The Sweet (And Not So Sweet) 16 Running to be Named Republican Nominee for 2016

Candidate Name	Jeb Bush	Ben Carson	Chris Christie	Ted Cruz	Carly Fiorina	Lindsey Graham	Mike Huckabee	Bobby Jindal
My Vote % in Primary	0	1	0	92	0	0	0	2
My Vote % in General	5	85	10	99	20	0	60	97
Win % in Primary	1	0	1	44	0	0	0	0
Win % in General	38	56	20	63	20	0	50	61
Potential Campaign Slogans (A few of which are serious suggestions, but most are meant sarcastically)	Give Washington a push, vote for Bush.	Washington needs to be redone.  Vote Carson.	Things look twisty if you're not riding with Christie.	Cruz does not schmooze, he removes refuse.	No other candidate looks as good when dressed as a ballerina. Vote Fiorina.	Voting for me is not compromising your principles. (Paid for by Graham for President)	Want to see idiosyncrasy? Vote Huckabee.	This politician will not drop the ball. Vote for Jindal.
Potential Campaign Slogans	Want more of the same? Vote Bush.		Build a bridge around Washington. Vote Christie.	Change the Sodom and Gomorrah course. Release the Cruz.	Think Washington should be redone? Fiorina can print a new blueprint.			Want to see a brawl? Vote Jindal.
Quick Takes on Candidates	Jeb Bush is no longer the establishment favorite, and he might be the most conservative Bush, neither thing really says much of a positive about him. Money is important, but so is a name, and even more important is a candidate's values.   Progressives would be glad for another Bush presidency.	The last two political cycles were more open to a general candidate but less friendly to a reformer. Carson does bring some useful attributes to the table, but he is likely not a serious presidential candidate at this point.	The chances of Christie being able to bridge a gap between progressives and establishment Republicans looks to be jammed up.	Cruz is certainly my favorite candidate, he is pretty amazing on the issues, very articulate, and he even almost has establishment money to top things off. Around the only thing I have disagreed with him on thus far is his stance to leave the definition of 'marriage' and life up to the states.	Hillary Clinton stinks, no wait, I think Mrs. Fiorina is supposed to say that. While I have semi-limited information on Fiorina, it appears that other candidates look much more Constitutional.	No.  Just no. Look no further to see the rotting core of the Republican Party.	2012 provided a relatively perfect opportunity to run, but for one reason or another Huckabee passed. Consequently, his time to run for president has also likely passed as well.	Jindal gets key issues right, such as religious liberty. He has a very decent record.  He or Walker provides a decent second option behind the Constitutionalist standard-bearer, Ted Cruz.

Candidate Name	John Kasick	George Pataki	Rand Paul	Rick Perry	Marco Rubio	Rick Santorum	Donald Trump	Scott Walker
My Vote % in Primary	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	2
My Vote % in General	2	0	83	60	80	40	2	92
Win % in Primary	0	0	0	0	43	0	11	0
Win % in General	20	10	55	40	60	55	45	70
Potential Campaign Slogans	No, this is not a trick, vote for Kasich!	Get the country more whacky, vote Pataki!	Going to Washington like a fireball – Rand Paul.	Want a counter-revolutionary? Vote Perry.	The portfolio with braggadocio and no mustachio, vote Marco Rubio.	Party like it's about to become 2012. Vote Santorum.	This is not your average chump, stump for Trump. (Or) Think Washington looks like a dump? Turn to Trump.	Stop sending talkers to Washington, send in a Walker.
Potential Campaign Slogans							One last card can be played against Washington: the Trump card.	Want genuine results and not another talker? Vote for Walker.
Quick Takes on Candidates	Limited knowledge of Governor Kasich. I haven't approved of much of what I have seen or heard, however.	Personally, I have seen more than enough socialists occupy the White House.	Paul has squandered a number of opportunities to advance his political candidacy. It is hard to understand to whom he is attempting to pander. His campaign strategy is very strange. He has a decent record, which is why he is still barely alive in my aspirations, but it seems as if the extra rope he is being given is not being used properly.	Similar to an upgraded Bush. AKA Bush 2.0. More of the same with a semi-okay record, but much too mushy for me.	Rubio has a decent record, but thus far he has effectively been running away from it. He appears to have more positions than convictions. Similar to Paul, however, Rubio has a lot of political talent and I am giving Rubio a little extra slack which he thus far has not gained.	Santorum has similar problems to Huckabee, only in reverse. He has poor timing with this decision to run, even though he was the GOP runner-up last cycle.	Trump may mostly be running on bravado and anti-political correctness, yet he has still somehow managed to be a front-runner in the race (for now). He speaks his mind, but he appears to have virtually no convictions. I find it extremely difficult to vote for a candidate you cannot trust.	Walker seems to have enough impressive results for most Republicans and possibly for the majority of establishments hacks as well. If one makes an argument for the 'electability' (which is not something I would like to do) of a candidate, then Walker is likely the selection, both for my vote and the general constituent.

