Which presidential candidate are you voting for in the 2012 election and why?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said before, I voted for "not voting" because I dont live in America and didnt want to have to press the "view poll result" button every time I checked the thread. Didnt realize until after I voted that it was a stupid thing to do.

Same here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? The worst ever? In the entire history of the world?

I agree that Obama isn't the worst.
Caligula, Nero & Kim Jong Il were worserest.

Perhaps you missed the fact that the entire world is in an economic meltdown. Perhaps you also missed the fact that the economy hit rock bottom in 2008, early 2009, and has been slowly moving up since then.
Sure, you can argue that perhaps the economy should be getting better faster, but it's hard to deny that it is getting better. Hardly the criteria for "worst ever" financial stewardship.
Two other sticky little points for you. One: the president has power, but not that much power. Congress, the accumulated domestic economic issues of the past decade plus, and the inertia of a world wide economy play a much larger roll. Two: historically, the economy, from GDP to debt to unemployment, has done better under democratic stewardship than republican. Why is that? Is it just luck of the draw? If that is the case, then by golly, I'm voting for the luckier of the two parties.

Things were bad under Carter, & got far better under Reagan. Also, Clinton inherited an improving economy from Bush. Still, I don't buy either your
argument or my counter examples.....there's the phase lag problem & other complexities, eg, political make-up of governors (mostly Pubs under Clinton).

Did I just do your job & argue against myself? Dang!

Anyway, there are many things I fault Obama for, but the one most personal is his clamping down on lenders, which is paralyzing our ability to borrow.
One can argue that this increases market stability, but that is short-sighted. Many of the regs which make it hard to borrow or lend worsen things by
putting people needing to refinance into foreclosure. (I'm going thru that mess right now.) Which is worse a risky loan, or a guaranteed foreclosure?
We all hear news about low interest rates, but I was quoted 20% from one source. They're charging it, & they're getting it because banks won't loan.

 

[dawny0826]

Gary Johnson - more liberty, less government

Probably this guy. But, I wish the vote would make more of a difference. The Republicans and Democrats irk me.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree that Obama isn't the worst.
Caligula, Nero & Kim Jong Il were worserest.

Things were bad under Carter, & got far better under Reagan. Also, Clinton inherited an improving economy from Bush. Still, I don't buy either your
argument or my counter examples.....there's the phase lag problem & other complexities, eg, political make-up of governors (mostly Pubs under Clinton).

Did I just do your job & argue against myself? Dang!

Haha! Can't complain with much there. There's no way it's a perfect correlation of the president's policies and what's currently happening in the economy.

I still find it suspicious, though, that the numbers favor Dems so strongly, in terms of the economy. Wouldn't mind going back to THIS thread and hashing it out some more.

Anyway, there are many things I fault Obama for, but the one most personal is his clamping down on lenders, which is paralyzing our ability to borrow.
One can argue that this increases market stability, but that is short-sighted. Many of the regs which make it hard to borrow or lend worsen things by
putting people needing to refinance into foreclosure. (I'm going thru that mess right now.) Which is worse a risky loan, or a guaranteed foreclosure?
We all hear news about low interest rates, but I was quoted 20% from one source. They're charging it, & they're getting it because banks won't loan.

It's a hard thing to balance. On one hand, risky loans helped this whole mess get rollin'. On the other hand, I see your point how restricting loans can have even worse effects.

 

[Revoltingest]

Haha! Can't complain with much there. There's no way it's a perfect correlation of the president's policies and what's currently happening in the economy.
I still find it suspicious, though, that the numbers favor Dems so strongly, in terms of the economy. Wouldn't mind going back to THIS thread and hashing it out some more.

Complexities, complexities.....since no economic models have any real predictive value, I stick to judging a prez based upon
what I think should be done, & what the rascal actually does. An advantage to this is that it's simple, & I needn't know much.

It's a hard thing to balance. On one hand, risky loans helped this whole mess get rollin'. On the other hand, I see your point how restricting loans can have even worse effects.

The requirement that banks refuse to extend risky loans, call them due, & then foreclose cuz no alternatives exist is the worst.
It takes a loan with a umpteen percent chance of going bad, & converts it to a loan with 100% odds of going bad, just to get it
off the bank's books. Tis like crashing your car now to avoid the possibility of crashing later.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why? He's winning by 15% over the next closest contender. Feel free to calculate the average percentage points a president wins by from HERE. But a brief overview seems to suggest ~8% is about average. He's got a pretty nice cushion, especially considering you only need one more than the other guy.

Because of the electoral college, a man can become president by winning only 22% of the popular vote.

Check it out in this breakdown. Specifically, at 4:25 into it... but it's worth watching the whole thing.

[youtube]7wC42HgLA4k[/youtube]
The Trouble with the Electoral College - YouTube

 

[Revoltingest]

On one hand, risky loans helped this whole mess get rollin'. On the other hand, I see your point how restricting loans can have even worse effects.

The risky loan problem was entirely created by government, when they...
1) Guaranteed the loans, transferring the risk from the lenders to the gov't.
2) Required banks to make riskier loans in the interest of 'diversity'.
3) Erected large financial barriers to sales & purchases, which trapped underwater homeowners who needed to move for job reasons.
4) Required that Fannie & Freddie could not bargain down debt owed by destitute homeowners.

Hmmmm.....#4 is more of an exacerbating factor, rather than a causative one.

 

[Tarheeler]

Because of the electoral college, a man can become president by winning only 22% of the popular vote.

Check it out in this breakdown. Specifically, at 4:25 into it... but it's worth watching the whole thing.

Makes a strong case for simple majority or, even better (IMO ), instant run-off voting., doesn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Makes a strong case for simple majority or, even better (IMO ), instant run-off voting., doesn't it?

As I recall, some states just love the idea that they can designate all their electoral college votes towards one candidate.
It gives them great unified influence, so I don't think we'd have an easy time switching to a majority win system.
Behind every bone headed system there's some powerful lobby who thinks it's a great idea.

 

[Tarheeler]

As I recall, some states just love the idea that they can designate all their electoral college votes towards one candidate.
It gives them great unified influence, so I don't think we'd have an easy time switching to a majority win system.
Behind every bone headed system there's some powerful lobby who thinks it's a great idea.

I agree it wouldn't e easy, particularly because everything in our current system favors the status quo. But that doesn't mean we can't advocate and fight for changing it, now does it Mr. Libertarian?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree it wouldn't e easy, particularly because everything in our current system favors the status quo. But that doesn't mean we can't advocate and fight for changing it, now does it Mr. Libertarian?

I'm a big fan of fighting losing battles!

 

[Poisonshady313]

Makes a strong case for simple majority or, even better (IMO ), instant run-off voting., doesn't it?

He's got another video that makes a case for what he calls "Alternative Vote"

[youtube]3Y3jE3B8HsE[/youtube]
The Alternative Vote Explained - YouTube

 

[Tarheeler]

He's got another video that makes a case for what he calls "Alternative Vote"

Yep. It's the same thing as instant-runoff voting.
Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia