[Lobowolf]

For those of you who believe that one of the two main candidates would make a significantly better president than the other, what's the major rationale behind your vote?

[matmat]

the choice I don't see in your poll is 'better equipped to deal with the issues,' which is an important factor for me.

[jdonn]

Style of governance.

[akhare]

You are missing "All of the above" and a few more...

[Lobowolf]

I'm probably missing a few, but "All of the above" would really defeat the purpose.

[cherdano]

Sorry, I can trim it down to two but further is tough:
1. Exchanging all officials in the administration of the last 8 years who were guided by ideology rather than reality. Having their replacements be responsible again, directly to the president and thus indirectly to the electorate, by having a president who actually understands and cares about enough (but not too many!) of the details of what is going on, rather than giving them a blank authority.
(I guess Josh said it shorter.)
2. Having an adminstration with respect for law and constituation, including (gasp!) the vice president and DOJ.

[Al_U_Card]

Obama's "vibe". The quiet confidence. The firm resolve. The mature intelligence. Exactly the captain that this ship of state needs on these stormy seas.

[kenberg]

I switched, my expectation was that i would go with McCain, I will be voting for Obama. This sounds presumptuous maybe, or something, but I think Obama has his act together in a way that McCain does not. The changeover in my opinion was gradual but heavily nudged when McCain announced he was suspending his campaign, wanted to cancel the first debate, wanted a meeting with the President, and then had pretty much nothing to say. My reaction was "What the hell is this?". And of course there is Sister Sarah. But you only want one reason. Obama has it together. [ I see Al put this in one sentance above while I was typing.]

My view is that both parties have their wingnuts and I hope Obama can contain his. I hope he isn't as unprepared to deal with the difficulties of foreign policy as I sometimes fear that he is. We should all give a prayer (yes, I am non-religious but let that be) when we cast our vote. Voting is, at least for me, an act of faith and hope. Best wishes to the person who gets the job.

Btw: My older daughter is voting for Obama. That was a given. My younger daughter is also. Not a given. She tells me that her mother, my ex-wife, is voting for Obama. That is downright amazing. The guy's a shoo-in.

[awm]

Intelligence and education. McCain was 5th from the bottom at the Naval Academy, Palin took something like six years to get a journalism degree from University of Idaho. Obama graduated with honors from Harvard Law. Big difference.

Sure the president doesn't need to have a brilliant intellect or top-notch educational record (though doubtless it helps). But our current leadership also refuses to listen to educated experts on everything from economic policy to scientific fact to military strategy. They have replaced science with blind faith in their own rightness. Palin, if anything, seems worse than Bush in this respect, and McCain continued touting his "gas tax holiday" throughout the summer even though every single economist said it wouldn't work. Isn't it time for an intelligent leader who listens to our brightest and most informed experts rather than making his decisions exclusively based on his flawed interpretation of "God's will"?

[han]

I would vote Obama because I think the other candidate and his VP pick are so much worse.

[neilkaz]

Non-Iraq-related foreign policy is what concerns me the most. Thus my vote for McCain who I feel has far more experience in this area than Obama.

[neilkaz]

han, on Nov 3 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

I would vote Obama because I think the other candidate and his VP pick are so much worse.

I understand where you're coming from. As a McCain supporter, I was stunned when he chose the inexperienced VP candidate. I like her, but to think that she is one heartbeat away from being president is scary.

Scarier however, lots scarier, will be watching the Socialist Robin Hood give important jobs to his corrupt and in many cases so liberal as to be considered radical Illinois political machine buddies.

[jchiu]

neilkaz, on Nov 4 2008, 05:06 AM, said:

Non-Iraq-related foreign policy is what concerns me the most. Thus my vote for McCain who I feel has far more experience in this area than Obama.

So you vote for reactionary hawks who sing "Bomb bomb Iran" at a neo-Nazi veterans rally in South Carolina (quite poorly may I add)?

[helene_t]

Wow, most of the options are about security and foreign affairs. And this in a country so large that foreign relations should barely matter. In the EU, overseas relations are the theme of some 0.01% of all political debate.

Nobody cares about domestic poverty, environment, land development, education, research, health care, improving the efficiency of the public sector, getting rid of election fraud, combating discrimination, reducing the number of innocents who get executed, abortion, culture, infrastructure, energy?

OK, some of these issues are and/or should be delegated to local authorities and/or the free market, but still .....