Rubio

Tier One – Outlook for my vote	Tier Two	Tier Three
Cruz	Carson, Paul	Trump, Bush, Graham
Jindal	Kasick, Fiorina
Walker	Perry, Santorum, Huckabee	Christie, Pataki

Tier One – Big Picture for Voters	Tier Two	Tier Three
Rubio	Bush, Carson	Paul, Perry, Santorum
Cruz	Huckabee	Fiorina
Trump	Jindal	Graham
	Walker	Pataki, Christie, Kasich

This is post is fairly old, it just died in the editing stages.  I see the primary as effectively a three -candidate race, consisting of Cruz, Trump, and Rubio. The candidates that fit into the typical 'Social Conservatives' camp are Cruz, Jindal, and Huckabee. On the Establishment side of things there are three candidates, Bush, Rubio, and Christie. Timing isn't everything in politics, but it does play a key role in momentum, I would quickly estimate that time would carry as much as 25% impact. The sweet 16 was already stated. For the Elite 8 I see – Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio, Trump, and Walker. Final Four – Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Walker. Championship Game – Cruz, Rubio. Champion – Ted Cruz (if only this had happened).

Report Card for the Third Debate

Rubio A Cruz A-

Christie B+ Carson B

Trump B- Huckabee B-

Fiorina C- Kasich D+

Paul D+ Bush F+

Quick Takes on Candidates

Rubio dominated Bush in their confrontation, besides that Rubio was also above average in almost every answer. Due to his domination against a co-voting block, he gets the biggest boost from the debate. 

Cruz was the first to address the media bias, and as such gets much of the approval from constituents, furthermore he also offered very good answers to most questions. Additionally, Cruz has done a good job of staying away from getting in the mud and taking stabs at other Republican presidential candidates.

Christie was probably on a similar level as Rubio and Cruz, but he suffers from a time problem, due to being behind in the polls by fairly sizable margins. Consequently, his debate rating is pulled down, even despite Christie likely having the best debate strategy the previous two debates – focusing on the American people.

Carson's debate performance was average, at best, but he gets a good grade due to coming away from the debate relatively unscathed. Also, Carson is a gentleman.

Trump did not get as much air time as the previous two debates and seemed to struggle with the lack of attention, he also seemed to let Carson skate by him unnoticed. He probably had the most scathing rip of the night when he took on Kasich, and while it was a great attack execution-wise, it seemed like an odd strategy to be attacking one of the lower polling candidates.

Huckabee had decent answers during the rare times he had the opportunity to speak (he probably gave the second best answers, in terms of comparing them to my beliefs). Huckabee needs some injection of life into his campaign in the next debate, or else he could be dropping out of the race.

Fiorina gave very scripted answers throughout the debate and also had a lot of air time, yet seemed to do little with it. She managed to deflect most negative questions but failed to turn them around to her advantage.

Kasich was there. He also took up more than a fair amount of air time... Besides those points, he offers very little to typical conservatives – whether it be policy, track-record, debate skills, etc.

Paul needed a spark tonight and all he managed was to appear to be a blamer. Not a good night.

