Who would you vote for? / Who will win?

[Јas]

Vote for the combination of who you would/will vote for and who you think will win in November.

It's your choose!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obama/Obama

[True Democrat]

I feeling optimistic today, so I voted McCain/McCain.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

McClane/Gruber

[bullmoose88]

McClane/Gruber

Which Gruber?  Hans or Simon?

[HardRCafé]

I feeling optimistic today, so I voted McCain/McCain.

I think I missed why you are for McCain.  I am interested.

I also really appreciate that you do not have a hundred threads saying why before anyone asked.

[elcorazon]

Obama/McCain

[NDN]

Other/Obama.

[bkey]

McCain/McCain

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

McClane/Gruber

Which Gruber?  Hans or Simon?

Severus.

[True Democrat]

I feeling optimistic today, so I voted McCain/McCain.

I think I missed why you are for McCain.  I am interested.

I also really appreciate that you do not have a hundred threads saying why before anyone asked.

I'll make this quick, but there are a few basic reasons I am supporting McCain:

1. Proven record of reform and working across the aisle (campaign finance reform, against tobacco lobby, immigration reform, cap and trade, etc.)
2. Position on Iraq (I still think it was a mistake to invade, but Petraus's (sp?) has been brilliant, IMHO, and I think we should continue it.  I am against artificial timetables.)
3. SOME economic issues (I support him more on some economic issues, like free trade, energy (I like his cap and trade idea, though I'm not wild about drilling and I hate the gas tax holiday), and balancing the budget.  I do like Obama more on taxes, well at least income taxes.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't like how he has catered to the right in this election, though I think he had to  to win the primary.  Also, this way his campaign has been run negatively has turned me off also.  I would prefer the 2000 McCain a million times over this McCain, but I still support him.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

2. Position on Iraq (I still think it was a mistake to invade, but Petraus's (sp?) has been brilliant, IMHO, and I think we should continue it.  I am against artificial timetables.)

My heart is for Obama, but my head is for McCain.  Looking at it from a purely analytical perspective, McCain is MUCH more likely to get us out of Iraq with some semblance of order and stability in the region.  Obama's an irresponsible waffler who will create more problems in Iraq than he will solve.

My heart screams "Get out!  Get out now!  Obama! Obama!!"   But my head says, "hey, cool it for a moment, step back, relax, THINK about what you're wishing for, and do you really want to get it?"

Does that make sense?

[elcorazon]

2. Position on Iraq (I still think it was a mistake to invade, but Petraus's (sp?) has been brilliant, IMHO, and I think we should continue it.  I am against artificial timetables.)

My heart is for Obama, but my head is for McCain.  Looking at it from a purely analytical perspective, McCain is MUCH more likely to get us out of Iraq with some semblance of order and stability in the region.  Obama's an irresponsible waffler who will create more problems in Iraq than he will solve.

My heart screams "Get out!  Get out now!  Obama! Obama!!"   But my head says, "hey, cool it for a moment, step back, relax, THINK about what you're wishing for, and do you really want to get it?"

Does that make sense?

not really

[CPT MikeyMike]

McCain/McCain

[True Democrat]

2. Position on Iraq (I still think it was a mistake to invade, but Petraus's (sp?) has been brilliant, IMHO, and I think we should continue it.  I am against artificial timetables.)

My heart is for Obama, but my head is for McCain.  Looking at it from a purely analytical perspective, McCain is MUCH more likely to get us out of Iraq with some semblance of order and stability in the region.  Obama's an irresponsible waffler who will create more problems in Iraq than he will solve.

My heart screams "Get out!  Get out now!  Obama! Obama!!"   But my head says, "hey, cool it for a moment, step back, relax, THINK about what you're wishing for, and do you really want to get it?"

Does that make sense?

I think it makes sense, though I'm not in favor of get out now.

Remember, only Nixon could go to China. . .

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

My heart is for Obama, but my head is for McCain.  Looking at it from a purely analytical perspective, McCain is MUCH more likely to get us out of Iraq with some semblance of order and stability in the region.  Obama's an irresponsible waffler who will create more problems in Iraq than he will solve.

My heart screams "Get out!  Get out now!  Obama! Obama!!"   But my head says, "hey, cool it for a moment, step back, relax, THINK about what you're wishing for, and do you really want to get it?"

Does that make sense?

not really

Care to elaborate?

[elcorazon]

2. Position on Iraq (I still think it was a mistake to invade, but Petraus's (sp?) has been brilliant, IMHO, and I think we should continue it.  I am against artificial timetables.)

My heart is for Obama, but my head is for McCain.  Looking at it from a purely analytical perspective, McCain is MUCH more likely to get us out of Iraq with some semblance of order and stability in the region.  Obama's an irresponsible waffler who will create more problems in Iraq than he will solve.

My heart screams "Get out!  Get out now!  Obama! Obama!!"   But my head says, "hey, cool it for a moment, step back, relax, THINK about what you're wishing for, and do you really want to get it?"

Does that make sense?

I think it makes sense, though I'm not in favor of get out now.

Remember, only Nixon could go to China. . .

wow, you are making zero sense here.  you are not in favor of get out now.  how does that relate to only nixon going to china?  I mean it sounds like you think only mccain could get out now, which is what you don't want.  maybe based on this backwards logic you should vote obama who is more likely to remain in iraq to avoid looking soft.  right?

[Eraserhead]

Obama/Obama

[Ronnie]

McCain/Obama

[elcorazon]

My heart is for Obama, but my head is for McCain.  Looking at it from a purely analytical perspective, McCain is MUCH more likely to get us out of Iraq with some semblance of order and stability in the region.  Obama's an irresponsible waffler who will create more problems in Iraq than he will solve.

My heart screams "Get out!  Get out now!  Obama! Obama!!"   But my head says, "hey, cool it for a moment, step back, relax, THINK about what you're wishing for, and do you really want to get it?"

Does that make sense?

not really

Care to elaborate?

well I think you give mccain WAY too much credit, first of all.  To me, he's a guy who will never ever leave until we kill every iraqi radical muslim.  Obama's much more the thinking man who will be likely to follow the best path to a more stable region.

Calling Obama an irresponsible waffler, and trusting McCain strikes me as humorous frankly, particularly coming from someone with a Dem avatar. Methinks you might be putting us on with that one.  I can understand a conservative republican having that view, but not a dem, frankly.  as a result, my answer to your question "does that make sense?" was not really.

[Beet]

I don't see that much difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq. If there's a Nixon analogy it's Nixon and Vietnam- Humphrey would have got us out sooner, but Nixon got us out nonetheless. I don't see how McCain avoids it especially if the Shi'ite government is demanding a pullout. However, McCain might try to keep more troops there than Obama would.

The biggest foreign policy difference between them is not Iraq; it's their general outlooks. McCain sees the world as a sort of ideological death match between democracies and non-democracies, whereas Obama is much more willing to talk with non-democratic governments to find areas of common interest. One is neocon and the other is realist, but Obama who occasionally spouts neocon stuff himself and has proclaimed support for a united Jerusalem is frankly the more 'moderate' one.

[HardRCafé]

I'll make this quick, but there are a few basic reasons I am supporting McCain:

1. Proven record of reform and working across the aisle (campaign finance reform, against tobacco lobby, immigration reform, cap and trade, etc.)
2. Position on Iraq (I still think it was a mistake to invade, but Petraus's (sp?) has been brilliant, IMHO, and I think we should continue it.  I am against artificial timetables.)
3. SOME economic issues (I support him more on some economic issues, like free trade, energy (I like his cap and trade idea, though I'm not wild about drilling and I hate the gas tax holiday), and balancing the budget.  I do like Obama more on taxes, well at least income taxes.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't like how he has catered to the right in this election, though I think he had to  to win the primary.  Also, this way his campaign has been run negatively has turned me off also.  I would prefer the 2000 McCain a million times over this McCain, but I still support him.

Thank you for the explanation.  I find all of that genuinely interesting.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

well I think you give mccain WAY too much credit, first of all.  To me, he's a guy who will never ever leave until we kill every iraqi radical muslim.  Obama's much more the thinking man who will be likely to follow the best path to a more stable region.

McCain is a former naval officer who will both be able to grasp the situation on the ground (unlike Bush) and surround himself with solid military advisors who will help him form a clear and realistic path towards our eventual peaceful withdrawal.

Calling Obama an irresponsible waffler, and trusting McCain strikes me as humorous frankly, particularly coming from someone with a Dem avatar.

This Dem was a Hillary supporter from day one.  Obama has no experience, no plan, and no qualifications beyond duping brain-dead Internet hoards with vague and vacuous promises (yes we can end a war, yes we can end poverty, yes we can end global warming and reunite the Beatles while we're at it!)  Uh... how, exactly?  Now that reality hits, we're seeing him qualify his "yes we cans" left and right.  Someone informed him, correctly, that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq results in millions dead, region-wide war, and probably Iran dominating most of the world's petroleum.  Oops.  Now it's all about "working with Iraqi government to form a timetable."

The man is utterly clueless.  And because he's clueless, he's dangerous.  Electing him is like a game of Russian Roulette.  We may get lucky and he'll hit on the right strategy.  We may get our head blown off.

This has nothing to do with politics.  You want politics?  You want to know why I'm a Dem? Here goes: George W. Bush lied to the American people, concocting false intelligence to make it appear that Iraq was a threat to US Security.  He disingenuously implied to the American people that Saddam Hussein was connected to Osama-bin-Laden and 9-11.  The US invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder of our times, possibly in the history of the United States, with consequences we'll have to deal with for DECADES.

So don't go calling me a fake Democrat.

Now, all that said, with us in Iraq, and the US involvement representing the PIN holding the GRENADE together, who are you more comfortable with as C-in-C?  A mindless, yet smooth-talking political opportunist with no military or diplomatic experience, who could end up doing WHO KNOWS WHAT?  Or someone with international and military credentials who is actually qualified to solve this crisis in the least painful way possible?  Who also, incidentally, has a proven track record of working with across the political aisle?

[War on Want]

Obama/Obama

[Reaganfan]

McCain/McCain