Newt or Mitt who would you vote for if it came down to those two for the nomination?

You know what I find most interesting about this thread? Not one person said they'd vote for Obama. Plenty said, "If it's between Newt and Mitt [and Obama of course on the other side], I won't vote," or, "I'd write in Ron Paul." Nobody said, "Go Obama!" Not one "Hope," or even a little "Change," or a "Yes, we can!"

I mean, I guess that's understandable but I would have thought a lot more people would (or at least more than zero!) at least defend Obama or chime in with a, "Neither! I'm voting Obama!!"

I don't think it's the sample pool. I've read many posts here from very liberal people. Either they're not reading this thread, are choosing not to post or it's a lot worse for Obama than I thought.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

And you really think a write in vote can win? Wow!!!! As i've said before. Brainwashed. When was the last time a write-in ever won an election???

Write-ins don't and probably never ever will get elected. But that's not the point.

If you vote for the lesser of the two evils because you think that's your only choice and a vote for anyone else is waste of a vote, then I'd say you were the brainwashed one. Not voting your conscience for who you think is the best to represent you is a waste of a vote. If i have a choice between Newt or Mitt and Obama, I'll either write-in Paul or not vote. Because I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of those three.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

And you really think a write in vote can win? Wow!!!! As i've said before. Brainwashed. When was the last time a write-in ever won an election???

Write-ins don't and probably never ever will get elected. But that's not the point.

If you vote for the lesser of the two evils because you think that's your only choice and a vote for anyone else is waste of a vote, then I'd say you were the brainwashed one. Not voting your conscience for who you think is the best to represent you is a waste of a vote. If i have a choice between Newt or Mitt and Obama, I'll either write-in Paul or not vote. Because I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of those three.

I think people are thinking more along the lines of if they don't vote for one of the mainstream candidates and go with their conscience, the guy they don't want will win. For me, the objective is to make sure Obama is not re-elected. No one in the Republican primary could do worse, so a vote for any of them is better than a write-in vote of conscience wherein Obama turns out the winner.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


Exactly, and I responded to them on page 4, since they were calling me brainwashed after all.

But what they failed to notice is my saying that I don't think a write in vote would ever get elected.

I will not waste my vote on some one who will bring more of the same or worse....

I will vote for who I think will do the best job. Just because we are given two people to choose from does not mean we can only choose one of those two people.

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot

I think people are thinking more along the lines of if they don't vote for one of the mainstream candidates and go with their conscience, the guy they don't want will win. For me, the objective is to make sure Obama is not re-elected. No one in the Republican primary could do worse, so a vote for any of them is better than a write-in vote of conscience wherein Obama turns out the winner.

So instead of voting for who you think is best for the job, you would for for some one you don't like just so Obama does not get voted in?

But... you can still vote for anyone you want and that will still be one less vote for Obama.

A vote for any one besides Obama is a vote for some one besides Obama. No matter who you vote for, it's one vote Obama does not get.... So why not vote for who you think is best suited for the job?

Your objective is to see Obama not re-elected. So, then vote for who you want. As long as you don't vote for Obama, you are not doing anything to get him re-elected. A write in vote is just as valid as a vote for Romney or Gingrich.

I am going to vote for who I think will be best for the Job. But that's just me.

neither

wont be voting if it comes down to one of those 2 chuckleheads or obamatron

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

And you really think a write in vote can win? Wow!!!! As i've said before. Brainwashed. When was the last time a write-in ever won an election???

Write-ins don't and probably never ever will get elected. But that's not the point.

If you vote for the lesser of the two evils because you think that's your only choice and a vote for anyone else is waste of a vote, then I'd say you were the brainwashed one. Not voting your conscience for who you think is the best to represent you is a waste of a vote. If i have a choice between Newt or Mitt and Obama, I'll either write-in Paul or not vote. Because I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of those three.

I think people are thinking more along the lines of if they don't vote for one of the mainstream candidates and go with their conscience, the guy they don't want will win. For me, the objective is to make sure Obama is not re-elected. No one in the Republican primary could do worse, so a vote for any of them is better than a write-in vote of conscience wherein Obama turns out the winner.

This type of thinking is exactly why we're doomed. Of course it can get worse with these two. Civil Liberties will continue to disappear as the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer while completely wiping out the middle class. Mitt/newt are carbon copies of Obama, they don't represent you. This anything but Obama junk has got to stop.

I'm pretty sure the GOP leaders knew their party was still unelectable after the disastrous 8 years of Bush Jr., and discouraged their heavy-hitters from running. That's why you don't see Christy or Jeb Bush or Huckabee running. Look at it this way, if all the establishment GOP pundits (Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Peter Robinson, George Will, etc.) are downright negative about this crop of candidates, yet still dismissive of Ron Paul, shows us they would rather not win the WH in 2012 but remain obstructionists until 2016.

reply to post by BagOfDrewshness


I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I still stand by my assertion that RP is not specifically relevant to this discussion.

It's clear the OP wanted to have a debate about Newt and Mitt and the merits of either in a hypothetical situation.

It is not necessary to keep bringing RP into this discussion- his intentional absence from the OP's thoughts is proof enough of this.

If on a sporting forum, I wanted to debate whether Team A or Team B was better - I would not expect or appreciate posters to suggest Team C - it does nothing to further the discussion - rather, it highlights the necessity of the conversation itself!

