By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Election time, who did you vote for?

 

Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

Barack Obama 356 55.89%
 
Mitt Romney 137 21.51%
 
Gary Johnson 38 5.97%
 
Jill Stein 15 2.35%
 
Somebody else 87 13.66%
 
Total:633
GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.


History proves otherwise. Only one time in our history as a country has a President received +3% of the popular vote and lost the election. Samuel J. Tilden - 1876.

Why +3 percent? That seems like an arbitrary and cherry-picked number.



Around the Network
Pretendo on 25 October 2012

I will be writing in Ron Paul. As a resident of Illinois, any vote against Obama won't matter so I'm going to make sure I vote for the person I think is best rather than just the lesser of two evils.



dsgrue3 on 25 October 2012
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.


History proves otherwise. Only one time in our history as a country has a President received +3% of the popular vote and lost the election. Samuel J. Tilden - 1876.

Why +3 percent? That seems like an arbitrary and cherry-picked number.


That's what occurred in 1876. If you disclude that election, no President has received +1% nationally and lost the electoral vote.

RCP Average 10/15 - 10/24 -- -- 47.9 47.0 Romney +0.9
Rasmussen Reports 10/22 - 10/24 1500 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/21 - 10/24 1386 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
IBD/TIPP 10/19 - 10/24 948 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
Gallup 10/18 - 10/24 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie


GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.


History proves otherwise. Only one time in our history as a country has a President received +3% of the popular vote and lost the election. Samuel J. Tilden - 1876.

Why +3 percent? That seems like an arbitrary and cherry-picked number.


That's what occurred in 1876. If you disclude that election, no President has received +1% nationally and lost the electoral vote.

RCP Average 10/15 - 10/24 -- -- 47.9 47.0 Romney +0.9
Rasmussen Reports 10/22 - 10/24 1500 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/21 - 10/24 1386 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
IBD/TIPP 10/19 - 10/24 948 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
Gallup 10/18 - 10/24 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie

Yeah, I know that, but a candidate only needs to win +.00001 percent of the vote to win the popular vote. Using +1 is just as arbitrary as using +3. The point is that its perfectly feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election (there's a reason why candidates focus on swing states while ignoring  the non-competitive states).

To put bluntly, candidates aren't stupid. They don't try to win the popular vote. They try to win the Electoral College.



dsgrue3 on 25 October 2012
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.


History proves otherwise. Only one time in our history as a country has a President received +3% of the popular vote and lost the election. Samuel J. Tilden - 1876.

Why +3 percent? That seems like an arbitrary and cherry-picked number.


That's what occurred in 1876. If you disclude that election, no President has received +1% nationally and lost the electoral vote.

RCP Average 10/15 - 10/24 -- -- 47.9 47.0 Romney +0.9
Rasmussen Reports 10/22 - 10/24 1500 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/21 - 10/24 1386 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
IBD/TIPP 10/19 - 10/24 948 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
Gallup 10/18 - 10/24 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 816 LV 3.4 47 47 Tie

Yeah, I know that, but a candidate only needs to win +.00001 percent of the vote to win the popular vote. Using +1 is just as arbitrary as using +3. The point is that its perfectly feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election (there's a reason why candidates focus on swing states while ignoring  the non-competitive states).

To put bluntly, candidates aren't stupid. They don't try to win the popular vote. They try to win the Electoral College.

No...that's what we just discussed. If you win the popular vote, you win the elction. The only times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost is Gore 2000, Grover Cleveland 1888, and Samuel J Tilden 1876. 

Besides Gore, which was a +0.5% advantage nationally, you have to go back over 124 years for another time when a candidate lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote. Otherwise they coincide.



Around the Network
bluesinG on 25 October 2012
gergroy said:
bluesinG said:
gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:

Quick question: In regards to the economy, what would you have preferred him to do with the supermajority? As far as I remember, the stimulus was already passed, so I don't think its realistic to expect him to try and pass another stimulus or tax break at the time, especially given how contentious passing the stimulus was just a few months previosly. Granted, its a lot easier to look back in hindsight and say something else should have been done, but I think they would have had a difficult time mustering support (talking public support) for more economic measures (that raised the deficit) at the time.

Honestly, doing nothing would have been better than what they did.  They ended up passing a tax on small businesses in the middle of a recession, who does that?  Maybe they were thinking the economy would recover soon and it wouldn't matter.  However, it is obvious now that Obama's initial plan on economic recovery was not enough.  The economy has been essentially stagnate for the last four years.  If there isn't a huge uptick in the economy by the time that tax hits those businesses, we are going to be in for another big recession.  

Really?

This graph ends in mid-2011, and the private sector has added jobs every month since then.

I didn't say we were in a recession, I said we were in a stagnate economy.  Those job numbers are anemic and our workforce has shrunk.  That isn't a healthy economy, it is stagnate.

I didn't say that you said we were still in a recession. :)

You said that (a) it would have been better for the government to do nothing than to do what they did (the stimulus and Obamacare), and (b) the government raised taxes on small business in the middle of a recession.

The graph was to get at point (a). When Obama came into office, the economy was losing about 800,000 jobs *per month*. Then Obama and the Democrats passed the stimulus. Then the economy emerged from recession and started adding jobs again. Without the stimulus, I believe that the recession would have been longer and deeper. Most economists agree with that.

As for taxes, the stimulus *cut* taxes for both individuals and businesses, in order to promote economic growth. I'm not sure exactly which part of Obamacare you're referring to as a tax on small businesses, but presumably it's a provision that doesn't kick in until 2014, not something that raised taxes "in the middle of the recession."



chocoloco on 25 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

By the way, the popular vote still shows a lead for Romney. That does not matter as swing state polls are continually favoring Obama.


History proves otherwise. Only one time in our history as a country has a President received +3% of the popular vote and lost the election. Samuel J. Tilden - 1876.

You make quite the assumption about voter turnout assuming the the vote will reflect the polls exactly . That being said, most of Romney's support comes from loss of White males that had voted Obama previously in states that never vote Republican anyways. If you look at the purple/swing states in all the polls today there is nothing, but positive news for Obama. Even the most consertvative stat collector sites like real clear politics actually reflect a shift in favor of Obama in most swing states. Get all huffy about history all you want it means nothing to me.

I also love how you show only polls done before the 25th.



GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

Yeah, I know that, but a candidate only needs to win +.00001 percent of the vote to win the popular vote. Using +1 is just as arbitrary as using +3. The point is that its perfectly feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election (there's a reason why candidates focus on swing states while ignoring  the non-competitive states).

To put bluntly, candidates aren't stupid. They don't try to win the popular vote. They try to win the Electoral College.

No...that's what we just discussed. If you win the popular vote, you win the elction. The only times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost is Gore 2000, Grover Cleveland 1888, and Samuel J Tilden 1876. 

Besides Gore, which was a +0.5% advantage nationally, you have to go back over 124 years for another time when a candidate lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote. Otherwise they coincide.

I don't know where to go with this. You don't win the election because you win the popular vote. The fact that winning the popular vote and electoral victory usually coincide does not mean that winning the popular vote results/causes electoral victory. That's not how the system is structured, but I think you understand that.

You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I said its perfectly feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election. You say "no" and then precede to give three examples that prove my point, one happening just 12 years ago. I don't know what else to say besides your previous post essentially proves my point.



phenom08 on 25 October 2012

I'm voting for Obama.



gergroy on 25 October 2012
RenderMonk said:

Look, Dude,....I've been just shy of your registered time by 1 year. That doesn't make me "new here." I've also been coming to this site long before actually registering. Listen, I understand you are talking about Obamacare. I'm saying you don't know what is involved in the decision making process for the president. For all you know, his advisors informed him that this was a great policy to shoot for, while also working on the economy. They just didn't know that the republicans would completely block forward progress to the extent that they did. Had republicans not done that, the bill could have passed, and they would have moved on to other issues. But no.

I'm not being overly dramatic, but if you believe that both Romney and Obama share so many similarities that either candidate would be about the same in office, you are clearly brain washed. Just because Mitt is lying through his teeth, and agreeing with several at the moment, things that Obama stands for, doesn't mean he won't turn tail, and be completly the opposite once he takes office. Romney and his campaign are so dead set on beating Obama, that they will say and do ANYTHING to win. Including lying about what they believe concerning their policies. This is why your choice to vote for him, as if someone new will have a "chance at something better" if maybe we get the moderate Romney, is a gabmle you shouldn't be willing to take. Our country is in such bad shape due to the decade rule under Bush. Everyone knows that, even the republicans that were backing him.

Listen, it's late and we've done this all day long. There are plenty of people out there, that want to understand these things, and want to see the country get better. For those that don't, vote for Romney.

It's good that you are so open minded.  Not partisan all.  Good day to you