Political Intuition

[neonlyte]

Minor correction: 98 percent of voters have some personality disorder, ranging in a continuum from mild to serious. High-level pols are clumped on the far, far end of that continuum.

I concede to the Right Honourable Member of the Republican Party

 

[Kev H]

Intuition is so important in cases like this, if for nothing else than the fact that "being informed" is impossible. You can use "informed" in a comparative sense (like: I am more informed than I was before I read the stances/issues/personalities and analysts, etc.), but you can never make a completely informed decision. Even if you knew the candidate personally, your decision would be uninformed for the simple fact that you have no clue what the job will entail (and what information waits for "executive eyes only").

The main problem and challenge of intuition is that the focus may be off target (and therefore lead you astray for reasons you had not considered). For example, a bad feeling about Obama could be the intuitive understanding that the risk of societal collapse is greater with him than with the other candidates. Take the candidates through a scenario of something bad happening to them to get an example of what I mean. My intuitive concern says that if something were to happen to Obama, we'd be worse off, as a nation, than we would be by not electing him. This brings up my gambling/trusting side when I consider voting for him, despite my feeling "exposed". We cannot possibly think of every angle (though I agree with Rox in the sentiment that it's important to try), and often (to paraphrase from a favorite flick) "it's the reasons we can't think of" that drive us to a decision.

In short, like many here (surprised, Selena?), intuition, for me, tends to embody less-conscious thought processes that are certainly not less important pieces of the entire picture. It may boil down to that 2% swing vote answering the question: "do you feel lucky?"

 

[cloudy]

I have done the same re Hillary. She's the one who makes my intuition cringe.

Me too. She makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck, although I can't tell you why.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The thing is, SK, everyone knows Hillary Clinton. Her background has been scrutanized over and over again. A year ago there is a reason why she was the front runner by far. She did have any skeletons in her closet the Republicans could use against her. She had good ideas for a direction for this country and she had Bill to help her along the way.

Then came the rise of Obama. He suddenly became the darling of the media. His words were hypnotic. His voice so melodious. And he was characterized as the the first "viable" black candidate. That's not true. I do remember a guy named Jessie Jackson (no relation) who ran for president some years ago.

The point is, he was so "good" nobody bothered to look and see if he had any baggage. Nobody bothered to question his ideas. Nobody bothered to investigate his record. And nobody bothered to question his electability. Why would they? He was so "Good."

A few weeks ago that shell of goodness began to crack. It had become obvious that he was not who he claimed. He was charactized as a "loner" by his fellow senators. One who refused to associate with other senators outside the tower of power. He even refused to use the Senate Gym, and went to a private gym across town.

People began looking around and discovered the Democratic Party had been slashed in half. At first they pointed at Clinton. After all, didn't Bill make those horrid, racist remarks? Didn't Hillary do the same? Didn't Furraro do the same? Al Sharpton and Obama told us they did and surely we can trust them. Right?

But then with the Furraro incident and the Rundell incident, it became clear those were not racist remarks but fact of life in America. Slowly eyes began to turn away from Hillary as the culpret who divided the party and toward Obama. Then the Rev Wright scandle broke, chipping away another chunk of Obama's shell. Did you actually listen to the speach? Or were you simply mesmerized by the voice and words?

I'll give you the gist. Wright said horrible, unforgivable things. If anyone said such things they should be shunned. However, Wright is like a member of the Obama family and, Obama just happened to not be in church at day, so Rev Wright is an Okay guy. Obama had the balls to say this after demanding Clinton fire Furraro for speaking the truth?

So I guess, I'm supposed to believe that Obama really is a great man with nothing to hide, great ideas because he is so mesmerizing and he is electable. The Republians want the run against Obama. They see the cracks in his shiell and will soon take advantage of it.

Sorry. A vote for Obama is another step toward a McCain presidency. Wake up, people.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I don't agree that the evil you know is always better than the evil you don't... That doesn't play into my feelings...

If I could vote for Bill Clinton again, I would in a heartbeat. I don't care how many interns were blowing him in the oval office. (And BTW, thank GOD a Clinton finally stood up and said, "It's none of your business!" Go Chelsea!)

But Hilary? Hm. More reservations there, regardless of her track record (and in some instances, because of it...)

Obama though... there's something else. And what you just said about his reticence, his withdrawal... my antennae went up again... it's interesting. Is he just a natural introvert? (How can you be an introvert and be running for president!?) I don't know...

like many here (surprised, Selena?)... intuition...

No, not surprised... those who have spoken here supporting intuition I pretty much already recognized as kindred intuitive spirits

But I had to put my disclaimer up there for folks like Carny and JB and Ami, ya know...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Fortunately, confiscating property for bums (corporate and personal) destroys the system when too much money is taken from producers of wealth. Socialist systems always evolve into panhandlers who disturb the peace.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The election is over. McCain won.

