Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 

Who do you think should be the next president?

Nobody. I think we should dissolve the union, repeal the Declaration of Independence, and submit ourselves humbly to the British Crown. If we're very, very good, we may be allowed some measure of self-government in a few decades.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:14PM, Ken wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 

Who do you think should be the next president?

Nobody. I think we should dissolve the union, repeal the Declaration of Independence, and submit ourselves humbly to the British Crown. If we're very, very good, we may be allowed some measure of self-government in a few decades.

If nobody could get on the ballot hesh would win in a landslide.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

I was curious about the political opinions of atheists here. 

As a side note, I'm sure you're already aware that the "political opinions of atheists" - as a group - is about as coherent as the "political opinions of left-handed people" or the "political opinions of people who wear blue."

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

Who do you think should be should be the next president?
Who do you think will win the next presidential election?

I am certain that the current office-holder will get a second term. As to who SHOULD be the next president, I would have to say that the best candidate (so to speak) is someone that nobody has ever heard of.

In an ideal representative democracy, I would dearly love to see two sweeping changes. Actually, one sweeping change, and one return to the original plan.

1) EVERY ballot for every political race should contain the option of "None of the Above." If the "None of the Above" votes get a majority, that race must be re-run, with all participants in the first race banned from participation (an entirely new field of candidates.

2) The presidential race needs to return to the method defined in the constitution; ALL candidates rune in ONE election (none of this "Primary Election" and Choose-Your-Running-Mate bullshit), and the winner of the election becomes the president, and second place gets vice-president.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:15PM, steven_guy wrote:

The Republican candidates seemed to be a bunch of duds, every single one of them is a worthless human being. So it's Obama be default.

But how do atheists and anyone else here feel?

Given the current options, I would have loved to see Santorum get the Republican nomination and have to dabate an intelligent, well-spoken opponent. I would have been able to enjoy the entertainment values of the debates with no real concern that Mr. Theocrat might ever win.

The choice will be Obama and Romney.  Both have freight. 

Obama's had successes, including with the economy, but not all of them have been popular successes.  His foreign policy has been good, often very good, and he's reversed a lot of the Bush anti-US feeling in Europe and more broadly, but most voters won't care.  He's also had failures and disappointments - the biggie for me has been very little movement on rolling back Bush's attack on civil rights and keeping Guantanamo.  But an overriding fault is the sense of his lack of political presence day to day, both with problems and with initiatives except when he's on the stump.

Now the unspeakable Santorum has withdrawn (all puns intended), Romney's at liberty to move more towards the center with his campaign statements, where he needs to be to take on Obama.  Mormon is not cred, and the sheer volume of money he's flushed down the primaries has turned off people in the center.  He may or may not have a bomb or two ticking in his tax and business affairs.

But the main game's yet to come, and there the atmosphere's always very different. If Obama wins - the proposition that he's the default liberal choice will be tested - it will be in no small part because he's again been a brilliant campaigner.