2012 Presidential Election Poll

[rumborak]

I'm almost sorry we even asked.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

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!

Wasn't who you'd think would win, but who'd you vote for.

[jsem]

Maybe he thinks, as both Mitt and Newt would just expand the foreign policy adventures, they'd be worse.

[lordxizor]

I'd go for Obama over all of them. Romney is really the only Rep. candidate I could consider voting for since he's pretty moderate.

[hefdaddy42]

Obama over the lot.

[PetrucciFan99]

I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.

[emindead]

Due to the events in Va. it would be fun to make a new poll: Mitt vs. Ron.

[The King in Crimson]

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.

This is how I voted. I'm not so much a RP supporter, in fact, I find some of his libertarian views fairly repellent, but... he'd be a breath of fresh air mostly for his seemingly anti-warmongering vibe. I'm tired of bombing the shit out of other countries and invading places at the drop of the hat and his slamming the hammer down on Bachmann was goddamn satisfying to watch. If the only thing he manages to accomplish is to keep us from bombing some random ass country then I'd consider him a success, because honestly, most of his other policies I would see getting squashed during legislation.

Obama... well, I haven't been a fan of his politics for the past year and while I wouldn't be devastated if he won, I think it'd end up being more of the same shit: deadlocked Congress and watered down versions of good bills.

[Scheavo]

I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.

"Conservative" judges make just as radical of decisions as any "liberal" judge. Citizens United is an amazing example of where conservative judges do something extremely radical, and which has huge ramifications for our society.

[El Barto]

I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.

"Conservative" judges make just as radical of decisions as any "liberal" judge. Citizens United is an amazing example of where conservative judges do something extremely radical, and which has huge ramifications for our society.

Absolutely.  People tend to overlook that their job is to interpret the constitution; necessary because it's seldom black and white.  The notion that the conservative bloc supports the constitution and the liberal wing just does whatever they fell like is silly. 

[William Wallace]

Ron Paul. But if he gets knocked out of the primary, I'm done with the GOP. I'll throw my vote into that black hole known as the Libertarian Party before tipping my hat to Romney or Gingrich.

[kirksnosehair]

I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.

"Conservative" judges make just as radical of decisions as any "liberal" judge. Citizens United is an amazing example of where conservative judges do something extremely radical, and which has huge ramifications for our society.

Absolutely.  People tend to overlook that their job is to interpret the constitution; necessary because it's seldom black and white.  The notion that the conservative bloc supports the constitution and the liberal wing just does whatever they fell like is silly.

I've always said that the phrase "activist court" or "legislating from the bench" is just another way of saying "Court that makes decisions I don't like"

Interpreting the constitution is NEVER going to be a completely objective process because there is no such thing as 100% objectivity.  Every justice has biases.   

[rumborak]

I wholeheartedly agree, kirk. Saying that gay couples should be able to marry isn't activist; it's a consistent application of the principle of equality as put down in the Constitution. Now, of course the conservative think tanks know it would be virtually impossible to push through an amendment that "rectifies" the situation in their view, so instead they rather try to appoint judges that disregard certain aspects of the Constitution in their judgments.

rumborak

[Tick]

I think the answer depends solely on the state of the economy at the time of the election. If its improving, no doubt Obama gets reelected. If its worse then it is right now I believe he could lose to any one of the candidates. America votes alot based on fear and what they hope might improve things.

[El Barto]

I think the answer depends solely on the state of the economy at the time of the election. If its improving, no doubt Obama gets reelected. If its worse then it is right now I believe he could lose to any one of the candidates. America votes alot based on fear and what they hope might improve things.

I don't think so.  For one thing,  I don't think any of the GOP candidates will have anything to offer other than going back to Bush-era economic principles,  and nobody would call that a good plan.  Also,  I think people will want to give him more time to see if he works it out.  Of course he has precious little to do with anything,  but as you pointed out,  people want to associate the economy with the dipshit in charge.  In this case,  he'll focus on what growth there is and use the Bush '06 stay the course playbook. 

Regardless,  none of the current crop of maniacs are strong enough to beat an incumbent president. 

[rumborak]

Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.

rumborak

[Tick]

Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.

rumborak

They will vote Romney over Obama, in a heartbeat. Evangelicals, HATE, Obama to the core. To Evangelicals, Obama is pretty much the devil.

[kirksnosehair]

Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.

rumborak

They will vote Romney over Obama, in a heartbeat. Evangelicals, HATE, Obama to the core. To Evangelicals, Obama is pretty much the devil.

Absolutely correct.  Romney's biggest hurdle is his Mormonism.  Will evangelicals actually go out and vote FOR (or AGAINST Obama) him in a general election?  I'm still not sure

[gmillerdrake]

Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.

rumborak

They will vote Romney over Obama, in a heartbeat. Evangelicals, HATE, Obama to the core. To Evangelicals, Obama is pretty much the devil.

