The curmudgeon demographic

[nancylebov]

One of my friends told me that, even though we both prefer Obama, if Hillary gets the nomination, I should immediately start talking as though I think she's the best candidate ever. This makes my stomach hurt.

Historically, if young people support a candidate who loses the primary, the young people don't vote rather than supporting the party's choice.

It's at least possible that young people want some emotional continuity rather than party loyalists suddenly dumping their previous opinions.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I intend to go for a McCain's-much-worse campaign.

Comments

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

I think you're wise.

Because people's opinions matter to them, even if no one else cares about them. You might as well be honest, and let it be obvious you've thought about it. I think it makes a bigger impression than "tactful" hypocrisy.

Saying "I supported Obama for presiden, and I think he was the best choice among the major contenders. However, given a choice between Hillary CLinton and John McCain, Senator CLinton gets my vote, because I don't see that MCain has anything to offer that I really want--certainly nothing that makes up for the things I really dislike about his positions," is something other disappointed people can sympathize with. That sort of thing does matter, and matters a lot.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Thanks, but it's not "tactful" hypocrisy, it's tactical hypocrisy.

[madfilkentist]

If it's Clinton vs. McCain, I'll just give up caring who wins and focus on addressing issues where my efforts might make a difference. The presidential election is just one of many issues to act on, and I won't bang my head on a stone wall just because some morons say I'm "apathetic" if I don't.

[richardthe23rd.livejournal.com]

Okay, but if you become one of those guys who swore there was no difference in who won the presidency in '00, or even '04, there will be lots of heads banging against walls, or at least desks. Come to think of it, one of them might be yours.

[madfilkentist]

It is, and it could well be again -- but I don't know which outcome would cause more head-banging.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

Someone who doesn't do enough good is way better than someone who works overtime doing bad.

I wish Clinton wasn't trying so hard to hit Obama just now. It makes it look like they're way more different than they are, and whichever of the two is nominated, the other one has handed ammunition to the GOP who can, justifiably, say "Well, I just got that from you Democrats!"

I was favoring Hillary as the best one left standing after Edwards left, but her behavior on the campaign trail is starting to bug me. It's not even a difference in anything but style, but she is sounding so bad whenever she gets a chance. Damnit.

[landley.livejournal.com]

I think clinton's tendency to go negative _is_ a significant difference between them.

I find the two candidates to have very different motivations. Obama wants to solve current problems and fix things that are broken now. Clinton just wants to be president, and has for many years (ever since she became a senator for New York, a place she didn't even live in before trying to represent them). Obama is motivated to fix the mess Bush left us. Clinton would have been happy to be president 4 years ago, and would be just as happy to be president 4 years from now; what specific issues are on the plate for that term is secondary, as long as she gets to be president.

In lolcat terms:

Hilary Clinton:
"The Presidency: WANT!"

Barack Obama:
"The Presidency: You're doing it wrong."

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

I'd be happier about Obama if he hadn't sent out a "Harry and Louise" mailer telling untruths about the Clinton health plan, echoing the notorious tactics of the Rove wing of the GOP. And he kept throwing liberals, as such, under the bus -- apparently to please the religious folks. I also dislike the notion his followers seem to have picked up somewhere that if he doesn't get the nom, they won't vote for a Democrat.

I agree that Hillary clearly wants it. I disagree that Barack doesn't. He's much better at presentation, and seems to know how he looks when he's on stage. This is, of course, an asset, but it's not proof of his inner soul's merit.

[cellio]

This is smart. Trying to rewrite history doesn't sell well.

Hillary has shown herself to be a selfish, ends-justify-the-means, sleazy politician. She doesn't appear to care about what's best for the Dems; why should I believe she cares about what's best for the country? I'm not saying McCain isn't worse; I'd just need some convincing. If you approach it honestly people like me will pay attention; if you were to do as your friend suggested, we'd write you off as having drunk the kool-aid.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It works in reverse, too. If Obama gets the nomination, I don't want Hillary supporters to suddenly pretend they think he's wonderful.

[cellio]

Definitely. It works both ways.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

I think he's okay, or about as good as we're likely to get now that the ones I wanted most have left the race (or never entered it). On most issues, there is a rough equivalence between Clinton and Obama, and his ability to project gravitas (as I say elsewhere, he apparently knows how he looks and sounds) is a plus.

The bottom line is that either of them would be better than what we have now. Somebody who drives annoyingly close to you when you're on your bike is still better than somebody who deliberately tries to run you down.