2012 Presidential Poll for January 2012

[Betsy Speicher 0]

This topic will remain pinned and open for voting and comments until the end of January 2012.

[Joss Delage 0]

Casting my vote for Gary Johnson.

[Laars 0]

Ron Paul would get my vote.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I fixed the poll to allow multiple vote on "Who would you NEVER vote for or support?"

[Joss Delage 0]

I now think that Obama is likely to win -- as of today, based on the current performance of the Reps and based on the fact that most people think that the economy is "trending up".

[mcvideo 0]

I don't think it's going to matter who the Republican nominee will be. The sheer number of people whose income, in whole or in part, comes from the government means that all Zerobama has to do is say to these people: "Vote for [insert candidate here], and he will take away your handouts."

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Polls show that 75% of Americans are opposed to the way Obama is running the country and he has lost almost all of the support of the idealistic young people who put him over the top last time. No President has ever been re-elected with such high unemployment figures. The one group most opposed to Obama are retired people. Even though they are getting Social Security and Medicare, they are active in Tea Parties and registering Republican. Obama's re-election is not a done deal.

[Carlos 0]

Obama's re-election is not a done deal.

The trends in Rasmussen's different polls about Obama make his chances look pretty grim.

Generic Republicans have been beating Obama now for the past 1/2 year

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

and the different metrics for approval have undergone an almost staggering reversal

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This in particular gives a very good sum of what has happened over the last 3 years

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Romney has been losing to Obama in Rasmussen polls, and just today I heard a news item stating that Rasmussen's latest has them tied.

The economy is going to bury Obama. From what I understand, this will be Carter vs Reagan redux.

[Joss Delage 0]

Whatever one thinks of Romney, the (Republican) attacks on his role at Bain Capital are repulsive.

[Charles T. 0]

I am confident that Obama will lose in a landslide. If I had money to put into the market, I would do so in the days preceding the election, because it will skyrocket as soon as Obama loses. (I am not a professional investor, that's just my opinion.)

[mcvideo 0]

Polls show that 75% of Americans are opposed to the way Obama is running the country and he has lost almost all of the support of the idealistic young people who put him over the top last time. No President has ever been re-elected with such high unemployment figures. The one group most opposed to Obama are retired people. Even though they are getting Social Security and Medicare, they are active in Tea Parties and registering Republican. Obama's re-election is not a done deal.

I certainly appreciate and wish I could share your optimism. Perhaps I've been in my line of work for too long. The only poll that matters is the one on election day. While I agree that Zerobama's election is not a fait accompli, I still believe it to be likely no matter who the 'Republican' nominee will be. Why vote for Democrat-lite when you can vote for the real thing? After all (paraphrasing here), Miss Rand said that the candidate with the most consistent philosophy will win.

Still, I reserve the right to change my opinion as the facts warrent.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I am confident that Obama will lose in a landslide. If I had money to put into the market, I would do so in the days preceding the election, because it will skyrocket as soon as Obama loses. (I am not a professional investor, that's just my opinion.)

Obama could lose but it won't be a matter of principle. What it will be is some catastrophic event or a wretched economic downturn. The great American voting public will invoke the post hoc fallacy. So Obama could end up losing, but for the wrong reason.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Obama's re-election is not a done deal.

The trends in Rasmussen's different polls about Obama make his chances look pretty grim.

Generic Republicans have been beating Obama now for the past 1/2 year

http://www.rasmussen...idential_ballot

and the different metrics for approval have undergone an almost staggering reversal

http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll

This in particular gives a very good sum of what has happened over the last 3 years

http://www.rasmussen...l_index_history

Romney has been losing to Obama in Rasmussen polls, and just today I heard a news item stating that Rasmussen's latest has them tied.

The economy is going to bury Obama. From what I understand, this will be Carter vs Reagan redux.

Genetic Republicans always come out ahead in the polls. Not so for real specific Republicans.

ruveyn

[Erik Christensen 0]

I too, think that Obama will lose in a landslide against whomever is the GOP nominee. Nor only that, but I predict more gains in the House and a tie if not winning of the Senate.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Why vote for Democrat-lite when you can vote for the real thing? After all (paraphrasing here), Miss Rand said that the candidate with the most consistent philosophy will win.

Actually, what she said was "When men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win." In this election, Obama's basic premise is to get elected so he can continue ruining the country. Every Republican candidate (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) has as his basic premise to stop him. The debate is not over who is the more compassionate, altruistic, religious, etc. at all.

[mcvideo 0]

Why vote for Democrat-lite when you can vote for the real thing? After all (paraphrasing here), Miss Rand said that the candidate with the most consistent philosophy will win.

Actually, what she said was "When men share the same basic premise, it is the most consistent ones who win." In this election, Obama's basic premise is to get elected so he can continue ruining the country. Every Republican candidate (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) has as his basic premise to stop him. The debate is not over who is the more compassionate, altruistic, religious, etc. at all.

I stand corrected with regards to my misquote. My apologies.

[Carlos 0]

I am confident that Obama will lose in a landslide. If I had money to put into the market, I would do so in the days preceding the election, because it will skyrocket as soon as Obama loses. (I am not a professional investor, that's just my opinion.)

Obama could lose but it won't be a matter of principle. What it will be is some catastrophic event or a wretched economic downturn.

ruveyn

Voting the current president out of office because the economy is a mess and you (the voter) think he (the president) caused it or can't fix it sounds like a great reason.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Voting the current president out of office because the economy is a mess and you (the voter) think he (the president) caused it or can't fix it sounds like a great reason.

It would be a manifestation of the post hoc fallacy.

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Voting the current president out of office because the economy is a mess and you (the voter) think he (the president) caused it or can't fix it sounds like a great reason.

It would be a manifestation of the post hoc fallacy.

It would be a post hoc fallacy only if he wasn't the cause of the trouble. In fact, he was and that can be proved, so it is a valid causal connection and not a fallacy of any kind.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Voting the current president out of office because the economy is a mess and you (the voter) think he (the president) caused it or can't fix it sounds like a great reason.

It would be a manifestation of the post hoc fallacy.

It would be a post hoc fallacy only if he wasn't the cause of the trouble. In fact, he was and that can be proved, so it is a valid causal connection and not a fallacy of any kind.

Yes, but most of the American electorate would not know a cause if it punched them in the nose. Most would come to the correct conclusion for the wrong reason. Never overestimate the logical ability of the American electorate. Look who they have voted into office since the time of FDR.

I have long despaired of the American electorate coming to its senses. I think the system will have to collapse before they wake up.

ruveyn