV, in a debate, and make it personal, and communicate 60 pages of proposals in a few minutes, with punchy and personal soundbites, that are very specific.  Argh!

Yeah, my family’s full of “undecideds”. They KNOW McCain is bad news, they’ve all lost investment income after all, and Bush’s facade has collapsed. When Edwards was still running, some of them even expressed interest in him.

But oh...Obama...I don’t know. There’s just something about him that bothers them...they can’t put their finger on it....what could it be? Hmmm. It’s a mystery, all right.

Family anecdote: my grandmother was once telling me a story about her neighbor, then stopped suddenly to *whisper* to me “she’s black, you know.” Because...what? It was a secret? Yeah, Obama is dredging up all kinds of things the older members of my family haven’t had to deal with before. And about time.

Cameron that drives me crazy!  “Neither of them are specific enough!  I don’t know much about them or their ideas!  What to do, what to do...” How about you be proactive and do a little research yourself.  It’s like they want the candidates to knock on their doors and explain everything in detail, personally.  Undecideds are feckin lazy on top of possibly being stupid and in many cases this year, racist.

I’ve been floating around various forums and whatnot, and sort of discovered something. Largely a musician base, so it might be skewed, but:

Every “undecided” I’ve met votes republican. I’ve yet to meet a single “undecided” that hasn’t just been looking for a reason to not vote Democrat, without appearing to be partisan. Sort of like the “independent centrist” that only ever argues with democrats and liberals. Which goes back to Jesse’s post; self-fetishization. They’re trying to appear above the partisan bullshit, but (at least this cycle) are just looking for a reason to not vote for Obama.

Like I said, I could be in a nexus of fucktards, but that’s what I’ve observed, without fail.

When someone says the candidates are identical lately, my “self important asshole” alarm goes off, which causes my eyes to glaze and my opinion of the speaker to plummet.

Say what!? Don’t you know both parties are two side of the same coin, ie, the getting all the taxpayer money coin.  All they care about is making more money(not that there’s anything wrong with that!).  Srsly, Demublicans or Repocrats, it’s all the same.  It’s actually a big conspiracy if you sheeple think about it.  Only third parties have mature, acceptable answers to all our problems.

GOOGLE RON PAUL (or bob barr)
GOOGLE RON PAUL (or bob barr)

USA USA USA USA

“Family anecdote: my grandmother was once telling me a story about her neighbor, then stopped suddenly to *whisper* to me “she’s black, you know.” Because...what? It was a secret?”

...she’s afraid to reveal to others she lives in a neighborhood where blacks aren’t driven out before sundown. 

I have had many of my relatives pull the same kind of crap.  Fortunately, as they pass on they take their bigotry with them to the grave.  And thank god for it…

Anyone remember that From A Sad American blog that appeared shortly after the 2004 election?  It was from this Republican concern troll avant la lettre, who explained that she cast her vote for Bush with “trembling hands” but Kerry just, you know, he just wasn’t perfect enough.  And some of his supporters were mean!  She’d vote for any old Republican, but Democrats...they needed to be perfect.

Undecided voters make me think of her, for some reason.  It’s like they’re waiting for someone to show up and give them every single thing they want.

Libertard, either you are a fucking spambot, or you think exactly like one…

GTFO…

Sort of like the “independent centrist” that only ever argues with democrats and liberals.

Ha, I know several incarnations of that voter. 

I especially love the phrase “staunch moderate”.  First of all, an American moderate is a right-winger almost anywhere else.  Secondly, wtf does that even mean?  Instead of thinking about issues yourself, you look up the Democratic position and the Republican position on issues and choose positions that are right between the two?

killjoy, that syndrome to me is very similar to how large numbers of Republicans who were so proud of their votes for Bush in 2000 and 2004 somehow mysteriously became “libertarians” when things were so obviously going to hell it was impossible to ignore…

I always try to point them to reading policy positions from the candidates’ websites.  Somehow they growl at me that this is totally unacceptable.  The candidate has to do it on TV, in a debate, and make it personal, and communicate 60 pages of proposals in a few minutes, with punchy and personal soundbites, that are very specific.

That’s my mother to a T.  She’s an undecided and I got a similar speech from her when I asked two weeks ago who she was voting for.  She insisted she had to see the candidates in person, but despite the many trips they made to NH (during the primary season and now during the general election) she’s never once attended a campaign event.

I have to imagine part of the undecided voter conundrum is that there are a lot of people who just don’t care about politics, don’t find being an informed voter a civic duty, and are just generally turned off to the kinds of discord and uncomfortability that arise when talking politics with other people.  When you couple people like that with family members who are political and will engage in discussion or argument about serious topics, it puts a lot of pressure on the undecided voter.  I know at this point my mother is more concerned with figuring out which one of us she has to disappoint - my uber-conservative step-father or moi, the liberal daughter - than she is interested in learning what the candidates’ positions are and voting her own beliefs/interests.

