The Curmudgeon’s First Presidential Poll

It looks like we’re going to have to make our own news today. Therefore, we present our first presidential poll.

You probably know your Curmudgeon’s choice, but that’s not important. We want to know yours. So take a moment to let us know how you plan to vote. We have a lot of non-US readers, and we want to know your preferences too. This poll isn’t going to predict anything, but it’ll tell us how you think.

Go ahead and elaborate in the comments if you like. The poll will stay open for a week, but you can only vote once.

We’ll return to The Controversy between evolution and creationism as soon as there’s some news to discuss.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

40 responses to “The Curmudgeon’s First Presidential Poll

  1. My choice, Gary Johnson, is not listed on your poll.

  2. Sorry, Chuck. If it’ll make you feel better, I botched up my own vote by clicking on the wrong name.

  3. Boringoldfrat

    Mitt Romney is over here in the UK at the moment. Can you have him back please? At least he makes Cameron look good.

  4. Charley Horse

    Driven by my conservatism, I voted for Obama.
    He being a Xian and no relocation expenses.

    Added to the asset of “on the job experience” vs “no on
    the job experience”….my choice was really the
    most logical. :)

  5. Charley Horse, me too. OBama. Bush tax cuts turned the economy downhill and the deficit straight up in 2000 . Clinton gave Busha booming economy a shrinking deficit and a climbing stock market. The GOP’s links to big corporations and the moneyed class are simply not good for the average American. Either way, I’m not happy with Washington waste and pork from both parties and don’t think 500 Billion on defense annually can be justified while cutting food stamps for poor kids.
    Hopefully there will be some balancing in Congress but, either way the Bush tax cuts are just about gone. If they can cut the budget while leaving education alone or improving it, we might come out of this Bush recession.

  6. will says: “Bush tax cuts turned the economy downhill”

    You can’t imagine my restraint, but I’m letting it all flow here. Carry on, gentlemen.

  7. soviet_reunion

    Curmudgeon, I pity you as a conservative.

    I’m liberal, violently so, but I respect conservatism as a reasonable, defendable political and economic ideology. It’s a shame that the religious right has such a stranglehold on the Republican party and such a reasonable discussion is never possible.

  8. Given what I believe to be your main audience, I would expect Obama to win this poll handily. Readers here are mostly scientifically literate, well-educated and logical thinkers. Unfortunately, the Republicans have been taken over largely by far-right religious fruit cakes, especially here in Oklahoma and some other states, mostly in the South. This has been a shame. As a former supporter of the ‘old-school’ Republicans, such as those of Rockefeller, John Chaffee, etc., I have long left the party. I support fiscal responsibility and concern for social support of those in need. The latter is not now a concern of many (most)? Republicans. Living in a state where far-right Republicans now control both houses of the Legislature and every elected state-wide office, I have seen the damage that has resulted to education, attempts to overturn separation of church and state, moves to destroy public education, etc. I now do what I can to oppose these moves by supporting most Democrats, but many of the Demos here are just DINOs. Unfortunately, I see little hope for this state (and several others) any time soon.

  9. vhutchison says: “Unfortunately, the Republicans have been taken over largely by far-right religious fruit cakes”

    Yes, I’ve noticed. I was prepared to re-register as “Independent” if one of them had won the nomination, but that didn’t happen. Romney seems okay in that regard, so the election can proceed on other issues. As to those, there are one or two fruit cakes in the other party.

  10. Polls like this leave me depressed since I will write myself in as a candidate before voting for anyone from either major party again.

  11. Being liberal there is NO ONE to vote for! There is no such thing in this country. There are radical conservatives, conservatives, and slightly less conservatives. But given the choices it is Obama.

  12. longshadow

    Ideologically, I support Gary Johnson.

    Practically speaking, the election is about the economy, the economy, and the economy.

    Pragmatically, the choice reduces down to a guy with business experience and a guy who thinks that borrowing other peoples’ money by the boatload is the answer to all problems.

    There’s zero chance the Social Conservatives can ram through much of anything that would seriously impinge on our rights, as the Supreme court would overturn it.

    So, one votes for the lesser of evils.

