2012 Presidential Poll

[ConservativeDad]

Plus, Obama's record on private sector job creation in his 2nd year has been far better than Bush's.

Any gains in the private sector are in spite of Obama, not because of him. So if Bush hired one guy to work on his ranch, he created more jobs in the private sector than Obama did.

 

[MaggieMae]

Plus, Obama's record on private sector job creation in his 2nd year has been far better than Bush's.

Any gains in the private sector are in spite of Obama, not because of him. So if Bush hired one guy to work on his ranch, he created more jobs in the private sector than Obama did.

You need to dig your head out of the sand and start reading up on some actual facts rather than just listening to cohorts who continue to spew the same type of meaningless crap. Did you bother to look at the links I provided? Obviously not.

It IS true that an accurate head count of jobs that resulted from stimulus projects can't be determined, the formula used to estimate the number can't be faulted. Again, see
Director's Blog Blog Archive Estimated Impact of ARRA on Employment and Economic Output From July 2010 Through September 2010

Not included in those final numbers were secondary jobs created as a result of, say, a road construction project and the increased business at nearby restaurants (or even motels, if the project was remote). Near where I live, the major two-lane thoroughfare that tied up traffic because of all the twists and turns in the road benefited from stimulus funds which finally created four lanes through that dangerous area. AND, there was a food wagon parked there all day long all summer long. The family who owned it would have otherwise been traveling all over the State of Vermont with their food truck going to auctions, etc., for the business.

Were a lot of those jobs temporary? Of course, but a job is a job is a job, and even though temporary in nature, those workers had more money in their pockets to SPEND SPEND SPEND.

 

[MHanson]

Lets do a 2012 presidential poll

And once again the third parties aren't listed. The last time I voted for either party was in 2004 in an effort to get someone out of the White House. Everyone knows how successful that was.

Before that it was thirty years voting for anyone else but.

One of these days it will dawn on people that there have always been more than two choices.

 

[MaggieMae]

Lets do a 2012 presidential poll

And once again the third parties aren't listed. The last time I voted for either party was in 2004 in an effort to get someone out of the White House. Everyone knows how successful that was.

Before that it was thirty years voting for anyone else but.

One of these days it will dawn on people that there have always been more than two choices.

A legitimate third party can only become validated when it is organized enough to raise money. Lots of it, in order to maintain and sustain its base of operations (like the RNC and the DNC). Third party candidates are successful in drawing only nominal amounts compared to the millions by the Republicans and Democrats, and if they stay in the race, wind up just being spoilers on the ticket for one party or the other. Sad, but true. I think the only chance a tea party candidate will have is if he/she aligns with the Libertarian Party, and even then, it would be a long shot.

 

[MHanson]

Lets do a 2012 presidential poll

And once again the third parties aren't listed. The last time I voted for either party was in 2004 in an effort to get someone out of the White House. Everyone knows how successful that was.

Before that it was thirty years voting for anyone else but.

One of these days it will dawn on people that there have always been more than two choices.

A legitimate third party can only become validated when it is organized enough to raise money. Lots of it, in order to maintain and sustain its base of operations (like the RNC and the DNC). Third party candidates are successful in drawing only nominal amounts compared to the millions by the Republicans and Democrats, and if they stay in the race, wind up just being spoilers on the ticket for one party or the other. Sad, but true. I think the only chance a tea party candidate will have is if he/she aligns with the Libertarian Party, and even then, it would be a long shot.

I heard an opinion of getting money out of the picture. Stop all massive contributions, especially from the corporations and lobbyists. Or using public money to be divided equally on all candidates.

Ah, I'll have to look into it more and do another post (don't want to be busted going off topic ...)

 

[kyzr]

And once again the third parties aren't listed. The last time I voted for either party was in 2004 in an effort to get someone out of the White House. Everyone knows how successful that was.

Before that it was thirty years voting for anyone else but.

One of these days it will dawn on people that there have always been more than two choices.

