Forgot your password?

Re: the U.S. 2012 election campaign, I am:

Displaying poll results.
Uninterested or nearly so.
  7174 votes / 28%
Mildly, but not deeply, interested.
  4734 votes / 18%
Very interested, but not fanatical.
  4691 votes / 18%
Obsessed or nearly so.
  1034 votes / 4%
Ask me a year from now.
  7826 votes / 30%
25459 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Re: the U.S. 2012 election campaign, I am:

Comments Filter:
  • by OutLawSuit (1107987) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:11PM (#36451768)

    Hard to ignore elections when you work in the public sector. It's real awkward when you have a political party that would like nothing more than see you out of work. So I have some morbid fascination in hopefully seeing the Tea Party implode.

    • by Tim the Gecko (745081) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:26PM (#36451958)
      The Onion [theonion.com] captured this scary fascination brilliantly with "Morbid Curiosity Leading Many Voters To Support Palin". They also did a great job with their Romney [theonion.com] story - "Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People". Life then imitated art with a serious story on much the same lines in the New Yorker [newyorker.com].
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jmorris42 (1458) *

      > that would like nothing more than see you out of work.

      So I take it you work for one of the useless parts of the government then? :)

      Reality check time. The country is broke. The days of get a job for the government because it is a job for life are over, one way or another. We in the Tea Party want to do the cutting while we still have choices, you apparently want to keep your gravy train rolling until it goes over the cliff.

      To close the budget gap we have now means everything gets cut some, some gets

      • by OutLawSuit (1107987) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:53PM (#36452370)

        "Useless" is completely subjective. What I happen to deal with is urban planning which some would consider unnecessary government regulations. I obviously disagree with that notion but I'll leave that for another time.

        The issue I have is when Tea Party groups around the country are trying to shut down planning and building codes departments which happen to push for sustainability. Some rather vocal Tea Party folks feel that sustainability is a vast conspiracy put forth by the United Nations to establish a one world government. The Agenda 21 stuff they're spouting is utterly bizarre and they can't be talked out of it. I have no problem if they have issues with building codes or urban planning but please stick with conventional lines of attack such as property rights instead of adhering to some conspiracy bullshit.

        • by reboot246 (623534)
          You deal with urban planning? Ah, so you're the one to blame for the mess! After seeing what "urban planners" have done over the years, I think somebody is either NOT doing their job or they have no idea HOW to do their job.

          You're fired!
          • by geekoid (135745)

            Yes, I'm sure he approved all urban planning. BTW for the large part, Urban planning in the country is pretty damn good.

            Go live someplace that doesn't have it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        > that would like nothing more than see you out of work.

        So I take it you work for one of the useless parts of the government then? :)

        Reality check time. The country is broke. The days of get a job for the government because it is a job for life are over, one way or another. We in the Tea Party want to do the cutting while we still have choices, you apparently want to keep your gravy train rolling until it goes over the cliff.

        To close the budget gap we have now means everything gets cut some, some gets cut all the way out. Raising taxes is simply madness in this environment, especially since the problem is too much spending, not too low taxes. Taxes as percentage of GDP are plenty high already, it is spending as percentage of GDP that is way beyond WWII levels. It is very doubtful that any tax increase in this environment would actually increase net revenue to the government. So cutting spending is the only game in town since under Obama economic growth is improbable.

        But I'm looking for a candidate for POTUS that understands the right way out of this mess. We don't have any budget problems that a GDP 50% larger than we have now can't finance, especially since a growing economy means the govt's welfare state payments drop along with the rise in revenue from taxes. Getting to that happy place should be goal #1. Cuts in spending should be targeted to boosting economic growth. Regulations should be slashed in ways targeting growth. (#1, remove the EPA's ability to issue new regulations, #1 delete the entire NLRB as a warning to the rest of the regulatory morass of the risks of overreach) Create certainty in the regulatory environment to encourage investment.

        Didn't really care for T-Paw until he busted loose with that basic idea in the last week or so. Still would rather Santorum or Cain but would take T-Paw over Romney any day. But I'd take any of the current field over the current socialist, Ron Paul included.

        A real life Tea Party-ist? On Slashdot? You make a good argument, and there is an argument for the tea party. But seriously, read a book. Look at the history of American economic success and American rise from economic trouble, and see what economic policies were pursued at those times. (Hint: erasing the NLRB and hoping that the economy grows 50% in the next four years is not a good idea. Get a clue)

      • by wintercolby (1117427) <.winter.colby. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @01:13PM (#36452626)

        Raising taxes is simply madness in this environment, especially since the problem is too much spending, not too low taxes.

        It's precisely the Bush era tax cuts, including the cuts to the capital gains tax that got us into this mess. We had a budget surplus going into the Bush years. While the middle class got $300 checks, Bush saved over $72k. Low capital gains tax means that the wealthy on Wallstreet pay the same tax rate as the poor. CEO's who get paid in stock options pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than their lower management. The entire problem is that the Republican Right pushed the middle class into the poor-house while unapologetically helping the rich get richer. It's the low capital gains tax thinking that causes all of the short sightedness in favor of short term gains in stock price.

        If you want to fix medicare and social security, the answer is obvious. Entitlement taxes need to be applied to all income, not just the poor and middle classes incomes.

        I'm looking for a new congressman in 2012, but keeping the POTUS.

        • by LDAPMAN (930041)

          His point was that repealing the Bush tax cuts and even raising tax rate beyond those levels would not get us out of this mess. Even if we assume your proposed changes had no negative effect on growth and revenue would still be spending more money than we have.

          • by wintercolby (1117427) <.winter.colby. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @02:07PM (#36453264)
            I'll concede that we need to curb spending, but we also need to end the Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy, as well as increase the capital gains tax. Everyone with any sense says that the problem has to be handled from both directions.
            • After the Bush tax cuts the share of taxes paid by the wealthy increased. Yes, taxes were cut for the wealthy but they also were for everyone else, particularly the poor. The tax cuts ended up being quite progressive. If you repeal them on the highest income bracket (let's say over $250,000 per year) but do not undo the cuts on everyone else, we end up with an even more progressive tax system. You might or might not think that's a problem but the U.S. tax code is as progressive or more progressive than most
      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        To close the budget gap we have now means everything gets cut some, some gets cut all the way out. Raising taxes is simply madness in this environment, especially since the problem is too much spending, not too low taxes. Taxes as percentage of GDP are plenty high already, it is spending as percentage of GDP that is way beyond WWII levels.

        I can understand where this is coming from - nobody likes paying taxes. But the last time taxes were as low (as a percentage of GDP) as they are now was in 1950 (see for yourself [taxpolicycenter.org]), so it's hard to argue that taxes are unusually high right now. For comparison, tax revenues and government were a larger share of the economy when Ronald Reagan agreed to raise taxes back in the 1980's.

        On the spending side, to erase the existing deficit with only spending cuts you'd basically need to completely eliminate Social S

      • by jkauzlar (596349)

        The country is not broke. Learn to recognize propaganda. They say that so they can impose 'austerity measures', which is another code word for cutting social programs and giving that money to the rich 'to create jobs.' The tea party are fools that fight in order to hand their wallets and paychecks to the richest people in the country. They complain that their taxes are too high, but they wouldn't seem so high if they were being paid fairly. But they'll never be paid fairly because they continue taking the a

      • by g8oz (144003)

        Low tax rates. Check.

        Minimal government except for an overweening security state. Check.

        I think you'd love it in Pakistan.

  • "None of the Above" will get at most one vote.

  • by Lord Lode (1290856) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:31PM (#36452046)

    There never are cowboy neal options anymore :(

    • I've already voted for him, he didn't win last time.
    • by TheCarp (96830)

      I was curious about this myself as I still look to the polls and expect to find the occasional Cowboy Neal option.

      According to wikipedia, the option disappeared from polls when he stopped being in charge of the polls, which was apparently 2005.

      Um... has it really been 6 years since we voted for Cowboy Neal?

      -Steve

    • CowboyNeal stopped being in charge of the polls in 2005. It's been 6 years. Let it go.

  • by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble@h ... m ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @12:49PM (#36452332)

    Frankly, the more I look at the GOP & the Dems, the less I can tell them apart. At least the Tea Party I know what they stand for. Up here we know who's way far right and who's way far left. They all spend like there's no tomorrow, but at least I know that much!

    As an aside, while I'm a proponent of the Westminster parliamentary system in general, I really wish Canada had a senate like the U.S. - far too much waste in having it as 'a sober second thought'. I would also like to see preferential voting although I really don't see that coming to pass anytime soon.

    • by jitterman (987991)

      Frankly, the more I look at the GOP & the Dems, the less I can tell them apart.

      More correct you could not be. And it's interesting to look back over time and note how often the two parties have swapped stances on many issues.

    • by Ksevio (865461) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @01:49PM (#36453020) Homepage
      The GOP are the ones that don't understand how money works, the Dems are the ones that don't care how money works, and the Tea Party doesn't want there to be money.
    • by HotBBQ (714130)
      The U.S. Senate is perhaps the most cluster-fucked legislative body on the planet.
  • I'm reminded of a comment in one of Arthur C. Clarke's books, that anybody who wants the job that badly is a priori suspect. The best candidate is somebody who has to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the White House but who will then do the best job they possibly can, so they'll get time off for good behaviour.

    It sometimes seems like the U.S. is in perpetual election/campaigning mode. I like our setup, where there is less emphasis on individuals and more emphasis on the parties and what they stand f

    • by kent_eh (543303)
      Douglas Adams suggested a similar thing in the Hitchhiker's Guide.

      Except, the president got all the publicity, and none of the decision making power.
      The real decisions were made by a hermit on a little known planet, who was never told of the impact of the answers to the questions he was asked.
      • by H0p313ss (811249)

        The real decisions were made by a hermit on a little known planet, who was never told of the impact of the answers to the questions he was asked.

        Have you ever been to Ottawa?

        • by idontgno (624372)

          Are you saying the Prime Minister of Canada has a cat named The Lord which may or may not exist, and may or may not want a can of tuna?

          Damn. Too bad Canada is so hard to immigrate to. I could get behind a government like that.

        • by kent_eh (543303)
          I think Harper is aware of the impact of his decisions, he just doesn't give a damn what other people think.
  • GAAAAAH! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thud457 (234763) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @01:20PM (#36452712) Homepage Journal
    This eighteen month campaign cycle is insane and counterproductive!

    It didn't take that long to have an election George Washington had to go town to town on horseback to campaign. It should be over sooner with all our modern electronic telecommunications fribfrab.
    • by mmcuh (1088773)
      Campaigning is the only thing most politicians are good at (that is, after all, why they are politicians in the first place). Of course they want to extend the campaigns for as long as possible.
    • I agree. I'm in favor of limiting campaign spending to a few million dollars (certainly not the $1 billion that Pres. Obama wants to raise and spend) and the time spent campaigning limited to a few weeks. Put up websites, host a few debates, and that's it. If people don't spend the time they should in getting informed about the candidates, they deserve whomever gets elected.
    • by hedwards (940851)

      The country was 13 states all along the east coast, and the number of matters which the President needed to manage were significantly smaller and fewer. The US has 310m people right now in 50 states and a GDP that would have encompassed the entire world when George Washington was running, a huge number of them vote and all of them are supposed to be represented. A shorter election season would be fine if we were a much smaller nation, but as it is the process is if anything too brief considering the scope o

  • Mildly interested, but only for the entertainment value.
  • Voting for a Reprocrat or Demopublican is a wasted, throw away vote. You are voting for the same old politics of corruption, ineptness, and tomfoolery. At least vote for someone else, or none of the above.
  • Concentrated Money = Political Power. The presidency has become irrelevant since Reagan was elected. That's when the financial sector completed their purchase of the executive branch. A nice complement to their ongoing rental of the legislative branch. Since then, the government ceased to have anything significant to do with the will of the people, who, to be honest, are largely poor, and of no interest to anyone with money/power.

    Americans below the median income are the new Mexicans. They're kept just cont

  • by 6Yankee (597075) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @07:23PM (#36456864)

    Here in the UK, we seem to be doing a good enough job of scuttling ourselves, thankyouverymuch, but if you Americans' ship goes down, we're definitely going with you. This should make me very interested in who wins... except that you appear to be equally boned either way.

    No, my interest comes from running a forum where the Politics section is filled with Republicans, all bitching about Obama. If it's their guy screwing the pooch, maybe it'll go quiet. :)

    As to the election itself, and elections in general, Alien v Predator had it right. Whoever wins, we lose.

  • by jhobbs (659809) * on Saturday June 18, 2011 @08:46AM (#36484618)
    I just pray Palin and Bachmann are both in the Republican Primary. That should make for some OUTSTANDING Saturday Night Live skits.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...