Betsy Speicher

FINAL Presidential Poll for 2012

FINAL Presidential Poll for 2012   17 votes

  1. 1. If the 2012 Presidential Election were being held today, who would you vote for or support?

    • Gary Johnson
      0
    • Barack Obama
      0
    • Mitt Romney
      14
    • Another candidate
      1
    • Would not vote
      0
  2. 2. Who would you NEVER vote for or support?

    • Gary Johnson
      2
    • Barack Obama
      15
    • Mitt Romney
      0
  3. 3. Who do you think will win?

    • Gary Johnson
      0
    • Barack Obama
      6
    • Mitt Romney
      9

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

84 posts in this topic

This topic will remain pinned and open for voting and comments until Election Day, November 6, 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Obama will win. If anything, Sandy is going to make him look more "presidential", what ever that means. Hopefully, I'm going to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I sure hope you're right. If that's the case, there's going to be a lot of crow pie eating on 11/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is a Romney/GOP victory will spur minorities and ne'er do wells to riot.

It's already started. Some GOP people in Wisconsin got seriously beaten up by Obama thugs. One of the victims was even a senator's son, who was confronting people for tearing up his Romney/Ryan signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leftist union thugs have routinely been beating up people over elections for the last two Obama administration elections and well before that.

Moveon.org is now running Obama video ads filled with profanity, racism and explicit threats of violence:

Washington Examiner: MoveOn.org advocates violence against Romney in profanity-laced ad, October 30, 2012

1930s Nazi brownshirts had nothing on this mentality. These people should be under surveillance and rounded up and arrested at the first sign of explicit threat or action against any individual. Instead they want Obama to rule the country on their behalf. These kinds of activities, along with all of the rest of Obama's usurpation of government power, statements that "after my election I will have more flexibility" told to Russia, and all the rest of it should frighten everyone into voting for Romney above all other considerations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious why there are 2 NEVER votes for Gary Johnson.

Admittedly, I'm not horribly familiar with him as a politician, but the more I've read Ayn Rand's works, the more I find myself at odds with both the Democrats (for obvious reasons) and the GOP (for being Altruist apologists) and tend to agree with most of the Libertarian party since it's the closest to Laissez Fair that I can find.

I know that Any Rand was opposed to the Libertarian party of her time, but I think that the Libertarian party of today is much different than it was then.

Be gentle, I'm a newbie! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked the same question in the past. Personally I like him quite a bit, though I liked him better as a contender for the GOP. As a LP candidate, he has mostly been talking about ending the wars & has adopted the LP's isolationist stance. He also has sued the debate commission to be included...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this interesting...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-capitalism-heartless-president-of-the-ayn-rand-institute-talks-economic-policy-and-how-to-fix-the-economy-with-theblaze/#ooid=Y5Ym5iNjoGI8X4vN0uUgeNdYyHUTJ80j

Mr. Brook's point is this : Obama or Romney will win, that is reality, regardless of how we feel. It is a waste of a vote to not realize that.

That seems to be consistent with my understanding of Objectivism. Reality is what matters, not your desire, or how it "should be". That being said, I think Mr. Brook is assuming that the point of all votes is to elect the President. I don't always cast my ballot for who I want to win. I may cast my ballot to make a statement to the GOP. Since I live in Texas, I know that Romney will get the electoral college votes, and to me, my vote is much more valuable when I cast it for a Libertarian. I hope that the GOP takes a few lessons from the LP. Maybe a few votes cast that way will help send a message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious why there are 2 NEVER votes for Gary Johnson.

Admittedly, I'm not horribly familiar with him as a politician, but the more I've read Ayn Rand's works, the more I find myself at odds with both the Democrats (for obvious reasons) and the GOP (for being Altruist apologists) and tend to agree with most of the Libertarian party since it's the closest to Laissez Fair that I can find.

I know that Any Rand was opposed to the Libertarian party of her time, but I think that the Libertarian party of today is much different than it was then.

Be gentle, I'm a newbie! :)

One sufficient reason to not vote for Johnson is that it is a wasted vote. He lost the primary. If you want to make a difference in the real world for the good then a vote for Johnson only helps Obama. "Who would you never vote for?" is a question in the context of the election here in the real world, not whatever other alternatives one can imagine, but those who specifically answered the question as "never" would have to speak for themselves.

