5 ms·

as Chinese lives in uk, they had been my questions for a long time: why did you guys voted for david cameron, barack obama, (any politician, really) at all? ha

by wangii 7y ago

as Chinese lives in uk, they had been my questions for a long time: why did you guys voted for david cameron, barack obama, (any politician, really) at all? had they ever struggled to pay their bills? do they really feel your pain?

thrwaway69 7y ago
Why would people from UK vote for barrack Obama?
- wangii 7y ago
  barrack Obama was super popular in UK. the day he was elected, his speech was played everywhere in Manchester, over and over again. my questions were for US voters as well.
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    Yeah it is clear now but I am wondering if you edited the comment or I just misread.
    - wangii 7y ago
      no, I didn't.
dluan 7y ago
Democracy isn't just David Cameron and Obama, when you go to vote for them, you also cast votes on local precinct leaders, local referendums, and local positions like school board and sheriff. In some places, you might even know those people personally.
- wangii 7y ago
  correct me if I was wrong: the turn out ratio in local elections is very low, to the degree i feel meaningless.
  - dluan 7y ago
    It depends how you define low. The US has low voter turnout by total population (~55%), but very high turnout by percentage of voters registered. Many states have artificial obstacles in place to suppress registration and turnout. Other states like Oregon and Washington have implemented mail-in ballot voting and automatic registration which makes voting more accessible, and have higher turnout (72%). It's certainly not meaningless.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Turnout in local elections is very low. That doesn't make you meaningless. If you vote in local elections, it makes you more meaningful, because your vote has more influence.
rossdavidh 7y ago
Good question. There are certain professions, and really only a very few, that prepare one well for the task of campaigning for office. Lawyer, military officer, business executive, actor, a few others. All of them are from the professional class, nowadays, with the partial exception of military officer. Once upon a time, a lot more power was held by local politicians, who were often from the working class. Over time, more and more of that became centralized, and the ability to speak well in public is not something that even most professional class jobs prepare you for. Put a programmer up against a lawyer or a CEO, and the programmer will not do well. We not only have mostly professional class politicians, they are overwhelmingly from only a few of those professions, because there are only a few that prepare you to speak, from a script, to a large group of strangers, staying on message and keeping your message short and clear.
- wangii 7y ago
  understand. it turns out to be a marketing problem.
hogFeast 7y ago
Hahaha, has Xi Jingping felt yours? The guy is a billionaire who literally doesn't live in the same world as anyone he rules over. Thank god that people vote for people like Cameron and Obama. Both are examples of politics working. Competent, middle-of-road types, not ideological, willing to compromise, intelligent...the aim of politics is to further the aims of the people (both were democratically elected) and do so with competent leadership. They are both examples of processes built up over centuries working (even Trump is, in terms of personal values he is disgusting...but this is a democratic choice of the people, and seeing the checks and balances of the American system jumping into action is very reassuring). Politics isn't a suffering competition where we all get really angry about the bad things that happened to us, and compete to see who has suffered the most grief. A politics built on jealousy, pain, and suffering is no politics at all (for references, Chinese history is the perfect example of this...Mao achieved something that Hitler never could, he convinced ordinary people to murder their neighbours in cold blood, how? Jealousy, pain, and suffering...works every time).
- wangii 7y ago
  there is really no need to make your point by attacking Mr. Xi, which I'm not a big fan of. However, according to his resume, he had been in pretty hard condition when he was young. in this sense, there is a chance he 'feels' the pains of people he rules more than his counterparts in the west. you are absolutely right about "Politics isn't a suffering competition", but I'd argue it's a reasonable(even good) starting point: only when you want no one no more people suffering the same as you, you are motivated to play the game of politics. on the example of Mao, I have no problem with your opinion. however I'd like to point out you simply couldn't use it as 'fact' to support your argument. it only weakens your position.
jancsika 7y ago
What do the 2nd and 3rd question have to do with the 1st? I don't see a clear connection because: 1. the current U.S. president won without having either of those attributes you imply are worth mentioning 2. Bernie Sanders hits both of your imagined electability points and couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton to gain the Democratic nomination last election. 3. Bill Clinton, probably the epitome of "relatable and struggled," did beat George H. Bush who was the opposite of that. But George H. had already been president for four years! 4. OMG Sarah Palin! It's as if the universe read your question and traveled back in time to deliver the perfect counterexample to your implication. Remember that Republican voters absolutely loved her folksy ways, her seemingly unrehearsed speeches, and her professed rejection of PC culture and Democratic elitism. She was unfortunately so much like the average voter that she lacked the basic competency necessary to run. That was noticed by the voting public and it did help tank McCain's campaign. So yes-- relatability and personal story are an inescapable part of American politics. Also, major triads probably make up a significant proportion of Mozart's symphonies. But if one implies that's all there is to talk about in either case it doesn't show an understanding of the subject matter. Edit: protect against irrelevant digressions.
- wangii 7y ago
  Bernie Sanders was one of my favorite politician, along with Ron Paul(apart from his monetarily policy). They seems to be 'relatable'. my questions are really about you, as voters, not campaign strategist. your analytical response reminds me the episode of West Wing, about 'presidential'.
zhdc1 7y ago
There are a lot of comments that are based on the idea that people vote rationally, but I'll describe what I saw. The federal government has very little influence on how people live their daily lives. Because many people no longer believe that elections matter, they're more than happy to vote for the most entertaining candidate.
goatinaboat 7y ago
had they ever struggled to pay their bills? It’s a good question. The last genuine PM we had was John Major, the son of a gardener who studied at night school while working for his father during the day. Before him was Maggie Thatcher, an industrial chemist by trade. All since then have been career politicians from the political class. Blair went to Fettes, the “Scottish Eton”. Cameron and Boris were classmates at Eton and Oxford. Even Jeremy Corbyn, supposed champion of the Workers never worked a day in his life. He will likely be followed as leader of the Labour Party by Sir Kier or Lady Nugee.
- wangii 7y ago
  that's my issue. I don't think most of people here no longer need to worry about money, yet the leaders from either sides never worked a day in their lives. how could you vote for them?
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    how could you vote for them? Only because you can only vote for the candidates on the ballot paper and the two main parties have already been captured. There are other parties of course, but they are loons or worse. Ironically Boris has done much more real work in his life than Corbyn, but neither has very much in common with the average voter-taxpayer.

