View Poll Results: vote for as many as you want and might actually vote for President
Obama 29 50.88%
Romney 16 28.07%
Santorum 5 8.77%
Gingrich 9 15.79%
Perry 3 5.26%
Paul 23 40.35%
Huntsman 9 15.79%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Register to reply

The 2012 presidential election poll

by Jimmy Snyder
Tags: 2012, election, poll, presidential
Share this thread:
Jimmy Snyder
#1
Jan8-12, 12:36 PM
P: 2,179
Let's start the election early. Our system doesn't give us the opportunity to cast a no vote unfortunately so this poll essentially will. You can vote yes for as many candidates as you want that you think you could actually vote for. Obviously you may not be an Obama fan but you might vote for him depending on who was running against him, and verse vica.

Sorry moejoe15, I hope you don't mind me restarting this thing. Yours got verblunget.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Flapping baby birds give clues to origin of flight
Prions can trigger 'stuck' wine fermentations, researchers find
Socially-assistive robots help kids with autism learn by providing personalized prompts
Number Nine
#2
Jan8-12, 05:03 PM
P: 772
Obama by default, for being the least belligerent and offensive option.
Char. Limit
#3
Jan8-12, 05:52 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
Obama on the left, simply because he's way better than everyone on the right with the possible exception of Huntsman. On the right, definitely Huntsman.

moejoe15
#4
Jan9-12, 05:59 PM
P: 39
The 2012 presidential election poll

Not at all, thanks for restarting the thread.
edward
#5
Jan9-12, 08:15 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
I really do not approve of what the Super Pacs can do. And they can do it with or without a candidates permission. The Supreme Court in my opinion has created a nuclear mud slinger.

They certainly nuked Newt. Not that I care what happens to Newt, but if they can do it to him they can destroy anyone who has less to spend than they do. This could really spin out of control.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...h-ratings.html
edward
#6
Jan9-12, 08:23 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 876
Restore Our Future is just one on Romneys super pacs.

As of August 2011[update], the largest individual contributor to Restore Our Future was John Paulson, a billionaire and hedge fund manager who is, according to Politico, "famous for [having enriched] himself by betting on the collapse of the housing industry."[3] An additional million dollars came from W Spann LLC, a corporation with no record of actual business activities.[5] W Spann LLC was incorporated, donated to the PAC, and then dissolved in a matter of months,[6][7] attracting concerns from election-watchdog groups and campaign-finance experts about the use of dummy corporations to shield large campaign contributions from public scrutiny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Future

EDIT: This is not to single out the Romney pacs, it just happened to be the first one that came up, my concern is that many may be as questionable.
Astronuc
#7
Jan9-12, 11:06 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,870
I'm endorsing Alan Simpson.
ThomasT
#8
Jan10-12, 12:06 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Char. Limit View Post
Obama on the left, simply because he's way better than everyone on the right with the possible exception of Huntsman. On the right, definitely Huntsman.
I want to like Huntsman. But he seems sort of 'robotic' to me. Not sure if that's the right word. Bottom line, I don't like any of the GOP candidates, and I don't particularly like Obama either -- primarily because of what he hasn't done but could have done, imho. That said, of all the candidates, GOP and Obama, I like Obama's personality the best, and I think that, while he's something of a tool of corporate America as all presidents must be, he might actually do some good stuff if elected to a second term. On the other hand, wrt the current GOP candidates, there's, imho, much to fear. The most normal-seeming of the bunch, Romney, still comes across as a pro-corporation, pro-status quo guy with no particular vision for improving the lives of average Americans. In fact, I get the impression that he couldn't care less about average Americans.

