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
gergroy on 25 October 2012
bluesinG said:
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."

yeah, never said anything about stimulus.  I'm talking about obamacare when obama had the super majority.  Stimulus was done before that.  



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 26 October 2012
chocoloco said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

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.

I posted straight from the site, dude. The polls are from the 24th. Stop being such a pedant, that's the information they have. I didn't DISCLUDE information, I included what they had.

Real Clear Politics isn't remotely conservative either. It assembles almost all the polls, which would sway it liberal if anything.

Swing state polls clearly show the same race since the first debate, which is momemtum for Romney. Any other notion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Your bias and obtuseness to facts is astouding. Keep dreaming.

GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

 

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.

It isn't feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election. There are only 3 such situations in history where this occurred. Those are statistical outliers. Citing 3 such situations out of probably 30 modern era elections is not supporting your claim at all. 

Winning the popular vote nearly guarantees you win the election. That is the counter to your point. This is the case in the other cases of modern era elections.

Put it simply, you: 3/30 me 27/30. Which is more likely to occur? =/



richardhutnik on 26 October 2012
gergroy said:
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:
I have been undecided mostly because i dislike all the choices. However, I have decided I am going to be one of those people that votes against somebody instead of for them. So i have decided to vote for Mitt Romney.

My reasons mostly stem from the early portion of Obamas term when he had a super majority in congress. The economy was in the tank and instead of working on that, he pushed for healthcare that ultimately ends up being a large tax on small businesses. He also didnt bother with bipartisan efforts during this time either.

Basically, I dont like how obama handled his term, and im not a fan of Romney, but I think it I would rather see somebody else get a chance then another term of Obama.

A little caveat here, I live in Utah so my vote doesnt actually matter. Utah will go for romney by over 70%...

You do realize Obama had a super majority in congress less than 90 days, right?


I am aware that he had only about 5 months in the senate, yes.  two years in the house though.  During those 5 months, what did Obama do?  Affordable care act, one of the worst bills that could have possibly been signed in the middle of a recession.  Followed up the next year with Dodd-Frank (which while good intentioned, was poorly written and ended up hurting way more than helping).  

Like I said, I really did not like the way Obama handled the time when he had the supermajority.  

Well, Obamacare isn't what he campaigned on or initially proposed.  The idea was to offer a government insurance plan, or a series of non-profit organization insurance plans (under government charter) to compete in the market against the private sector and offer people affordable alternatives.  Shot down by the GOP, and the insurance industry as takeover of the healthcare industry, Obama switched to Romneycare, which was proposed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Hillarycare.  So, it is not optimal, but it is what it is, and about the only reform to healthcare that could actually get passed.  And the big beef over it is mainly the mandate.  About everything else, is liked by the GOP side.

And issues with healthcare needed to get addressed.  Healthcare costs have risen more than inflation, and millions have gone without any healthcare coverage.  If not when Obama did it, do you think anything would be done now?  No, nothing wouldn't of been done, particularly now.  And a president can multitask on a lot of things.  



gergroy on 26 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:

I am aware that he had only about 5 months in the senate, yes.  two years in the house though.  During those 5 months, what did Obama do?  Affordable care act, one of the worst bills that could have possibly been signed in the middle of a recession.  Followed up the next year with Dodd-Frank (which while good intentioned, was poorly written and ended up hurting way more than helping).  

Like I said, I really did not like the way Obama handled the time when he had the supermajority.  

Well, Obamacare isn't what he campaigned on or initially proposed.  The idea was to offer a government insurance plan, or a series of non-profit organization insurance plans (under government charter) to compete in the market against the private sector and offer people affordable alternatives.  Shot down by the GOP, and the insurance industry as takeover of the healthcare industry, Obama switched to Romneycare, which was proposed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Hillarycare.  So, it is not optimal, but it is what it is, and about the only reform to healthcare that could actually get passed.  And the big beef over it is mainly the mandate.  About everything else, is liked by the GOP side.

And issues with healthcare needed to get addressed.  Healthcare costs have risen more than inflation, and millions have gone without any healthcare coverage.  If not when Obama did it, do you think anything would be done now?  No, nothing wouldn't of been done, particularly now.  And a president can multitask on a lot of things.  

