• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama or Romney?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Obama or Romney?

  • Barack Obama

  • Mitt Romney

  • neither

Results are only viewable after voting.
ProfJohn said:
At the rate that Obama is going even Palin may be able to beat him in 2012.
Click to expand...

I think this election cycle will look very much like 2004. Obama is relatively vulnerable (just as Bush was), but the slate of Republican candidates is so unappealing that he will win re-election rather easily. Romney or Pawlenty will end up with the nomination IMO, and neither is a particularly compelling general-election candidate (interestingly I doubt either would be able to win his own home state - Pawlenty is not particularly popular here in MN even after two terms as governor, and the polls show him losing to Obama).

The Republican primary should be a bit of a circus due to the Tea Party and its novelty candidates, in any case. Bachmann and Palin are both very very wacky, but the mainstream candidates can't really go after them due to their gender and strong TP support.
 
her209 said:
Yeah like Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

He didn't seem so bad. He was the only republican up there who wasn't too eager to start a 100 year war. He wouldn't be able to get anything done because the other branches of government think he's a nut, but at the same time he would be able to stop a lot of bullshit by vetoing everything. Paul winning would mean 4 years of absolutely nothing happening, good or bad.

Guiliani was by far the worst. He sounded the most enthusiastic to go around "nation building" which is a euphemism for waste your tax money in a bunch of military adventures in countries nobody cares about.
 
ShawnD1 said:
He didn't seem so bad. He was the only republican up there who wasn't too eager to start a 100 year war. He wouldn't be able to get anything done because the other branches of government think he's a nut, but at the same time he would be able to stop a lot of bullshit by vetoing everything. Paul winning would mean 4 years of absolutely nothing happening, good or bad.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. People generally attribute too much power to the Presidency. The political machine will dictate who wins this election the same as every other since I've paid attention. One candidate will win and the people will lose.

The people will win only if they're willing to step outside the boundaries the two major parties have created to their mutual advantage.

Fore more years? I don't see how we could possibly afford it.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I wouldn't vote for either and I wonder more and more why voting in a farce is worth my gas money.
Click to expand...
If nothing else you can vote Libertarian, just so they know you COULD have voted for them had they not sucked ass. With of course the understanding that only the losing party gives a damn, and increasingly I'm not sure about even them. But certainly the losing candidate cares. Politicians often seem to be more in line with their opposing numbers than with their actual voters, but when it comes to their personal power they are unanimous in their support.
 
I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I cast my vote for him in this poll. The prospect of a Republican President and Legislature is scary. At least Obama is more likely to stand up for the little people and less likely to support big business.
 
Who is this neither person? Whoever it is they are gaining on Obama and have twice the votes as Mitt.
 
WhipperSnapper said:
I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I cast my vote for him in this poll. The prospect of a Republican President and Legislature is scary. At least Obama is more likely to stand up for the little people and less likely to support big business.
Click to expand...

Buwahahahahaha. The candidate thats going to push 1 billion in campaign contributions is for the little guy? The guy who is pumping out trillions more in giveaways than Bush to unions/banks/etc is going to be for the little guy? You can't make this shit up folks, pure comedic gold.. :awe:
 
Fear No Evil said:
Buwahahahahaha. The candidate thats going to push 1 billion in campaign contributions is for the little guy? The guy who is pumping out trillions more in giveaways than Bush to unions/banks/etc is going to be for the little guy? You can't make this shit up folks, pure comedic gold.. :awe:
Click to expand...

Fatass.gif
 
Fear No Evil said:
Buwahahahahaha. The candidate thats going to push 1 billion in campaign contributions is for the little guy? The guy who is pumping out trillions more in giveaways than Bush to unions/banks/etc is going to be for the little guy? You can't make this shit up folks, pure comedic gold.. :awe:
Click to expand...

Don't forget Obamacare exemptions for companies that his wife helps run like Wal-Mart. Oh wait, she quit that gig in '07...just like Dick left Halliburton, hahaha.
 
I'd take Romney over Obama easily. Romney is a proven turn-around expert and if this country needs anything it's a financial and economic turn-around.

Edit: Beginning to think Romney has no chance though, from what I'm hearing the various TEA Party groups don't like him and won't vote for him.

Fern
 
Fern said:
I'd take Romney over Obama easily. Romney is a proven turn-around expert and if this country needs anything it's a financial and economic turn-around.

Edit: Beginning to think Romney has no chance though, from what I'm hearing the various TEA Party groups don't like him and won't vote for him.

Fern
Click to expand...

Romney is a proven turn-around expert. He turns his positions around every day and twice on Sundays just for practice.
 
Fern said:
I'd take Romney over Obama easily. Romney is a proven turn-around expert and if this country needs anything it's a financial and economic turn-around.

Edit: Beginning to think Romney has no chance though, from what I'm hearing the various TEA Party groups don't like him and won't vote for him.

Fern
Click to expand...

Heh. It's not like corporate America needs a turnaround- they're experiencing near record profits on reduced payrolls. Not to mention the dollar carry trade is making oodles for those who can.

Do you think Romney will turn that around? Or just provide more of the same, harder & deeper?
 
Fear No Evil said:
Buwahahahahaha. The candidate thats going to push 1 billion in campaign contributions is for the little guy? The guy who is pumping out trillions more in giveaways than Bush to unions/banks/etc is going to be for the little guy? You can't make this shit up folks, pure comedic gold.. :awe:
Click to expand...

Do you have poor reading comprehension? Reread my post. I said that I think he's more likely to stand up for the little guy than a combination Republican president and Republican legislature. I never said that I thought he favors the little people; I don't think he does. The Republicans would have gladly given money to the banks as well. However, they also want to lower taxes for the rich and oppose socialized medicine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top