Bush had the opportunity to come back and respond to Rubio, but seemed to pass it up. Bush's demeanor during Rubio's points was relatively awful. For much of the night Bush's answers seemed either timid or scripted. If he does not have a much better debate in two weeks, then his presidential campaign is likely in dire straights.

Random Notes from the Debate

Job interview question, accurate start. The Federal government is corrupt, sure, but as are you. Good start for Cruz. Christie had a good laugh line. Why are you lowering taxes, yet raising taxes on the rich, I'm confused, Mr. Trump. A 10% tax will not work... Given that the government is rather gigantic. Kasich is odd. What if you are living in a fantasy land? Control the voters then, or what? Thanks for the moderate injection... 10% tithe, hahaha... Really, Kasich? Yet, they let him talk and talk... He's talked for over 2 minutes straight now, this is ridiculous. Ouch, Trump just dissected him. Carson and Cruz are sometimes too slow, but they make good points (typically).

Wow, Cruz's tax plan sounds realistic and amazing. Fiorina and Kasich seem to be the favorites from the moderators so far, imho. Legitimate points by Fiorina. “You've been a young man in a hurry, etc..?” What kind of question is that? How is the country running out of time? Good turn around by Rubio, besides that though. There are a lot of people effectively looking for work in Florida? Haha, unintentional self-rip by Bush. Rubio just stomped Bush. I sort of think that it is unfair for there to be two tiers of candidates, not that life is fair, but it does make for slightly better debates. There are still too many candidates here as it is.
My goodness, the moderator's question to Mrs. Fiorina took about 40 seconds. Get to the point, especially when you keep repeating yourself... It's good to give context, but we're not looking for you to elaborate, we're looking at the candidates and their opinions. Managing HP is important, but not exactly the most important thing to be debating right now... Move along, people. Do You want to run on your record? Okay, you can start doing that any time now, no really, anytime. But, why isn't it a cage match, Cruz? Cruz is in his element here. I wonder if he's sick though or something, he seems a little off. Haha. Cruz did avoid the question though he obviously said he could answer it, and made legitimate points elsewhere. Paul is an interesting test-case.

Fiorina always stares off into space. Why? Carson and Cruz are pretty decent though. The woman moderator's questions take waaaaay too long. No, Christie, lie to us. Campaign Conservative Christie, it should be his slogan... Again focuses on the people, great way to do things, both politically and morally. Huckabee is still here? What? He has a lot of good elements, but there are better candidates, I'm not sure if there is room for him. Still though, he does make unique points, especially religiously-centrist. Huckabee may be too reserved at times. Cruz is so young, it's great. His rise to fame is relatively picturesque.

Again the business focus aspect.. Bleah. Cramer asks a few better questions. Bush may have some kissing to do. Bleh. Sorry, I just zoned out, what were you saying, Mrs. Fiorina? Have you thought of simplifying your answer? It seems extremely scripted. These questions all seem to deal with personal issues, not actual issues... Who cares? Stop. Why should having more kids give you a tax credit? If President Obama is 'so bad', then being above average isn't something to pursue, Mr. Kasich. Haha, Cruz has such a great smirk there. Carson is always paying attention, Fiorina always looks straight ahead. Fiorina going after Clinton? No way, that is so surprising. Though thankfully Fiorina has been better about limiting that lately. Goodness, make the questions stop. The Constitution does not protect everyone, Mr. Carson. I'm glad he gets the question, though, how is the PC media supposed to tear him down? The follow-up question seemed fair, even though it was a dumb question to begin with.

Vocational education drop by Rubio. Nice. Why are Super Pacs a scam? What? Trump is odd at times. Rubio is probably winning this debate. The Federal Reserve exists? Who knew? Cruz dropping some knowledge now. Exactly, loose money stinks. Good answer by both Cruz and Paul, better by Cruz (but he did get it first). This moderator has some interesting facial expressions, and better questions. Meh, Carson takes a better stance here, but he's basically just pleading ignorance here.
Personally, I do not want a president who will be learning on the job, not that I'm opposed to non-politicians running though. It is quite possible to not be a politician and still be knowledgeable about issues, just saying. Wait, Huckabee is still here? I don't understand your analogy, Huckabee, mostly because I haven't heard of it, similar to most Americans. Solving diseases would be super, but... Yeah, good luck. It would definitely be better funding than some alternatives, but still, it's not what the government should actually be funding and focusing on. Sorry, Huckabee.

