2012 Presidential Election Polls

[JJ Husker]

I can't emphasize this enough apparently, I am not attempting to say that any one person follows any state or group, issues for issue. But it is undeniable that Obama supporters identify more with the political preferences of other Obama voters than they do with Romney voters and vice versa. And, since that has to be a fact (unless people are voting against their own preferences), it stands to reason that they would also more closely identify with the majority of people in the states that solidly support their candidate. I'm not really breaking any new ground here or saying more than what should be obvious. Where someone might want to take issue with this is that I think that it is therefore relevant to look at what the political climate in those states has begotten. i.e. I would posit that liberal left leaning states such as California are suffering economically, morally, etc. from their collective liberal views. It's not just as simple as saying you disagree with their reckless deficit spending. You have to also consider the other issues that lead them to that reckless spending. I don't think anyone goes out with the intention of being fiscally irresponsible. I think it is a result of the nanny state mentality. There is a price tag attached to all those other issues that you agree with. You can't ignore that part of it and simply say you disagree with that one element. In a nutshell, I think you get to view in those states a microcosm of what you are voting for nationally. I, for one, do not feel that we as a country should be striving to emulate the solidly Obama states. By voting for him, that is in effect what you are doing.

[carlfense]

And, since that has to be a fact (unless people are voting against their own preferences), it stands to reason that they would also more closely identify with the majority of people in the states that solidly support their candidate.

I would agree if we had an informed electorate who voted based on issues and not for partisan/sports fan type reasons. Some do vote based on issues . . . others vote based on partisan rhetoric. (Such as the GOP claiming to be the party of deficit reduction . . . when the historical record shows otherwise.)

 

There is a price tag attached to all those other issues that you agree with.

Embracing diversity and living a healthy lifestyle have price tags? Don't unhealthy living and environmental recklessness have price tags of their own?

[krc1995]

you could put a pineapple in the white house and it wouldn't make any difference. Our country is controlled by the very rich who pay people lobbyists to get things that only benefit them. Unless there is some huge fundamental change in how laws are made or not made, the president is just someone for late night talk shows to make fun of.

[JJ Husker]

And, since that has to be a fact (unless people are voting against their own preferences), it stands to reason that they would also more closely identify with the majority of people in the states that solidly support their candidate.

I would agree if we had an informed electorate who voted based on issues and not for partisan/sports fan type reasons. Some do vote based on issues . . . others vote based on partisan rhetoric. (Such as the GOP claiming to be the party of deficit reduction . . . when the historical record shows otherwise.)

 

So, are you saying that the party who wins is the least informed and follows the partisan rhetoric most closely? Or, are you trying to say that only applies to GOP voters?

 

There is a price tag attached to all those other issues that you agree with.

Embracing diversity and living a healthy lifestyle have price tags? Don't unhealthy living and environmental recklessness have price tags of their own?

You are correct. Every side of every issue has it's own price tag and that price tag is not strictly monetary.

[knapplc]

you could put a pineapple in the white house and it wouldn't make any difference.

 

I don't want the job, thanks.

 

[BigRedBuster]

you could put a pineapple in the white house and it wouldn't make any difference. Our country is controlled by the very rich who pay people lobbyists to get things that only benefit them. Unless there is some huge fundamental change in how laws are made or not made, the president is just someone for late night talk shows to make fun of.

 

Your statement is fairly correct if you take out the part I crossed out or at best add to it. Yes, the rich have the ability to affect politics with their money through donations and lobbyists. I'm not arguing that point. However, so do many other groups that I wouldn't call..."the very rich".

 

Look at Unions, NAACP, NOW, farmers, AARP and the list goes on and on and on.

 

Take money out of elections, and this country would be VERY different.

[Lil' Red]

I can't emphasize this enough apparently, I am not attempting to say that any one person follows any state or group, issues for issue. But it is undeniable that Obama supporters identify more with the political preferences of other Obama voters than they do with Romney voters and vice versa. And, since that has to be a fact (unless people are voting against their own preferences), it stands to reason that they would also more closely identify with the majority of people in the states that solidly support their candidate. I'm not really breaking any new ground here or saying more than what should be obvious. Where someone might want to take issue with this is that I think that it is therefore relevant to look at what the political climate in those states has begotten. i.e. I would posit that liberal left leaning states such as California are suffering economically, morally, etc. from their collective liberal views. It's not just as simple as saying you disagree with their reckless deficit spending. You have to also consider the other issues that lead them to that reckless spending. I don't think anyone goes out with the intention of being fiscally irresponsible. I think it is a result of the nanny state mentality. There is a price tag attached to all those other issues that you agree with. You can't ignore that part of it and simply say you disagree with that one element. In a nutshell, I think you get to view in those states a microcosm of what you are voting for nationally. I, for one, do not feel that we as a country should be striving to emulate the solidly Obama states. By voting for him, that is in effect what you are doing.

 

I think you make a valid point that we can glean the effectiveness of certain policies by how they work in practice but I believe we should base our views off the policies the candidate intends to implement and not the states that support him. Should we judge Romney on the fact that Texas Republicans oppose teaching critical thinking skills and the low literacy rates in Mississippi?

[krc1995]

you could put a pineapple in the white house and it wouldn't make any difference. Our country is controlled by the very rich who pay people lobbyists to get things that only benefit them. Unless there is some huge fundamental change in how laws are made or not made, the president is just someone for late night talk shows to make fun of.

 

Your statement is fairly correct if you take out the part I crossed out or at best add to it. Yes, the rich have the ability to affect politics with their money through donations and lobbyists. I'm not arguing that point. However, so do many other groups that I wouldn't call..."the very rich".

 

Look at Unions, NAACP, NOW, farmers, AARP and the list goes on and on and on.

 

Take money out of elections, and this country would be VERY different.

you're right, its the large interest groups that control everything. And since money,campaigning, and politices will never be parted , I think I will write in Knapplc, as the Pinapple president.

 

and since you can't be beat it, might as well join it. I'm going to teach my kids how to find a large corporation to hide behind.

[carlfense]

So, are you saying that the party who wins is the least informed and follows the partisan rhetoric most closely? Or, are you trying to say that only applies to GOP voters?

Not necessarily, and no.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I think you make a valid point that we can glean the effectiveness of certain policies by how they work in practice but I believe we should base our views off the policies the candidate intends to implement and not the states that support him. Should we judge Romney on the fact that Texas Republicans oppose teaching critical thinking skills and the low literacy rates in Mississippi?

 

Thank you. The bolded is what I was trying to convey.

[Lil' Red]

I think you make a valid point that we can glean the effectiveness of certain policies by how they work in practice but I believe we should base our views off the policies the candidate intends to implement and not the states that support him. Should we judge Romney on the fact that Texas Republicans oppose teaching critical thinking skills and the low literacy rates in Mississippi?

 

Thank you. The bolded is what I was trying to convey.

 

Then we are in agreement. From your post I developed the impression that you were alluding to examining the general welfare of a state and using that to reflect on the candidate it was voting for.

[krill]

Poll related, the two big Republican super-PAC's have pulled ads from PA and MI...Romney now needs to win every battleground state to win...OH, FL, WI, VA, CO, NV, IA, NC. If Obama wins a single one of those states, along with NH which is not really a battleground, it's over.

[Lil' Red]

Poll related, the two big Republican super-PAC's have pulled ads from PA and MI...Romney now needs to win every battleground state to win...OH, FL, WI, VA, CO, NV, IA, NC. If Obama wins a single one of those states, along with NH which is not really a battleground, it's over.

 

According to my math, that would put Obama at 241 electoral votes making Florida the only state Romney can't afford to lose.

[carlfense]

Poll related, the two big Republican super-PAC's have pulled ads from PA and MI...Romney now needs to win every battleground state to win...OH, FL, WI, VA, CO, NV, IA, NC. If Obama wins a single one of those states, along with NH which is not really a battleground, it's over.

 

According to my math, that would put Obama at 241 electoral votes making Florida the only state Romney can't afford to lose.

Yeah . . . I think the math is off. That said . . . it sure looks like Romney has a very narrow path to victory.

[Mavric]

you could put a pineapple in the white house and it wouldn't make any difference. Our country is controlled by the very rich who pay people lobbyists to get things that only benefit them. Unless there is some huge fundamental change in how laws are made or not made, the president is just someone for late night talk shows to make fun of.

 

Your statement is fairly correct if you take out the part I crossed out or at best add to it. Yes, the rich have the ability to affect politics with their money through donations and lobbyists. I'm not arguing that point. However, so do many other groups that I wouldn't call..."the very rich".

 

Look at Unions, NAACP, NOW, farmers, AARP and the list goes on and on and on.

 

Take money out of elections, and this country would be VERY different.

And if government didn't regulate/tax/subsidize/etc. nearly as much there wouldn't be nearly as much reason for people and organizations to put money into elections.