Gary Johnson: fiscally conservative (moreso than Romney; there would be massive changes if he miraculously won AND had significant cooperation to make the economic reforms he has been running on), socially liberal
were i to vote, it would certainly be for Johnson. but, as has been lampooned here ad nauseum via the simpsons, why throw your vote away?
Here's my voting dilemma: I don't like either candidate. I feel like Obama has not done a great job... but Romney would be a step in the wrong direction. Should I be a hypocrite and give a candidate I don't support a better chance to win? I don't support either of them. I'm liberal on many issues but conservative on some. I'm really torn.
Sounds like your in similiar situation as me
I am a Moderate Republician (Jim Edgar type) who is conservative on some issues both fiscially/socially but liberal on others
I hate Romney and will be voting Obama even though I think he has done poor job as President
Romney is just an awful candidate. He is the Repub version of John Kerry.
Gary Johnson is socially mixed, at best. Liberal is a HUGE stretch.
There's a fun fact I learned during my political science studies: namely, that it's next to impossible to be "socially liberal and economically conservative". This is unfortunate, lazy terminology made popular by the "internetRonPaulcollegeLibertarians". So many important social positions also require a significant economic prowess (Health care, education, etc.). Sure, there are many that don't (Gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, etc.) but just as many that do. Gary Johnson, specifically, is mixed on the non-economic ones (pro gun, kinda pro-choice, less pro-gay rights and more anti-gay discrimination) and the economic ones he's very conservative on (against federalized health care, for school vouchers, anti-student loans).
It's best to describe him as a socially moderate. It's just that in comparison to others on the "right" economically, he may as well be a hippy.
Early voting data so far for Romney is all pretty promising (except for NV, where he almost certainly loses)
He has a MUCH better chance of winning in OH than the media is leading people to believe. Obama counties underformed 2008 by 14.4% margin whereas Romney is doing 4.1% better than McCain in red counties. You put it together and Romney needs to win TODAY in Ohio by about a 53:47 or 52:58 margin, which is MORE than doable considering Democrat strength is early voting and Republican strength is Election Day voting. Vegas has 3.5:1 odds on Obama, Romney not a bad bet.
Similar in IA. Republican insiders predicted Romney would win IA if they could keep Dems EV tally at 60k or less. Well, it's 66k. Suggests an extremely close race in IA too, slight Obama edge.
NC is over, Romney will win that.
VA is the intriguing state. Obama doing better there in EV than many may have thought. If Obama wins VA, it's very tough for Romney to win.
CO Obama won 2008 EV by 2%, in 2012 he's losing by 2% = 4% swing. This in a state he won by 9% in 2008. Looks pretty good for Romney.
Vegas also has Obama as almost 2:1 favorites in CO and VA, from a betting perspective these are attractive Romney bets as well.
Gary Johnson is socially mixed, at best. Liberal is a HUGE stretch.
There's a fun fact I learned during my political science studies: namely, that it's next to impossible to be "socially liberal and economically conservative". This is unfortunate, lazy terminology made popular by the "internetRonPaulcollegeLibertarians". So many important social positions also require a significant economic prowess (Health care, education, etc.). Sure, there are many that don't (Gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, etc.) but just as many that do. Gary Johnson, specifically, is mixed on the non-economic ones (pro gun, kinda pro-choice, less pro-gay rights and more anti-gay discrimination) and the economic ones he's very conservative on (against federalized health care, for school vouchers, anti-student loans).
It's best to describe him as a socially moderate. It's just that in comparison to others on the "right" economically, he may as well be a hippy.
Well then, to clarify, I am fiscally conservative on economic social issues, and liberal on social issues that do not involve economic insight.
I voted. Lady told me good job afterwards. I struggled quite hard not to slap her in the face.
Edit: I just saw something on CNN.com about Biden hinting about running in 2016. That's an easy way for the Republicans to regain control of the White House...
I actually like the idea for this thread. I've seen a lot of talk about politics on this forum lately, and I feel people have been pretty respectful, and mature to each other. The closest thing to getting out of hand was people arguing over if Christie was an Obama supporter because of the way they interacted after the hurricane.
Yeah you have me pegged. It really comes down to a lack of choices which is a shame.
It's really all the medias fault. They ignore independent candidates and Ron Paul. Everyone thinks they election is only between two people when that's just a result of the media exposure.
It has nothing to do with media and everything to do with money and the Washington establishment. One of the few things both Dems and Repubs agree on is that a third party would be bad for both. Both parties being able to spend a billion dollars every election pretty much ensures no third party candidate can ever break through, unless they have their own personal fortune like Perot, and even he was short lived politically.
Many seem to think "fiscally conservative" is something like unnecessary spending in a household. Don't buy things like vacations that put you in debt.
But then when pressed on exactly what the "unnecessary spending" is they don't know what to cut. Medicare, so after putting money into the system your whole life, you're not covered when reaching 65? Oh no. The military? Oh no. Social Security? Oh no.
Oh, we can scrap PBS. Yeah, that will solve our debt. By like 0.0000000001%
We will now enter an era of good economy whoever wins. And THAT IS WHEN WE SHOULD SAVE. Both to not put systems in that we can't afford in a bad economy, but also to keep inflation down. A big tax cut in that context is not really that good an idea, to put it mildly.
I am a Moderate Republician (Jim Edgar type) who is conservative on some issues both fiscially/socially but liberal on others
I hate Romney and will be voting Obama even though I think he has done poor job as President
Romney is just an awful candidate. He is the Repub version of John Kerry.