I say, let's elect Obama to a second term and give him a chance to do some good stuff. If he doesn't, if he proves to be just a tool of the status quo, then we'll be no worse off than if we elected one of the GOP candidates.
ThomasT
#9
Jan10-12, 12:10 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
I'm endorsing Alan Simpson.
He's about 80, isn't he? Who do you like as his vice president?
turbo
#10
Jan10-12, 06:14 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Obama hasn't gotten too much done simply because he can't. He can make administrative decisions, and he can sign or veto legislation that comes to his desk. Want changes? Vote for a new congressional line-up. They are the ones that can write legislation. the president can only sign or veto. That's all.
Astronuc
#11
Jan10-12, 09:45 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,870
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
He's about 80, isn't he? Who do you like as his vice president?
I'd probably go with Huntsman. Actually, I'd like to see Huntsman as VP if Obama gets re-elected.

I don't think the VP should be elected with the president, but separately as was more or less done in late 18th century. The objective of the process is supposed to allow the people, rather than the political parties, to determine their representatives.
russ_watters
#12
Jan10-12, 09:46 AM
Mentor
P: 22,296
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Obama hasn't gotten too much done simply because he can't. He can make administrative decisions, and he can sign or veto legislation that comes to his desk. Want changes? Vote for a new congressional line-up. They are the ones that can write legislation. the president can only sign or veto. That's all.
Er, he did have a filibuster proof majority for a while. All he needed to do whatever he wanted was to be able to lead his party.
turbo
#13
Jan10-12, 10:12 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Er, he did have a filibuster proof majority for a while. All he needed to do whatever he wanted was to be able to lead his party.
Getting Democratic approval and action on anything in Congress would be like herding cats. There is a very sizable minority that will vote with the Republicans on most measures. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be able to enforce unanimity on all issues.

Maine has two Republican senators, both of which vote against the interests of the voters of this state regularly. Their campaigns here are juggernauts, and their incumbency and money helps bring them re-election. This a poorly-populated state, and two obedient senators are VERY valuable for the Republicans.
daveb
#14
Jan10-12, 10:48 AM
P: 925
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Er, he did have a filibuster proof majority for a while. All he needed to do whatever he wanted was to be able to lead his party.
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Getting Democratic approval and action on anything in Congress would be like herding cats. There is a very sizable minority that will vote with the Republicans on most measures. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be able to enforce unanimity on all issues.

Maine has two Republican senators, both of which vote against the interests of the voters of this state regularly. Their campaigns here are juggernauts, and their incumbency and money helps bring them re-election. This a poorly-populated state, and two obedient senators are VERY valuable for the Republicans.
Let's not forget Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln (gone now), and other demoncrats who do not always vote the "party line" on what Democrats consider important legislation. That's the one hting you have to admire about the Republicans - they're generally good at making party members tow the party line.
Char. Limit
#15
Jan10-12, 10:48 AM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
Let's not forget Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln (gone now), and other demoncrats who do not always vote the "party line" on what Democrats consider important legislation. That's the one hting you have to admire about the Republicans - they're generally good at making party members tow the party line.
Admire?
russ_watters
#16
Jan10-12, 11:51 AM
Mentor
P: 22,296
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Getting Democratic approval and action on anything in Congress would be like herding cats.
Be that as it may, that's what leaders do. On his healthcare reform in particular, he seemed to just say he wanted reform, then letting congress figure out what that meant.
Evo
#17
Jan10-12, 02:16 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,545
Anyone forsee any high quality last minute candidates? They are surely needed.

Seems Republicans are unhappy with the current candidates.

Poll: 58% of Republicans want more presidential choices

The nominating process may officially be underway, but Republicans have yet to enthusiastically embrace a potential nominee for president - and despite the late date, most would like to see other candidates enter the race, according to a new CBS News poll.

The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ntial-choices/
turbo
#18
Jan10-12, 03:16 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
I don't see any, Evo. Not to say that a Christy can't jump in without having built a base and organization, but I don't see who can do that. Got any prospects?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The 2011 presidential election poll Current Events 73
Presidential contenders in 2012 Current Events 31
US Presidential Election Current Events 78
Fantasy : US Presidential Election Current Events 25
US Presidential election Current Events 31