Poll
Question:
Which presidential candidate would/will you vote for this upcoming election?
Option 1: Barack Hussein Obama II / Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr (Democrat)
Option 2: Willard Mitt Romney / Paul Davis Ryan (Republican)
Option 3: Gary Earl Johnson / James P. Gray (Libertarian)
Option 4: Jill Stein / Cheri Honkala (Green)
Option 5: Write-In (Other)
Option 6: Null Vote
The elections are nearing, and the debates are about to begin. Just curious what people's stances are.
From the bias and comfort of the 4 main candidates' propaganda, here's their respective web pages:
http://www.barackoba...rce=primary-nav (http://"http://www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav")
http://www.mittromney.com/issues (http://"http://www.mittromney.com/issues")
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues (http://"http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues")
http://www.jillstein.org/issues (http://"http://www.jillstein.org/issues")
There's also a lot more candidates; however, they're not available on the ballot on enough states to possibly win. Therefore, they won't get the 270 electoral votes necessary to win. Yay for broken systems!
Obama and Romney are in the ballots for all 50 states (538 electoral). Gary Johnson is available on the ballot for 47 states (515 electoral), and Jill Stein is for 39 states (448 electoral).
You can also take certain political tests if you're lazy; though, I'd advise doing your research and critically think for yourself.
http://www.isidewith.com/ (http://"http://www.isidewith.com/")
Voting is done in secret.
Roseanne Barr is also running. (Yes, THAT Roseanne). I had the misfortune of hearing her rendition of the national anthem live on WLW-AM because the Padres were hosting the Reds in that game.
I think my answer to this question is fairly obvious. I didn't support Romney in the primary, but I want Obama defeated and Romney is the only candidate who can possibly oust him. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote to re-elect Obama.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
Roseanne Barr is also running. (Yes, THAT Roseanne). I had the misfortune of hearing her rendition of the national anthem live on WLW-AM because the Padres were hosting the Reds in that game.
I think my answer to this question is fairly obvious. I didn't support Romney in the primary, but I want Obama defeated and Romney is the only candidate who can possibly oust him. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote to re-elect Obama.
Obama's record has been horrendous in every category — economic, debt, national security, military strength, energy dependence, social cohesiveness, religious liberty, race relations, health care and business. America is significantly worse off than it was when Obama took office. It will be extremely difficult for Obama to overcome the reality of his terrible record with his fictional whitewashing of that record.
Americans haven't given up on America yet. They recoil at Obama's socialist rantings, redistributionism, class warfare, race baiting, apologies for America, attacks on business and domestic energy producers, and bizarre and offensive statements that "the private sector is fine" and that the death of our ambassador was "a bump in the road."
I'll be voting for Obama not because I think Obama is particularly amazing, but because Romney is absolutely terrible, and at this point let's just stick with the plan in motion to see the thing through. If we still haven't made a lot of progress in four years, I'll probably be voting Republican next go around- I'm of the belief that both economic policies can work but we really just need to stick with one of them for at least eight years. Definitely by the end of eight there needs to be a decent amount of progress, though.
It's funny - I hear all these people who say we're collectively worse off with Obama in office, but I can't find anybody who actually says (and can prove) they specifically are in worse shape than they were four years ago. My brother-in-law for instance is a diehard Romney supporter. He's also a contractor. Four years ago he was building condos, barely scraping by. Now he's building custom homes again and just bought a new car but insists that Obama has screwed him over. He can't tell you why, but by golly Obama has screwed him over.
Quote from: Beltway on September 27, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
Roseanne Barr is also running. (Yes, THAT Roseanne). I had the misfortune of hearing her rendition of the national anthem live on WLW-AM because the Padres were hosting the Reds in that game.
I think my answer to this question is fairly obvious. I didn't support Romney in the primary, but I want Obama defeated and Romney is the only candidate who can possibly oust him. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote to re-elect Obama.
Obama's record has been horrendous in every category — economic, debt, national security, military strength, energy dependence, social cohesiveness, religious liberty, race relations, health care and business. America is significantly worse off than it was when Obama took office. It will be extremely difficult for Obama to overcome the reality of his terrible record with his fictional whitewashing of that record.
He's doing a good job campaigning, though. I think a lot of people are going to blindly vote for him, without doing research.
@ hbelkin: I'm voting for Gary Johnson, knowing that it's not going to really influence much; however, it's not a waste of a vote. If people voted more honestly, our election outcomes would be much more different. Due to the nature of the electoral college system, your vote really doesn't matter unless you live in a swing state. I live in liberal Washingotn, so voting for Romney is as fruitless as voting for some write-in candidate.