A couple of similarities between the Libertarian Party of today and over a quarter century ago is that they still don't know what is feasible to change in the forseeable future, don't know how to win an election for change that is possible, don't understand what the basis for a free society is and how much is required to achieve it, believe that election campaigns should be used to "educate" instead of choosing a viable candidate for a real government we have to live under, think that a vote for something no one understands or which is misrepresented by LP slogans including the worst of them is a form of education or 'making a statement', think that people will and should squander their right to vote on a guaranteed loser, emphasize slogans as floating abstractions that evade real problems voters are concerned about in favor of faith in magic without regard to means in the real world, and contradict themselves with conflicting positions they claim are an ideal. That is the gentle version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson, like Paul has a much better domestic policy than Romney, but his foreign policy (like Paul's) is highly irrational (verging on suicidal). A vote for Johnson is nothing more than siphoning votes away from Romney creating a vote for Obama by default. Gary Johnson falls into the trap that many libertarians fall into; espousing a political system with no moral foundations or ethics other than the absence of force. Those who support Johnson are guilty of package dealing the politics of Romney and Obama. They are context dropping in order to justify their support for their candidate. they fail to realize that ALL candidates fall short of the perfect candidate. Johnsonites hold a misconception that four years under Romney will be no different than 4 years under Obama. Poppycock! Although Romney is a R.I.N.O.'s R.I.N.O., he is no Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses.

I think your criticisms of the LP and Gary Johnson are totally fair. However, I think it's pretty ironic that you both criticize a vote for Johnson as a "wasted vote" or a "vote for Obama". This criticism is not at all based on reality. I live in Tx, and I understand the real world and how presidential elections work in the united states. If I lived in a state where the vote was even remotely close, of course I'd vote Romney. However, if anything is "faith in magic without regards to means in the real world", it's someone who thinks that a vote for Johnson in TX (about 12% Romney lead) is somehow a vote for Obama. That is simply untrue.

However, Like I said, I do appreciate the criticisms of the LP and Gary Johnson, especially the "espousing a political system with no moral foundation" part. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in States where Romney is well ahead I would still vote for him, because the massive size of the victory also has a psychological impact on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has a bigger and more meaningful impact than any "statement" attempted by a vote for the LP, where the small numbers are barely reported and no one has a clue as to what different people with different motives who vote for the LP are trying to "say", if anything: a vague anarchism? ostrich foreign policy? legalize drugs? emotional frustration with major parties, etc.

It is important that Romney win by as much as possible to emphasize the rejection of Obama in practical terms through numbers reported on what everyone knows what the campaigns are about.

A vote for Johnson is not literally a vote for Obama -- otherwise it would have been explicitly for Obama -- but the practical effect is because it is one less vote for Romney that is wasted or worse if he loses due to "spoilers" playing games with a crucial practical election between only two candidates who can win.

"Faith in magic without regards to means in the real world" referred to LP campaign "explanations" of what it is trying to do by what practical means in which they cannot connect their "principles" with how they are expected to solve real problems in the foreseeable future. It is extremely unlikely that a single vote will make a difference anywhere, but the accumulation does and casting one only vote is a practical principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ewv. Great point about a vote for Johnson not really conveying a clear message. Since sending a message would be my only reason for such a vote, in stands to reason that such a vote would be an error. Consider me convinced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since sending a message would be my only reason for such a vote, in stands to reason that such a vote would be an error. Consider me convinced!

Whenever a friend or political ally wants to vote in order to "send a message" I tell them that the best way to send a message is to send a message. Send an email, letter to the editor, etc. explaining what you stand for and why. That way, the message recipient will have a better chance of understanding and being convinced by your message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Who would you never vote for?" is a question in the context of the election here in the real world, not whatever other alternatives one can imagine, but those who specifically answered the question as "never" would have to speak for themselves.

In that case, it's the same question at the first one, isn't it? By definition if you plan to vote for A you will never vote for B or C in the context of this election. Are you saying that this is a question just for undecided?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that voting for GJ as a means to sending a message is effective. It's actually much more effective than to send a letter or an email. The GOP is going to need to change in the future with regard to immigration, abortion rights, etc. Voting for the LP sends a message that things need to change. Polsters and political analyst are sophisticated enough to then investigate as to why some votes (which should have gone to the GOP) went to the LP.

Personally, I have moved away from my initial enthusiasm for GJ due to his ludicrous campaign. However, I still think it would be a very legit (rationnal) decision for an Objectivist.

We had the same discussion four years ago, and the same arguments were made: now is not the time to waste your vote. In the mean time the GOP has not evolved. There was a glimmer of hope with the tea party, but it wasn't a structured pro-freedom, pro-reason movement, and now it has been diluted and has lost meaning. The GOP has stuck to its mysticism and has ratcheted up its anti-immigration. Romney has conducted a completely pragmatic campaign, to the point that I'm not even sure what he will try to do if elected - I'm not even clear he'll take down Obamacare anymore. All I can say is that he's not has bad as Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The GOP has stuck to its mysticism and has ratcheted up its anti-immigration.

Why, when America is approaching fiscal destruction, when we are approaching a critical crossroads where we may forever become a European style socialist country with nationalized healthcare and insurance systems, should anyone in their right mind care about immigration or hypothetical religious-right scaremongering for this election? We are facing a problem so serious that if left uncontested the consequences will be so dire as to render immaterial any concerns about immigration policy or mystic threats of the religious-right. This is like the Siege of Gondor in LOTR: if you can't defeat that foe then you won't need to worry about any others because you will be dead. Who will bother to care about immigration or gay-marriage when their country is a wasteland with civil war or statism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this forum yesterday, and only discovered Ayn Rand about a year ago. I always thought I was a conservative, but was very disheartened with the GOP. I read Atlas Shrugged, and it was my "AH HA" moment. Since then I've read Foutainhead, Anthem, We The Living, Capitalism, the Unknown Idea, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Three Plays. I'm now reading Yaron Brook's "Free Market Revolution". Until I posted this question, I was pretty comfortable with labeling myself a libertarian with a small l or an asterisk or however I denote that I don't agree with some of the platform. I they're pretty close to spot on on the implementation of Capitalism. My observation of the GOP party has let me to believe that they are (IMO) mostly Altruist "with friends like these" Capitalist apologists. I can't find the quote, but I've seen a vido of Mrs. Rand herself saying that the Conservatives will ultimately do more damage to Capitalism than the liberals ever will for reasons similar to what I just outlined. I wish I could find that video!!

However, some of the points that have been made are making me reconsidering my position.

Thanks so much to the contributors in this discussion. It's nice to talk to people who are actually informed. I'm quite glad I found this place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, when America is approaching fiscal destruction, when we are approaching a critical crossroads where we may forever become a European style socialist country with nationalized healthcare and insurance systems, should anyone in their right mind care about immigration or hypothetical religious-right scaremongering for this election? We are facing a problem so serious that if left uncontested the consequences will be so dire as to render immaterial any concerns about immigration policy or mystic threats of the religious-right. This is like the Siege of Gondor in LOTR: if you can't defeat that foe then you won't need to worry about any others because you will be dead. Who will bother to care about immigration or gay-marriage when their country is a wasteland with civil war or statism?

Why do you say that? Everything that is done by a given government can be undone by another. Germany came back from Nazism, and the Baltic countries came back with a bang from a generation of Stalinism. Surely the American people can roll back 8 years of Obama. We will not die in the next 4 years if Obama is elected. This is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, when America is approaching fiscal destruction, when we are approaching a critical crossroads where we may forever become a European style socialist country with nationalized healthcare and insurance systems, should anyone in their right mind care about immigration or hypothetical religious-right scaremongering for this election? We are facing a problem so serious that if left uncontested the consequences will be so dire as to render immaterial any concerns about immigration policy or mystic threats of the religious-right. This is like the Siege of Gondor in LOTR: if you can't defeat that foe then you won't need to worry about any others because you will be dead. Who will bother to care about immigration or gay-marriage when their country is a wasteland with civil war or statism?

Why do you say that? Everything that is done by a given government can be undone by another. Germany came back from Nazism, and the Baltic countries came back with a bang from a generation of Stalinism. Surely the American people can roll back 8 years of Obama. We will not die in the next 4 years if Obama is elected. This is ludicrous.

Did all the dead victims of the Nazis and the Stalinists "come back"? For those who lived but lost years of happiness and peace, can they have those years back? Civilization can always eventually recover from collapse, given enough time; but this fact is hardly comfort for those on whom civilization collapses. What is ludicrous is the abstract comfort you are trying to offer by saying that a new and better America may, 100 years from now, figuratively rise from the ashes of my and our families' homes. Recovery happens well in the future beyond our lifespans, and cannot undo the destruction and misery that happens to us now.

Go vote based on immigration and waste your life if you want; I'm sure as hell not going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely the American people can roll back 8 years of Obama. We will not die in the next 4 years if Obama is elected. This is ludicrous.

If you think that Obama's damage can be easily "rolled back" then you aren't paying attention. How many countries, once they've socialized healthcare, ever undo that? How easy is it to roll back the EPA? The growth of the government and expansion of its powers is effectively a ratchet that only goes one way. There is a point of no return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites