2012 Presidential Poll

[Renew Deal]

Who would you support in a 4 way race?

[Monique1]

1. Let me ask you

for those who voted others, tell us who you would want that is not on the list?

[Bandit]

2. The candidate has not yet presented themself but it is basically anyone other than Obama

that is not Republican and has at least one Liberal ideal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Whoever is to the left of Obama. Or, write one in.

[demosincebirth]

7. In that case you just might. just , get Pain, Backman or perhaps even

Trump? and they might even win. Nice thought.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Or, a comet might hit Paducah and unleash a tsunami of frogs.

However, if you think that my 1 vote will swing an election, you might invest in some frog invasion insurance.

[demosincebirth]

4. They can't tell ya. They're probably sure losers on 2012.

[davidthegnome]

5. Given a choice between those 4...

I'd have to go with Obama, though I'd probably toy with the idea of voting for Ventura.

As for who I'd really want to support... well, Kucinich, Sanders... Grayson if I thought he would run. Howard Dean if I thought he would run. I don't think any of the candidates I'd support enthusiastically are going to run in 2012. So I'll probably vote for Obama.

[rucky]

6. Being in Ohio, I wouldn't have the luxury to vote third (4th?) party.

But I'd "trade" my vote with someone in a solid blue state if someone like Bernie Sanders were to run. As long as we're dreaming, here...

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. The answer to the question is "Obama".

It's both foolish and unrealistic to pretend that any challenger for the Democratic nomination has a chance of winning it. It's also foolish and unrealistic to pretend that any successful challenger to the incumbent for the nomination has a chance of winning the election. It's even more foolish and unrealistic to think a third-party candidate has a chance of winning, and the crowning stupidity among these is to think that a Republican won't be much worse or different.

Pragmatism and realism are not common hereabouts, judging from the results.

[SidDithers]

9. +1...nt

Sid

[davidthegnome]

13. I didn't vote for pragmatism and realism in 2008

I voted for hope and change. I voted for someone I believed would stand up for democratic principles. I will go so far as to say that these principles, these unrealistic and foolish ideals that many of us share, are worth a whole hell of a lot more than pragmatism and realism.

We can accomplish great things if and when we have the courage to do so. We proved that in 2008 with the election of Obama. I don't think the idea of a successful primary challenger is as foolish as you think - though I certainly agree that a Republican would be worse than Obama.

I remember people telling me that America could never/would never elect a black man... well, guess what? Yes we did.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. This is the problem with the political left in general

ideology becomes more important than actually governing; people want a president who'll do EVERYTING they think he should, immediately, political realities be damned (never mind that getting some things accomplished is better than nothing).

Name one instance, ever, of someone mounting a successful primary challenge to a sitting president from within his party. Hasn't happened, isn't going to happen.

[davidthegnome]

17. Name one instance, ever...

of America having a black President - prior to Obama. It hadn't happened, ever, but it did.

Ideology IS important because it is what separates us from the right. We have settled, for a long time, for lukewarm politicians who observe "political reality" and make their decisions based upon such. FDR now... he wasn't much of a political realist, was he? Was he the pragmatic type? From all I have heard of him, he wasn't. He accomplished things that today we can only dream of - because with every passing election the right becomes more fanatic and the left (in government, at least) moves to the center to negotiate, to compromise.

I will say that the great leaders of history were not very realistic or pragmatic at all. They demanded the impossible when in many cases the majority felt it was hopeless. This is how we accomplished civil rights legislation, medicare/medicaid, social security, so many great things we have done *because* we stood on principle, because we fought for these ideas that weren't very realistic. Some things are worth fighting for, worth standing up for despite the odds against us.

Once upon a time, the idea of abolishing slavery was naive, unrealistic. Once upon a time, it was unrealistic to think that blacks could vote. Once upon a time it was unrealistic to think we could possibly repeal DADT. We accomplish the unrealistic frequently - we do so when we have the courage to stand by our principles.

I don't want a President who will do everything I think he or she should. I want a President who will mobilize and energize the silent majority. I want a President who will stand up and take on the corporations, who will face difficult truths and share them with us. I want a President who will not move to the right in response to republican zeal.

Political reality can be changed - and is changed quite frequently.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Not the same thing at all

In the case of a party dismissing an incumbent to nominate someone else, this is seen by the "independent" voter as failure. "Hey, sorry, yeah, this guy sucked. But look! We have someone else now! Promise not to fuck it up this time, okay?" is NOT a way to get votes.

[davidthegnome]

19. It depends on the situation

and of course, on the potential candidate. It's not so much saying that one President sucked and promising not to fuck it up next time - it's admitting that we fucked it up in the first place and might fuck it up again, but will try not to. That's the kind of honest humility that independent voters respond to (IMO).

That said - I don't think the President sucks altogether, or I would not even consider giving my vote in 2012. I think he's simply a very diplomatic man who tries way too damned hard to compromise with fanatics. Diplomatic skill is to be valued in a President - but there are some people you cannot negotiate with without losing your shirt. I think our democratic representatives are constantly on the defensive and are basically providing us with only a temporary shield against fanatic right wing policies.

I do not think this is the time for such diplomacy. I think it's time for a fire brand, for a leader who will stand up and shout (or even scream) if the situation calls for it. It is time to take the battle to the right, to stop yielding to their constant push and push back. We need a far more aggressive left than we have - or the center will continue to move right until there really is no difference anymore.

[LeftinOH]

10. There are people on DU who would vote for Magic Underpants?

[Dokkie]

11. I can understand the votes for others

But whats with 2 votes for Romney and 1 vote for trump. I guess we might as well got for Bachmman or Palin we are trying to elect wingnut.

[Renew Deal]

15. There's always some jokers around DU.

And possibly some freepers too. But some people like to vote for a goof.

[center rising]

14. Hillary

But I vote vote Obama from the list.