McCain has said, on more than one occasion, he loves being the underdog. It might even be true. And if Obama continues to post double-digit leads in the polls, being the underdog could turn out just fine for McCain.
Huh?
It's easy. There are many, many people out there who can say that, based on his positions and voting record, Obama is the candidate that most closely matches their own political beliefs. Making such a statement is a far cry from stepping into the booth and actually casting a vote for such an unusual candidate. No one knows the percentage of people who tell pollsters that Obama is their candidate who are struggling with the big question - can they cast that vote.
A small percentage of people are openly struggling. These are brave people who should be commended. They are willing to look themselves in the mirror and ask the tough questions. They are willing to admit to themselves and others that they may not be the person they thought they were. They are willing to work at making themselves the person they want to be. Most of them will be at the poles in November.
There are, however, many more who are taking the ostrich approach - stick your head in the sand and hope the issue goes away. These are the people who just need the tiniest of excuses to stay home in November. After all, if your candidate has a double-digit lead, he's going to win, right? No need to push yourself into that booth to see if you can cast your vote for the cadidate who best matches your political beliefs, regardless of race, religion, or hat size.
So I'm wondering if Obama supporters understand that not voting is essentially the same as casting a vote for McCain, because McCain supporters will be out in force. I'm wondering if the Obama camp is budgeting all the remaining funds for the swing states, or if they are setting up phone banks and preparing for "get out the vote" calls to unexpected trouble spots.
Can someone ahead in the polls really lose an election? How many times has it happened before?
I'm not going to tell you whom to vote for. I'm not even going to tell you who my candidate is. I'm just suggesting that no matter what the outcome, history is being made. If you want to play an active role, all you have to do is vote. Your candidate is depending on you. Your fellow supporters are depending on you. Your nation is depending on you. So figure out what it will take for you to cast your vote for the best candidate for you, and then get it done.
You have two weeks.
2 comments:
Bah!
I hope you'll tell us *after* the election who you voted for.
Me, I want Nader. I live in a state where a vote for Nader would not make a difference (as it didn't those two other times) to the election outcome.
But I have to say that something in me tugs to vote for Obama. The Naderites will kill me now. Ah, well.
Mike,
I have always refused to tell people in advance for whom I might vote. This is partly left over from my stubborn youth when I didn't want to give my family any opportunity to try to convince me my choice was wrong and partly because I don't want my choice to influence others. I really believe that each person should make an independent decision based on what is important to them.
Refusing to tell afterwards is 100% left over from youth. My family can be brutally honest when sharing uninvited opinions of my alleged misdeeds:-). I think one of these days I will just announce at the dinner table that I voted for Nixon and I'm proud of it. I'll do it just before desert so I can ruin some appetites before my favorite course.
Char
Post a Comment