Absolutely correct.  Romney's biggest hurdle is his Mormonism.  Will evangelicals actually go out and vote FOR (or AGAINST Obama) him in a general election?  I'm still not sure

I will. I find it funny how much emphasis is put on any candidates (or politicians for that matter) 'religious beliefs' when if you take a look at our culture, what Washington D.C. has evolved into...with rampant greed and corruption and an obvious big middle finger extended out to 'normal' Americans.....it is VERY clear that those in congress with the real 'power' and who actually 'control' what's being written into law have ABSOLUTELY NO characteristics of what most major religions teach...not a single one of them, and actually do all they can to make sure religious values are absent from what is instituted into law.
  To try and say you won't vote for this guys cuz he's Mormon or that guy because he's Muslim is a joke....because NONE of them are practicing what thier religion teaches. And for the limited few who have made it to Washington as a Representative that may be good, honest, decent people....they are over run and dominated by the career thiefs and criminals that occupy our government and eventually pull an Anakin and give in to the Dark Side.
  So, I'm probably considered an 'Evangelical' although tags and labels like that are very broad.....and I will vote for Romney if that's who is running against Obama....I am not voting for someone to Pastor me, I have one of those I love and trust. I'm voting for a LEADER...and Obama makes it clear to me every day that passes that he is FAR from a leader. Not his fault, some men just can't do it and he's one of those men. On to the next one to see if he/she can.....

[kirksnosehair]

To be clear, Gary, I could not possibly care less what someone's religious beliefs are as long as I believe they will fairly and accurately represent my personal political philosophy and worldview when they are elected.  What church they attend on Sunday is none of my concern.

But there are some folks on another message board that I visit who are Evangelicals (along with at least one Catholic person) who have told me flat out that they could never cast a vote for a Mormon candidate.  I guess I understand that to some extent, but I think it's pretty strange when these people cast votes for third party candidates effectively siphoning off support for the candidate best positioned to defeat the guy (Obama) that they claim they want to beat.

[gmillerdrake]

but I think it's pretty strange when these people cast votes for third party candidates effectively siphoning off support for the candidate best positioned to defeat the guy (Obama) that they claim they want to beat.

I've never understood this either.

I personally don't think the % of "Evangelicals" out there that won't vote for Romney is very high....despite what the media will have you believe. Those people who will not vote for him because of him being Mormon are part of an extreme fringe of political view. Unfortunately the extreme fringes from both the Right and the Left make most of the noise therefor get most of the news coverage and hype.
  I believe that most Americans are like minded people who's cares/values/beliefs etc. are pretty much similar....with maybe some very minor differences but nothing to the point of poloarization that Congress/Washington is perpetually in.
  I can use you and I as perfect examples Barry. Despite you being a jokingly admitted 'liberal hippie' with a liberal point of view and me, who is a fairly Conservative Christian...I'd be willing to bet that our outlook on life and what we expect and wish for others is similar....all I want is to provide for my Family the best I can and be afforded the right to raise my children according to my beliefs, have a fair shake at making a living that best fulfills that goal and wish nothing but the best for the next man/woman. Personal preferences and the way you live your life to me are just that, until your choice begins to adversely affect MY family directly we won't have an issue...what one chooses to do with his/her life in my eyes is between them and God. 

[kirksnosehair]

but I think it's pretty strange when these people cast votes for third party candidates effectively siphoning off support for the candidate best positioned to defeat the guy (Obama) that they claim they want to beat.

I've never understood this either.

I personally don't think the % of "Evangelicals" out there that won't vote for Romney is very high....despite what the media will have you believe. Those people who will not vote for him because of him being Mormon are part of an extreme fringe of political view. Unfortunately the extreme fringes from both the Right and the Left make most of the noise therefor get most of the news coverage and hype. 

Well, I think the primaries tend to attract that "fringe" a lot more than the general election so it's not that surprising.  But you're right about us "Generally" wanting the same things out of life.  Those things may not always line up the same way on the nitty-gritty details...but it's all good.

Just don't accuse me of plagiarizing the Bee Gees

[bosk1]

Hey now!

[Jamariquay]

Obama's disappointed me in many ways. The whole debt ceiling business, primarily.

The Republicans, however, actively terrify me. As evidence, might I present as evidence every single Republican debate this year.

OK, Huntsman's decent enough. His stance on Medicare is blargh, but he actually seems like a reasonable human being. Doesn't have a prayer unfortunately, and I don't think Romney would ever tap him (hah) for the VP slot.

[antigoon]

Slightly off-topic: Being VP seems like a pretty sweet gig.