 

[oggbashan]

The election is over. McCain won.

Unfortunately for the process, I agree. Every day the Democrats fail to decide gives more votes to McCain. He may have alienated some of his party but he has appeal to people who wouldn't normally vote for that party.

Neither Clinton nor Obama is going to carry the whole Democrat vote. That is fatal to their chances of being elected President.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I concede to the Right Honourable Member of the Republican Party

Must we really have non-loyalty oaths on lit?

"Are you or have you ever been . . ."

I know you were just fooling around meant no offense (and none was taken), but let's be frank: The GOP is held in contempt on this web site, primarily because of its fostering of intolerant social views. Calling someone a "Republican" on this website really is a form of insult, intentional or otherwise.

I've said scores of times that I'm a classical liberal whose policy preferences are best defined as libertarian. My discourse here has provided ample evidence of my contempt for both political parties in this country. Athough preferences for a limited, fiscally conservative government represent a minority opinion here, I am hardly unique in holding such views, and those who do don't deserve to be insulted for it. (Which I know is something you wouldn't knowingly do.)

 

[3113]

Since the minute Obama came onto the scene, I've had this funny feeling about him. I feel wary... I don't trust him. There feels like there's something going on under there that we're not seeing. I get a "Don't look at the man behind the curtain" sort of feeling... best I can describe...

Shit! She knows it's a robot! Let's hope she hasn't figured out what we did to her husband or she'll spoil all our plans....

 

[Stella_Omega]

While I'm still not sure if he's the lessor of three evils (and I can't even believe I've considered voting Republican if Obama gets the ticket, but I have... ) and I honestly don't know how in the world someone could f*** up more than our current Moron-in-Chief has...

Still, that prickly little feeling I get when I hear him speak makes me worry about discounting it and going with reason-alone...

You'd vote for McCain????


What does your intuition tell you about him???

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Back to the issue at hand, another challenge for both the intuitioners and the rationalers is that everything we know about these people is filtered through media. Even when media doesn't have its own agenda (never), the very fact that we get our info this way changes how we perceive it. The "intuition" that may work with a real live physical person where countless cues, clues and nuances can be sensed may get everything wrong when the info is filtered.

Here's the reality: For the electorate candidates are ambiguous symbols, not real people.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The election is over. McCain won.

The Republicans have always encouraged Intuition, because it's so easy to manipulate.
The Dems (supposedly) ask for rational thought-- and we all know that when we have more than three factors to consider, we'd rather sit down on our intuitive arses and flip the coin.


So, I am updating my kid's passports and getting ready to move them out of the country during McCain's inauguration ceremony. My intuition says that they will be drafted if he wins.


(Edit) Jinx, Roxy!

 

[rgraham666]

If they do get drafted it will more likely be to fight other Americans than to go elsewhere in the world.

 

[cloudy]

The Republicans have always encouraged Intuition, because it's so easy to manipulate.
The Dems (supposedly) ask for rational thought-- and we all know that when we have more than three factors to consider, we'd rather sit down on our intuitive arses and flip the coin.


So, I am updating my kid's passports and getting ready to move them out of the country during McCain's inauguration ceremony. My intuition says that they will be drafted if he wins.


(Edit) Jinx, Roxy!

You and yours would have a place with us.

 

[DesertPirate]

Saw a poll today, the Dems are getting more vitriolic. Seems 28% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain if Obama bets the nomination and 19% of Obamas will do the same if Hillary wins. If that holds true it will be a landslide.

Amazing what happens when an idiot is leader of a party, no plans, just bash Bush and scream alot.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You'd vote for McCain????


What does your intuition tell you about him???

Not really... in that case, it would just be a vote *not* for Obama... might as well not vote at all, I suppose...

I would trust McCain to lead a war... which is just exactly why I think he's a bad idea...

 

[Liar]

I hope Liar's right, and we just aren't used to seeing an "honest" person in that position. I really do hope.

I'd rather think that if he gets elected, you'll be sending an average senator to the White House. Not talking about average in policies, merits or competence (that's another discussion), but about honesty. Most people are reasonably "untouchable", but none is completely above being corrupted by their own power.

It's just in contrast to the messianic Obamania hype that he'll fail if elected. Nobody can live up to such silly ideals when the mundane grind of governing is on the daily meny.

My own personal "intuition" warnings about the prez race concerns all three candidates. Just my personal prjudice, based on 5% fact and 95% gut feeling.

Clinton is passionate and driven, which is good. But arrogant, petty and self-absorbed, which is bad. If she is elected, she'll need someone to stand by in the curtains with a frying pan and a rabies shot whenever she starts running amok. Also, the nespotism angle rubs me the wrong way. It's blatantly undemocratic. (That goes for a lot of pols too, Shrub, sen. Kennedy et al, who would be n othing special without their family names.)

