![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 18th, 2008 08:51 amOn NPR yesterday, Talk of the Nation was discussing the various websites that allow you to fill out a questionnaire and be given a listing of the US presidential candidates and how well their positions mesh with your own.
The two of those that I've done myself both told me that Kucinich seems to be my man. One of the people who called in to the show said that he got the same result. Where we differ is that, in my case, I was unsurprised as I've been saying for a while that if Kucinich made it to the national level he'd definitely have my vote, and I'd be willing to vote for him in the primaries if he had a chance of winning. Since he doesn't, I'll end up voting for Obama.
The caller said that the result was a surprise to him and that he'd been planning to vote for Obama. He also said that he had no intention of changing his mind, and that Kucinich just didn't seem like a good leader to him. The same basic sentiment was expressed by a republican caller who was told by the internet oracle that Ron Paul was her best match. She had no intention of voting for Paul as he didn't seem like he'd make a good president to her.
That lead to a discussion of how people don't vote just based on issues. They vote based on a combination of issues and on a certain, as they put it, 'ineffable' quality that determines who will make a good leader, and who has the ability to make the country move a given direction.
I guess it's odd that that's not true for me. I've wondered for a long time why people like Kucininch, who seem to me like there's no good reason for them not to get more votes than they do, don't get them. Maybe it has to do with my divergent neurology. Maybe because I don't recognize faces, or because I don't catch body language the way other people do. I guess I do just vote on issues, because to me, those are the things that are actually important. Whatever ineffable quality of leadership that everyone else is talking about is something that I just don't see, and don't really care about.
I figure that if somebody has managed to get far enough to be on the ballot, they probably have the ability to sit in the white house, or whatever office they are running for, and direct people. Do you think that's wrong?
And on an unrelated note, I'm really scared that somehow Huckabee is going to get elected into office. I'm scared that the majority of people in this country might actually want the kind of Christianist theocracy he espouses.
The two of those that I've done myself both told me that Kucinich seems to be my man. One of the people who called in to the show said that he got the same result. Where we differ is that, in my case, I was unsurprised as I've been saying for a while that if Kucinich made it to the national level he'd definitely have my vote, and I'd be willing to vote for him in the primaries if he had a chance of winning. Since he doesn't, I'll end up voting for Obama.
The caller said that the result was a surprise to him and that he'd been planning to vote for Obama. He also said that he had no intention of changing his mind, and that Kucinich just didn't seem like a good leader to him. The same basic sentiment was expressed by a republican caller who was told by the internet oracle that Ron Paul was her best match. She had no intention of voting for Paul as he didn't seem like he'd make a good president to her.
That lead to a discussion of how people don't vote just based on issues. They vote based on a combination of issues and on a certain, as they put it, 'ineffable' quality that determines who will make a good leader, and who has the ability to make the country move a given direction.
I guess it's odd that that's not true for me. I've wondered for a long time why people like Kucininch, who seem to me like there's no good reason for them not to get more votes than they do, don't get them. Maybe it has to do with my divergent neurology. Maybe because I don't recognize faces, or because I don't catch body language the way other people do. I guess I do just vote on issues, because to me, those are the things that are actually important. Whatever ineffable quality of leadership that everyone else is talking about is something that I just don't see, and don't really care about.
I figure that if somebody has managed to get far enough to be on the ballot, they probably have the ability to sit in the white house, or whatever office they are running for, and direct people. Do you think that's wrong?
And on an unrelated note, I'm really scared that somehow Huckabee is going to get elected into office. I'm scared that the majority of people in this country might actually want the kind of Christianist theocracy he espouses.