[rumborak]

Mwahaha, Bachmann's aides are jumping the sinking ship.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

That's what rats do when a ship sinks

[TL]

As someone outside the US, it's mind boggling when people complain about the direction Obama is leading the country. What, you mean from extremely conservative to only very conservative? Honestly, I think anyone who actually feels that way about Obama would literally die of culture shock if they stepped foot in any other developed country.

I mean, come on. On the political spectrum, Obama is more or less in the same place as Reagan. But I guess providing poor people with health care and actually treating homosexuals as human beings are the worst things imaginable.

[kirksnosehair]

I mean, come on. On the political spectrum, Obama is more or less in the same place as Reagan. But I guess providing poor people with health care and actually treating homosexuals as human beings are the worst things imaginable.

If you really believe this, I'd invite you to take a closer look at the people Obama has appointed to the federal bench and the Supreme Court.  Those will be his two most lasting aspects of his legacy and his nominees have been decidedly liberal.  Obama governs line most executives have governed in the modern era of our political system and that is center-right.  By "modern" I'm talking about in the last 50 years.

I think there is this faulty logic out there that assumes that a president can just do whatever he wants.  That's just unrealistic. 

[rumborak]

What you call "liberal" I would call forward-facing. I don't think the US can afford to cling to a past long gone.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

What you call "liberal" I would call forward-facing. I don't think the US can afford to cling to a past long gone.

rumborak

Well, you call it that because you happen to agree with a liberal point of view from what I've seen here.  I call it "liberal" because that's just the current nomenclature for the type of political world-view that Obama's appointees tend to embrace.  Most of my European friends do this:  when I refer to Obama as a "liberal" because from their perspective he's damn near a conservative, and I can see how they would think that, but then, they don't live here.

So, I completely agree with you about those views being "forward facing," but the unfortunate reality is the power brokers that hold sway in our political system do not.  This country is, generally, a center-right country.  Frankly, a guy like Obama is lucky to be in office, and I know a lot of people here think he's a lock for a second term (I believe that view is influenced greatly by the relative youth of the audience here) but I don't believe that's the case at all.

What I find downright laughable is the fact that everyone on the political right in this country was doing an awful lot of hand-wringing about how Obama was "the most liberal senator" and such before he got elected and now everyone on the political left in this country is doing an awful lot of hand-wringing about how he's nowhere near as progressive as they had hoped.

What both sides seem to be forgetting is the fact that pretty much every president in the last 50 years has RUN on the extreme left or right but GOVERNED from the center.  The exception to that being George W. Bush who governed from the center-right.  But George W. Bush had a distinct advantage that Obama does not have.  Bush did not face a unified Democratic opposition in the legislature the same way Obama faces a unified Republican opposition.  That makes a MASSIVE difference in what an executive can actually accomplish.

This is why I've really just settled for Obama's court appointees, because aside from his watered down health care legislation that's about all he's going to get.

[TL]

The thing is, US politics are extremely far to the right compared to, well, the entire rest of the developed world. What you guys call 'liberal' would still be pretty damn conservative in almost any other country. That's why it's hilarious when Republicans throw around 'liberal' and 'socialism' like they're dirty words.

The current Democratic party in the US is in many ways further right than the current Conservative party here in Canada, and the Conservative party is easily the most right-wing government we've ever elected (the moderate-right Progressive Conservatives and the super right wing Reform party merged into the Conservatives, who are basically the Reform party). Our super right wing Prime Minister would still be far enough to the left in the US that they probably wouldn't have a name for it.

[kirksnosehair]

The thing is, US politics are extremely far to the right compared to, well, the entire rest of the developed world. What you guys call 'liberal' would still be pretty damn conservative in almost any other country. That's why it's hilarious when Republicans throw around 'liberal' and 'socialism' like they're dirty words.

The current Democratic party in the US is in many ways further right than the current Conservative party here in Canada, and the Conservative party is easily the most right-wing government we've ever elected (the moderate-right Progressive Conservatives and the super right wing Reform party merged into the Conservatives, who are basically the Reform party). Our super right wing Prime Minister would still be far enough to the left in the US that they probably wouldn't have a name for it.

yep 

[Gorille85]

The end is coming soon.

[soundgarden]

Today's liberalism all but tomorrows conservatism.

I am dumbfounded how ardent conservatives in this country are hell bent on maintaining the "America we love."  What particular America would that be?  Which era?  Frankly, I see picking and choosing ideas from different periods of American history and not really one period in its entirety.

Do we return to the era where Jefferson single-handedly removed Christianity from the Virginia state government?  The era where humans were counted as 3/5ths?  The era where children worked in dark, smokey, death trap factories?

Do you conservatives not find it a bit strange that what you hold dear only matters for the time you live in?  Do you disavow all the progress made over millenia by liberals and progressives?