Despite this, she has said energy independence and bringing down the cost of oil is her #1 issue, but when I asked her what she thought of both candidates’ plans, she couldn’t name anything she expected them to do, except that she knew John McCain wanted to drill for oil, which she supports.  I find it scary because if people can’t be bothered to inform themselves about the issues they identify as those most important to them, just how far does their ignorance go on the leftover “unimportant” issues?

Mature and acceptable to you, Libertard.  For those of us who have googled Ron Paul (a Republican) and Bob Barr (a former Republican) believing that if individuals always act in their own self-interest it will nullify the need for government to act in the common good - or that there is no such thing as the common good - seems beyond naive.

Libertard, either you are a fucking spambot, or you think exactly like one…

I figured it was a spoof post, but sometimes it’s tough to tell between the spoofs and the truly stupid.

The good news is, Obama is over 50%, so he could lose 100% of the undecideds and come out on top.

Mike, you might want to check the batteries on your parody-meter.

I hate hate hate HATE people who say “LOL there’s no difference, it’s Giant
Douche vs. Turd Sandwich” like they’re being hip. Maybe in 2000 it was “cool” to say that, but if the last eight years doesn’t convince you there’s a big fucking difference between the two parties, then you should be banned from reproducing.

She insisted she had to see the candidates in person

Is this a New Hampshire (or swing state/early primary) phenomenon?

Because I can count on one hand the number of people I know who’ve seen either candidate, or any candidate, in person before a presidential election.  If that was a typical thing most voters needed to do before they could make a decision, we’d be in deep shit.

I want to vote for Obama, but his Republicanism and war mongering makes me want to vote for Cynthia McKinney.  My vote will be determined by the late polling for my state. If there is a chance Obama will win the electoral votes from my state, I will most likely vote for him as a vote against McCain, if not, I am voting my conscience.

I’m very conflicted about this, mainly because my boss, who I really like, is undecided.

She was that way in 2004, too, but ended up voting for Bush, mostly because she felt he was better on “security.”

You might call her a “low-information voter,” mainly because early in our acquaintance (we’ve known each other about 16 years) she paid absolutely no attention to the news. She’s better now, but she’s still kind of naive. Every once in a while, out of the blue, she’ll call and ask me things like, “What’s the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites?” or, more recently, “What do you think about the bailout?”

I answer her questions as best I can. I’ve kind of avoided having deep, probing political discussions with her, mostly because I’m not completely comfortable talking politics with someone I work with (my supervisor, no less). But I get the idea that she’s turned off by the shrillness of today’s political discourse. Specifically, with both sides accusing each other of everything up to and including crimes against humanity, she doesn’t know whom to believe.

Knowing that, I’m trying to gently nudge her in the direction of Obama, without being too blatant about it.

A lot of the criticisms in the comments above are probably true. But I’m not comfortable with blanket condemnations of undecided voters as ignorant, self-important assholes, simply because that’s emphatically not true in her case.

Oh, and Mike Ess, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that based on his choice of handle, “Libertard” was being sarcastic.

It’s like they want the candidates to knock on their doors and explain everything in detail, personally.

Actually this is a pretty reasonable expectation if you live in New Hampshire.

I especially love the phrase “staunch moderate”.  First of all, an American moderate is a right-winger almost anywhere else.  Secondly, wtf does that even mean?  Instead of thinking about issues yourself, you look up the Democratic position and the Republican position on issues and choose positions that are right between the two?

I consider myself a moderate but to me that means that Obama is pitched about perfectly, I do believe we should have a single-payer health plan but I’m willing to forgive him for pushing a half-measure (quarter-measure?) that’s more viable politically.

I guess I’d consider “moderate” not a DFH, willing to listen to a Republican, but generally in line with most Democrats. I voted for a Republican once but he had a better ACLU rating than the Dem in the race (Feinstein). Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank are IMO, moderates.

As to the undecideds, yeah I think most of them are idiots. The good news is that a) some of them are conservatives who are fed up with their party and their candidate and b) the enthusiasm gap is large enough that they’re irrelevant this year.

Hey TPX, do you live in Florida or New Hampshire? Did you vote for Nader in 2000 because Gore was too “Republican”?

If you did, I want to come over there personally and scream at you until you realize what that did to this country.

Cameron that drives me crazy!  “Neither of them are specific enough!  I don’t know much about them or their ideas!  What to do, what to do...” How about you be proactive and do a little research yourself.

I can’t help noticing that the people who “want more specifics” almost never have any actual specific questions containing numbers and percentages or any other evidence that they actually would know a “specific” if it hit them over the head.

My brother is undecided, but in his case it’s more a matter of “I am a lifelong Republican who still believes in unfettered wealth-acquisition and worldwide permanent war against the loosely defined ‘bad guys’” vs. “But I am still intellectually honest enough to admit that McCain’s a blabbering moron.”

He (and his wife, who feels the same way) would’ve voted for Hillary if she’d gotten the nomination. I know she’s staying home Election Day; I think he is too.

Given some of the spam that keeps showing up and polluting our discussions, it was not clear, and I can’t follow the link (at work) to find out of there was a clue there.

Sorry, we all get caught in the snark trap sometimes…

But I’m not comfortable with blanket condemnations of undecided voters as ignorant

Wait, but you said right in your post that she is ignorant, and until recently proudly so.

I get not wanting to call all undecided voters self-important assholes, but...?

And I’ll also agree with SaraMC and ask, if these people care so little about politics and don’t want to educate themselves on the differences between the candidates (and what their platforms are), why do they vote?  I’m OK with folks who are apolitical or not too interested in politics.  I feel the same way about a lot of other things.  Which is why I tend to avoid getting involved in them.

I think many undecideds are desperate for a reason, any reason, to vote Republican in this election.  Or maybe it’s more accurate to say they want a reason to vote against Obama.  They have not made up their minds yet because, duh, the Republicans haven’t given them a good reason to vote for them.  So they wait and watch, and hope for a sign.  For many people, that sign was Sarah Palin. 
“She hunts!  I’ve made up my mind.”
“She’s pretty and has a baby with a disability, just like me!  Now I can support them.” etc. etc.
They want to participate in the election, reality tells them the Republican candidates/policies suck, but they “have a feeling” about Obama that makes voting for him unacceptable.

Wait, but you said right in your post that she is ignorant, and until recently proudly so.

I said no such thing. I said she was uninformed. And she certainly isn’t proud of it. When she asks me for info, she’s almost apologetic about doing so.

I probably shouldn’t have used the label “low-information voter” in my post, because that’s become synonymous with “boob.” What I think her problem might be is that she’s a little intimidated by politics. There are people like that, which might come down to a lack of assertiveness generally. She asserts herself just fine in the workplace but seems to have problems doing so in her personal life, probably because she has an extremely overbearing husband.

I said she was uninformed.

Get thee to a dictionary, postehaste!

And anyone who openly admits to not reading the news or knowing much about the issues is, in fact, proud of their ignorance.  Otherwise they wouldn’t be talking about it.  I know nothing about classical music.  I make no bones about this to others when it comes up.  If someone called me proudly ignorant of classical music, I would take that in stride, because it would be true.  I wouldn’t mind learning more about it, but honestly it doesn’t interest me that much and I don’t feel any particular duty or pressure to inform myself. 

There’s nothing particularly wrong with not being interested in politics, or not knowing very much about the nitty gritty.  But it’s not an insult to say that people who are ignorant of political issues are, in fact, ignorant of political issues.

In response to the “see above” response to my comment, I disagree that your original post addresses the issue of liberal undecideds who must choose between Obama and Cynthia McKinney.  We are not uninformed, or self-important.  Would you call us “latte-sipping elitists” next?

What I am undecided about is if I can sacrifice my principles and vote for someone who opposes gay marriage, unconditionally supports Israeli aggression, thinks Iran is a threat to the US, supports health insurance, etc.

I guess that being a liberal activist is now no different than being a conservative one.  You don’t trust people to be smart enough to make their own decisions so you try to bully them with insults and misinformation to get them on your side.

Well, you said she was “ignorant,” which is different from being “ignorant of political issues.” Different in terms of being insulting. Since I like this person, I’m a little defensive about her.

Also, I confess to not understanding your use of the word “proudly.” To me, being “proudly ignorant” of something means you disparage any knowledge of that thing as useless or worse. I, for instance, am proudly ignorant of the fine points of torture, meaning I know nothing about it and see knowledge of it as dangerous.

We must use different dictionaries. I don’t think I’d want yours in my house.

I know nothing about classical music.

That makes you a horrible, horrible person.

I dunno.  I agree there’s nothing particularly wrong with being uninterested in politics, but I see that as something separate from being informed about politics.  I’m not interested in salsa dancing but I’d like to think that if knowing about salsa dancing helped me make better decisions about things affecting my socioeconomic power, I’d bother to learn something about it.

I think one of the reasons for all the undecideds is that many of us don’t want to vote for either of the two jackasses running for office. It’s like deciding between being decapitated or set on fire. Neither is appealing.

That’s why I’m voting for “Superfly” Jimmy Snukka.

Jose, perhaps Jesse was referring you to the commenter’s post immediately above yours, referring to John Oliver’s presentation last night of the demographic makeup of the remaining undecided voters.  Further, anyone who at this point considers Obama and McCain to be “almost identical” will likely recognize himself as a member of one of those demographic sub-groups.  Or maybe not.