After reviewing my choices on the ballot this morning, I think I came to the conclusion that ideally I want a moderate democrat at President (a la Clinton minus the sex scandal), but I want a conservative republican administering things at the state/local government level. I like the idea of a socially progressive leadership but with fiscal responsibility and a very conservative administration of things where waste can bleed out your local funding at the city and state levels.
The problem there is that if every state was that way you'd have a republican house and senate and then nothing would get passed into law.
oh well - here's a dragon baby fight to cheer us up in the meantime.
There are some interesting predictions about the election. If you look at current state by state polling numbers and model them using historical outcomes, Obama looks like he has a 99% chance of winning.
However, the turnout assumptions used in a lot of these polls might be off the mark, overstating the amount of democrats that will show based on the 2008 election turnout. The republican party has seen its strongest resurgence since the Reagan years and Mitt enjoys a comfortable lead among independents.
Guess we'll have to see.
The 99% thing is way overdone. This stems from Nate Silver's 92% analysis, he's become something of a liberal hero this cycle, but I consider him much a clown. I view him like that guy that claims he speaks to dead people.
On the turnout, that is everything.
Some of the biggest polls are sampling Democrats in a proportion ≥ that of the historic 2008 Dem wave election. Tough to believe.
But the bizarrest part (that NOBODY is talking about) of the state polls? Some of the polls that headline Obama winning, do so with internals that make it nearly impossible for Romney to lose. Specifically, if Romney were to win Independent, moderate voters in a proportion that these polls suggest, he'd literally be the first person in history to lose the presidential election. While that's not impossible, it conflicts will all prior history. It also suggests that Obama has to turn out a VERY high percentage of Dem voters in order to "true up" those polls results.
Short answer: I dont know who will win, but these predictions that Romney has virtually no chance are 100% wrong, and I dont need a New York Times blog (aka Nate Silver) to know that.
There are some interesting predictions about the election. If you look at current state by state polling numbers and model them using historical outcomes, Obama looks like he has a 99% chance of winning.
However, the turnout assumptions used in a lot of these polls might be off the mark, overstating the amount of democrats that will show based on the 2008 election turnout. The republican party has seen its strongest resurgence since the Reagan years and Mitt enjoys a comfortable lead among independents.
Guess we'll have to see.
Nate Silver had it at 91% chance for Obama yesterday. I'm a little sceptical of his model, though the methodology of going by state to state polling seems fairly sound. I guess we'll know tonight.
My own prediction is that Obama will win, and his EV count will be something like 294 or 303. He'll lose Florida and North Carolina, and I think Colorado is a tossup, but he'll win the rest of the swing states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The way I am and the way I feel a lot of young people are. Too bad someone like Huntsman didn't gain more traction.
This is what I think as well, but it's hard to have both. If you want to have government healthcare options that cover people as well as the rest of the Western world, it will cost money we don't have. The debt is a big problem, but how do we balance paying that down against the social programs that we need?
I simply cannot vote Republican when the party has lurched so far to the right on social issues that have nothing to do with money. They clash with my beliefs on multiple counts. I believe gay folks should be allowed to get married in every state, I believe abortion needs to stay safe, legal everywhere, and vanishingly rare, I believe marijuana should be legalised, and I believe women should get equal pay for equal work. None of that fits in the same party with the Bible thumpers. It's why you can't find a Republican in New England anymore unless he is a Democrat in disguise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyOwns
I am looking forward to seeing if marijuana is legalized in key states. just curious to see if we wish to eradicate (vastly, if not completely) Mexican cartel violence, weapons felonies, make a humongous dent in the deficit, allow for medicinal treatments, allow people to smoke a harmless plant, etc etc etc in one fell swoop. should be interesting.
I don't smoke and I still believe that it's time to legalise it. We're wasting a ton of money prosecuting, arresting, and incarcerating otherwise law-abiding people for smoking a drug that is less harmful than alcohol, impossible to overdose on, and perfectly natural.
My wife & I, along with 8 other friends voted for Gary Johnson today. Its not a wasted vote when you vote with your heart & your head, instead of following the crowd.
I don't trust the other two and their Organized Mob Parties! I'll sleep tonight no matter what.
I think there's growing separation between what states want from the federal government.
The things that people on the east coast want in government in NYC, Boston, etc. are a far cry from what places like Iowa, Idaho, etc. want and need... I wonder how long it is before we see that kind of political reform or even as a platform from a major candidate.
__________________
"Why I'll be a Devil forever [...] two words. Trust and respect." - Mr. Pat Burns
"I learned not to question Cowbell's willingness to ban." - Brian Boyle
I'm pretty conservative myself, but only fiscally. Not socially at all. I hate the word libertarian, because it's seem to become a fad now, but I guess it would be true to a degree for me.
Me I wouldn't vote for either of these guys. I voted Obama in 2008, but I wouldn't vote for him again. I feel at the end of the day Bush, Obama, and Romney have too many similarities. Obama continued many Bush policies. He's also somehow gotten a pass for the wars too.
One reason the 08 model being used to predict things is flawed is because the youth vote wont be there this time
In 08 the youth vote for Obama was a big thing ,, Alot of those voters seem uninterested or disappointed by last 4 years and wont be at the polls this time
The youth vote wont be there in the #'s it was in 08