A legitimate third party can only become validated when it is organized enough to raise money. Lots of it, in order to maintain and sustain its base of operations (like the RNC and the DNC). Third party candidates are successful in drawing only nominal amounts compared to the millions by the Republicans and Democrats, and if they stay in the race, wind up just being spoilers on the ticket for one party or the other. Sad, but true. I think the only chance a tea party candidate will have is if he/she aligns with the Libertarian Party, and even then, it would be a long shot.

I heard an opinion of getting money out of the picture. Stop all massive contributions, especially from the corporations and lobbyists. Or using public money to be divided equally on all candidates. Ah, I'll have to look into it more and do another post (don't want to be busted going off topic ...)

Campaign financing is part of every campaign. Maybe you didn't notice this USSC ruling...
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns - FoxNews.com

Money is free-speech, it is the life blood of politics. Third parties don't have a realistic shot at beating the majors, unless the majors screw-up like in 2008. The GOP was sooooo bad that the dems took over DC. Then after a few years, the "teabag flavored" GOP looked better than the dems. and on and on and on and on......third parties are an best "spoilers" depending upon which major party loses the most votes.

 

[Anachronism]

Given those two options, I would either vote for a third party candidate (as I did for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008) or write my own name in on the ballot.

 

[Cain]

So far that I can tell from my Tea Party meetings, their not exactly 'candidate' motivated as much as policy motivated. The 3 local elections we just had, the Tea Party only voted for 2, both republicans, both same policies, and outlook. My problem is this:

Every time we send someone to the government from here, or anywhere I see, they end up either:

A) Becoming corrupt
B) Going from their views to new ones. Especially on hot topics ex. Gay Marriage, Abortion, 2nd Amendment, etc.

 

[MHanson]

A legitimate third party can only become validated when it is organized enough to raise money. Lots of it, in order to maintain and sustain its base of operations (like the RNC and the DNC). Third party candidates are successful in drawing only nominal amounts compared to the millions by the Republicans and Democrats, and if they stay in the race, wind up just being spoilers on the ticket for one party or the other. Sad, but true. I think the only chance a tea party candidate will have is if he/she aligns with the Libertarian Party, and even then, it would be a long shot.

I heard an opinion of getting money out of the picture. Stop all massive contributions, especially from the corporations and lobbyists. Or using public money to be divided equally on all candidates. Ah, I'll have to look into it more and do another post (don't want to be busted going off topic ...)

Campaign financing is part of every campaign. Maybe you didn't notice this USSC ruling...
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns - FoxNews.com

Money is free-speech, it is the life blood of politics. Third parties don't have a realistic shot at beating the majors, unless the majors screw-up like in 2008. The GOP was sooooo bad that the dems took over DC. Then after a few years, the "teabag flavored" GOP looked better than the dems. and on and on and on and on......third parties are an best "spoilers" depending upon which major party loses the most votes.

Mistakes can be reversed. Or the climate can change. Nothing is really set in stone.

Or maybe one day the majority of the People will finally get tired of the duel party arguments (pun totally intended) and use their heads instead. Or their hearts. Whatever it takes.

I'm tired of having the same thing over and over and over and over again, for over thirty years. Isn't anyone else?

 

[MaggieMae]

And once again the third parties aren't listed. The last time I voted for either party was in 2004 in an effort to get someone out of the White House. Everyone knows how successful that was.

Before that it was thirty years voting for anyone else but.

One of these days it will dawn on people that there have always been more than two choices.

A legitimate third party can only become validated when it is organized enough to raise money. Lots of it, in order to maintain and sustain its base of operations (like the RNC and the DNC). Third party candidates are successful in drawing only nominal amounts compared to the millions by the Republicans and Democrats, and if they stay in the race, wind up just being spoilers on the ticket for one party or the other. Sad, but true. I think the only chance a tea party candidate will have is if he/she aligns with the Libertarian Party, and even then, it would be a long shot.

I heard an opinion of getting money out of the picture. Stop all massive contributions, especially from the corporations and lobbyists. Or using public money to be divided equally on all candidates.

Ah, I'll have to look into it more and do another post (don't want to be busted going off topic ...)

I think that's what everyone wants, but I don't see it happening. For one thing, the USSC decision in Citizens would have to be revisited. That decision pretty much sealed monied campaigns.