Honestly, what they should have focused on with healthcare, if they absolutely had to adress it during an economic recession, would be focus on driving down costs instead of making sure everybody had to be on insurance.  Obviously not the ideal democratic position, but one that made the most sense at the time.  They could of done something like tort reform, opening up healthcare services across state lines, stuff like that.  Common sense stuff that wouldn't cost the government or the taxpayers anymore money.  They could still do it.  



GameOver22 on 26 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

 

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.

 

I posted straight from the site, dude. The polls are from the 24th. Stop being such a pedant, that's the information they have. I didn't DISCLUDE information, I included what they had.

Real Clear Politics isn't remotely conservative either. It assembles almost all the polls, which would sway it liberal if anything.

Swing state polls clearly show the same race since the first debate, which is momemtum for Romney. Any other notion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Your bias and obtuseness to facts is astouding. Keep dreaming.

 

GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

 

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.

It isn't feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election. There are only 3 such situations in history where this occurred. Those are statistical outliers. Citing 3 such situations out of probably 30 modern era elections is not supporting your claim at all. 

Winning the popular vote nearly guarantees you win the election. That is the counter to your point. This is the case in the other cases of modern era elections.

Put it simply, you: 3/30 me 27/30. Which is more likely to occur? =/

I think your using the term feasible (i mean possible/capable) differently from me. They might be statistical outliers(you are dealing with a very small sample size though), but that doesn't make them meaningless or inconsequential. I would also include the 1824 election in this discussion although its a bit more complicated.

Point is, they are outcomes that occur in the real world, and there is no reason to assume it cannot happen in this election. Statisically speaking, the winner of the popular vote and the electoral college are usually the same, but this is far from a necessary result. Essentially, and this has been my point all along, there is no causal connection between the popular vote and electoral victory, and I'll reiterate, this is why candidates focus on battleground states. They don't care about winning the popular vote because it doesn't determine electoral victory.

In all truthfulness, the fact that the popular vote and electoral victory usually coincide is nothing more than a statistical artifact and has zero explanatory power. You say you can predict 27/30 (don't know where 30 came from) electoral winners by using the popular vote. Well, I can predict 30/30 using the electoral college. Point is, why use the popular vote to determine the electoral winner when there is a much better method available, namely, using the electoral college, since, you know, the electoral college actually determines the winner? There's a reason why people are focusing on the polls in swing states rather than the national polls.





Around the Network
richardhutnik on 26 October 2012
gergroy said:
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:

I am aware that he had only about 5 months in the senate, yes.  two years in the house though.  During those 5 months, what did Obama do?  Affordable care act, one of the worst bills that could have possibly been signed in the middle of a recession.  Followed up the next year with Dodd-Frank (which while good intentioned, was poorly written and ended up hurting way more than helping).  

Like I said, I really did not like the way Obama handled the time when he had the supermajority.  

Well, Obamacare isn't what he campaigned on or initially proposed.  The idea was to offer a government insurance plan, or a series of non-profit organization insurance plans (under government charter) to compete in the market against the private sector and offer people affordable alternatives.  Shot down by the GOP, and the insurance industry as takeover of the healthcare industry, Obama switched to Romneycare, which was proposed by the Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Hillarycare.  So, it is not optimal, but it is what it is, and about the only reform to healthcare that could actually get passed.  And the big beef over it is mainly the mandate.  About everything else, is liked by the GOP side.

And issues with healthcare needed to get addressed.  Healthcare costs have risen more than inflation, and millions have gone without any healthcare coverage.  If not when Obama did it, do you think anything would be done now?  No, nothing wouldn't of been done, particularly now.  And a president can multitask on a lot of things.  

Honestly, what they should have focused on with healthcare, if they absolutely had to adress it during an economic recession, would be focus on driving down costs instead of making sure everybody had to be on insurance.  Obviously not the ideal democratic position, but one that made the most sense at the time.  They could of done something like tort reform, opening up healthcare services across state lines, stuff like that.  Common sense stuff that wouldn't cost the government or the taxpayers anymore money.  They could still do it.  

