Please settle a debate

[Master Mason]

As I've said many times before, if it was just McCain versus Obama, i.e., McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP, then I'd have voted for McCain.

Please help me settle a debate.

When you read the quote above, does it mean that if the choice was strictly a choice between Obama and McCain that the OP would have choosen McCain?

 

[Praying Colonel]

Oooh, a spinoff thread. Is this thread going to be to the first one what "The Ropers" was to "Three's Company"?

 

[shirleyb]

Where's the original context? (What thread?)

 

[just4today]

That's how I would interpret it.

 

[wardfamily1]

That's how I read it.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I am clueless about the context of the quote, but I don't know of any other way to interpret it beyond what you said.

 

[wardfamily1]

For the people that are voting NO, could you explain your interpretation please?

 

[Aisling]

As I've said many times before, if it was just McCain versus Obama, i.e., McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP, then I'd have voted for McCain.


To me, it clearly says that if Palin weren't in the picture, the person would vote for McCain.

Since Palin is in the picture, the person has to vote for Obama.

The person first choice is McCain.

 

[legalsea]

Hmmm. It can be read two ways, to my thinking.

One interpretation: It is strickly a choice between Obama and McCain then the person's vote would go to McCain. That is a pretty easy interpretation, albeit possibly misleading.

However, one cannot ignore the modifying statement within the statement, i.e., "if.....McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP". I believe that the original poster should have written, to be more clear:

"As I've said many times before, if it was just McCain versus Obama, i.e., IF McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP, then I'd have voted for McCain."

Recall, the 'i.e.' is (in this case) a type of restatement of the preceding sentence or phrase, an explanation.

Presidential nominees never run 'by themselves'. They always have a vice-presidential running mate. The statement could well mean that the original poster was so disappointed at what appeared to be a lack of judgment by McCain in choosing Palin, that the OP's vote would go to Obama. I doubt the original poster (of the sentence in question) was assuming that each presidental candidate was running literally by himself.

Of course, I may well start a new thread to see if people agree with me. Votes will be counted.

 

[Master Mason]

Hmmm. It can be read two ways, to my thinking.

One interpretation: It is strickly a choice between Obama and McCain then the person's vote would go to McCain. That is a pretty easy interpretation, albeit possibly misleading.

However, one cannot ignore the modifying statement within the statement, i.e., "if.....McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP". I believe that the original poster should have written, to be more clear:

"As I've said many times before, if it was just McCain versus Obama, i.e., IF McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP, then I'd have voted for McCain."

Recall, the 'i.e.' is (in this case) a type of restatement of the preceding sentence or phrase, an explanation.

Presidential nominees never run 'by themselves'. They always have a vice-presidential running mate. The statement could well mean that the original poster was so disappointed at what appeared to be a lack of judgment by McCain in choosing Palin, that the OP's vote would go to Obama. I doubt the original poster (of the sentence in question) was assuming that each presidental candidate was running literally by himself.

Of course, I may well start a new thread to see if people agree with me. Votes will be counted.

I agree but the sentence is also a hypothetical, "IF it was just between" that means we are ignorning everything else.

 

[Kathi OD]

I think the hypothetical statement describes the feelings of more than a handful of voters.

 

[breezy1077]

That's how I read it.

Yup

 

[Carl]

For the people that are voting NO, could you explain your interpretation please?

They are lying. They never were planning on voting for McCain.

 

[Master Mason]

They are lying. They never were planning on voting for McCain.

It wasn't a philisophical question, it was a grammer question.