I guess that being a liberal activist is now no different than being a conservative one.  You don’t trust people to be smart enough to make their own decisions so you try to bully them with insults and misinformation to get them on your side.

Do you really want another 4 years of this?

Really?

Are you, like, an expat or something?

Are you a millionaire from Berkley or Cambridge who has never so much as had to visit family outside the heart of Awesome Liberal America?

If you live in a state that is up for grabs this year (which is starting to look like a lot of states, all of a sudden), and you are a leftist, and you do not vote for Obama so as to prevent another 4-8 years of Republican policies, you deserve to rot in fucking hell. 

I hope that every night before you fall asleep, you see the faces of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis you’ll help to kill

I’m not interested in salsa dancing but I’d like to think that if knowing about salsa dancing helped me make better decisions about things affecting my socioeconomic power, I’d bother to learn something about it.

Thank you for articulating what bothers me so much about the “but I’m not interested!” argument. You’re probably not “interested” in paying your mortgage, either, but you fucking PAY it. In a democratic republic, elections are not a hobby, they are your goddamn civic duty.

No, you don’t have to go full-bore policy wonk. But ignoring everything and then casting some idiot vote based on a chimera of personality and soundbites IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

This is your job, citizens. And you suck at it. You’re all fired.

What I am undecided about is if I can sacrifice my principles and vote for someone who opposes gay marriage, unconditionally supports Israeli aggression, thinks Iran is a threat to the US, supports health insurance, etc.

The smart-ass in me wants to say “this is politics; principles have no place here,” and I think that in a real world sense, I’d be right. But here’s what I actually see going on in your head, and forgive me if I mischaracterize you. You’re not undecided about candidates--you know who you want to vote for. What you’re torn by is the decision to vote your heart or vote strategically. That’s an indecision of another sort, and not of the type generally described by the term “undecided voters.”

[snark]I live in a swing state and won’t vote for Obama because he isn’t for nationalization of agriculture and unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Obama is too Republican![/snark]

Anyone who says Obama is “Republican lite” or “right wing” is saying a hell of a lot more about their relative position on the political spectrum than they are about Obama’s absolute position on it.

“If you have literally no preference less than four weeks before the election and haven’t even made a soft choice, there’s something deeply wrong.”

That’s true, but it is not necessarily something wrong with the voter.  In 2000 and in 2004 I did not vote for President because I thought every candidate from a major party was an untrustworthy fraud.  I didn’t care what they said because I knew they would do something else once in office.  The current office holder has proven that to be immensely true.  I kept waiting for someone to do something in the election, right up until the last minute, to change my beliefs about them, but every ad, every appearance, every debate just make me think each of those candidates we more full of bull.  There was definitely something wrong - with those candidates.

This is anecdotal, and I live in SC, which has not quite joined the US in so many ways, but FWIW, everyone I meet who says some variation of “I’m just not *political*, you know?” votes Republican.

There is the old stereotype of the conservative as supremely rational, deliberative, and prudent, in contrast to the “unhinged”, “emotional,” passionate (read: feminine) liberal. It’s been replaced by the zealous wingnut as the affect of choice, but the old notion still has force with some people. I suppose it’s been lately repackaged in the form of men (it’s always men) calling themselves “libertarians” when they are simply Republicans who avoid religious rhetoric.

Well, you said she was “ignorant,” which is different from being “ignorant of political issues.” Different in terms of being insulting. Since I like this person, I’m a little defensive about her.

You’re being extremely defensive, here.

Saying that somebody is ignorant about something is not an insult, whether others thing it’s an important thing to know about or not.  It’s just a fact. 

The use of “ignorant” to mean “stupid” or the like is simply incorrect usage.  That is not what the word means.  It means uninformed, or lacking awareness.  Of course, some people really do mean to insult when they say that someone is ignorant of x or y.  But those people are pompous gits. 

Even people we know and love, who are wonderful people, can be ignorant.  This is a little like the common understanding of conversations about “privilege”, where stating that someone occupies a position of privilege, or carries privilege, is often taken as an insult when it just isn’t.

And can I just say this? Cynthia McKinney is an anti-semitic 9/11 Troofer. She thinks the J000z run the world.

But ignoring everything and then casting some idiot vote based on a chimera of personality and soundbites IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Which is why people who aren’t interested simply shouldn’t vote.  Just like people who aren’t interested in paying a mortgage shouldn’t buy a home.

Dr T, you didn’t vote for President in 2000 or 2004?  Well, your opinion counts for nothing.  Thanks for playing!

I bet Dr T voted for Bush, but he doesn’t want to admit it…

You’re probably not “interested” in paying your mortgage, either, but you fucking PAY it.

Not only do you pay it, but unless you are very rich you know a little bit about the terms of your deal and keep at least one eye open for a better one.

