The 2012 presidential election poll

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Number Nine]

Obama by default, for being the least belligerent and offensive option.

 

[Char. Limit]

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]

Not at all, thanks for restarting the thread.

 

[edward]

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/arizonarep...229super-pacs-devastate-gingrich-ratings.html

 

[edward]

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]

I'm endorsing Alan Simpson.

 

[ThomasT]

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]

I'm endorsing Alan Simpson.

He's about 80, isn't he? Who do you like as his vice president?

 

[turbo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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_162-57355532-503544/poll-58-of-republicans-want-more-presidential-choices/

 

[turbo]

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?

 

[Evo]

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?

But Christy is a whale. I can't imagine him being electable just due to his appearance, IMO.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?

Christie. He won't run unless he's drafted. It could happen if Romney can't get 50% of the delegates.

 

[Evo]

Christie is a hoot though. Don't know what his political positions are.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chris-christie-jersey-governor-overweight-president/story?id=14628171

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Christie is a hoot though. Don't know what his politic positions are.

As governor he has been very active in trying to reduce govt waste, fraud, and abuse. If he runs, I expect he'll focus on that.

 

[lisab]

...and then there were four...

Rick Perry to Drop Out Today

He was only polling about 6%. In such a close race, that 6% can be a game-changer - I wonder where the Perry voters will go? Santorum seems the closest fit, politically.

This leaves Newt, Romney, Paul, and Santorum.

 

[Evo]

...and then there were four...

Rick Perry to Drop Out Today

He was only polling about 6%. In such a close race, that 6% can be a game-changer - I wonder where the Perry voters will go? Santorum seems the closest fit, politically.

This leaves Newt, Romney, Paul, and Santorum.

Perry is backing Gingrich, but that doesn't mean his voters will.

 

[Topher925]

Can you add Colbert as an option to the poll?

 

[MarcoD]

On Dutch local news, the opinion of a US politics watchdog was that it'll likely be Romney, but Gingrich would -from a political view- be more interesting since it would spur genuine debate between the two parties.

 

[lisab]

On Dutch local news, the opinion of a US politics watchdog was that it'll likely be Romney, but Gingrich would -from a political view- be more interesting since it would spur genuine debate between the two parties.

Lol...things are already far, far too "interesting", IMO...

 

[turbo]

Lol...things are already far, far too "interesting", IMO...

Yep! Things will bet even more interesting if Gingrich starts to gain on Romney. How will this play with the evangelicals on the right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/marianne-gingrich-newt-gingrich-ex-wife_n_1216106.html

 

[Char. Limit]

Yep! Things will bet even more interesting if Gingrich starts to gain on Romney. How will this play with the evangelicals on the right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/marianne-gingrich-newt-gingrich-ex-wife_n_1216106.html

Given their past history, they'll probably praise him as a savior of Christian family values. I've long since lost all respect for evangelicals.

 

[humanino]

Can you add Colbert as an option to the poll?

You mean Herman Cain ?
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/660/371/colbert-cain640.gif