Obama seems like a humble and honest guy. But weak. He's good with his constituency and with his politician peers, but I have a feeling he wouldn't be powerful enough as a leader. If elected, he'll need to buddy up with someone who knows how to be the boss of the cabinet. But if Obama choose the wrong "nanny", he runs the risk of ending up a push-over and puppet.

And I have a vauge feeling that McCain can go only one of two ways. Either he's too old and comfortable to work hard as a president. Remember, he was a hugely merited senior senator last time he tried to run for president too, and failed. And now he's just the shoe-in candidate because all the options sucked balls. I don't think he really has a hard-on for the job, so to speak.

Or there's also the possibility that he is the at first glance benevolent senator from the Star Wars movies. The one who turned into the Emperor.

 

[neonlyte]

Must we really have non-loyalty oaths on lit?

"Are you or have you ever been . . ."

I know you were just fooling around meant no offense (and none was taken), but let's be frank: The GOP is held in contempt on this web site, primarily because of its fostering of intolerant social views. Calling someone a "Republican" on this website really is a form of insult, intentional or otherwise.

I've said scores of times that I'm a classical liberal whose policy preferences are best defined as libertarian. My discourse here has provided ample evidence of my contempt for both political parties in this country. Athough preferences for a limited, fiscally conservative government represent a minority opinion here, I am hardly unique in holding such views, and those who do don't deserve to be insulted for it. (Which I know is something you wouldn't knowingly do.)

I know... and I framed it in British Parliamentary slang

Seriously, I take on board all you are saying, and I agree with you on fiscal conservatism. I really do believe the US needs a strong fiscal conservative government but... it has to be one prepared to shoulder the burden of fair and equal rights across health, welfare and education. As things stand, a democratic GOP will be hamstrung with less than a quarter of the population actually supporting an elected democratic President. That's no way out of the morass.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Or there's also the possibility that he is the at first glance benevolent senator from the Star Wars movies. The one who turned into the Emperor.

OMG!

I was JUST thinking that!

"This is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause..."

 

[oggbashan]

I concede to the Right Honourable Member of the Republican Party

It is British Parliamentary slang but is usually expressed in tones that deny the respect implied by the phrasing.

It could be taken as saying "I have to, because the Parliamentary Rules say I have to, give way to the stupid git opposite."

All Members of Parliament are "Honourable" unless they have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown, in which case they are "Honourable and Gallant". Unfortunately recent enquiries into the expense claims of Members of Parliament suggests that "Honourable" might, in some cases, be a synonym for lying git.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

OMG!

I was JUST thinking that!

"This is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause..."

Thanks, Liar, you've just reinforced an 'intuitive' prejudice.

Star wars is a movie. Movies are the Republican way. They act as if everything will be resolved by scripted intervention and the final credits will roll. I do not want to live in a movie, and if you don't either-- get active.

Enough is enough.

John McCain and the Republicans are out there every day bashing the Democratic nominees for President. Sadly, so are some Democrats.

"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

That's what longtime Clinton strategist James Carville had to say about Bill Richardson's endorsement of Senator Obama.

This is not acceptable. We have a war to end and John McCain to beat in November. James Carville is busy creating enemies within the Democratic Party by attacking a respected, sitting Democratic governor.

Send Mr. Carville a message that this offensive attack has no place in Democratic politics. Sign our open letter to both Democratic candidates today!

www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/OpenLetter

Already tens of thousands of Democratic voters have banded together to urge Senators Clinton and Obama to fight McCain, not each other.

Clearly, the Clinton campaign has not gotten the message. James Carville has refused to take back his remarks and Senator Clinton has not denounced or rejected this character assassination of Governor Richardson, a fellow Democrat and former Clinton appointee.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. Democrats need to fight McCain, not each other. Whether you support Senator Clinton or Obama, sign the open letter right now and we'll deliver all the signatures to both Democratic candidates.

www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/OpenLetter

Thank you for taking action,

-Charles

Charles Chamberlain
Political Director

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Thanks, Liar, you've just reinforced an 'intuitive' prejudice.

Star wars is a movie. Movies are the Republican way. They act as if everything will be resolved by scripted intervention and the final credits will roll. I do not want to live in a movie...

*gently*

Metaphorically, we're all living in a movie...

 

[neonlyte]

OMG!

I was JUST thinking that!

"This is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause..."

Come on! An elected dictator is what most democracies crave... as long as the electors have the option to put them back in their box when they've run their race.

Unfortunately, our race seems to lack the credibility to elect to govern, past experience and all that...

A pissing contest is still no way to run a country.

 

[Stella_Omega]

*gently*

Metaphorically, we're all living in a movie...

Let's count up how many extras actually die during a movie war, shall we? Or live the rest of their lives without limbs-- or a face?