Quantcast

Do You Think President Obama Will Win the 2012 Election?

SodaHead Politics 2012/04/04 00:36:46
You!
Add Photos & Videos
We know you want to make your opinion count -- especially during the time of a serious election. So, every week, SodaHead will host a handful of up-to-date polls having to do with the upcoming 2012 election.

Vote on this week's election questions below and make sure to come back every Tuesday to see how everyone voted -- and to receive a new batch of questions worth pondering. It's a great time to have an opinion. So, dive right in to our 2012 Election poll.


Read More: http://www.sodahead.com/survey/featured/2012-elect...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • America... lauren ... 2012/04/07 01:54:33
    American☆Atheist
    You probably hang out with crazy people.

    also, christians know how to treat their woman too,lol
  • lauren ... America... 2012/04/07 17:46:53
    lauren dull
    LAME
  • AdLib lauren ... 2012/04/07 02:17:40
    AdLib
    On the contrary, liberal women are not stupid. We are women who favor greater freedom in politics and religious matters. Let me make a deal with you lauren. You keep your gun and I'll keep my women's health care.

    Then president Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev, so, did that make him a communist?
    For you, not to understand that every sitting president in modern times has met with political figures from other countries, makes me think you're a Palin supporter.
  • Patricia lauren ... 2012/05/06 17:17:38
    Patricia
    Republican women are Christian wannabes who are too stupid to think for themselves so they follow their gun-shooting, gay hating husbands. Oh and these* their* Educate yourself.
  • lauren ... Patricia 2012/06/14 17:46:11
    lauren dull
    Aren't you a hateful person, I am conservative,republican & Christian. I an chew gum and walk at the same time . Can You oh hateful one.
  • Broncoyeller 2012/04/04 16:06:05
    No
    Broncoyeller
    +1
    The issue is not will he, but should he.
    And the answer is no to both.

    Anyone with any brains at all knew he would be a disaster, and that has proved true.
    Only the densest people, intractable and incapable of truth having any influence on their votes will continue to vote for Obama.
  • susan 2012/04/04 15:18:06
    No
    susan
    +1
    I hope not. However, if he does, my husband and I will be moving to another country.
  • lauren ... susan 2012/04/07 00:15:06
    lauren dull
    I agree, Canada here I come. Already have family there.
  • Patricia lauren ... 2012/05/06 17:20:41
    Patricia
    hahaha oh my god. another stupid remark. Canada is a capitalistic country. You and your stupid husband will not be welcomed there.
  • lauren ... Patricia 2012/06/14 17:47:53
    lauren dull
    Stupid ? I want to live in a capitalist country, if obama has his way America will no longer be one. You are a moron not me.
  • Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/04/04 14:24:46
    Yes
    Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Considering the fact that we have two Obamas running, one in each party, he sadly has a good chance of winning.
    Obamney
  • Doesn't... Dan ☮ R... 2012/04/04 22:31:26
    Doesn't Matter to Me
    I couldn't agree more.
  • Tasine 2012/04/04 14:02:17
    No
    Tasine
    +3
    I hope not. If he DOES win, it says a lot more about the quality of American citizen than it does Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the Republicans are doing everything in their power to lose. I will vote for myself as a write-in before I'd vote for Obama. I wish all caring people would write in Judge Andrew Napolitano for President.
  • Ashley 2012/04/04 13:55:39
    No
    Ashley
    +5
    Only if illegals can vote for him.
  • lauren ... Ashley 2012/04/07 00:16:15
    lauren dull
    We all know he will do ANYTHING to keep the WH.
  • TJ 2012/04/04 13:31:37
    No
    TJ
    +3
    I hope not
  • shadow76 2012/04/04 11:47:57
    No
    shadow76
    +6
    I am afraid we will not be able to get rid of him, whether he wins or not.
  • Tasine shadow76 2012/04/04 14:03:27
    Tasine
    +1
    I agree with that statement. He isn't going to just walk away because of losing an election. Not in his character.
  • jenna 2012/04/04 11:33:29
    Yes
    jenna
    +2
    Oviousely, YES........
  • wolfcall 2012/04/04 09:43:06
    No
    wolfcall
    +2
    Oh God i Hope Not
  • 2sly 2012/04/04 09:15:13
    No
    2sly
    +2
    I dam sure hope not
  • Maj. C. D. Hardy 2012/04/04 06:45:07
    Yes
    Maj. C. D. Hardy
    +3
    As painful as it is to admit it I do believe the american people are stupid enough to reelect this jerk!!!!
  • Broncoy... Maj. C.... 2012/04/04 16:08:07
    Broncoyeller
    He won a plurality of the vote last time, with no record. With a record, he should fare worse, no?