Care to show how much tort reform would help contain healthcare costs, since you named that as one of the major initiatives?  It certainly didn't help contain healthcare costs in Texas:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/

Your saying allowing buying of healthcare services across statelines ends up making it fully a federal matter, and no longer something in the realm of states.  It ends up becoming managed at a federal level.  If that is your wish, then feel free to call for it.  Obamacare does have it on the state level, and a market under state regulated exchanges, to provide people healthcare, and suppliment purchase where they fall short financially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_exchange

 

 



Kasz216 on 26 October 2012
TheShape31 said:
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
@gergroy

I agree, this year none of the 3rd party candidates have a chance to win. But why do you think that is? A defeatist attitude has a little to do with it, but it's much more problematic than that. Think about the one and only time that a 3rd party candidate was allowed into the presidential debate. It was Ross Perot, the billionaire. If you can BUY yourself into the election then you have a chance. What does that say about the top two, who will only allow you to compete on the main stage if you're one of the richest 1%? What does that say about most of the country that votes for one of those two people? It shows a lack of credibility, honesty, and wisdom. I'll let you think about who owns each of those attributes.


To be fair.. Ross Perot was alowed into the debate because at one point he was actually freaking leading the national polls.


That's why he was allowed into the debates.


Yes, he was doing that well in the polls.  And what set him apart from any other 3rd party candidate since then?  Maybe it was the fact that he was a billionaire and was able to use that money to become publicly visible.  Money buys advertising, TV, and radio time.  Name one poor person (not raised poor, but poor during election time) that was in the running for president in U.S. history.  Elections = money.

that would make sense if that is what Perot did.  At the end of the day, perot only used about 12 million of his own money.  Perot was a popular candidate who aquired the support based on his own ideas and platform.  


Uh huh... so he just had good ideas and word got around?  Oh wait, it must have been the internet.  Oh wait, when you're a billionaire you can spend millions, and better yet have political connections.  Whether or not you know this, rich people have rich friends, and most people in politics are rich.  You can buy connections.  And I like how you said he "only" spent $12M of his own money.  That's $12M more than everyone else.  Anyway, when you have big money connections you don't have to spend all the money yourself.


More or less... his campaign was actually pretty cheap and he polled really high before he ever even entered the race.

Ross Perot was popular because he more or less played to the middle and the "common man."

Essentially he targeted Libretarians, balancing the budget, Union Democrats and the anti-free trade vote in general.

Clinton and Bush both being Free Trade at a time when everyone was afraid Japan was going to buy the country... part of stealing Perot's momentum was Clinton making some anti free trade promises he later disregarded.

 

He didn't really start spending his own money until after he reentered the race after he left because "Republicans had compromising pictures of his daughter and threatened to release them if he didn't drop out."

He actually thought spending money on advertising was a huge waste of time when he could just give interviews to tv shows.

 

"Evening up" foreign trade, balancing the budget, simplifying taxes.  These are all themes that both parties still pay lip service too because of how powerul those positions resonate.

 

Strengthening the war on drugs and electronic town hall voting on all issues i'm guessing haven't held up as well.



Kasz216 on 26 October 2012

It's worth noting essentially that Ross Perot was like Teddy Roosevelt. A third party candidate who shot for the middle.

3rd party candidates now only really aim for the extreme left or right and present it that way.

Technically Gary Johnson has a lot of views that plays out mainstream but he doesn't try and play it that way holding a lot of "deal breaker" positions for people.






Mazty on 26 October 2012
GameOver22 said:
Mazty said:

One honest question I have is that considered Romeny's policy hopping, how can you guarentee what policies he would actually enact? That's my concern. 

Truth is, you have a point, but its not like Obama is much better....just look at his complete turnaround on foreign policy issues. Whether its intentional lying, naivety, or "flip-flopping", politician's campaign speeches are not a good source for determining what they are going to do once they are in office.

They are almost always incredibly optimistic about whats going to happen when on the campaign trail, then when they get in office, pragmatism and reality kick in.

How did Obama 180 on foreign policy?



Turkish on 26 October 2012

Hussein Obama.