 

[Avorysuds]

If you're going to make a poll, make it right, give options or deal with the fact people will talk all kinds of shit about it. There is not even a "none of the above" option. Last election I did a write in because I didn't like McCain or Obama, so it happens.

I understand no one will be happy with a poll, someone’s fav will always be left out but seriously, Obama and Mitt? It’s not THAT hard to give like 5-10 options… You can even make 2 threads, 1 for Dems and 1 for Reps.

 

[Avorysuds]

If the Tea Party calls the shots in the GOP 2012 primary then you're going to get Sarah Palin as your nominee if she runs. She's the only Tea Party approved candidate that will have enough money for the long primary haul.

So, good luck with that.

Wow, a post worse than the OP...

 

[MaggieMae]

I heard an opinion of getting money out of the picture. Stop all massive contributions, especially from the corporations and lobbyists. Or using public money to be divided equally on all candidates. Ah, I'll have to look into it more and do another post (don't want to be busted going off topic ...)

Campaign financing is part of every campaign. Maybe you didn't notice this USSC ruling...
Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns - FoxNews.com

Money is free-speech, it is the life blood of politics. Third parties don't have a realistic shot at beating the majors, unless the majors screw-up like in 2008. The GOP was sooooo bad that the dems took over DC. Then after a few years, the "teabag flavored" GOP looked better than the dems. and on and on and on and on......third parties are an best "spoilers" depending upon which major party loses the most votes.

Mistakes can be reversed. Or the climate can change. Nothing is really set in stone.

Or maybe one day the majority of the People will finally get tired of the duel party arguments (pun totally intended) and use their heads instead. Or their hearts. Whatever it takes.

I'm tired of having the same thing over and over and over and over again, for over thirty years. Isn't anyone else?

It's not the parties so much as the enormous bureaucracy they get caught up in, once they are elected. Some simple solutions would be:

1. Eliminate the overlapping responsibilities of the multitude of agencies and subagencies; weed out the "administrative" staff hired to support the "boss" of each of those. How many paper pushers do they really need? Think of just the overhead costs alone that would be eliminated. AND keep it up, i.e., a review every year.

2. Reduce the number of "committees" established to "review" pending legislation before it ever gets in draft form to reach the respective chamber floors for debate. There's huge overlapping of responsibilities there, too. That would cut down on the time it takes to get major legislation through, and fewer eyes and fingers on the draft legislation that requires a gazillion edits by a gazillion people.

3. Stop spending an entire morning making speeches and resolutions about nonessential business, naming post offices or highways, etc. Those could be quickly accomplished in writing and entered into the Congressional Record and announced by press release.

4. Require a daily log of non-governmental people, including registered and nonregistered lobbyists, who visit Capital Hill and who they visit (just like the White House log). That way, if some lawmaker wants to hide his/her contributions, at least there's a record of a lobbyist's visit by name and organization which may, or may not, raise a red flag at some future date.

5. Require that lawmakers be IN THE CHAMBER(S) during crucial debate on policy issues. The fact that they wander in and out, due to other "more important" business such as attending a favorite caucus meeting, needs to stop. If they only arrive to vote, how the hell do they know what they're voting on?

I'm sure lots of people here can add to these suggestions. Have at it.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you're going to make a poll, make it right, give options or deal with the fact people will talk all kinds of shit about it. There is not even a "none of the above" option. Last election I did a write in because I didn't like McCain or Obama, so it happens.

I understand no one will be happy with a poll, someone’s fav will always be left out but seriously, Obama and Mitt? It’s not THAT hard to give like 5-10 options… You can even make 2 threads, 1 for Dems and 1 for Reps.

Straw polls on message boards are pretty dumb anyway. They're too predictable.

 

[Avorysuds]

If you're going to make a poll, make it right, give options or deal with the fact people will talk all kinds of shit about it. There is not even a "none of the above" option. Last election I did a write in because I didn't like McCain or Obama, so it happens.

I understand no one will be happy with a poll, someone’s fav will always be left out but seriously, Obama and Mitt? It’s not THAT hard to give like 5-10 options… You can even make 2 threads, 1 for Dems and 1 for Reps.

Straw polls on message boards are pretty dumb anyway. They're too predictable.

