Presidential Poll II

Although you are probably right, that it is ignorance on display, the responses to the two questions are not necessarily inconsistent. I could say, for example, that I consider ACA to be bad legislation, informed by bad policy analysis, yet it is perfectly within the bounds of Constitutionality. If I were to say that, then I would also say that I support repeal and support the court decision (on the basis that it was the correct interpretation).

Our electoral system and lack of true representation for the bigger districts/states is the reason we have low participation and a messy political system.

Interesting...seems with the non-anonymous poll it's Obama's numbers which have changed the most and not Johnson's.

Guess it wasn't Johnson that was being propped up by duals and shenanigans.

Of the three options suggested, two are still on the table. If anything, eliminating Option 2 only reinforces Option 3 or: What gul said.

What's more interesting about this poll is that not the same number of posters voted as in the first one.

Uh, yeah, that's what I said.

Someone appears to have had a vested interest in perpetuating the 'WF IS PLAGUED WITH LEFTISTS' bullshit even if the facts didn't line up.

By percent, Romney. Guess no one wants to admit they'll vote for him.

Good.

I wonder how much the numbers would change if telephone polling data wasn't aggregated and anonymized.

If you understand the Constitution, you know that no one ever even pretended it was "one person = one vote." The people do not elect the president; the states do. At present, the people of a given state determine how that state is going to vote in the presidential election, but that is all.

That is why there is no such thing, for the people of the United States, as a "federal election." It is not part of the federal system we use. The US is a federation of 50 (representative, and thus limited) democracies, but is not itself a democracy and has never claimed to have been one.

I disagree.

The problem is not simply ignorance, nor is it even primarily ignorance, IMO. It is people who know exactly what they are doing when they vote for "the government will fix everything for you, so just let the government intrude into every area of your life, from your wallet to your bedroom" candidates.

Exactly. Unless you support government-by-the-courts, you can argue very reasonably that any law, no matter how bad, that is not actually against the clear meaning of the Constitution, should be overturned by the corresponding legislature rather than by the courts.

Then how do you explain that the participation is even lower when there is no presidential election and thus that the electoral college has no role whatsoever in the results?

And yet, that opinion is born of what?

Ignorance.

For example, the soft hearted yet soft-headed voter who honestly believes that the government can provide a comfortable living for everyone, pay all their medical bills, and so forth with no problems, no unintended consequences, no nothing but sunshine and roses...that person is able to believe that BECAUSE they are ignorant.

they may know full well which candidate promises more of the unrealistic crap he wants to hear - but yet he's too ignorant to know that what he wants to hear is unrealistic.

^ There is something to that, but nevertheless the informed opinion of intelligent, educated people (and that's what it is, to a great extent--on both sides of the D-R divide) is not what we normally mean by "ignorance."

In fact, that comes down to saying "Those who hold to political opinions (or any other type of opinions, for that matter) that are not the same as my own are just ignorant." Which does not advance political discourse too much...

What's unrealistic is this characterization. There is no such person.

Actually it appears that my statement still isn't incorrect. 10 would still constitute "more than a few".

Sadly, there are.

I've mostly seen them at dialysis, myself.

Many elderly people in homes being supported by social security and medicare believe that they will get a lot more money and goodies if they re-elect Obama, despite the fact they just recently lost some of their money and benefits.

We also have a disability leech who moved to Maine specifically because it's easier to get on the dole here and you get more than where he was in NJ. Yeah, he has kidney disease, but he does whatever he wants, smokes, shacks up with his girlfriend and he gloats that he thinks he'll get even more when Obama is re-elected.

I am sure they aren't typical, but it is incorrect that there are no such deluded people out there, because there are.

I never even specifically mentioned the electoral college, I will thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. The electoral college is certainly unfair in a few different regards (the "winner take all" approach in most states, as well as the disproportionate representation when comparing smaller states vs. bigger states).

I'm speaking more about lack of representation in a broader sense, as well as an electoral system that discourages voting and third party candidates. Why should a group of 38 million people only get two senators, when a different group of 38 million people gets 44 senators? Why should a group of nearly one million people get one representative in the House, when another group half its size gets the same representation? I'm all for keeping the smaller population states and districts from becoming swept under the rug as the system is designed to prevent, but it seems as if things have tilted heavily in their favor. Yet in another aspect of our system, smaller populations do get swept under the rug. Why do we completely disregard a sizable proportion of voters who "lose" in our first past the post system?

Or the people who vote for the "fuck you, got mine" candidates.

I prefer to think of those as the, "Fuck you, I earned mine and you can't have it, go get your own" candidates.

but that's not what I'm saying - and in fact in many places I have made numerous comments calling people on both sides on just that claim.

I speak not here of opinion concerning nebulous things...

Say for instance, gay marriage. I would not argue that a person who opposed it because they thought homosexuality was a sin was ignorant. Because ultimately we can't KNOW what is sin, we can only have opinions informed via certain assumptions.

There is a lot going into any political worlddview that arises from that kind of thing and I respect differences of opinion of that sort.

I even respect that different people view the effects of tax cuts differently, or the extent to which man is causing climate change and both of those are subjects which can be studied and quantified.

What I call ignorance is situations where people believe something that is flat out indisputably utter bullshit. like the famous video of the woman who was going to vote for Obama because he was going to give her a car or some such shit.

Or the people who hate Obama because he's a Muslim.

Hopefully you get the idea here.

O rly?

so you don't suppose that there are any voters voting for Romney because he will repeal Obamacare? None are voting for him because they think he will outlaw abortion?
Or that thought Bush or Reagan would?

None think he's going to pay off the deficit?


There was no one who voted for Obama because they were certain he would close down Gitmo, and bring all the troops home in a year? None who harbored hope that he would have Bush investigated as a war criminal? None who thought that he would pass single-payer health care?

There were no voters like that on either side? Really?


I submit that you VASTLY overestimate the voting population.

(or maybe folks in California are just too sophisticated to have given you any exposure to that sort of thing )


And yes, if they are out there who would believe all that shit - they are out there who believe, sincerely believe, that all the government has to do is bust out the checkbook and pay for everything. and there are knuckleheads on the right (i'm sure you could think of a couple among our own population) that sincerely believe that if we simply turned off the tap on all transfer payments that all the "freeloaders" would go right out and get a job and become productive taxpayers.

Romney...barely...
I'm going with Romney because I believe he is actually pretty moderate and is only paying lip service to the those righties who worry about evolution, gay marriage and other stupid shit. He has run a state and several businesses so he has experience that Obama is so severely lacking.
In the foreign policy arena, Obama appears to be a big pussy. Despite protesting the foreign policies of Bush in 2008, he has done little to change anything. So he hasn't exactly forged ahead with his new vision. In fact, he seems to prefer that the US not be the leader in world affairs. Although, admittedly, Romney isn't offering much of a vision himself.

I voted for Obama in 2008 because McCain/Palin scared the crap out of me. The last 4 years haven't been a disaster but apart from Bin Laden, Obama has very little to hang his hat on as far as achievements go.

It's weird for me this year. Normally, I'm rooting hard for one candidate but this year I'm like, "whichever".

Obama is the best of several bad options.

I wish there was a decent 3rd party candidate I could get behind, because I REALLY want to help the 3rd parties.

I'd be OK with Johnson if it wasn't for the free market fundamentalism. Sorry, Libertarians, unfettered free markets are just as bad as unfettered communism. There needs to be a check on the power of corporations, and only the government can do it. My single biggest motivation is the banking scandal, and there's no doubt that was caused by deregulation and the overt greed that we teach is not only morally acceptable but a moral imperative.

You really think that the administration of a candidate bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs et al. in 2008 and which has prosecuted few enough Wall Street fraudsters that their numbers can be counted on one hand is not going to be susceptible to regulatory capture this time around?

Explain how that's not the most stunningly naïve view.

Name one. The other side's busy yawping in the Red Room every day. Unless Tamar's right, and they're all just pretending to be Sokar.

Perhaps a man who has admitted he likes the mission (at least) of the EPA is not, in fact, a "fundamentalist"?

I think even the committed libertarian recognizes the need for SOME government oversight. I certainly do. There's a considerable difference in individual liberty and unregulated corporate adventurism.

I already did. did you not see the videos four years ago of people saying on camera they were going to vote for Obama for reasons which amounted to "he's going to give me money"?


Beyond that - saying "name one" implies the person i name was a Wordforge member or some other person known to both me and you. how big a pool of people do you suppose that is?

No, I didn't. Bunch of Man on the Street captures, I'm assuming. No identifying the interviewees or determining their authenticity.

I meant someone identifiable and with some sort of credibility, i.e., someone whose opinion could actually have an effect on governance. A Congresscritter, governor, mayor, local alderman, someone like that.

Or a celebrity, perhaps? Michael Moore? Even Batshit Crazy Alec Baldwin has never made statements of that nature, AFAIK. Besides, everyone knows he's an alien, and that's how they roll.

Seriously, even a caricature has to be based at least tenuously on reality. This one ain't.

What are the other options, Mao's reanimated carcass, a methamphetamine addict and a Tasmanian Devil? In what reality is a fusion of Dubya and George Soros the best of even bad options?

I'd vote for a Tasmanian Devil.

Come on.

Let's go way out on a limb and assume Johnson wins.

You really think that there would be sudden and complete free market fundamentalism?

He would have to compromise and deal with a Congress and House full of Dems and Reps. Even meeting somewhere in the middle with those folks would start heading us in a better direction than the more of the same we have to look forward to if Obama or Romney are elected.

I'm certainly not a hardcore Libertarian and think some of their views are as naive and lacking in reality as some hardcore Liberal and Republican views.

What we need is middle ground.