  13. For the first time in a couple of decades, I don’t support anyone running, I’m losing interest in politics, because I don’t believe that anyone in office is going to do anything about the federal government turning itself into the fat-man-in-the-restaurant from Monty Python, and the time I spend on political websites has gone WAAAAAYYYYYY down. I’m not even sure I’ll vote this year.

    And maybe that’s a good thing. Less time spent on political websites means more time to devote to trying to get my novel written. :-)

  14. Pete Moulton

    Well, I’m pretty liberal in most regards, but I voted for Obama anyway. Truth to tell, I have no idea what Romney stands for. He’s been pandering shamelessly to every side of every possible issue. I think he’s just an empty suit, ready to do whatever the Koch brothers tell him to do.

  15. docbill1351

    Obama, of course! Romney? He just wants to be president as if it will add to his CV and make his daddy happy.

    Face it, Romney has no moral compass. None. He doesn’t stand for anything except for Romney. Give me one example, ONE EXAMPLE where Romney has stood up for a principle in this election, unwavering that is in align with his previous stands. There are NONE. The guy is a total wanker.

    Now, I could vote for a wanker if he proposed policies that would line my wallet, but nope. None there.

    All things considered, I think that Obama has done a good job. With Bin Laden alone he had the balls that Bush lacked. Bush was not only stupid but he surrounded himself by stupid or syphocants and just figured that things would work out. Well, they didn’t but Bush didn’t have a clue how to alter that course and his “pals” took a hike leaving him high and dry. So much for a moron as president.

  16. I especially think Obama has done a good job considering how much the Republicans have tried to sabotage any good Obama tries to accomplish. It seems they would enjoy destroying our country as long as it happens during Obama’s presidency so they can say it’s all his fault. And as others have pointed out, the Republicans are too cozy with religious nut jobs and give way too many unfair advantages to the rich for me to be able to vote Republican with a clear conscience. IF more conservatives were intelligent and ethical, I would have more respect for their positions. The Sensuous Curmudgeon is one of the few conservatives I can respect.

  17. Curmudgeon, ” You can’t imagine my restraint but I’m letting it all flow here. Carry on gentlemen” .
    Thank you Curminator. . Being shredded has never been one of my strong suits, plus I’m a bleeder. Maybe I was slamming too many continents together the last 10 years and missed something in the national debate.
    Have you you considered
    “Carry on. . I’ll be in the area the rest of the day observing, after those last comments”.
    Not as congenial and possibly a cause for concern. Naaah. Not cool enough, too formal.
    Carrying on here after a fashion.

  18. None of the above.

    Why? What Aitch748 said. Seriously, what happened to moderate, pragmatic politics? Living in Europe and watching the EU’s leaders fiddle while the Eurozone slowly burns has been instructive, at least to me, about the consequences when there are clearly hard problems, but there’s no real leadership or vision.

    I think both US parties are flatlining intellectually, and are wedded to ideologies that are of questionable effectiveness. The GOP is particularly easy to parody these days, but I don’t see much more honesty or constructive introspection on the other side of the aisle. Regardless of which side you’re on, I think it should be hard not to be a bit worried.

  19. Boringoldfrat says … “Mitt Romney is over here in the UK at the moment. Can you have him back please? At least he makes Cameron look good.”

    Sorry, but no. Not until New Zealand takes back Comfort and Australia takes back Ham. All’s fair in love and uhhh .. science … or politics …. or something ….

  20. I am English and have traditionally voted Conservative, so I should be a natural Republican supporter, but I have voted Obama in your poll. I have followed American politics for several years now. The current Republican party is simply too extreme for my likings. It’s attempts to wreck the US economy so that they can blame Obama are incredible. The whole ethos of promoting the Birther and “Obama is a Muslim/isn’t a true American” issues smack of racism and any candidate or political party that will not explicitly rebut these tactics simply does not get my vote. But then my vote doesn’t count. Incidentally the Republican’s efforts to disenfranchise as many voters as they can in various states, knowing that this will mostly affect minorities that do not traditionally vote Republican, does nothing but increase the impression of racism.

  21. SJR says: “I think both US parties are flatlining intellectually, and are wedded to ideologies that are of questionable effectiveness.”

