Jump to content

Obama vs Romney - POTUS 2012


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 872
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

Ron Paul is a million years old he doesn't have a future ....

He, as well as the voters in his state/district, may disagree with you. ;)

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I think the main-reason Bush lost the 1992 election was because many of his natural voters turned to Ross Perot.

That's the spin some like to put on it, but it's basically been proven false by all available data - including exit polls and survey polls - that's available.

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the spin some like to put on it, but it's basically been proven false by all available data - including exit polls and survey polls - that's available.

Agreed...Ross Perot got about 19% of the vote, and he was a serious third party candidate till the end. I volunteered on his state campaign team and we got contributions from all sides of the political spectrum. Ron Paul will not be able to duplicate Perot's success in 1992.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a third party-candidate wins some states and therefore gets those electoral college votes so much that none of the candidates has a majority, how does it go then in the elction of the president? Those delegates don't even convene in one place but all in their respective state-capitals.

I know the last resort is that the House of Representatives elects the President but surely it doesn't go to that straight away if none of the candidates gets that 270 college votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a third party-candidate wins some states and therefore gets those electoral college votes so much that none of the candidates has a majority, how does it go then in the elction of the president? Those delegates don't even convene in one place but all in their respective state-capitals.

I know the last resort is that the House of Representatives elects the President but surely it doesn't go to that straight away if none of the candidates gets that 270 college votes.

Here you go friend. It has already happened in the great history of the United States. 1824 it is quite a fun piece of history.

History 1824

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go friend. It has already happened in the great history of the United States. 1824 it is quite a fun piece of history.

History 1824

Thanks, that was interesting! So, it really goes straight to the House of Representatives if none of the candidates gets a majority of the electoral college votes but the representatives from various states vote in block so that al the votes of the representatives from a particular state go to the candidate they support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, that was interesting! So, it really goes straight to the House of Representatives if none of the candidates gets a majority of the electoral college votes but the representatives from various states vote in block so that al the votes of the representatives from a particular state go to the candidate they support.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything wrong with his getting into Harvard due to Affirmative Action, but it would become a political issue, no doubt about that.

If it's due to Affirmative Action and not to his qualifications to get into Harvard .. then .. wtf. Is that how be became POTUS as well?? Through Affirmative Action??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

If it's due to Affirmative Action and not to his qualifications to get into Harvard .. then .. wtf. Is that how be became POTUS as well?? Through Affirmative Action??

Affirmative Action doesn't get any yahoo into Harvard. Obama may not have had the grades to get into Harvard, but that doesn't mean they were terrible grades - just not stellar grades by Harvard standards. However, grades aren't the only criteria under consideration for admission, as I said previously. As I also pointed out previously, he did excel at Harvard. Affirmative Action helps get someone in, and then it ends; it doesn't play into grades or extra curricular activities or graduation/diplomas or passing the bar. There is also no Affirmative Action program tied into the electoral college. So no, Obama did no become POTUS through Affirmative Action. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... There is also no Affirmative Action program tied into the electoral college. So no, Obama did no become POTUS through Affirmative Action. <_<

Agreed...the qualifications and process to become US president are documented in the US Constitution. Mr. Obama excelled at this compared to all other contenders, or AA considerations (i.e. Hillary Clinton is female...no?). He will win a second term based largely on the same attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Agreed...the qualifications and process to become US president are documented in the US Constitution. Mr. Obama excelled at this compared to all other contenders, or AA considerations (i.e. Hillary Clinton is female...no?). He will win a second term based largely on the same attributes.

I can see now why he wouldn't have wanted to open up the Affirmative Action can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this obsession some people have with Ron Paul has clearly gone out of any sensible lengths. He just isn't good enough to garner support and that's it.

I dont think the problem is that he isnt "good" enough. He just taking on too many people at once. Hes calling out the banking and financial sector, and the concept of interventionalism and the military industrial complex at the same time. To me, thats something you would do if you just wanted to make a statement, not something you would do if you really want to win.

Paul could easily have ditched some of his anti-war and anti-world policing rhetoric if he really wanted make himself more attractive to republicans and have a better chance to win.

"Alright alright! We can still blow up some random shit overseas!"

*thunderous applause*

Its just bad political strategy to pick both those fights at once... And he knows his. That makes me think he sees himself as a protest candidate and never had any intention of actually winning... Otherwise he would have just asked researchers what positions he needed to win, and then switched to those like all the other candidates do.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is very popular among young voters, including anti-war liberals because of his foreign policy ideas. He will most certainly take votes away from Obama too.

yup

This is why if Ron Paul became the Republican nominee, he would have a better chance at beating Obama because he can take Obama votes away.

But I think Ron Paul would take more votes away from Romney then from Obama in a three way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

This is why if Ron Paul became the Republican nominee, he would have a better chance at beating Obama because he can take Obama votes away.

It works both ways. He could give Obama votes, too. It's not as if everyone who would vote for Romney would vote for Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think the problem is that he isnt "good" enough. He just taking on too many people at once. Hes calling out the banking and financial sector, and the concept of interventionalism and the military industrial complex at the same time. To me, thats something you would do if you just wanted to make a statement, not something you would do if you really want to win.

Paul could easily have ditched some of his anti-war and anti-world policing rhetoric if he really wanted make himself more attractive to republicans and have a better chance to win.

"Alright alright! We can still blow up some random shit overseas!"

*thunderous applause*

Its just bad political strategy to pick both those fights at once... And he knows his. That makes me think he sees himself as a protest candidate and never had any intention of actually winning... Otherwise he would have just asked researchers what positions he needed to win, and then switched to those like all the other candidates do.

I guess you're right but most people who support Ron Paul don't do so in order to boost a protest candidate but because they genuinely want him to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It works both ways. He could give Obama votes, too. It's not as if everyone who would vote for Romney would vote for Paul.

I would think he would take more from Romney but the new Rasmussen poll shows otherwise.

Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%

Texas Congressman Ron Paul appears more interested in influencing the direction of the Republican Party than in running as an independent presidential candidate. But perhaps Democrats should be careful what they wish for: Even if Mitt Romney’s remaining GOP challenger should run as a third party candidate, new Rasmussen Reports surveying finds Romney the winner of a three-way race.

The latest national telephone survey shows that 25% of Likely U.S. Voters think Paul should run as a third party candidate. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree, but 13% more are not sure.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest national telephone survey shows that 25% of Likely U.S. Voters think Paul should run as a third party candidate. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree, but 13% more are not sure.

Why would they disagree? Why not have a major third-party candidates? Why be afraid of them? Why not have 3rd and 4th and 5th party candidates? What's wrong with choice? The real choice is made in the primaries, but most don't involve themselves in that voting process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they disagree? Why not have a major third-party candidates? Why be afraid of them? Why not have 3rd and 4th and 5th party candidates? What's wrong with choice?

Nothing....there will be many political parties and choices on the ballot, as always. Here's a sample from 2008:

My link

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...