It doesn't matter which you vote for. In the end neither is capable of beating Obama. It is too bad that the Republicans couldn't come up with a more mainstream and untainted candidate. Of course anyone mainstream and untainted probably doesn't agree with any of their policies. I'm not a fan of the Democratic party but the Republican Party is severly broken. Instead of being the conservative party they have simply become the anti-democrat party even if it means they vote against their ideals.

All that said I would rather have Romney than Newt by a landslide but I will be voting for neither. I think Newt ends up getting the nomination because everyone knows Romney is the same as Obama.

Neither.

1. With Newt... How could anyone put support behind a man that left the Speaker of the House position in disgrace? The man claims to be a non insider for Christ's sake. He handles debates well, but just look at his history. I could go on.

2. Romney flip flops on every topic depending on the audience at hand. What about Romney-care and it's similarities to Obama-care? I could go on.

Both are horrible choices for the Presidency. Considering the times, if it's between Obama and these two, I would rather write in my Vote for another unnamed candidate. I will never allow the Media to determine my vote. People call it a waste, but I vote for the best overall Candidate.

If these two are the only two that were available for the Republican nomination it would then seem the media really does get to pick the candidates. Sad.

So, there is a site my brother just sent to me. Americanselect.org Later today, I will be putting my profile up on there, and ya'll can vote for GRA for their nomination! ........ Seriously.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


If you read/understood my previous posts, you wouldn't be arguing with me, you would realize that I agree with you I just didn't like how the OP called Ron Paul supporters brainwashed fanatics, and expected them to respect his request that they stay out of the discussion.

Then he wonders why they flood his thread with "Ron Paul 2012"? He had it coming.

reply to post by BagOfDrewshness


I did - starred a couple as it happens!

My gripe isn't directly with you - rather that the label the OP used is absolutely the kind of language used by Paulers - and also, its commentary we shouldnt see in the first place if people read the thread title.

Not having a go mate, just bouncing off ya

Vote Cthulu. Why Choose a lesser evil?




Sorry. Couldn't resist dragging that gag back up from 2008 :-)

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Understood.

Glad we were able to clear that up

Peace mate.

Why would you waste your vote on a non-electable candidate? Newt and Mitt are going to be it! That is a proven fact. Anyone else is just wishful thinking.

We all know Paul won't be in it for the long run. Santorum has more of a chance at winning a few more states than him. He hasn't won one yet! Ron Paul is not a mainstream candidate he is too different. I liked Jon Huntsman the best. But I'll have to go with Newt if we want any hope in getting this economy turned around! However, Obama is flip flopping like crazy. I think he should change parties, he might be a libertarian now, although I have never heard him talk about the constitution.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

Why would you waste your vote on a non-electable candidate.

Integrity.

Clear conscience.

Why would you waste your vote on someone that doesn't care about you?

Voting for the predicted winner is completely illogical. Hell, some couples go to the polls and vote, knowing full well that the other half is voting opposite of them, and their votes will cancel out, but they still do their patriotic duty, and they still vote their conscience.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot

I think people are thinking more along the lines of if they don't vote for one of the mainstream candidates and go with their conscience, the guy they don't want will win. For me, the objective is to make sure Obama is not re-elected. No one in the Republican primary could do worse, so a vote for any of them is better than a write-in vote of conscience wherein Obama turns out the winner.

So instead of voting for who you think is best for the job, you would for for some one you don't like just so Obama does not get voted in?

But... you can still vote for anyone you want and that will still be one less vote for Obama.

A vote for any one besides Obama is a vote for some one besides Obama. No matter who you vote for, it's one vote Obama does not get.... So why not vote for who you think is best suited for the job?

Your objective is to see Obama not re-elected. So, then vote for who you want. As long as you don't vote for Obama, you are not doing anything to get him re-elected. A write in vote is just as valid as a vote for Romney or Gingrich.

I am going to vote for who I think will be best for the Job. But that's just me.

edit on 26-1-2012 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

If you vote your conscience as we've discussed, sure it's not a vote for Obama. However, if the opposition vote to Obama is split by people writing in whoever they want, Obama wins. I think it's more important to beat Obama than to vote my conscience (which, I guess, means we're doomed according to some). That's just my feeling. You obviously disagree. But, you are wrong in stating that just because you don't vote for Obama he will not be re-elected. Say 60% of voters want someone elected other than Obama, a clear majority, right? If those 60% split their vote between 2 or more opposition candidates, Obama can, and most likely will, win despite a majority of people not wanting him elected.

I feel that, for the purposes of this thread, neither Gingrich nor Romney would do worse than Obama. I would prefer Gingrich. However, if Romney is the GOP nominee, I'll still vote for him despite my preference for another candidate because the way elections work, that 3rd party candidate or write-in vote will only split the anti-Obama vote. Maybe I'm not explaining this correctly and we're just talking past each other...

reply to post by 35Foxtrot

I think it's more important to beat Obama than to vote my conscience (which, I guess, means we're doomed according to some).

Once again, illogical.

The mainstream candidate would have you believe this is true, but what is to say they are any better than Obama? Might even be worse. Why would you vote for an unknown, vs. a known good or known bad?

I'll be honest; I voted for Obama in 2008, because McCain/Palin scared the hell out of me. I'm still glad McCain didn't get elected, but Obama turned out to be far worse than I could have imagined based on his campaign. I had high hopes for him, and he entirely reversed course and failed.

So, in 2012, do I make the same mistake and vote for Romney because Obama scares me? NO! I learned from my last mistake, and I'll vote my conscience and let the cards fall where they may.

I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils. From now on, I am voting my conscience.