    Right; neither party is what it used to be. I’ve said before that one party is obsessed with social science and the other with creation science. They’re both crazy, and if you don’t see that then you’re part of the craziness. All that matters now is which pack of idiots is worse — that is, which party’s principles, when put into effect, will be more immediately destructive?

    We’ve lived through Carter and then Reagan. Lesson learned? No. Okay, that was followed by Bush and then Obama. Does a pattern emerge? It should, but we’re not talking about logic here — it’s ideology, and rational argument rarely works in that context. The tragedy is that this goes far beyond our personal, intellectual preferences. What’s literally at stake is survival of the economy and the nation. Which party is worse? The lesser of two evils is never a pretty choice. Either way, we are governed by fools.

  22. Charley Horse

    Thinking back to the last election….”Drill Baby Drill” stands out
    as the most memorable slogan.
    Assuming Jindal will be the VP nominee, I can see “Plug
    Baby Plug” will be this year’s slogan. Jindal is being hyped for
    his leadership during oil leak and his improving medical care
    and education in La. But we know who really runs that state….
    don’t we.

    Romney will make the rich richer, the poor poorer and allow the
    Tea Baggers to control his every move. No good will come
    from a Romney presidency.

    SC….my answer to your question concerning lesson learned….
    no, the most prejudiced, ignorant and easily misled voters in our
    country have not learned anything. They will continue to vote
    against their own best interests. If I’m wrong, then Obama will
    have the biggest victory in history.

  23. Curmudgeon,

    I’m afraid of the Republican party having a super-majority. Romney seems like a nice enough guy, but my biggest problem with him is that he seems ready and willing to “play the game” so to speak (just do whatever the Republican leadership wants). I think our governor in Michigan, Rick Snyder, does a good job of not pandering to the legislature.

    I don’t dislike Romney or Obama, but I’m not big fans of Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, etc etc. They’re all interested in their respective parties, not the actual country.

    It’s not so much that I think the Democrats have all the answers, just from what I’ve seen over the past 4 years, it seems like the Republicans see a real chance of taking control of the House/Senate/White House (Which would also do wonders for SCOTUS nominations) and they’ve made that priority number one, and if that keeps the country in limbo for another few years, so be it.

    Huge respect for the Curmudgeon – Regardless of your political ideology.

  24. Jack Hogan

    It looks like the Washington press corps voted in the poll.

  25. Polls like this may be fun, but they are basically useless. They just tend to just show the bias of your regular readers. While I am unimpressed with Obama, I think Romney as President would be a disaster. All Romney spouts is platitudes without details. How can you trust someone who says one thing now, but said the opposite thing before? How can you trust someone who keeps making ads that take his opponents statements out of context and make him sound like like he said something different than what was meant?

    Actually, I too, like a couple of the previous commenters have said, would seriously consider voting for Gary Johnson. I live in New Mexico where he was Governor for eight years and he did a GREAT job! If I thought voting for him was better than spitting into the wind, I would do so. Unfortunately, he has NO chance of winning. The only viable candidates are Obama and Romney. Then again, voting for either Obama or Romney is also like spitting into the wind.

  26. @TA: Would that be “Silly”, “Slightly Silly” or “Extremely Silly” party?

  27. Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Umbrella Stand Jasper Wednesday (pops mouth twice) Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable (sound effect of horse whinnying) Arthur Norman Michael (blows squeker) Featherstone Smith (blows whistle) Northgot Edwards Harris (fires pistol, which goes ‘whoop’) Mason (chuff-chuff-chuff) Frampton Jones Fruitbat Gilbert (sings) ‘We’ll keep a welcome in the’ (three shots, stops singing) Williams If I Could Walk That Way Jenkin (squeaker) Tiger-draws Pratt Thompson (sings) ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ Darcy Carter (horn) Pussycat ‘Don’t Sleep In The Subway’ Barton Mannering (hoot, ‘whoop’) Smith is my man.

  28. @TA: Ah! That would be the ” Extremely Silly” party, then.

  29. It used to be Extremely Silly, but it pales in comparison to the shenanigans of the Discovery Institute.

  30. Ceteris Paribus

    I won’t bother with the poll. With the Supreme Court decision that corporations have the right to flood political campaigns with unlimited money, the democracy game is well and truly over in this country.

    As a result of that decision, it is now completely legal for money to buy up a sufficient number of the 535 members of the House and Senate who allegedly represent actual humans.

    But under the apportionment system the founders envisioned which provided for 1 representative for each 30,000 population, there would now need to be about 6,000 to 10,000 representatives, depending on who counts in the population.

    But any large number of representatives would at least help make the possibility of buying an election a bit more challenging. Or at least take more money than even just the Koch brothers can afford.

    Another insult to the idea of representative government that the founders intended is that the presidential electoral votes in most states are awarded on a winner take all basis, instead of proportionally to the votes cast in that state. If you are a minority voter in a secure state for the other party, there is really no need to bother to go to the poll since your vote has no effect.

    And if that isn’t enough to discourage you, consider that when the US was founded, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was around 4 to 1. Now the population ratio is in the range of 65 to 1, so most small states could just as well save the cost of running an election and close the polls. The parties and candidates recognize that, and scarcely bother to campaign in those states now.

    But I’m sure David Barton and the theocrats will warn that we have the only godly election system in the world. Only godless communists would engage in blasphemous political systems such as parliaments.

  31. Ceteris Paribus says: “most small states could just as well save the cost of running an election and close the polls.”

    Even the smallest state has two senators, so they get a disproportionately large presence in the Electoral College.

  32. Ceteris Paribus

    But there are only 100 electoral votes based on the senate part of congress, while 438 are based on congress plus D.C. and US territories. And if those senate votes come from winner take all states, the minority voters in them still get zero return on their investment in the system.

    There is a completely corrupt over-representation problem in the senate, which by senate rules allows any senator to anonymously place a “hold” on the confirmation of presidential appointees.

  33. Ceteris Paribus says: “But there are only 100 electoral votes based on the senate part of congress, while 438 are based on congress plus D.C. and US territories.”

    If it were not for the Senate votes in the Electoral College, which distorts the influence of the small states, then maybe a half-dozen of the most populous states could always choose the President. They debated this in the Philadelphia convention, and the Electoral College was the only solution they could all agree on.

  34. Ceteris Paribus

    Thanks for the reminder. Ah yes, there was a time when there were rational debates by educated participants, instead of rubes repeating the mantras they find in their bibles. And governance could allow for consensus and compromise rather than mandate the simple Manichean act of separation of the Good from the Evil. It all seems so long ago and far away now.

  35. Both parties have their irrationalist wing. On the left, the irrationalist wing are against things like GM crops. If the irrationalist wing ran the democratic party, every night when I turned on MSNBC I would see Rachel Maddow railing on and on and on about the evil of GM crops. But that is not our world.

    In our world, I turn on Fox News and see Glenn Beck saying that Darwin is the father of racism, and drawing charts with names all connected to each other, like a conspiracy loon go after the Illuminati.

    I think half the Republican candidates for president rejected evolution. In 2008, it was definitely 3 of 6.

    Bachmann was a fan of the books of Nancey Pearcey, who co-wrote “Of Pandas and People” and Bachmann is treated like an intellectual giant on Fox News, holding forth on every topic under the sun. She is their intellectual giant.

    Sarah Palin hugged an African witch-hunter who incited mobs to kill accused witches in Africa; and she praised the power of his faith. Her husband wants to split Alaska from the lower 48.

    JIndal is an actual exorcist, and he could be our next VP.

    Mike Huckabee says atheists are to blame for the Aurora shootings, and that scientists have a terror campaign to silence, suppress, fire, expel and deny grant money to the scientific super-geniuses of creationism.

    So both parties have their irrationalist wing, but with the GOP the irrationalist wing is, if not in charge 100% of the time, it is certainly treated with groveling obsequiousness 100% of the time.

  36. Charley Horse

    Any hanging chads?

  37. Charley Horse asks: “Any hanging chads?”

    No, but I suspect massive voter fraud.

  38. Charley Horse

    I understand. :)

  39. techreseller

    Do not forget the other parties. Libertarian, Green, Whatever Nader’s party is called.