by wangii 7y ago

thrwaway69 7y ago

Why would people from UK vote for barrack Obama?

wangii 7y ago
barrack Obama was super popular in UK. the day he was elected, his speech was played everywhere in Manchester, over and over again. my questions were for US voters as well.
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  Yeah it is clear now but I am wondering if you edited the comment or I just misread.
  - wangii 7y ago
    no, I didn't.

dluan 7y ago

Democracy isn't just David Cameron and Obama, when you go to vote for them, you also cast votes on local precinct leaders, local referendums, and local positions like school board and sheriff. In some places, you might even know those people personally.

wangii 7y ago
correct me if I was wrong: the turn out ratio in local elections is very low, to the degree i feel meaningless.
- dluan 7y ago
  It depends how you define low. The US has low voter turnout by total population (~55%), but very high turnout by percentage of voters registered. Many states have artificial obstacles in place to suppress registration and turnout. Other states like Oregon and Washington have implemented mail-in ballot voting and automatic registration which makes voting more accessible, and have higher turnout (72%). It's certainly not meaningless.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Turnout in local elections is very low. That doesn't make you meaningless. If you vote in local elections, it makes you more meaningful, because your vote has more influence.

rossdavidh 7y ago

Good question. There are certain professions, and really only a very few, that prepare one well for the task of campaigning for office. Lawyer, military officer, business executive, actor, a few others. All of them are from the professional class, nowadays, with the partial exception of military officer. Once upon a time, a lot more power was held by local politicians, who were often from the working class. Over time, more and more of that became centralized, and the ability to speak well in public is not something that even most professional class jobs prepare you for. Put a programmer up against a lawyer or a CEO, and the programmer will not do well. We not only have mostly professional class politicians, they are overwhelmingly from only a few of those professions, because there are only a few that prepare you to speak, from a script, to a large group of strangers, staying on message and keeping your message short and clear.

wangii 7y ago
understand. it turns out to be a marketing problem.

hogFeast 7y ago

Hahaha, has Xi Jingping felt yours? The guy is a billionaire who literally doesn't live in the same world as anyone he rules over. Thank god that people vote for people like Cameron and Obama. Both are examples of politics working. Competent, middle-of-road types, not ideological, willing to compromise, intelligent...the aim of politics is to further the aims of the people (both were democratically elected) and do so with competent leadership. They are both examples of processes built up over centuries working (even Trump is, in terms of personal values he is disgusting...but this is a democratic choice of the people, and seeing the checks and balances of the American system jumping into action is very reassuring). Politics isn't a suffering competition where we all get really angry about the bad things that happened to us, and compete to see who has suffered the most grief. A politics built on jealousy, pain, and suffering is no politics at all (for references, Chinese history is the perfect example of this...Mao achieved something that Hitler never could, he convinced ordinary people to murder their neighbours in cold blood, how? Jealousy, pain, and suffering...works every time).

wangii 7y ago
there is really no need to make your point by attacking Mr. Xi, which I'm not a big fan of. However, according to his resume, he had been in pretty hard condition when he was young. in this sense, there is a chance he 'feels' the pains of people he rules more than his counterparts in the west. you are absolutely right about "Politics isn't a suffering competition", but I'd argue it's a reasonable(even good) starting point: only when you want no one no more people suffering the same as you, you are motivated to play the game of politics. on the example of Mao, I have no problem with your opinion. however I'd like to point out you simply couldn't use it as 'fact' to support your argument. it only weakens your position.

jancsika 7y ago

What do the 2nd and 3rd question have to do with the 1st? I don't see a clear connection because: 1. the current U.S. president won without having either of those attributes you imply are worth mentioning 2. Bernie Sanders hits both of your imagined electability points and couldn't even beat Hillary Clinton to gain the Democratic nomination last election. 3. Bill Clinton, probably the epitome of "relatable and struggled," did beat George H. Bush who was the opposite of that. But George H. had already been president for four years! 4. OMG Sarah Palin! It's as if the universe read your question and traveled back in time to deliver the perfect counterexample to your implication. Remember that Republican voters absolutely loved her folksy ways, her seemingly unrehearsed speeches, and her professed rejection of PC culture and Democratic elitism. She was unfortunately so much like the average voter that she lacked the basic competency necessary to run. That was noticed by the voting public and it did help tank McCain's campaign. So yes-- relatability and personal story are an inescapable part of American politics. Also, major triads probably make up a significant proportion of Mozart's symphonies. But if one implies that's all there is to talk about in either case it doesn't show an understanding of the subject matter. Edit: protect against irrelevant digressions.

wangii 7y ago
Bernie Sanders was one of my favorite politician, along with Ron Paul(apart from his monetarily policy). They seems to be 'relatable'. my questions are really about you, as voters, not campaign strategist. your analytical response reminds me the episode of West Wing, about 'presidential'.

zhdc1 7y ago

There are a lot of comments that are based on the idea that people vote rationally, but I'll describe what I saw. The federal government has very little influence on how people live their daily lives. Because many people no longer believe that elections matter, they're more than happy to vote for the most entertaining candidate.

goatinaboat 7y ago

had they ever struggled to pay their bills? It’s a good question. The last genuine PM we had was John Major, the son of a gardener who studied at night school while working for his father during the day. Before him was Maggie Thatcher, an industrial chemist by trade. All since then have been career politicians from the political class. Blair went to Fettes, the “Scottish Eton”. Cameron and Boris were classmates at Eton and Oxford. Even Jeremy Corbyn, supposed champion of the Workers never worked a day in his life. He will likely be followed as leader of the Labour Party by Sir Kier or Lady Nugee.

wangii 7y ago
that's my issue. I don't think most of people here no longer need to worry about money, yet the leaders from either sides never worked a day in their lives. how could you vote for them?
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  how could you vote for them? Only because you can only vote for the candidates on the ballot paper and the two main parties have already been captured. There are other parties of course, but they are loons or worse. Ironically Boris has done much more real work in his life than Corbyn, but neither has very much in common with the average voter-taxpayer.