Quantcast
Election time, who did you vote for?

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

Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

Barack Obama 356 55.97%
 
Mitt Romney 137 21.54%
 
Gary Johnson 38 5.97%
 
Jill Stein 15 2.36%
 
Somebody else 87 13.68%
 
Total:633
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?



Around the Network

Hussein Obama.



Mazty said:
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?

The one that comes to mind quickist is Libya.

The anti-war Democrat pointed to this quote from candidate Obama in 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1dfSd)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/exclusive-kucinich-calls-obamas-libya-attack-an-impeachable-offense/

 

Candidate Obama would think President Obama commited an impeachable offense.  I'd think that qualfies as at least a little bit of a flip flop.



Kasz216 said:
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.

 

You obviously haven't been paying attention.  I like how you're just making stuff up.

 

GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:

Seems that Perot ended up spending $26 of his own money in the first two weeks of October alone ($46 million as of Oct. 14). He also said he expected to spend $60 millions. Its also important to remember that election were much different back then (much less money). Just for reference, Clinton and Bush each accepted public funding and were limited to $55 million. Granted, they also had the parties raising money for them as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/24/us/1992-campaign-campaign-finances-despite-economy-clinton-sets-record-for-funds.html

I think this shows that Perot's viability was largely a product of his ability to spend money. I mean he single-handedly was able to outspend the public funding Clinton and Bush received. Finally, I want to emphasize that campaign spending has only increased since then. If Perot tried to run a campaign by spending $60 million today, he would likely be overshadowed by the big guns. Also, even with all that spending, Perot wasn't able to win any electoral votes even with 19% of the vote (kind of shows the importance of campaign strategy).

KInd of gives an idea of the increase campaign spending http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008



TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
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.

 

You obviously haven't been paying attention.  I like how you're just making stuff up.

 

GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:

Seems that Perot ended up spending $26 of his own money in the first two weeks of October alone ($46 million as of Oct. 14). He also said he expected to spend $60 millions. Its also important to remember that election were much different back then (much less money). Just for reference, Clinton and Bush each accepted public funding and were limited to $55 million. Granted, they also had the parties raising money for them as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/24/us/1992-campaign-campaign-finances-despite-economy-clinton-sets-record-for-funds.html

I think this shows that Perot's viability was largely a product of his ability to spend money. I mean he single-handedly was able to outspend the public funding Clinton and Bush received. Finally, I want to emphasize that campaign spending has only increased since then. If Perot tried to run a campaign by spending $60 million today, he would likely be overshadowed by the big guns. Also, even with all that spending, Perot wasn't able to win any electoral votes even with 19% of the vote (kind of shows the importance of campaign strategy).

KInd of gives an idea of the increase campaign spending http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008


I don't think I'm the one not paying attention or the one making stuff up.

If you scroll back up and look at the graph you quoted... you would note that October of 1992 is listed in that graph as "Re-Entry".

Also, that this was in fact his lowest time in the polling, where he was simply trying to gain back support for dropping out which made Ross Perot look erratic.

Before he started spending all kinds of money he polled extremely high.  39% at it's height, with Clinton and Bush 25% a piece.  (rest undecided.)

He pulled well quite a bit before the graph starts as well.  It just starts where it does because it's focusing on when he officially entered the race.

Perot was popular well before he committed.

So yeah.....

might want to look into a mirror on that one.



Around the Network
GameOver22 said:

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.


I chose 30 to represent common era.  It was somewhat arbitrary. Could be expanded or contracted. 30 out of 56 elections isn't a small sample size when polling services' sample sizes are about 1000 people out of 300 million. THAT's a small sample.

1824 I didn't include because it was decided by the House.

If your argument is that it is possible to win the popular and lose the electoral, then I agree. That's indisputable. If that was your only point, why didn't you say so instead of continuing with this idea that the popular vote isn't a determination of anything?

"why use the popular vote to determine the electoral winner when there is a much better method available, namely, using the electoral college"

True enough, but I would argue that it's easier to poll nationally than electorally.



gergroy said:
the2real4mafol said:
gergroy said:
the2real4mafol said:
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Jill Stein!

By the way, the debates aren't completely over. Next Tuesday on freeandequal.org will be the second debate between the 3rd party candidates. Yesterday was the first, which featured the top 4 (watch the whole things here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqkenIayAI). There's a runoff vote happening on the website to narrow it down to 2 candidates for next week. Judging by the audience's reactions, it'll be Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

The top 2 candidates are a complete joke, in my opinion. Nothing will change with either of them in office.


The top 2 may be a joke, but one of them will be president.  Voting for one of this years 3rd parties is essentially abstaining as none of them even have a remote chance of even taking one state.  

I respect your choice of voting 3rd party, but dont pretend they actually have a chance.

I know people always like to say voting 3rd party is a waste of time, but what's worse voting between 2 people who don't represent your political beliefs or "wasting" your vote for someone who wants real change? If people who didn't want democrats or republicans elected, all voted for a 3rd party. I'm sure it would eventually make a dent in the top 2 parties. People just need to stop thinking it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party now. This is a democracy afterall, people can vote for anyone, so they should


It is a waste of a vote though.  Is a vote for a 3rd part going to change who gets elected? No, it wont.  You are essentially not voting by voting 3rd party, at which point, how is it different from staying home?  

Also, the US is a republic, not a democracy.

If people are willing to "waste" their vote like i would, change will come in it's own time.

Finally, the USA is democratic because it holds regular elections, i though that was common knowledge

You are confusing terms, that is not what democratic means.  There is a big difference between a democracy and a republic, you should goggle it.  The US is a republic.