I'm also reading commentary on the debate (mostly liberal at the moment, it's good to know what the other side thinks and what they don't like and do like). Apparently Cruz asked for the creation of a commission to study monetary policy. Which wouldn't be a good idea. 25% is still semi-high, Rubio, depending on the way it works anyways though. HAHA, moderator discretion. This conversation sometimes. Thanks for your two cents, Mr. Paul. Haha, Cruz one ups him and again appeals to Paul supporters. Kasich? 

What taxes would a person need to fill out on a postcard, Mr. Cruz? We've heard this before, Rubio, even if it is a good point. Haha, Trump likes to be unpredictable? No way. Being unpredictable is not necessarily a good idea. Oddly good points by Trump relating to gun policy. Haha, bro-fest between Trump and Huckabee. Rubio looks kind of short and Fiorina as well. While it doesn't matter to me, obviously, it can impact some people's decision, generally subconsciously. GOOD NIGHT. Stop asking Fiorina about her business history and things related to it. I know that is effectively her only claim to fame, but still, ask about issues, please. 

Haha, a round-table presidency would be kind of funny. Fiorina has seemed a bit out of place this debate. Why can students not pay back student loans? Get a job (or multiple), people. Or more, but how does that help anything, Kasich? Why not? I agree with the online education point, though. Bush calls for less government intervention, which is just a bit ironic. Daily fantasy sports? What? It's not gambling, bro, unless you want to say a ton of other things are gambling as well. Bush gives a weak answer, again. Haha, Christie with a good turn around. No way, the government should do what it is supposed to do? What a thought. These moderators... Christie invests in all types of energy how? Haha, he has so many laugh lines. Christie is also doing well in this debate, again. What? Good answer to a weak position.

Paul is weird at times. Why do his supporters clap sometimes? It makes very little sense. Chronic disease is a gigantic problem, however 'declaring war' doesn't help anything. No, we have a sick-care problem in America, because that's all the 'health-care' system is. All of these people talk about their plans... You can't do nothing, Paul? Really? Is a Libertarian even allowed to say that? It seems a little ironic coming from you. And a little dangerous. Christie is owning this answer, also projecting a unified front and ripping the Democrats at the same time. Meh, Rubio. Sometimes people have to get a bad deal. Life can be tough, get over it. 

Where has Cruz gone? And Carson? Etc. Candidates just disappear with so many people on stage. Fiorina actually mentioned something decent that didn't seem scripted, potentially the first time tonight. You think the government is too big now, Mr. Paul? Christie addresses the audience again, a pro move on repeat. Cruz calls to actual track-record, a good call, overall. Good closing. I can wait to see that debate... What? Carson is classy. You do not owe America anything, though, Rubio. America isn't nationalistic... Okay, not true, but I wish more people would not be nationalists. Bush gives a scripted answer, not the best call. God bless America... Who is this 'god' whom you speak of? No, seriously. Who is he/she/it, etc.? Please explain.

Approximately an eight-second pause for Fiorina to begin. You prove that everyone has potential? Umm. Why do half of the candidates always rip America? It's not necessarily the best strategy. Good job by Christie turning the question around. Fiorina avoids the question. Trump taking no prisoners as normal. But why do we owe 19 trillion dollars? I find it interesting to watch the other candidates and if they are watching the other candidates as they speak. Walker has been good so far. Christie keeps focusing on the television audience. Carson avoids the question, good work by him. So many rabbit trails and very few real answers... Trump is dominating the air time... Good job Fiorina, global protection... Or not. Yes, we should arm the Kurds, that sounds like a brilliant idea. It's not like there is a bad track-record of the United States giving weapons to foreign countries and parties or anything...