Quote from: Beltway on September 27, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
Roseanne Barr is also running. (Yes, THAT Roseanne). I had the misfortune of hearing her rendition of the national anthem live on WLW-AM because the Padres were hosting the Reds in that game.
I think my answer to this question is fairly obvious. I didn't support Romney in the primary, but I want Obama defeated and Romney is the only candidate who can possibly oust him. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote to re-elect Obama.
Obama's record has been horrendous in every category — economic, debt, national security, military strength, energy dependence, social cohesiveness, religious liberty, race relations, health care and business. America is significantly worse off than it was when Obama took office. It will be extremely difficult for Obama to overcome the reality of his terrible record with his fictional whitewashing of that record.
Americans haven't given up on America yet. They recoil at Obama's socialist rantings, redistributionism, class warfare, race baiting, apologies for America, attacks on business and domestic energy producers, and bizarre and offensive statements that "the private sector is fine" and that the death of our ambassador was "a bump in the road."
I don't see Congress doing anything besides blocking everything the President is trying to do. Funny how no one discusses that.
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 09:54:46 PM
It's funny - I hear all these people who say we're collectively worse off with Obama in office, but I can't find anybody who actually says (and can prove) they specifically are in worse shape than they were four years ago.
Where to you live ... Chicago? Or somewhere like that?
Arizona- one of the hardest hit states by the recession. My brother in law is from Idaho, which was hit really hard by the housing crisis.
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 09:54:46 PM
I'll be voting for Obama not because I think Obama is particularly amazing, but because Romney is absolutely terrible...
This election should be viewed as a referendum on Obama, plain and simple.
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 09:59:23 PM
Arizona- one of the hardest hit states by the recession. My brother in law is from Idaho, which was hit really hard by the housing crisis.
IOW, they are in much worse shape than they were four years ago.
Obamney/Ridin 2012.
QuoteThis election should be viewed as a referendum on Obama, plain and simple. That's the way I view it. Like I said, Romney wasn't my first choice for a GOP nominee, but he's not Obama.
I figure even though Obama hasn't been as amazing as hoped, in a contest between two uninspiring people I just assume stick with the incumbent, especially when we have a hole to pull ourselves out of because a second term president is more likely to have the balls to try something innovative to fix problems. As a Democrat, I almost certainly would have voted for Bush in 2004 for the same reason.
QuoteIOW, they are in much worse shape than they were four years ago.
People say that, but I have yet to find an Arizonan that can tell me how they, personally, in worse shape than they were when Obama took office. There are people who were unemployed four years ago that are still unemployed, and that sucks, but it's not actually worse than it was four years ago.
And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna blow up like my Facebook feed does sometimes. :-D
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 10:06:30 PM
QuoteIOW, they are in much worse shape than they were four years ago.
People say that, but I have yet to find an Arizonan that can tell me how they, personally, in worse shape than they were when Obama took office. There are people who were unemployed four years ago that are still unemployed, and that sucks, but it's not actually worse than it was four years ago.
Look at all the empty storefronts, the empty houses, the much higher unemployment rate.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:09:03 PM
And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna blow up like my Facebook feed does sometimes. :-D
Either that, or the moderators will blow it up, i.e. send it to File 13.
QuoteLook at all the empty storefronts, the empty houses, the much higher unemployment rate.
Those storefronts were empty four years ago too, and the housing market is indisputably coming back in Arizona. According to the BLS, Arizona was at 9.9% unemployment in 2009 (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk09.htm) and is now down to 8.3% (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm). Yeah, it would be nice if that number were lower, but you can't say it's worse than it was because it's not.
Look- you dislike Obama. Is your situation worse than it was four years ago? Are you paying more in taxes? Have you been directly negatively affected? Do you have anything less than you did in 2009? If you have, then fine, vote for Romney. I would too if I were you. My life isn't worse than it used to be- in fact since I can now be on my parents' healthcare plan and pay them every month until I graduate and get a career job, I'm saving money. My grad assistantship is funded by a federal grant that was a direct result of the stimulus. I'd be stupid to vote against that.
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 10:15:25 PM
QuoteLook at all the empty storefronts, the empty houses, the much higher unemployment rate.
Those storefronts were empty four years ago too, and the housing market is indisputably coming back in Arizona. According to the BLS, Arizona was at 9.9% unemployment in 2009 (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk09.htm) and is now down to 8.3% (http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm). Yeah, it would be nice if that number were lower, but you can't say it's worse than it was because it's not.