In a democratic republic, elections are not a hobby, they are your goddamn civic duty.

No, you don’t have to go full-bore policy wonk. ...

Theoretically, I think it’s the other way around. You have to know something about the issues of the day and where prominent national and local politicians stand. (And not just at election time.)

If, having done that work, you don’t think either candidate in a race is worth the positive affirmation of a vote for them, or so bad that you should vote for the other one, I guess theoretically that’s cool. (Not that I’m saying that that’s the case in this presidential race, though.)

Oh, who am I kidding? That never happens. How many “undecided” voters are undecided because they’re waiting for an e-mail back from Obama or McCain HQ on a question they have about page 16, subsection J of the candidate’s economic plan?

There’s an element that you encounter in known swing states (Ohio in particular) where it’s a badge of honor to be “undecided” up until the last minute.  It shows that you’re not only not being swayed by all the sundry things that the media tells them they shouldn’t be swayed by yet parrots in order to sway them.

In other words, they proudly say they’re not swayed by the media and instead are waiting to be swayed by a last-minute attack ad. Brilliant.

I bet Dr T voted for Bush, but he doesn’t want to admit it…

Bingo. Kind of like how in 1976, nobody, NOBODY voted for Nixon in 1972!

I wish we could do mandatory voting, like Australia. Their ballots let you mark “none of the above” if you don’t want to pick one, I believe. And voting day should be a holiday, dangit, WHY don’t we have that? People bitch about low turnout, but not having to vote plus get kids to school plus get to work on time would help bunches. Grumble.

Oh yeah, and let’s get rid of the electoral college too. And then, ponies for all.

Grumble.

Keep the electoral college, but award the votes proportionally.

Saying that somebody is ignorant about something is not an insult…

Bullshit. If I’m being defensive, you’re being disingenuous.

The use of “ignorant” to mean “stupid” or the like is simply incorrect usage.  That is not what the word means.  It means uninformed, or lacking awareness.

Oh, please. You’re the type of person who argues that “sinister” means “done with the left hand.” Those of us in the real world are perfectly aware that it’s an insult.

Bitter Scribe, if I said you were “discriminating” in a sentence where I said “You’re very discriminating in your music” would you think that I would be calling you a racist?

To “The Opoponax”, I can figure out if you are actually serious, or if you are just trying to prove my point about bullying, insults, and misinformation.

Iraqis are going to keep dying.  They have been dying by the millions for the past 30 years from Regan’s Bombs, Bush I’s bombs, Clinton’s Bombs and Sanctions, and now Bush II’s Bombs.  I have little doubt that the outcome of this election will have any affect on this, other than to decide whether they are Barack’s Bombs or McCain’s Bombs.

Ben D., adopt the tactics of a Palin supporter and scream all you want. I did not vote for Nader in 2000. I voted for another third party candidate. 

When Afghan or Iraqi children are killed by the US military after Obama is sworn in as president, I will be calling for his impeachment and investigation for war crimes just like I do for the current president.

I can understand being undecided, just not “undecided between Obama and McCain.” I would think you would have your preferences, and know which candidate has your sympathies, but it’s a question of whether you’ll vote for your preference or not vote the Presidential ticket at all.

So in that sense, I think most undecided voters represent a one-vote swing (e.g. vote for Obama/McCain or not at all), not a two-vote swing (switching from Obama to McCain or vice-versa).

tpx - then you might as well do it now because no matter how much Obama opposes the war, and no matter how quickly he’ll pull out our troops, it’s not going to stop come January ‘09.  And, in the meantime, civilians will die.

Bitter Scribe, if I said you were “discriminating” in a sentence where I said “You’re very discriminating in your music” would you think that I would be calling you a racist?

Of course not, but if I said you were ignorant about music, would you think I was making a simple, neutral observation, or trying to put you down?

Bitter Scribe, I think the person you’re describing is anything but proudly ignorant. Lemme take a stab in the dark here.

It’s like those people who are terrified about math. It intimidates them. The quadratic formula is the perfect example. There are people who look at it and freak out. So they don’t learn it, because it frightens them and their brains disengage. But they’re embarrassed that they don’t know, and so they develop a code for themselves where such lack of knowledge is praiseworthy. None of that changes, however, their initial intimidation and shame in intimidation.

I’m betting your boss is like that regarding politics. This is not meant to be insulting in any way. There are a million legitimate reasons to be intimidated by politics, and they have nothing to do with the worth of any individual. But that doesn’t change the fact that, if I’ve guessed right, your boss’s ignorance is not driven by misplaced pride, but discomfort and embarrassment.

In that light, you’re doing exactly the right thing, to provide helpful and mildly biased information when called upon, and not to create the sort of pressure that might drive her away again. Keep up the good work!

Lol, yes, I am Dr. Phil, why did you ask?

I love principled but meaningless stances.

TPX, fine, be the leftist equivalent of a Freeper if it makes you feel better.

I love principled but meaningless stances.

I believe the word you’re looking for is “political masturbation”. That’s what voting for the World Worker’s Socialist Party or whatever is.

Theoretically, I think it’s the other way around. You have to know something about the issues of the day and where prominent national and local politicians stand. (And not just at election time.)

That’s what I mean by “not having to go full policy wonk”. You don’t have to spend your life (as I and many here do) on political sites, blogs, etc. But you have to know what is going on. I do not think that every citizen must know the nitty-gritty of every bill presented to their state legislatures. But they should know what these bills fundamentally mean, who supports them, and what they cost.

It’s the difference between being able to spout off at length about VAWA and being able to understand its fundamentals. A wonk does the former, a citizen MUST be able to do the latter.

Hawes asked for pie in the coming redesign. I’m glad to see he or she doesn’t have to wait that long.

There’s like totally no difference between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans. They’re both like, the same. They both want wars and stuff, and none of them are for taxing incomes over $100,000 at 100% and turning the U.S.S. Lincoln into a floating food bank.

Reproductive rights? Repealing right to work laws? Stopping the privatization of Social Security? Avoiding a future war with Iran? Leaving a better country for our children WHO CARES, man?

INVESTIGATE 9/11!!!!

*This Post is a Parody*

You might call her a “low-information voter,” mainly because early in our acquaintance (we’ve known each other about 16 years) she paid absolutely no attention to the news. She’s better now, but she’s still kind of naive. Every once in a while, out of the blue, she’ll call and ask me things like, “What’s the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites?” or, more recently, “What do you think about the bailout?”

I answer her questions as best I can. I’ve kind of avoided having deep, probing political discussions with her, mostly because I’m not completely comfortable talking politics with someone I work with (my supervisor, no less). But I get the idea that she’s turned off by the shrillness of today’s political discourse. Specifically, with both sides accusing each other of everything up to and including crimes against humanity, she doesn’t know whom to believe.

Bitter Scribe, what you’re describing here is ignorance.  Willful, if not proud.  Any other words you might use for it, in any dictionary, are synonyms. 

Well, you said she was “ignorant,” which is different from being “ignorant of political issues.” Different in terms of being insulting.

Considering that the topic at hand is very specific - undecided voters - perhaps Opoponax assumed that went without saying. 

All of that being said, your friend does sound like she doesn’t fit the “self-important” part of the description, so much as utterly apathetic.  It’s still a flaw - citizens in a democracy have a responsibility to be informed and participate, that’s how democracy works - but hey: flaws, we’ve all got ‘em. 

Having said that, we’re getting so many “OMG!  You hit the nail on the head!” responses that there may just be something to this.  The plural of anecdote is not “data”, but it might serve for “hypothesis”.

Of course not, but if I said you were ignorant about music, would you think I was making a simple, neutral observation, or trying to put you down?

Depends on the context.  But I would feel pretty much exactly the same whether you said I was “ignorant” or “uninformed”.

Erl: THANK YOU! I think you could put Dr. Phil out of business if you put your mind to it.

Seraph: As Erl pointed out, I think she’s not so much apathetic as intimidated. You’re right that it’s a flaw, but I don’t consider it a moral failing--at least, not in the sense that “I’m too cool to care about politics” would be.

I don’t trust Americans enough to be sanguine about us having to create a new system at the current moment so I must support the candidate who would, possibly, move Americans in that direction while maintaining stability in preference to the one who will, I fear, go ahead and destroy the system we have now and leave us with a population ripe to be ruled by fear and hate rather than one ripe for revolution.

Ben D., fine, be the moderate equivalent of a Kapo if it makes you kill better.

Oh! Calling me a concentration camp guard, classy!

And ironic at the same time coming from a McKinney supporter.

Jesus H. Christ, do people thingk SUBJECTS are going to track them down and beat them up? Being intimidated by SUBJECTS sure isn’t ignorant, it’s just plain stupid.

Do the work. Understand the subject.  “Oooo, but it’s harrrrrrrd!” So fucking what?  You’re an adult.  Make an effort.

Whiners.

BTW, that’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a “moderate”. Again, you’re saying a whole hell of a lot more about your relative place on the political spectrum than anyone’s absolute place on it!

I think this partially comes from the succesfull strategy by Republicans to demonize government. A lot of people don’t trust anyone in government. This means it doesn’t matter what they say, because people assume they don’t really mean it (and even actual things they’ve done might not completely convince them, after all they might have done them to win votes and will change once they become president). You can see this in the favoritability ratings, yes Bush is down around 30% but Congress is even lower (I could be off a bit, but the general theme is true). I don’t know how much real impact this has, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a big factor.