It is a republic as it has no monarchy, but it is democratic as it has elections 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

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:

 



First off, I do think calling someone obtuse is technically against the rules. 2ndly my main confidence against the popular vote comes from two university models that predict the presidency that both make aggregates of the polls to make a more accurate picture of the popular vote. Both methods were used to pick the last election within 1-2 % accuracy concerning the popular vote.The Princeton model was dead on.

Nate Silver: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

Princeton: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/23/ro-mentum/

Now, the popular vote polls you mention are mostly from polls taken during times before 10/22/2012 the date of the final debate. In the next coming days, polls that only include days before the debate will come out. The final debate is believed to have little impact, yet it also appears any momentum Romney gained from the first debate has stopped after the last two debates.

In calling, Real Clear Politics conservative, I mean they are the most conservative in terms of giving states to any candidate. Therefore, it is often the one most cited by conservatives just as the gallop poll outliers are the polls most often mentioned by conservatives. If you dare to take a peak at even the fairly balanced CNN polls they are more liberal in calling states safe for each candidate and show a clear Obama advantage.



chocoloco said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:

First off, I do think calling someone obtuse is technically against the rules. 2ndly my main confidence against the popular vote comes from two university models that predict the presidency that both make aggregates of the polls to make a more accurate picture of the popular vote. Both methods were used to pick the last election within 1-2 % accuracy concerning the popular vote.The Princeton model was dead on.

Nate Silver: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/

Princeton: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/23/ro-mentum/

Now, the popular vote polls you mention are mostly from polls taken during times before 10/22/2012 the date of the final debate. In the next coming days, polls that only include days before the debate will come out. The final debate is believed to have little impact, yet it also appears any momentum Romney gained from the first debate has stopped after the last two debates.

In calling, Real Clear Politics conservative, I mean they are the most conservative in terms of giving states to any candidate. Therefore, it is often the one most cited by conservatives just as the gallop poll outliers are the polls most often mentioned by conservatives. If you dare to take a peak at even the fairly balanced CNN polls they are more liberal in calling states safe for each candidate and show a clear Obama advantage.

Why don't you let the mods decide if referring to someone as obtuse is against the rules, okay?

You want polls that include the 25th? Fine:

RCP Average 10/15 - 10/25 -- -- 47.9 47.0 Romney +0.9
Rasmussen Reports 10/23 - 10/25 1500 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/22 - 10/25 1382 LV 3.0 49 48 Romney +1
Gallup 10/19 - 10/25 2700 LV 2.0 51 46 Romney +5

I agree with you about RCP being very conservative for calling states favorable to one candidate. However, this is as a result of an assembly of so many polling services that it does make more sense to leave it that way. Most polls tend to have +/- 3 for accuracy. CNN does not even list their margin of error. Laughably ignorant. Otherwise I think CNN is faily close to the middle politically.

Nate Silver has the popular vote at 50-48 Obama. That alone refutes any further research into that source.

The princeton one has Obama tracking up electorally in recent days/weeks. This is simply untrue and contrary to what every other source has been stipulating.

The problem with some of the polls you've probably seen is if Obama/Romney is polling +2, they give that state to the candidate. What they don't tell you is that their margin of error is +/- 3 making the assertion that a state is for one candidate over another completely false.



Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
I'll vote for Mitt Romny. So that America will become a powerful empire and a strong force for good in the world again.


Are you being facetious?

No, not at all. I'm a conservative and I love America.

I still can't tell if you're being facetious.  You don't think right now we're already a powerful global empire?

No, Im not facetious.

Yes, America absolutely is powerful! But Obama is too weak in his foreign policies. He's a bad negotiator, giving away American interests for free without getting something in return, not even much respect. America needs to be tougher against rogue states, tougher against Russia and China and against corrupt institutions such as the UN. And America needs to take back the global initiative, to become pro-active again in international conflicts.

We spend more money in our Defense budget now than at any time under GWB. You want us to spend even more?  We have enough weapons to blow up the world like 30 times over, more than all other nations combined.  I'm no fan of Obama, believe me, but I really don't see how Romney and Obama's foreign policy is any different in the ways that matter.  They both support intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, they both support foreign aid, they both support staying in Afghanistan indefinitely, taking orders from the military instead of actually being the Commander in Chief and making a real decision.

I don't think it's about the money, it's about the attitude.

Romney has the right attitude. The current administration is too soft.

All these dictatorships, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, the Palestinians, and actually most members of the UN, won't thank America if America is soft and overly fair. You need to wear hard gloves against these type of nations. History never thanks the soft.

Obama betrayed Czech Republic and Poland by abandoning the European missile shield in his pathetic attempt to suck up to Russia, only to gain nothing in return.

Obama is too soft on illegal immigrants flooding the USA and if he wins he will implement a huge moratorium about illegals gaining US citizenship.

Obama tries to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program through negotiations, which is absolutely laughable when not even sanctions would work. War is the only option.

The current administration has been embarrasingly passive on Syria.

And Obama's strategy of offering food to North Korea in exchange for collaboration with the IAEA hasn't worked (The Koreans have just lengthened their program, realizing how benficial it is). Romney has promised to punish North Korea if they don't stop their missile program.

Romney is a stronger friend of Israel than the Democrats. He supports a stronger Israeli position in negotiations with Palestinians and he supports strong American backup for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilites. We can't wait when it comes to Iran. North Korea aquiring nukes taught us we can't wait.

I also believe it's too early to withdraw from Iraq (and Afghanistan too for that matter). Chaos will follow.

 

Wow... Russia is a dictatorship. Thats news to me

 

Anyways, I hope that Obama wins. When Romney denounced Russia as the USAs #1 geopolitical foe he lost all respect ffrom anybody who took a book in his hand, in the last 20 years or so. I see there are still plenty of rednecks out there, who think we are still in the 70's