    Last time he got the benefit of the doubt, but now he has removed all doubt, no?
  • Maj. C.... Broncoy... 2012/04/04 17:01:32
    Maj. C. D. Hardy
    I agree, but then you have to weigh in his likely opponent, I just don't believe Mitt Romney can carry the day.
  • Broncoy... Maj. C.... 2012/04/04 17:58:10
    Broncoyeller
    +1
    We certainly have to hope so. Mitt Romney is not the ideal candidate, but hey, we aren't exactly the ideal country anymore either. He's probably about what we deserve.

    Obama is what we deserve if we are meant to be punished for bad behavior.
  • vinone 2012/04/04 04:28:23
    Yes
    vinone
    I think he will. It's an incredibly weak field all around this election, but the Republican field is much weaker if you ask me.
  • Broncoy... vinone 2012/04/04 16:09:37
    Broncoyeller
    Not based on the positions they hold. The only way your statement could be viewed as true is if the decision is personablity based. Not on policy positions. Is that how you are basing your view?
  • vinone Broncoy... 2012/04/04 16:34:41
    vinone
    Is personablity a word? I don't even really know what you're asking....

    In my personal opinion, I find all of the Republican candidates to be weaker politicians, and weaker as a Presidential candidate, than Obama is as a candidate, although I do not see him as a very strong Presidential candidate either. I find Obama's stances on issues and such to go along with what will get him more votes. My answer doesn't really have anything to do with who would be a better President so much as I who I think is a better candidate in an election.

    Does that straighten my answer out for you?
  • Broncoy... vinone 2012/04/04 18:04:58
    Broncoyeller
    +1
    Yes Virginia, it is a word: http://www.merriam-webster.co...

    And yes your answer indicates what I had feared, that your interest is in the horse race and not the governance issue.

    I see the same misguided emphasis in our news media, who are almost solely focused on the election rather than the fitness for office and a careful analysis of the positions and policies of the candidates.

    Example: Focusing on the nuances and trivia of the Pro football draft instead of the football player's ability to contribute to the goals of the team.
  • vinone Broncoy... 2012/04/05 00:43:36 (edited)
    vinone
    The question didn't ask who I was voting for and who I believed would be a better president. It asked if I thought Obama would win. And I answered that question.

    And your typo confused me, no need to be an ass hole.
  • Broncoy... vinone 2012/04/06 02:20:58 (edited)
    Broncoyeller
    It just find it so ironic that you called into question my word choice, which was not a typo. It was simply a word that is not in your vocabulary.

    Then you got offensive when I simply pointed you to a resource where you could enlighten yourself. True, I used a gentle admonishment, but to any ordinary person that is not sufficient cause for an offensive outburst.

    You know I would be surprised, but I am no longer surprised at the vitriol of the left. (Yes, you'll probably need a dictionary on that one too.)
  • vinone Broncoy... 2012/04/06 05:07:47
    vinone
    Your spelling: personablity
    The spelling on the link: personability

    That's a typo. But I still don't think it's actually a real word, just one of those kind of made up words, that some people accept and some don't, but I still got the general meaning just by person, and -able being in the word.

    And I was pretty offended, you compared me to a little kid writing a letter to about Santa Clause, that's fairly offensive. And if I could have portrayed the tone of that message it wasn't as angry as it was probably read.

    But back to the topic at hand, are you denying the influence of the news and what will simply get you more votes on the presidential election? Because if you are that's just ignorant. As I said before, I don't vote based on that, but there are so many people who vote simply based on a party if someone isn't getting things done fast enough for them, or what candidate has a better appearance, or does a better speech. It's just the way America is right now.

    I know so many people, being in Wisconsin, who voted for Walker simply because he was Republican and the Democrats weren't getting things done, and now that he's in office and making changes they're angry and saying he never said he was going to do this stuff. Even though during the entire election he said he was. ...

    Your spelling: personablity
    The spelling on the link: personability

    That's a typo. But I still don't think it's actually a real word, just one of those kind of made up words, that some people accept and some don't, but I still got the general meaning just by person, and -able being in the word.

    And I was pretty offended, you compared me to a little kid writing a letter to about Santa Clause, that's fairly offensive. And if I could have portrayed the tone of that message it wasn't as angry as it was probably read.

    But back to the topic at hand, are you denying the influence of the news and what will simply get you more votes on the presidential election? Because if you are that's just ignorant. As I said before, I don't vote based on that, but there are so many people who vote simply based on a party if someone isn't getting things done fast enough for them, or what candidate has a better appearance, or does a better speech. It's just the way America is right now.

    I know so many people, being in Wisconsin, who voted for Walker simply because he was Republican and the Democrats weren't getting things done, and now that he's in office and making changes they're angry and saying he never said he was going to do this stuff. Even though during the entire election he said he was. Most people don't vote based on what candidate will be better for their views and their stances on issues, they just don't.

    (And yes, I did look that word up, sorry that you've been here over twice as long and have a little broader vocabulary; I'm working on it.)
    (more)
  • Broncoy... vinone 2012/04/20 14:19:57
    Broncoyeller
    People are emotional creatures first, thinkers second. It is how we are wired.