Also, I will probably vote for Obama but haven’t completely decided yet. You see, I live in MA and if Obama doesn’t win MA, he’s going to get crushed. This gives me leeway to see if there’s some third party candidate who I could use to protest some of the things I dislike about Obama: he’s for the death penalty, I think he pushes religion a bit too much, opposes gay marriage, worries me with his positions on Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Israel, and a few others. If I still lived in NH, this would be a no-brainer--obviously I would vote for Obama.

>>I believe the word you’re looking for is “political masturbation”. That’s what voting for the World Worker’s Socialist Party or whatever is.

As opposed to casting a vote for the Democrats? Newsflash: there’s no proportional representation in the United States presidential race. The likelyhood of your vote to even matter is 1/(number of voters). And that’s not even figuring the electoral college in there, or the fact that any election in which your vote would actually matter would be such a close race that just the error margin from vote counting would eradicate the value of your vote.

Apart from patting yourself on the back the next morning that you did your ‘civic duty’, does it even accomplish anything? From the standpoint of ‘voting strategically’, unless you’ve got some charismatic pull and can bring a couple of thousands people from one party to the other, what sort of strategy are we even talking about?

The only reason why I bother is that our employer in Quebec is forced by law to let us leave early from work to go. The rest of the time, I’d rather spend my time on actual grassroot activism than in political campaigning. At least it’s not a waste of time.

<3 this post.  Being “undecided” at this point is just proof you’re not paying attention.

Specifically, with both sides accusing each other of everything up to and including crimes against humanity

Um… does it make any difference that one side is quite proudly committing crimes against humanity?  It’s not like the administration is making any serious effort to deny it. They’re torturing people, and they’re quite open about it.  They’re killing civilians, and they’re quite open about it.  They invaded a country that posed no threat to us, and they’re quite open about it.

BlackBoc--

Not if you live in a swing state. After Florida 2000, I really do believe every single vote matters.

If you live in Mass or DC? By all means, vote for the Greens or Socialists if that floats your boat.

But, I should add, don’t act like a self-important asshole and scream THERES NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAIN PARTIES!! if you do. Just own up to being fringe politically.

I knew a late-cycle undecided voter in 2000.  He was well-informed and intelligent; however, he holds a mix of positions (very liberal on some issues, very conservative on others) so neither candidate was clearly the lesser evil.  He is conservative enough that GWB seemed to align better with him, but he had doubts about Bush’s competence.  Ultimately he decided he believed that Bush would surround himself by intelligent people and take their advice, and voted for Bush.

Yeah, he regrets that one.  He voted for Kerry in 2004 and is a strong Obama supporter this year.

BlackBoc--

If you live in Mass or DC? By all means, vote for the Greens or Socialists if that floats your boat.
From BlackBloc’s post I don’t think he or she lives in any US state, let alone a swing one.

The reason a lot of folks want to vote for 3rd party candidates is that if they get 5% of the vote, they qualify for federal funding next time round and can launch more robust campaigns. My thought is that you’re as likely to be the vote that gets a 3rd party candidate to 5% as you are to be the vote that gets a mainstream candidate to 50%.

As an anti-war guy I have met a lot of people who say, “we have to stop voting for the lesser of two evils! You should vote for [Cynthia McKinney/Ron Paul/Ralph Nader/take yer pick]!!!!”.

May I just say that I have never understood those people? I have always been a big believer in realpolitik. I firmly believe that you vote for mush before dirt, dirt before shit, and shit before toxic waste. I think we need to get more realistic, more strategically oriented, and less prone to “voting as a protest”.

Apart from patting yourself on the back the next morning that you did your ‘civic duty’, does it even accomplish anything? From the standpoint of ‘voting strategically’, unless you’ve got some charismatic pull and can bring a couple of thousands people from one party to the other, what sort of strategy are we even talking about?

Blackbloc, you seem quite intelligent from your comments on this blog and elsewhere. All the same I seriously wonder if, after experiencing the kind of kind of government that we have been experiencing here in the USA for the past eight years, you might see things a bit differently.

In any case, I agree that electoral work is only one component in a political strategy.

I’ve lived through the Mulroney/Kim Campbell years, a decade of Liberal rule, and the revolving door of Parti Quebecois/Liberal leadership at the provincial level, not to mention one (lost) referendum for Quebec sovereignty in 1995. I haven’t seen a lot of differences, and this is mostly because overall policy is decided by economists and not by the various parties.

Still gonna vote NDP rather than ‘strategically’ against the Conservatives, and even then for me that’s a ‘hold my nose’ sort of vote. Ben D. said it, I’m fringe. I mean, my handle should tell all about just how fringe I am.

But whatever, from outside the USA, the Dems do seem to be very close to the Republicans *in general*, and only differ on some key culture war issues that the rest of the world sort of sees as already resolved issues (abortion here is covered by Medicare… just to sort of express how ‘far left’ we must seem to Americans). I would think that having to ‘debate’ those things at this point in history for me would be about as cringe inducing as a left-wing activist as the fact that here in Quebec the entire provincial political debate is only about Quebec’s constitutional issues, and both parties have completly abandonned all pretense of caring about Left VS Right (both are coalitions of Left and Right-wing interests only held together by what view they have on the constitutional question). The fight between the Dems and Repubs seem, to me, like a huge waste of time rehashing questions that should already be resolved.

Or in other words, I can fully understand people wanting to vote for a Green or Socialist ticket, because it seems that the alternative of voting strategically for the Dems is for the Left in the USA to remain forever in a reactive strategy designed only to preserve what social programs have been gained in the past, rather than push forward for more social welfare programs. Well the program is that when you’re fighting to preserve something, it means when you win you… are at the same spot as before. But when you lose, you lose some of those gains, and then since you’re still in a defensive strategy, well next time you just vote to preserve… the already reduced set of social programs that were left after the last time the right-wing won.

emjaybee said:

I wish we could do mandatory voting, like Australia. Their ballots let you mark “none of the above” if you don’t want to pick one, I believe.

Not quite true. However the mandatory part about mandatory voting translates (because of the whole secret part about secret ballots) to turning up to a polling place and having your name marked off. You are then handed your ballot (an actual piece of paper to be filled in with an actual pencil) and you can go off and do whatever you like with it, including writing “You all suck!” over it, before pushing into the ballot box. You can also leave it blank or simply fill in numbers 1-N starting from the top without making any conscious decision about who to vote for (incidently this latter is called a donkey vote and constitutes about 4% of all votes).

Our polling days are always Saturdays. As most polling places are in schools and church halls, this has always been a great way for the local school/community organisation to make money by selling sausages, cakes, drinks, etc to the people waiting in line. As I always say, in Australia, it may be our duty to vote, but there is a corresponding right to a sausage in a bun (preferably with onions).

Or in other words, I can fully understand people wanting to vote for a Green or Socialist ticket, because it seems that the alternative of voting strategically for the Dems is for the Left in the USA to remain forever in a reactive strategy designed only to preserve what social programs have been gained in the past, rather than push forward for more social welfare programs.

Unfortunately, that’s what happens when you have the two-party, winner-takes-all system that we have in the States.  If you have a parliamentary system with multiple parties that need to create coalitions, it’s actually worthwhile to nurture and vote for new and smaller parties.  But we’ve pretty much always had a binary system, with any third parties that arise getting absorbed into the larger ones.

When you have multiple choices, choosing one of the smaller parties can make sense.  When you have to pick 1 of 2, choosing a third party is an exercise in egotism.

The fight between the Dems and Repubs seem, to me, like a huge waste of time rehashing questions that should already be resolved.

Hmm. I can see why it would look that way to you. I just feel there is an aspect to the situation… that you may be missing.

I appreciate that you are in a different system. I respect your system. I appreciate that being constantly defensive sucks. I am not opposed to Socialism, I am probably a Democratic Socialist. Or would be if there were a viable Social Democratic party in the USA. I also appreciate the Greens, and I vote for Green candidates in certain races. And you’re right that the US parties have a cramped range of acceptable policy (though, there are some important differences I think.)

The reason I still think this is important, in a nutshell, is that the right wing in the USA is really quite crazy, especially now. I have linked to some straightforwardly racist people, but I also think that the neoconservatives, with their focus on permanent war, should be taken as far from the levers of power as possible. McCain is totally in their orbit, Obama slightly outside of it. I dunno, I just think that’s really important, to get someone in who is not a total neoconservative follower.

I think people underestimate how dangerous the neoconservatives are, even now. I want to put a stake through the heart of their movement, put garlic in its mouth, chop off its head, and expose it to sunlight. Getting Obama elected is really only equivalent to getting my hands on a cross, but it is a start.

I dunno… that’s just my world-picture now.

Oh! Don’t get me started on those idiots. Like Jesse said, they walk around like it’s a badge of honor to be undecided but as far as I am concerned, it’s political UNsophistication at it’s finest.

Ben D., surely you have been called a DLC goon before.

Re the initial post good point, but I think media and their consumers are to blame, too, for emphasizing and demanding the emphasis on a bunch of useless ¨With whom would you like to have a beer?¨ issues and not spending enough time examing relevant qualifications and policy positions - as if there are very many; why did I think it was both candidates´ debate strategies to be as vague as possible sometimes on hot button issues. And when media started trying to examine Sarah Palin´s record, they were accused of being mean and then backed off. How am I supposed to know, really, what Barack Obama is going to do, when he is in the White House? I just don´t really, and obviously he is better than McCain; but it is understandable someone buys that McCain is just pandering on the arch-conservative stuff, and taxes might stay lower, and stuff like that.