so we can have a chance to choose again in 2008 I appreciate the sentiment that people should vote for a better candidate rather than just giving up in despair because there is no perfect candidate. But I don't understand this motivation. I mean, isn't it the case that Bush (should he unfortunately happen to win the election) has to step down in 2008 whatever happens? So therefore if 2008 is what matters, it seems as if the outcome of this current election is utterly irrelevant, which I thought was the view you were arguing against.
In 2008 there will be no need to vote for a poor candidate on 'anyone but Bush' grounds, because anyone but Bush will happen anyway. So the Democrats will be in a position to choose a better candidate than Kerry or vote independent or whatever. What am I missing here?
(I could completely understand an argument which says, vote Kerry so we have a tolerable four years rather than a terrible four years. But that seems not to be what you're saying here.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 12:40 pm (UTC)I appreciate the sentiment that people should vote for a better candidate rather than just giving up in despair because there is no perfect candidate. But I don't understand this motivation. I mean, isn't it the case that Bush (should he unfortunately happen to win the election) has to step down in 2008 whatever happens? So therefore if 2008 is what matters, it seems as if the outcome of this current election is utterly irrelevant, which I thought was the view you were arguing against.
In 2008 there will be no need to vote for a poor candidate on 'anyone but Bush' grounds, because anyone but Bush will happen anyway. So the Democrats will be in a position to choose a better candidate than Kerry or vote independent or whatever. What am I missing here?
(I could completely understand an argument which says, vote Kerry so we have a tolerable four years rather than a terrible four years. But that seems not to be what you're saying here.)