2012 Presidential Election Poll

[El Barto]

You get three votes--one for each match up.  I didn't include a "they all suck" option since one of these nimrods is going to win, regardless. 

[jsem]

Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt

Paul>All

[gmillerdrake]

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

[ResultsMayVary]

Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt

Paul>All

This.

[jsem]

Man do I wish I lived in the US/was a US citizen right now. I could actually go out this xmas breaking support RP, and done some real phone-banking.

[King Postwhore]

Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt

This is how I's go with Mitt my first choice, Paul my second and Obama over Newt third.

[Scheavo]

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.

Obama > Romney

Obama > Newt

Too early for me to say Paul or Obama, as Paul could theoretically throw some interesting compromises on the table that makes him more palatable to me; as for now I'd say Obama as well.

[El Barto]

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.

Though I consider Romney or Gingrich to be a much greater one,  I concur that Obama is a pretty serious threat to what I'd like to see in this country (although my America is probably quite different than GMD's America).  The man is actually shaping up to be a greater threat to civil liberties than Dumbass was,  and that's frightening.  In every instance,  he either supports Dumbass's position,  or actually pushes to take it further.  And sadly,  because he's the chosen one,  nobody wants to call him out on it.  At least if Bush had done some of the things Obama has,  people would be screaming about it.  When Obama tramples on the bill or rights,  nobody pays attention.  That makes him scarier than his opponents, IMO. 

[bosk1]

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

[Scheavo]

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.

Though I consider Romney or Gingrich to be a much greater one,  I concur that Obama is a pretty serious threat to what I'd like to see in this country (although my America is probably quite different than GMD's America).  The man is actually shaping up to be a greater threat to civil liberties than Dumbass was,  and that's frightening.  In every instance,  he either supports Dumbass's position,  or actually pushes to take it further.  And sadly,  because he's the chosen one,  nobody wants to call him out on it.  At least if Bush had done some of the things Obama has,  people would be screaming about it.  When Obama tramples on the bill or rights,  nobody pays attention.  That makes him scarier than his opponents, IMO.

I think we need to ask ourselves how much of that is institutional, and to a degree, outside of the President's hands, regardless if its Paul, or anyone else. And not because I don't think you're right, but because I think to actually solve the issue, we have to get beyond the President.

[emindead]

Man do I wish I lived in the US/was a US citizen right now. I could actually go out this xmas breaking support RP, and done some real phone-banking.

where are you from!?

[MasterShakezula]

Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt

Paul>All

This.

[ColdFireYYZ]

Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt

Paul>All

This is what I went with but I also like Huntsman. I think he'd have a good chance of beating Obama. Paul may, but I'm not sure he has enough support even though I think he's make a great president and is the best one in the race. I just wish I was old enough to vote in this election.

[MetalMike06]

Paul > Obama
Obama > Newt
Obama > Romney

As much as I dislike Obama, having another neocon in office still scares the bejesus out of me. Bush seemed to shy away from them toward the end of his presidency, but the current GOP crop (with a few exceptions obviously) seem even more explicit about diving even deeper in the Middle East.

[antigoon]

Paul > Obama
Newt > Obama
Mitt > Obama

Note: I would only actually want Paul to win out of all those, and there's no way in hell I would EVER vote for Newt or Mitt.

I don't WANT a Newt or Mitt presidency, but at the same time I'm tired of people sweeping all the current civil liberties abuses under the rug just because the president is a Democrat. Is this dumb thinking? Probably, but I'm not voting for Obama, either.

[Sigz]

at the same time I'm tired of people sweeping all the current civil liberties abuses under the rug just because the president is a Democrat.

That's my thinking, but I don't want to replace that with the GOP's absurd warmongering. At this point I'm not even sure I'll vote.

[antigoon]

at the same time I'm tired of people sweeping all the current civil liberties abuses under the rug just because the president is a Democrat.

That's my thinking, but I don't want to replace that with the GOP's absurd warmongering. At this point I'm not even sure I'll vote.

I feel like there would actually be a chance of some legitimate opposition if a Republican president tried to drag us to war again.

[MasterShakezula]

I'm pretty sure the warmongering is a given, whether the White House is painted red or blue.

As long as someone's profiting from it and has deep enough pockets to lobby for it, it's bound to continue.

I do believe that Ron Paul would be the most likely to actually oppose it, should he end up in the White House. 

[Omega]

The way I see it:

Mitt Romney: Flip-flopping, fickle crowd-pleaser
Newt Gingrich: Unassertive, weak, self-absorbed "intellectual"
Barack Obama: Promises, Disappointments, Bush-Round-2, Encroachment upon some constitutional rights, continuing of illegal international military acts
Ron Paul: Intelligent, qualified, assertive, yet some views are a little to far-fetched to my liking

Out of all these, I'd go Ron Paul.

[j]

I would not vote for any of these cock gobblers, but Newt Gingrich is easily the worst of these candidates IMO.

Definitely:
Obama > Gingrich

Less sure about these:
Obama > Romney
Paul > Obama

-J

[chknptpie]

Thanks for making this thread! I'll have to read later after I go fishing

[kirksnosehair]

I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate conservative justices to the bench.  So I'm a lock for Obama.

[bosk1]

I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench.  So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.

[kirksnosehair]

I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench.  So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.

I thought that was pretty clear when you quoted gmillerdrake in the post below:

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

But it's all good 

[kirksnosehair]

I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench.  So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.

But just out of curiosity, do you agree with the Citizens United ruling?

[gmillerdrake]

As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
 

How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.

Dude, I am a complete lightweight when it comes to arguing points for my opinion and points against yours. Way out of my league in P/R so that's why I mainly lurk and read what you all have to say, you're all pretty well versed on both sides of the aisle. I do not spend a great length of time researching all the information I can to discount those I don't like and bolster those I do. Barack Obama is probably a good guy who loves his wife and kids just like I do, and believes in what he's doing.
    The issue is EVERY career politician is the problem from Ron Paul to Obama to Romney and so on. I don't think Americans are really ready to combat career politicians because they are comfortable in their lives for the most part...it's only the extreme fringes of both sides that make all the noise in the news and what not. So until there is a SERIOUS movement (which there is not) to rid Washingon of career politicians who aren't a part of the machine...I will just try and put the part of the machine that fits me best...not a perfect fit...but works better for me in the machine. And anyone other than Obama works better for me.
  Anyway to try and answer your question, I believe in personal responsibility, small Federal governemnt, that the States should be the ones making/shaping most of the laws and should maintain the 'power' while the Federal government does it's most important job and that is protecting the U.S. from our enemies with a STRONG military presence.
  Plain and simple....I'm OLD school American way of thinking...like my Grandfater and his Dad way of thinking......Obama is not.
   

[bosk1]

I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench.  So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.

But just out of curiosity, do you agree with the Citizens United ruling?

That's one that honestly I haven't paid enough attention to to offer a strong opinion on. 

And I think you know this, but I wasn't making fun of your post, by the way.  I read it and said to myself, "that is a short, well-worded post that if I made a few minor changes to make it say basically the exact polar opposite, would state my opinion on the subject pretty well." 

[kirksnosehair]

Yeah, it's cool, man 

[Nick]

I'll vote Paul over Obama or I'll write in Paul. I don't vote for people I don't support.

[Scheavo]

  Anyway to try and answer your question, I believe in personal responsibility, small Federal governemnt, that the States should be the ones making/shaping most of the laws and should maintain the 'power' while the Federal government does it's most important job and that is protecting the U.S. from our enemies with a STRONG military presence.
  Plain and simple....I'm OLD school American way of thinking...like my Grandfater and his Dad way of thinking......Obama is not.

See, this is where I get confused, becuase what's "OLD school American" thinking? 30-60's, so the generation you referenced, implemented things like Social Security, Medicare, and other "Welfare" programs, which these same people massively enjoy/look forward to. The same generation taxed people heavily, build a huge infrastructure, invested heavily in science and development, and heavily regulated Wall Street and corporations. In a lot of ways, Obama is simply fighting for these same principles; Health Care reform isn't something radically new, but an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid; Financial Regulations weren't something new, but in a lot of ways just the reimplementation of regulations enacted after the Great Depression. Nothing he has done has really harmed the military; in fact, he's really increased our presence dramatically in important ways; he got Osama, he killed Al Awlaki (sp?) with a drone strike, and I guess since no terrorist attacks have happened since the took over, according to Bush era republican thinking, he's protected America. We're out of Iraq now, we our military isn't unnecessarily weak, so we are actually able to protect ourselves better should something real materialize.

I get why people would vote for Paul over Obama, but voting to vote out Obama is jumping out of the kettle into the fire.

[antigoon]

Yeah, I don't see how any sane defense hawk (oxymoron?) could be anything but thrilled with Obama's foreign policy.

[PraXis]

Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt
Paul > Obama

[Sigz]

Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt

[King Postwhore]

Yeah sigz, I can't believe it either.

[PraXis]

Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt

I prefer Newt and Mitt over Obama, but I do not think either of them can beat Obama in a general election. They're all puppets of their Federal Reserve masters, anyway, so nothing would change... we'd still have the bullshit bickering of the false left-right paradigm.. global empirical expansion continues.. so does the Unconstitutional Patriot Act...wake up people!