If it is only about this silly terrorism issue I don't mind that I am not a US citizen since I wouldn't bother to vote anyway.

[PassedOut]

I think it's important to reverse the redistribution of the wealth pushed so hard by the Bush administration.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

Style of governance.

If I had to choose between the items listed in the poll, I'd say "Values/better person than the other candidate". However, I would essentially be using this as a proxy for "style of governance".

Obama has impressed me for a long time.

He seems very intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, and seems inflappable.

He put together the best run campaign that I have ever seen. (He dismanted the Clinton machine which had been plotting a comeback for 8+ years. This took a LOT of work and a lot of executive competence).

I'm quite sure that I'm going to have issues with any number of policies that come out of an Obama White House. Even so, I expect that I can trust the decision making process.

In contrast, I never liked McCain much. The man has no poltical center. He has shown great personal character. However, it hasn't translated into coherent policy. He lurches all over the map. The only consistent theme is belligerence.

(I genuinely hoped that Kerry would pick McCain as Veep in 2004, however, that was a vain hope at damage control. McCain is bad, but Bush is a disaster).

[TimG]

helene_t, on Nov 4 2008, 05:49 AM, said:

And this in a country so large that foreign relations should barely matter. In the EU, overseas relations are the theme of some 0.01% of all political debate.

There is, to me, a stunning amount of "American are the best" rhetoric in the US. Listen to any stump speech and you'll here "Americans are the most innovative" or "Americans are the hardest working" or any other number of superlatives. I don't know how you measure most of these things, but I doubt many of them are true, it's just the candidate trying to make the public feel good about themselves by putting down the rest of the world.

But, the US probably does have the biggest army, the most bombs, the largest navy, etc. This is an area where America is best (if size matters). It is not surprising to me that millions of Americans cling to the "strong military" line -- it's a way for them to feel superior to the rest of the world.

There's also a sense that the US saved the world from evil in WWI and WWII and the way the US did that was by flexing its military muscles. The greatest glories that the US has experienced in the last century have been military victories. There are people born in the second half of the 20th century that say "we beat Hitler" even though they had nothing to do with it.

I think lots of people, whether consciously or not, vote big military because big military gives a sense of pride, importance, and superiority.

[helene_t]

TimG, on Nov 4 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

The greatest glories that the US has experienced in the last century have been military victories.

I would dispute that.

Compare the US to the UK. UK has its share of the pride for winning WWII. But since 1945, what has UK achieved? Not much. The women's event at the 2008 WMSG and the cloning of Dolly are the only UK successes I can think of. Some would mention the Falkland war, too, I suppose. Nonetheless, there is (AFAIK) zero war nostalgia in the UK.

The US, on the other hand, has dominated the World economically, intellectually and culturally (OK, some would say entertainment-vise instead of culturally, but that's just another word for the same). In fact the only areas in which the Soviet Union was able to compete were military and sport.

Nevertheless, you are right that the military seems to be an important icon for the US. There is a Japanese saying that you don't make tins of good steel and you don't make soldiers of good young men either, and we could say the same in Europe. Most people view the military with indifference if not contempt. It amazes me that John Kerry and John McCain both emphasized their achievements during the Vietnam War. No politician over here would talk about his military carrier and certainly not about a war as disastrous as the Vietnam War.

I wonder where that difference comes from. Maybe the fact that the US owes its independence to a war. Most European countries have either been independent very long (UK, Spain, Portugal, Sweden), were liberated by someone else (Denmark, France, Romania, Kosova), or gained independence with little or no use of force (Belgium, Iceland, Slovakia, Switzerland, Balticum).

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Style of governance.

mine is philosophy of gov't, which is probably pretty close to this

[TimG]

helene_t, on Nov 4 2008, 08:00 AM, said:

TimG, on Nov 4 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

The greatest glories that the US has experienced in the last century have been military victories.

I would dispute that.

The US, on the other hand, has dominated the World economically, intellectually and culturally (OK, some would say entertainment-vise instead of culturally, but that's just another word for the same). In fact the only areas in which the Soviet Union was able to compete were military and sport.

If you asked an Ameican on the street what the greatest US glory of the last century was (and expected an answer within a few seconds), none (or very few) would say moving Disney to Paris or dominating the world economy (if that is even true) or cite the number of Nobel Prizes or Gold Medals that have been won by Americans.

Victories in WWI and WWII would be overwhelming winners, I think. Being the first to place a man on the moon would probably be 3rd; "winning" the Cold War 4th.