Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The 2012 presidential election poll

  1. Obama

    30 vote(s)
    55.6%
  2. Romney

    17 vote(s)
    31.5%
  3. Santorum

    6 vote(s)
    11.1%
  4. Gingrich

    10 vote(s)
    18.5%
  5. Perry

    4 vote(s)
    7.4%
  6. Paul

    21 vote(s)
    38.9%
  7. Huntsman

    10 vote(s)
    18.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jan 8, 2012 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 8, 2012 #2
    Obama by default, for being the least belligerent and offensive option.
     
  4. Jan 8, 2012 #3

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  5. Jan 9, 2012 #4
    Not at all, thanks for restarting the thread.
     
  6. Jan 9, 2012 #5
    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
     
  7. Jan 9, 2012 #6
    Restore Our Future is just one on Romneys super pacs.

    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.
     
  8. Jan 9, 2012 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm endorsing Alan Simpson.
     
  9. Jan 10, 2012 #8
    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.
     
  10. Jan 10, 2012 #9
    He's about 80, isn't he? Who do you like as his vice president?
     
  11. Jan 10, 2012 #10

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  12. Jan 10, 2012 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  13. Jan 10, 2012 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  14. Jan 10, 2012 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Jan 10, 2012 #14
    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.
     
  16. Jan 10, 2012 #15

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Admire?
     
  17. Jan 10, 2012 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  18. Jan 10, 2012 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Anyone forsee any high quality last minute candidates? They are surely needed.

    Seems Republicans are unhappy with the current candidates.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...f-republicans-want-more-presidential-choices/
     
  19. Jan 10, 2012 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  20. Jan 10, 2012 #19

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But Christy is a whale. I can't imagine him being electable just due to his appearance, IMO.
     
  21. Jan 10, 2012 #20
    Christie. He won't run unless he's drafted. It could happen if Romney can't get 50% of the delegates.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: The 2012 presidential election poll
Loading...