    And voters are fickeld. We have to take it with a grain of salt. Our great hope is that uninformed voters will stay home.
  • SpeedRacer Broncoy... 2012/04/07 05:08:41 (edited)
    SpeedRacer
    over the past 3 decades the republicans lost their roots,
    Republicans were the only party that Advanced Civil Rights:

    - Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves
    - 1866: first civil rights act passed by Radical Republicans over a Presidential veto, blacks granted citizenship, segregation was forbidden
    - 1868 Republicans passed the 14th amendment passed granting equal protection
    - 1871 Republicans passed voting rights granting Blacks the right to Vote
    - Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to invite an African-American to dinner in the White House.
    - 1920s, the Democratic platforms didn't even call for anti-lynching legislation as the Republican platforms did.
    - Republicans passed the 19 Amendment, granting women the right to vote.
    - 1957 civil rights act pushed by Ike, passed. Sen Kennedy and Sen Gore Sr. voted against it, Democratic Senators filibustered it for 24 hrs, Senator Johnson watered it down so that it lacked enforcement.
    - Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock to integrate Central High
    - 1960 another civil rights act, again Dems kept enforcement measures out of it
    - 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Over eighty percent of Republicans voted for both.
    - Nixon created the EEOC and expanded civil rights law.
    The era of a great party ends here.

    Did ...














    over the past 3 decades the republicans lost their roots,
    Republicans were the only party that Advanced Civil Rights:

    - Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves
    - 1866: first civil rights act passed by Radical Republicans over a Presidential veto, blacks granted citizenship, segregation was forbidden
    - 1868 Republicans passed the 14th amendment passed granting equal protection
    - 1871 Republicans passed voting rights granting Blacks the right to Vote
    - Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to invite an African-American to dinner in the White House.
    - 1920s, the Democratic platforms didn't even call for anti-lynching legislation as the Republican platforms did.
    - Republicans passed the 19 Amendment, granting women the right to vote.
    - 1957 civil rights act pushed by Ike, passed. Sen Kennedy and Sen Gore Sr. voted against it, Democratic Senators filibustered it for 24 hrs, Senator Johnson watered it down so that it lacked enforcement.
    - Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock to integrate Central High
    - 1960 another civil rights act, again Dems kept enforcement measures out of it
    - 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Over eighty percent of Republicans voted for both.
    - Nixon created the EEOC and expanded civil rights law.
    The era of a great party ends here.

    Did you know that up until 1961 almost 80% of Blacks were Republican?
    Even as recent as 1975 a majority of Southern Democrats were still segregationists?
    Did you know that the KKK was started by Democrats to keep Blacks from voting Republican?
    During the civil rights era of the1960's, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor in Birmingham let loose vicious dogs and turned skin-burning fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.

    Contrary to common belief, it was Republicans, not Democrats, who were pushing to pass the civil rights laws. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

    Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

    In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited.

    Unknown by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960's. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

    Because of his long record of championing civil rights legislation, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen for his "able and courageous leadership." The "Chicago Defender," the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen "for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction,"

    I hope after the Republican establishment gets thrashed in november, they reorg and find their roots again. If not I fear this once great party is lost forever.
    (more)
  • TommyB 2012/04/04 03:52:28
    Yes
    TommyB
    +5
    He'll win in 2012 the same way he won in 2008, by default. The Republicans fielded a loser in McCain and are going to repeat that error in 2012 with Romney. Palin couldn't save the ticket then and whoever is the VP running mate for Romney won't be able to save the ticket now. (I fervently hope I'm wrong)
  • RogerCo... TommyB 2012/04/04 04:02:22 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    Palin save the ticket?!
    Comrade Palin
    Comrade Palin sank the GOP 2008 ticket.
    Look at the polls.
  • TommyB RogerCo... 2012/04/04 05:14:15
    TommyB
    +2
    Polls reflect what the pollster designs them to reflect. Palin was the stronger of the two on the 2008 Republican ticket. Many voters voted "Palin" and not "McCain." Polls are genereally worthless for, as the old saying goes, "liars figure and figures lie."
  • RogerCo... TommyB 2012/04/04 05:23:13
    RogerCoppock
    "Polls reflect what the pollster designs them to reflect. "

    I posted a poll of polls, a mean of all major national polls.

    http://www.realclearpolitics....

    If you are denying this, then you are breaking with reality.
  • TommyB RogerCo... 2012/04/04 13:52:12
    TommyB
    +1
    I'm denying the reliability of a poll of meaningless polls. Your inferring that Palin is a Communist and that she hurt the 2008 Republican ticket is a creation of your reality, a reality that I reject.
  • Broncoy... TommyB 2012/04/04 16:12:03
    Broncoyeller
    +1
    McCain wasn't that weak. The handling of the debt crisis was a tipping point, and Obama apparently won over the vast majority of the undecideds in that short period. Plus he had the unknown quantity going for him...

    Now he is a known failure and so he won't have the luxury of that in this election.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/18 09:29:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals