• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the election were tomorrow for POTUS

If the election was held tomorrow for POTUS ... your ballot?

  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
Tucker Case said:
It might be a little different this time around, as it seems that the Daily Show and Colbert are giving some time to Johnson as he states his goal of getting enough votes to get the libertarian party into the presidential debates for 2016. How much of an effect that will have, who knows. But it'd be nice to have a third voice, any third voice, heard.
Click to expand...
I am all for whatever it takes to shake up the 2 sided corrupt coin we have come to know of U.S. politics. Be it a relevant 3rd party which snaps leaders back in line in order to keep their jobs or by actual representation of the people. Its needed that is for certain. I am voting 3rd party for the 1st time for POTUS this year. I am no longer going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate leaving the voting booth feeling like that. People say that a vote for a 3rd party which has no real chance of winning is a wasted vote. To me, voting for someone you really would not want to lead you because the competition is even moreso is a wasted vote.
 
00timh said:
I am all for whatever it takes to shake up the 2 sided corrupt coin we have come to know of U.S. politics. Be it a relevant 3rd party which snaps leaders back in line in order to keep their jobs or by actual representation of the people. Its needed that is for certain. I am voting 3rd party for the 1st time for POTUS this year. I am no longer going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate leaving the voting booth feeling like that. People say that a vote for a 3rd party which has no real chance of winning is a wasted vote. To me, voting for someone you really would not want to lead you because the competition is even moreso is a wasted vote.
Click to expand...

I've always voted third party for POTUS because in my state my vote never has a chance of counting anyway. The only way I can possibly not waste my vote is by voting third party.
 
Tucker Case said:
I've always voted third party for POTUS because in my state my vote never has a chance of counting anyway. The only way I can possibly not waste my vote is by voting third party.
Click to expand...


It used to be that way in my state. The last time my state carried a Democrat for President was LBJ. We were able to change that in 2008, when our state carried Obama for president.
 
00timh said:
I am all for whatever it takes to shake up the 2 sided corrupt coin we have come to know of U.S. politics. Be it a relevant 3rd party which snaps leaders back in line in order to keep their jobs or by actual representation of the people. Its needed that is for certain. I am voting 3rd party for the 1st time for POTUS this year. I am no longer going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate leaving the voting booth feeling like that. People say that a vote for a 3rd party which has no real chance of winning is a wasted vote. To me, voting for someone you really would not want to lead you because the competition is even moreso is a wasted vote.
Click to expand...


I am also for shaking up the two parties and have something new in as a third...I just dont think a libertarian fits that bill...I know it doesnt for me.
 
lpast said:
I am also for shaking up the two parties and have something new in as a third...I just dont think a libertarian fits that bill...I know it doesnt for me.
Click to expand...

I like their position on foreign policy where we only go to war with countries that attack us, but other than that, I find all of their positions to be too extreme and think they would not benefit our country or its citizens.

My best realistic option I believe, is to get more progressives in the Democrat party to join the majority there that voted against the war in Iraq.
 
johnny_rebson said:
I think Johnson of the Libertarian Party will do well this year. It should be one of the best years for a third party presidential candidate since Ross Perot ran.
Click to expand...

And lost, just like Johnson will.
 
I'm voting against Obama. I can't vote for anyone. I'm voting for the one with the best chance of keeping Obama out of a second term.
 
lpast said:
zyph I dont know if I can agree with your statement that libertarians are more hooked into politics...theres many dems and traditonal gopers that are tuned into politics just as well....libertarians the way I view them have dual goals....some I think are genuinely good for the country and some I think are totally nuts...libertarians ever since I can remember knowing anything about them consistently get the same 8-11% support over the years Ron Paul stayed right in that bracket...I predict his son will do worse down the road...hes insane
Click to expand...

Wasn't saying that libertarians are more hooked into politics in relation to Democrats and Republicans. I'm saying that you're more likely to find MORE libertarians in a group of individuals that are interested in politics than you are in the general population, especially in relation to Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans are the common things, the popular things, the obvious things. For those that just lightly pay attention to politics there's a huge likelihood that if they identify with a party they're going to be identifying with one of those two...because they're the ones that are commonly known and are considered "normal" to support.

This is different than a crowd that's rather in tune with politics. For them, they are more likely to understand some of the difference between Libertarians and the other two other than possibly stereotypes in the mainstream such as it's the "pot smoking" party. They are more likely to be ideologically driven, not simply party driven, and as such more likely to side with a 3rd party that has no hope of winning but suits their philosophy then simply getting in on the "Team" aspect of politics by choosing one of the "sides".

So it's not that Libertarians are inherently more hooked into politics than Dem's or Republicans...it's that I'd wager that you have a higher percentage of libertarians within crowds of "people hooked into politics" then in the general population.
 
Tucker Case said:
It might be a little different this time around, as it seems that the Daily Show and Colbert are giving some time to Johnson as he states his goal of getting enough votes to get the libertarian party into the presidential debates for 2016. How much of an effect that will have, who knows. But it'd be nice to have a third voice, any third voice, heard.
Click to expand...

I agree it'd be nice. I disagree it's likely to happen. Again, I'll point to the history I brought up in previous posts. Replace "Debate" with "Colbert and Stewart":

Zyphlin said:
The Libertarian Party couldn't manage even .5% of the popular vote last year. That's less than half a percent. Same goes for 2004. Guess what, same goes for 2000 as well. Actually, if you add up their percentage of the popular vote for the past THREE Presidential elections you BARELY get over 1% total of the popular vote (1.08%). Look at that again, you've got to add up their votes for the past three elections to even get to 1% of the popular vote. Over the past twenty years, that's 6 elections, they've not even broken 2.5% combined (2.33%) with their highest in that span being half a percent in 1996. That's pathetic.

Even if we assumed that being in the debates would give them...hell, lets go crazy...a 500% bump in their COMBINED results they'd still only have 14% of the popular vote. And that's going off their combined totals from 6 elections. Going off their average, to get to that same measely 14%, would mean that they'd need a 3,500% bump. To get from their average over the past 20 years (.39) to even a THIRD of the popular vote would mean an increase of almost 8,500%. I don't care if they had a debate that was nothing BUT the Libertarian candidate on stage, there's no way in hell that it's going to give them a 500% bump let alone one 17 times that amount.
Click to expand...

Maybe it'll happen....but on this, with libertarians, it's going to need to be a "show me before I even come close to believing it".

I'd love to see a third party significantly viable as well...but I'm just not hopeful based on recent history.
 
I will vote for Romney. That being said, I don't feel he is the the right candidate for the GOP. I would much prefer Paul Ryan (R)-WI. This should turn out to be an interesting election cycle though.
 
Romney-he is good on the issues that matter to me-and not as bad as Obama on the issues that don't matter as much to me. He actually had a successful career in something other than politics or sucking on the public tit
 
Zyphlin said:
I agree it'd be nice. I disagree it's likely to happen. Again, I'll point to the history I brought up in previous posts. Replace "Debate" with "Colbert and Stewart":



Maybe it'll happen....but on this, with libertarians, it's going to need to be a "show me before I even come close to believing it".

I'd love to see a third party significantly viable as well...but I'm just not hopeful based on recent history.
Click to expand...

I agree its pretty unlikely. But, Gary Johnson does seem to me, although only anecdotal, to be gaining more recognition than Bob Barr or Michael Badnarik did. I wouldn't say that crossing the 1% threshold would be impossible for him.
 

I have voted Independent in the past, (Anderson, Nader) but with the rightward decent into self absorbed greed & lack of consern for others, I have been forced to vote for the Democrats, who it boils down to, have a chance of defeating the monster. :peace
Tucker Case said:
I've always voted third party for POTUS because in my state my vote never has a chance of counting anyway. The only way I can possibly not waste my vote is by voting third party.
Click to expand...
 

Yeah, He is practiced at taking from both the business he's pupporting to "save" & his investers, while leaving the commoners to depend on the government teat, when they go to collect their pensions.
Win or Lose Bain always won. :peace
TurtleDude said:
Romney-he is good on the issues that matter to me-and not as bad as Obama on the issues that don't matter as much to me. He actually had a successful career in something other than politics or sucking on the public tit
Click to expand...
 
I'm not really sure why the recent SC decision regarding Obamacare* would influence a person's vote one way or another. I mean, unless you were truly undecided... which I think is possible, albeit unlikely... you probably had your mind made up already anyway. He and his people argued for their side of an issue. Is that shocking to anybody?

*- This is how I interpret the purpose and timing of this particular thread.
 
jpevans said:

I have voted Independent in the past, (Anderson, Nader) but with the rightward decent into self absorbed greed & lack of consern for others, I have been forced to vote for the Democrats, who it boils down to, have a chance of defeating the monster. :peace
Click to expand...

I'm voting third party in protest to Obama and Romney. Am I "throwing away" my vote? Maybe, but I can't in good conscience vote DNC, or GOP for the Presidency. Both of them, in my opinion, are the monster.
 
Obama will win, he can relax, says expert US forecaster

"Lichtman has been correctly predicting the outcome of US presidential elections since 1984 with the help of a model — that he developed with (then) Soviet geophysicist Vladimir Kellis Brook — based upon the theory of pragmatic voting. According to this theory, America’s electorate chooses a President, not according to events of the campaign, but according to how well the party in control of the White House has governed the country.

Lichtman — author of The Keys to the White House — spoke to Devadeep Purohit of The Telegraph to explain the details of his model and its applicability beyond the US.

Prediction for 2012 US elections

My first prediction for 2012 elections was published in the Journal of Information Systems in January 2010, almost three years before the elections. Based on my model, I have been consistently predicting that Barack Obama is going to be re-elected President of the United States. He can relax, his re-election is assured. But I know he won’t relax because no politician believes what an academic has to say.

The basis of the forecast

The idea is that elections are basically votes — up or down — on how well the party holding the White House has governed. If the party has governed badly, they lose. If things are going reasonably well, they win. And the keys to prediction are 13 true/false questions, which primarily relate to strength and performance of the party holding the White House.

(Sample some of the key questions: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign, real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms, there is no sustained social unrest during the term, the incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs etc)

An answer of true favours the re-election of the party in power and an answer of false favours the challengers. If six or more keys are false, then the party in power loses. If fewer than six are false, the party holding the White House wins. This time it is Obama and the Democrats… They only have three false keys, which is well short of predicting their defeat."

Obama will win, he can relax, says expert US forecaster
 
Camlon said:
Well, the keys were wrong in 2000, but they got around it by saying Al Gore won the popular vote.

You can not rely solely on one method.
Click to expand...

The keys were right in 2000 in predicting the winner, as they were in every presidential election since 1984. They were not designed to predict when the voting process would be undermined by a Supreme Court decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom