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
GameOver22 said:
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.  

I think he's responding to your claim earlier that Obama had two years in which he could ignore republican filibusters:

"Ok, you must not understand how a supermajority works.  You see, democrats had enough members in congress to ignore republican fillibusters.  Obama had two years of that when our economy was at its worst and what did he do?  He passed a healthcare plan that ends up being a huge tax on small business.  That is not how you get out of an economic mess, that is how you make it worse."

Filibusters happen in the Senate, not the House, so a House supermajority will not stop a filibuster.

a bit of exageration for sure, but I'm pretty consistent in my reason for disliking Obama's use of his supermajority though.  



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 25 October 2012

Neither, both have the same policies they just bicker on who and how it should be done.



GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
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.  

I'm trying to find sources for Perot's campaign spending, but I'm having trouble. It looks like he spend $12 million prior to dropping out in August. Even at $12 million, that's a lot of money to spend out of your own pocket. I mean, who has that kind of money laying around that they can spend on an election they're unlikely to win? He then reenetered in October. Maybe he spent more after that? I don't know what his donation level was.

Either way, it takes money to run a campaign, and I have a hard time thinking Perot's campaign would have got off the ground without an influx of money from his own pocket.



TheShape31 on 25 October 2012
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.



GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:

I think he's responding to your claim earlier that Obama had two years in which he could ignore republican filibusters:

"Ok, you must not understand how a supermajority works.  You see, democrats had enough members in congress to ignore republican fillibusters.  Obama had two years of that when our economy was at its worst and what did he do?  He passed a healthcare plan that ends up being a huge tax on small business.  That is not how you get out of an economic mess, that is how you make it worse."

Filibusters happen in the Senate, not the House, so a House supermajority will not stop a filibuster.

a bit of exageration for sure, but I'm pretty consistent in my reason for disliking Obama's use of his supermajority though.  

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.



Around the Network
Badassbab on 25 October 2012

In case anyone is interested there is a final debate being hosted by Kremlin funded alternative English news channel 'RT News' (formerly 'Russia Today').

It will be between Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

http://rt.com/usa/news/rt-third-party-debate-stein-249/






GameOver22 on 25 October 2012
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.  

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



gergroy on 25 October 2012
GameOver22 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.  

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

very true, Perot was a great initial candidate that benefited from dislike of the other two candidates.  His campaign might have had a chance if he hadn't dropped out and then reentered, that pretty much ruined him politically.  Also, the claims of balckmail didn't help his case either.  



gergroy on 25 October 2012
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:

I think he's responding to your claim earlier that Obama had two years in which he could ignore republican filibusters:

"Ok, you must not understand how a supermajority works.  You see, democrats had enough members in congress to ignore republican fillibusters.  Obama had two years of that when our economy was at its worst and what did he do?  He passed a healthcare plan that ends up being a huge tax on small business.  That is not how you get out of an economic mess, that is how you make it worse."

Filibusters happen in the Senate, not the House, so a House supermajority will not stop a filibuster.

a bit of exageration for sure, but I'm pretty consistent in my reason for disliking Obama's use of his supermajority though.  

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.  



Mazty on 25 October 2012

Obama. Mitt has based his campaign on back tracking and lies. A party that denies global warming is absolutely insane, as well as one which seems to have complete nonsensical justifications for pregnancy via rape!

Also for the record, what the media is telling you about how close it is is complete bull. In last months New Scientist there's a good article stating how many different large polling organisations that take into account many more factors are hailing a clear Obama win. This is also clearly shown in the betting odds - whether you like it or not, these companies finances depend on making sure that the person with the best return, the most tempting person to bet on, doesn't win. Romney is at 3/1 compared to Obama's 1.4/1.