Are There Really Any People In America Who Don't Know Who They Will Vote For? (health care, regular)

[Yooperkat]

Are there really some people on the fence about who they will cast their vote for in November?

It seems like the differences between Romney and Obama are pretty big.

It doesn't seem reasonable that someone could be thinking about voting for Obama one day and then Romney another day.

Are there still people who could be persuaded one way or the other?

[pknopp]

My internal debate is whether to vote for Vermin Supreme or not. There are many that do not really like either choice. Basically, they are the same.

[Little-Acorn]

Are There Really Any People In America Who Don't Know Who They Will Vote For?


Of course.

Unlike the political junkies one finds on forums like this, most normal people pay no attention to politics and politicians, until election day. Government is a small and unimportant part of their lives.

AS IT SHOULD BE.

Unfortunately, there are some people who believe government should be a large and very important part of most people's lives, controlling everything from health care to workplaces to how they use their own land and other formerly-private things. And they will try various devious schemes to make it happen.

For that reason, it is important for regular people to remain on guard against the devious ones.

But that doesn't mean they WILL remain on guard. And so the devious ones sometimes succeed in imposing bigger and bigger government, gradually.

Yes, there are a lot of people who don't know who or what they will vote for. Fortunately for the big-government pushers, who otherwise would be relegated to the unimportance all government personnel deserve.

[trlhiker]

Actually the difference between Romney and Obama are very small. Romney is only pandering for votes. He will continue Obama's presidency whiched continued Bush's presidency.

[mmmjv]

Yes there are and they're the reason the Democrats need to fight back instead of just ignoring it when the right claims for example that there was only one attack under Bush. There are millions of people out there who seriously, and in fact logically (considering that it's never contested) believe that there was in fact only one attack under Bush, not because they're crazy right wingers but because they've heard it over and over and over again and they've never heard it contested. I like to think that at least a few of them have somehow wandered onto one of my posts, or somebody like me. and thought WTF and then realized yeah, there were in fact other attacks.

[ambient]

I'm still not fully decided. If you drop the "Republican good; Democrat bad" simple-mindedness that passes for intelligent discourse around here, the two may actually be more similar than you'd initially think. The biggest difference I see with Romney might be around health care and tax treatments for the rich. The first is ironic, considering his own state history with healthcare policy. I don't yet know enough about his suggested healthcare alternative. The second thing with the rich is a side show to the real meat of the deficit problem.

As far as the wars abroad and foreign policy, I don't see him doing anything drastically different.

I doubt he will have the stomach or support to drastically gut spending and taxes.

The Fed will continue to be...well, the Fed and so what it dies independently of Romney. And that's perhaps where the biggest long-term impact will be.

The harsh reality is that there is no quick cure for the economy. The biggest ingredient required for recovery will be TIME. You can't drastically speed up the rebuilding of personal and public balance sheets, and therefore you can't drastically speed up investment rates.

Romney probably will get elected, and things will pretty much bump along as they have been...a very slow climb up the recovery hill - unless there isn't a big international economic implosion, which he can't control anyways. Check back in half a decade or so.