I agree... That's why I offer making 1 for dems and 1 for reps. Also make the people names that vote visible and ask only Liberals/indys to vote Dem and Conservative/indys to vote Rep. Without the names I promise there will be people like Shaman, Rtard, RW and TM voting for dumbshit people just to **** with the poll... Same goes for as few on the right.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you're going to make a poll, make it right, give options or deal with the fact people will talk all kinds of shit about it. There is not even a "none of the above" option. Last election I did a write in because I didn't like McCain or Obama, so it happens.

I understand no one will be happy with a poll, someone’s fav will always be left out but seriously, Obama and Mitt? It’s not THAT hard to give like 5-10 options… You can even make 2 threads, 1 for Dems and 1 for Reps.

Straw polls on message boards are pretty dumb anyway. They're too predictable.

I agree... That's why I offer making 1 for dems and 1 for reps. Also make the people names that vote visible and ask only Liberals/indys to vote Dem and Conservative/indys to vote Rep. Without the names I promise there will be people like Shaman, Rtard, RW and TM voting for dumbshit people just to **** with the poll... Same goes for as few on the right.

True. I've only checked the results of one poll that I can recall, and sure 'nuff, I could practically name the ones who voted as they did.

 

[rightwinger]

If you're going to make a poll, make it right, give options or deal with the fact people will talk all kinds of shit about it. There is not even a "none of the above" option. Last election I did a write in because I didn't like McCain or Obama, so it happens.

I understand no one will be happy with a poll, someone’s fav will always be left out but seriously, Obama and Mitt? It’s not THAT hard to give like 5-10 options… You can even make 2 threads, 1 for Dems and 1 for Reps.

Straw polls on message boards are pretty dumb anyway. They're too predictable.

I agree... That's why I offer making 1 for dems and 1 for reps. Also make the people names that vote visible and ask only Liberals/indys to vote Dem and Conservative/indys to vote Rep. Without the names I promise there will be people like Shaman, Rtard, RW and TM voting for dumbshit people just to **** with the poll... Same goes for as few on the right.

Hate to disappoint...but I don't do internet polls

Yours....like most.....are a waste of a keystroke

 

[Avorysuds]

Straw polls on message boards are pretty dumb anyway. They're too predictable.

I agree... That's why I offer making 1 for dems and 1 for reps. Also make the people names that vote visible and ask only Liberals/indys to vote Dem and Conservative/indys to vote Rep. Without the names I promise there will be people like Shaman, Rtard, RW and TM voting for dumbshit people just to **** with the poll... Same goes for as few on the right.

Hate to disappoint...but I don't do internet polls

Yours....like most.....are a waste of a keystroke

Hahaha... Ohh man you're fun to **** with RW =D

 

[Dr.Traveler]

None of the dopes and mopes you mentioned in your poll will even be on the 2012 Presidential ballot. To early to know who will be running for sure but I can promise you that Obama/Biden will not be.

Obama is already forming up the re-election committee and hiring consultants. He's running and he'll carry the DNC nomination. Unseating a sitting President from inside the party is pretty close to impossible.

On the GOP side, Romney will almost certainly be running, as will Daniels and Pawlenty. Jindal is a bit of a wild card but I suspect he will not run. He's up for re-election in Louisiana soon and running in 2012 would be too soon after that in terms of money, manpower, and experience. Palin will likely run to appease her ego, though she shouldn't. She's got a better thing going.

The poll above is likely pretty close, though I'd bet the ticket in the end is Romney/Daniels. But we'll see. If Palin wants the nod, she'll get it.

 

[WillowTree]

Luckily the Libertarian, Constitution, Green parties will all be on the ballot as well.

Lucky for who? IMHO 2012 will be a serious election. No Nader, No Stassen, No Ron Paul, etc. It will be a real dog fight, and the TEA Party will be the most motivated.

The Tea Party will be motivated to nominate Romney? That would prove without a shadow of doubt that they were co-opted by the Republicans.

old old meme.. hey,, got news for ya buddy,, that's a given.. ain't a snowball's chance in hell that the teaparty would EVER get co opted by the demonRats.. think about it.