Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Presidential Election 2008 round table debate Question 3

What a week. Two candidates are dropping out; Edwards, Guiliani and we're probably going to expect a few more next week.

I'm from the Netherlands originally. And in Holland, voting for your party AND the one who you would want to see as Prime Minister is so much more straightforward. One voter, one vote. Nothing convaluted like here in the US. Not to mention the waste of millions of dollars on campaigns that won't even be successful. Never mind the skewed media attention when a candidate has a lot of money and can buy all the air time he/she wants.

Here is my question:

On C-span, a devout Ron Paul supporter said that even if Ron Paul would not win the Republican nomination, that he'd still vote for him come election time. Would you still vote for your candidate of choice even if he/she was not nominated? If so, why?

(I'm still leading up to another questioning direction but I think I'll have to save it after Super Tuesday)

Labels:

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that it's because Ron Paul and that voter are a perfect match.

For that voter, Ron Paul's political position encapsulates all the reasons the supporter entered the voting booth in the first place, and that supporter will continue to vote for him because the supporter believes that he's the best choice.

Would I do the same?

It would depend on the field: are there any other matchups that represents my values, or come close?

2:25 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home