The national unemployment rate is much worse than it was 4 years ago... 43 months over 8.0%, the worst since the Great Depression. MILLIONS of Americans are much worse off.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 09:54:46 PM
I'll be voting for Obama not because I think Obama is particularly amazing, but because Romney is absolutely terrible...
This election should be viewed as a referendum on Obama, plain and simple.
And this has nothing to do with it?
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. Mitch McConnell
This should be a referendum on the "do nothing" Congress, IMO.
Nuff said.
I agree with you US71 but I am in Illinois north of I-72 where even the smaller towns are Obama Country.............I want to know what its like to be the only Obama supporter in Arkansas US 71!
And Obama is a big proponant of better infrastructure of all kinds
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:09:03 PM
And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna disagree with my dumb arse.
I do not think anybody can make things right except ourselves. I am writing in a vote cause I think we need to voice and show both Democrats and Republicans that their constant war needs to STOP and it is time we Americans dump the whole party system once and for all! It seems that both parties are a secular religon and nobody wants to ask the people they represent what they want! We are who they work for and not the party belief.
We can only change things NOT Obama, NOT Romney, or our Congress.
One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.
Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.
Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?
I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2012, 10:32:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:09:03 PM
And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna disagree with my dumb arse.
Creative editing from one of the trolls.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:09:03 PM
And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna blow up like my Facebook feed does sometimes. :-D
I don't have facebook, but that's another thread entirely...(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Fracist.jpg&hash=45fb0a95df547f067236876bbc5abed0ec604b30)
I just don't understand the "not being Obama" argument; it seems like one helluva weak platform to me. That's like a firefighter showing up at a burning building and saying "I'm gonna put out that fire, and I'm gonna do it by not, myself, being a fire."
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 10:37:19 PM
One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.
Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.
Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?
I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.
OK, I'll bite and be honest, Romney doesn't knock my socks off, and I'm not going to vote for Obama, so it's Romney with a uuuugh.
I'm going with the Ohio growing to love Kasich mantra. Ohioans *hated* Kasich. He was awful, he personally kills unions, negroes, queers, and bus occupants. Except now he doesn't. And Ohio is growing faster than the nation as a whole. Even though Issue 2 (killing unions) got stuffed. which was supposed to put us back in the dark ages.
As long as we keep all the unnecessary politics in this thread and don't start personal attacks, I'm inclined to let it play out. Those of us who have made up our minds won't be swayed by anything said in here. Those of us who haven't, won't be using this thread to make that decision, but are smart enough to wait for debates and other actual political material instead of secondhand hearsay and emotional appeals. I'm in the latter camp. I'd rather not vote for either major candidate, but I haven't found anyone I actually do want to vote for. I'm hoping either major candidate sounds smart in the debates, but I get the feeling they're too politically entrenched, and that the outsiders (Johnson, Stein) are too far outside and thus playing on that instead of having sustainable positions. (Third parties tend to have very weak foreign policy, for example, and many social policies are based on idealism without considering practical implications of cases where they have already been implemented in other First World societies.) I'm considering writing in Tim Brown because he at least has the courage to tell it like it is.
Romney didn't "donate" 4 million dollars. Being a Mormon, he is *required* to tithe. That is not charity, that is club dues.
Quote from: 6a on September 27, 2012, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 10:37:19 PM
One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.
Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.
Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?
I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.
OK, I'll bite and be honest, Romney doesn't knock my socks off, and I'm not going to vote for Obama, so it's Romney with a uuuugh.
I'm going with the Ohio growing to love Kasich mantra. Ohioans *hated* Kasich. He was awful, he personally kills unions, negroes, queers, and bus occupants. Except now he doesn't. And Ohio is growing faster than the nation as a whole. Even though Issue 2 (killing unions) got stuffed. which was supposed to put us back in the dark ages.
Quote from: 6a on September 27, 2012, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 10:37:19 PM
One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.
Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.
Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?
I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.
OK, I'll bite and be honest, Romney doesn't knock my socks off, and I'm not going to vote for Obama, so it's Romney with a uuuugh.
I'm going with the Ohio growing to love Kasich mantra. Ohioans *hated* Kasich. He was awful, he personally kills unions, negroes, queers, and bus occupants. Except now he doesn't. And Ohio is growing faster than the nation as a whole. Even though Issue 2 (killing unions) got stuffed. which was supposed to put us back in the dark ages.
Watch the language! No slurs.
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
Obamney/Ridin 2012.
Are you insane!? Clearly the correct choice is Robama/Byan 2012.
Quote from: corco on September 27, 2012, 10:37:19 PMThen what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?
I have been thinking about the same thing, but less from the perspective of the White House changing hands in 2016 and more in terms of what Romney can actually do if he is elected. (What he wants to do is a cipher but, from my perspective, his instincts are bad.)
Treating the presidential election and the various Senate races as a correlated system, I believe the likeliest scenario, assuming Romney wins, is that the Republicans will also take a very narrow majority in the Senate that is not filibuster-proof. This scenario implies at minimum another two years of a do-nothing Congress, with the largest changes happening in the judicial branch depending on whether Romney gets to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.
I am not sure whether Romney would be able to get "repeal and replace" of Obamacare through a Senate filibuster even under this favorable scenario. At minimum the "replace" part would have to be substantial.
I can see the Senate continuing to function as the primary obstacle to the Tea Party agenda, which, aside from Congressional vote-counting considerations, is only marginally more likely to get traction under Romney than under Obama because Romney is an establishment Republican.
Assuming an Obama victory, and also treating the Senate races and the presidential election as a connected system, the prospects for forward movement are somewhat better. I would expect the Democrats to keep their majority in the Senate, but not for it to become filibuster-proof, while the Republicans keep a shaved majority in the House. (Nancy Pelosi has been talking up the possibility of getting her old job back, but I tend to agree with
Slate's analysis that this is improbable.)
The underlying point is that partisan acrimony breeds gridlock and it will be quite bad regardless of who wins the presidency.
Moving on to the narrow question of what happens in 2016, my personal view is that the election then will be the Republicans' to lose if Obama wins in 2012. Obama has no clear heir apparent, and the reality that "Hope and change" was a sales pitch for incremental progressivism paints other Democrats into a corner in terms of developing a following among the base. Hillary will be too old to run successfully.
On the Republican side, McConnell and Daniels share Hillary's disadvantage. I think the likeliest eventual Republican candidate is a young Republican governor (say Bobby Jindal, but emphatically not Nikki Haley, and probably not Chris Christie) looking for promotion. (The governor of my own state, Sam Brownback, is reputed to be grooming himself for another run at the presidency, but I don't think it will happen in light of the dismal results he got on his first go-around in 2008.) I would also expect the ex-governor candidate to be fluent, genuinely popular, and from a
bona fide red state, because after Rick Perry's flubs and an assumed Romney loss to Obama in the 2012 election cycle, the Republican kingmakers will be really leery of tongue-tied red-staters and blue-state Republicans who leave office with sub-40% approval ratings. (Jindal, whom I think is the likeliest prospect, does have baggage--notably his endorsement of creationist textbooks in Louisiana public schools--but I think he is nimble-footed enough to throw the creationists under the bus the same way Obama had to throw Reverend "God damn America" Wright under the bus to prove he was not too black to be the rainbow president.)
QuoteI guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.
I'd say that 2016 will be a Republican shoo-in even if Obama wins now and makes very substantial progress. I tend to agree with your analysis that the Republicans in 2012 find themselves in the same position that the Democrats did in 2004 when there was the possibility of a Kerry victory: a mediocre candidate winning now ruining the prospects of a much better candidate four years later. I believe there is absolutely no precedent (and certainly no recent one) of the White House remaining with the same party when the sitting president is deposed by a primary challenger (the last time this came close to happening was with Carter in 1980, and Carter still won the nomination but lost the election). In the last thirty years one-term presidencies have become the exception. It is now the norm to run for four with an option on eight, and the Republicans I know who don't have to make a huge public display of drinking the Kool-Aid acknowledge that Romney is just a little bit too sucky for a full eight years. Obama, on the other hand, can accomplish much in terms of foreign policy (where he is much more sure-footed than Romney) even if Congress is gridlocked.
Nobody really appeals to me.
Other than the FDR & Truman years, the Democratic party has never held the presidency for more than two terms. So if Obama gets re-elected, the Republicans have history (for a change) going for them in 2016.
Quote from: US71 on September 27, 2012, 11:30:39 PM
Watch the language! No slurs.
Just when I thought the thickest of sarcasm would work here I am yet again amazed. I'm not going to apologize, because that's what the candidates do, but I'll be glad to bow out of anything other than road discussions.
Honestly, I thought the slurs emphasized the point you were trying to make and were therefore useful- if they were random I could see the complaint but they actually helped lend credibility to what you were saying in this case.
Everyone is mostly playing nice here so far, but with two months to the election we have ample opportunity for this to go down the gutter. I'd prefer to not let it get to that point.
Political content has always been against the rules for this reason, except to the extent that it's required to discuss roads.