Moderator – Cruz is playing to the crowd. Biased much? Walker with a nice comeback. Bush makes effectively no sense most of the time. Huckabee probably had the best point on the Iranian issue. Fiorina typically just stares off into the distance. Oh yeah, that's right, you're the third senator – referring to Cruz, again the moderator gives Cruz blatant disrespect. Huckabee with a few good points. Courts cannot make law, who knew? Constitutional law, what an odd thought. Amen, Huckabee. Bush goes in circles again. Moderators continually putting Cruz in a negative light. Fiorina rehashes talking points from the first debate, very scripted. A fully formed 'fetus'. What the heck? Your character is clearly misguided if you think that baby is a 'fetus'. Surprisingly good answer by Bush on pro-life. Trump will take care of women? Okay, then. Trump just got housed by Fiorina. Why is he the front runner? Give some participation applause to the candidates... What?

Trump and Christie both making good points, but yet not, because their points need to be a little more articulate. Bush and Trump get so much air time. Carson talking about pristine workers... They came here illegally, umm, that's not exactly pristine. Cruz takes too long to answer questions sometimes, he speaks slowly. He didn't answer the question, either. If people would actually look at the records they would be seeing some different people than those on the stage. Rubio has been very polished. Trump, Trump, Trump. Just because you ran a business does not mean you would create jobs in the US, you would probably be better, but not absolutely so. Trump is pretty accurate about Fiorina's business track-record.

Christie with a good point about playing games, again. Christie's record is pretty poor, but so is your record Fiorina. Carson right on for socialism. Ironic that Trump likes a progressive tax system, pandering much, or just playing dumb? Trump's explanation for his tax system made effectively zero sense. Carson wants to raise the minimum wage. Get both sides to talk about it. What? Never have the conversation again? What? Sustaining minimum wage? What? Is he trying to make sense? How about you lying about your record Mrs. Fiorina? Look yourself in the mirror first, before you point fingers, please. The moderators have been oddly favorable to Trump. Rubio avoided the question. So you miss votes so that you can help the country? Odd strategy. I am my own man, Bush. Hahaha. 

Bush kept us safe... Whoo-hoo. People do not seem to understand the repercussions of interventionism by the government and the military. Rubio is such a war-hawk. Equip moderate elements. Good idea. What will happen if you arm moderates? They'll suddenly turn into 'extremists'. Terrorists are not an existential threat to the US, a dangerous threat, you bet, Carson. But terrorists are not able to tear down the country, effectively only the people of America can do that. Christie has some good applause lines. I hate it when I don't know what I don't know (Huckabee). Heh-heh, true, but hard to get across. Rand Paul is so right on foreign policy, until now. Arming others doesn't help either. Haha, there are around 3-10 really enthusiastic Paul supporters who always clap excessively after he speaks. 

Hey, Fiorina decided to lay out a few specifics, cool. Very expensive idea, but still, at least, it has specifics. *Whom, Cruz. That aside, he is correct. Huckabee goes back to life, nice. Haha, I just saw one of the Paul supporters, it looks like a slightly older version of him or something. Christie thinks life is precious? Really, that's cool and seems to go against his policies... I highly doubt the true number is 99.999%, Mr. Bush. Such a media laugh. What the heck do these questions have to do with anything? Bush and Trump have a serious bromance going on. Btw, Cruz, focus on America, not foreign concerns. The world needs America? Right... Walker probably had the best closing statement. It's too bad he dropped out, sort of. Christie had a great focus on the American people throughout the debate, which I think is definitely the right approach to appeal to the broadest spectrum of voters. Plus, it typically is the right approach to take morally as well, so long as you are still willing to take principled stands.

Random Democrat Debate Notes

Why do the Democrats get more people to their events due to their larger venues? That's great marketing for the Republicans... Much better setup for the Dems in terms of number of candidates and audience members. Debt free college, whoo, that relates... It's not realistic in any good way, but hey, who cares about reality? Hahahaha, climate change. Oh, my. Wow, Clinton just seems really contemptuous. No offense meant. The rich pay too little? You can start. Lead the way. Oh wait, you just want other people to pay, my bad. Sorry, but not everyone can be president, nor should everyone be president... For many reasons. 

Clinton has been consistent? Maybe consistently changing, sure, but that's about it. Haha, that's right, you are quite progressive. It's sad that politicians can unabashedly say that and still in many ways it is actually a good thing for them politically. Good work, America. Same thing for Mr. Sanders and socialism. Should America really want to be like other countries? Really? Electability. I'm glad I do not recall hearing that in the second GOP debate. Such a despicable word. What is Sanders even trying to say? Save capitalism from itself? Hahaha. Reign in the excesses? What? Not everyone is in agreement, but okay. All of the new income goes to the top 1%? Hahaha. At least this debate is good for comedy... I guess. It's mostly just sad, though.

Affirmative action for African Americans? Other than being some nice alliteration, it happens to be a horrible policy. Interesting that the Democrats think that having a bad record from the NRA is a good thing... Also, Caleb Harman does not approve of referring to yourself in third person, Mr. Sanders. Is it just to boost his name ID or? Whoa, stand up against the NRA. Not the brightest idea of all time, in various regards. Clinton is like a bobble-head at times. The democrats seem fairly unified with each other against the Republicans. Stop referring to tradition, Mr. Webb. Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in American history? Um, no. Why are you repeating yourself? Why are you repeating yourself?

That's surprising to you? Very few politicians answer the question directly, Republican or Democrat. I think that, uh, you should, uh, get more informed, uh, Mr. Sanders (as should I and most people). I certainly do not want to downplay the threat of terrorists, but at the same time, I think that one of the terrorists greatest weapons is actually fear. And we can play right into that at times. Haha, I made a mistake with those emails, haha... Goodnight. Happy to be part of the debate, right. Is Sanders looking for a cabinet position, or what was his reasoning for throwing away the emails? I concur that the issue is talked about way too much, but as evidenced by Clinton's laugh it does play right into her goals, so it seems like an odd move... Who cares about the rest of the world? This is one of the few cases where I am actually a bit of a theoretical nationalist. Why? Because a country should be concerned with itself, first and foremost.

Actually all lives matter. Are you kidding me? Racism exists, sure, but it is not a major issue. I'm not saying it should be ignored, since it does still occur, but you know what I believe is more important? Little people getting slaughtered. And oddly enough, a fair portion of those people happen to be of a skin color other than 'white'. So you get at both issues while focusing on a better priority. Hey, gj, Mr. Webb. Also, the moderator does a better job of not interrupting, big surprise... Another little thing that helps to make the Democratic candidates look better than Republicans.

What 'god' is that, Mrs. Clinton? The economy is better with Democrats? Okay then. I never took a position, until I took a position. Yes, that is generally how it works.. 'Wall Street' should help pay for college because...? Why? Clinton invitational. Haha, no kidding. There have been extremely few specifics laid out by anyone in this debate, including you. It is the year 2015? Really, that is surprising news... Because there won't be a trickle-down result from Wall Street to a fair portion of the economy, right? I mean, come on now, don't be crazy... Why should the hardest thing about college NOT be paying for it? Yes, costs are outrageously high... Tell me something I don't know. Yes, help the less privileged, good talking point, poor policy. Wait, so Sanders is saying you can get by on $12,000 a year? (Which I think is totally possible) If a person makes close to the minimum wage, works 35 hours a week works only 40 weeks a year, then they should easily clear $12,000 a year, even after initial taxes (If you factor in sales taxes, car insurance taxes, etc., etc., then probably not).

Go further than Obama? Oh dear. Give lawbreaking immigrants in-state tuition? Heh, interesting dichotomy to watch this immediately following the Republican debate. How is climate change a moral issue? That makes approximately zero sense (unless you make the argument that anything could impact someone in a morally impacting way, which I would agree with). Taxes on everything! Whoo! Republican scare tactics? Haha, you're one to talk. Again Sanders goes to the world to make American policy... Why take a position now, when I can waffle back and forth until I see what the polls deem most politically expedient.... Right wing republicans do not control the Senate and House, sadly. Whoo! $15 dollars an hour! Whoo! Free money for everyone! Whoo! …. Sarcasm intended... Because if everyone gets paid lots of money, no one does, or something similar to that anyway (in terms of dollar value). AUGH! This debate... Everyone has a lot of magniloquence at times, including you, but whatever. Racist comments? Speak ill of women? Move America forward by what? Raising taxes and creating a worthless currency? Yeah, good plan.  

Presidential Race 2012, part 2

Well, my NFL favorites prediction was actually extremely accurate, only the Buffalo Bills lost straight-up (and they only lost by a single point on a late touchdown) and favorites were 8-5 against the spread.  Though I'm not trying to toot my horn or something silly like that, especially since I had my worst week of the season last week. And I apologize for not getting this out before, I was running into some technical difficulties.

Presidential Race

Unemployment 'below' 8%  
You can color me unsurprised that jobs were 'below' 8% for the first time in 40 months.  I've thought for a couple of months that jobs would be below 8% starting around August or September, so while I was off a little, I was still pretty close.  The reasons for thinking such was because 1. More people would give up hope of finding a job. And 2. Because I thought that the last stimulus package had some little 'presents' that wouldn't be opened until a few months from the election.

Debates 
I thought the debates were extremely predictable.  The first debate was about the $, the second was about being competitive, and the third was about a second term.

Is it a sin to vote for Obama?  
It has been said that it is a sin to vote for Barack Obama, because of all the evil he has helped to facilitate..  But if I were to grant their point, then isn't voting for Romney a sin too, if Romney's track-record is just as bad as Obama's?

Saying that it is a sin to vote for someone is interesting..  I guess I would tend to agree with them that voting for a candidate who supports evil is a sin.  But at the same time, I hope they realize that every candidate (and person) is evil, so in a vague and literal sense they are voting for evil no matter the candidate.  (So in a sense you could actually truthfully say that every presidential choice is a choice between the 'lesser' of two [or more] evils)

Trying to infer political verses in the Bible 
(And I'll say up front that it's a vaguely dangerous thing to try and infer political things into the Bible, but I wanted to incorporate some Bible verses in my discussion.) 
I think it could be said that Christians in the Republican party like to follow the verse, Luke 6:29, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also." In my opinion, Luke 6:29a is largely referring to religious persecution.  If a person suffers religious persecution, then they should be willing to suffer more. (Mainly spiritual abuse, not necessarily literal physical abuse [at least in this part of the world]) And Luke 6:29B, is largely saying that we should not want revenge on an enemy, but instead offer our enemies love and give them even more than for what they asked.  I think that Luke 6:29 can generally be applied on an individual level, but not really on a political or national level.  
        In the OT when Israel would be invaded, would God tell Isreal,  "You Israelites constantly sin, I'm not even sure why I set you up as a nation..  When the Philistines (or whoever) come to attack Jerusalem, let them take it.  Don't put up a fight.  Give them anything and everything that they want."  Is that what God would do?  No.  He would have the Israelites face insanely tough odds, and yet beat the pulp out of their enemy.  (And I'm not trying to say that God is endorsing creating some sort of righteous third party, or that God blesses America more than any other country, I'm just saying that just because evil has the apparent upper-hand doesn't have to insinuate a compromise by the righteous.)

We will never create a heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean we can just lay down to evil.  Instead of trying to apply Luke 6:29 to their political thoughts, I would like Christians to try and apply the following verses: "Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults." 1st Corinthians 14:20, "Make sure that nobody pays back evil for evil, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else."  1st Thessalonians 5 and then also verses 21b-22 "Hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil."

While these verses don't apply perfectly, I think they apply fairly well to a Christian's political life.  We should hold on to what is good and reject every kind of evil.  A political party should be striving for good not accepting evil.  We should not think like children in politics, but as adults.  We don't need to somehow twist our political lives into something different than the rest of our life.  

Perspective 
130 years from now, barring some various things, the political issues of the day won't matter at all to us (though politics will probably still matter to our great-grandchildren), and we'll discern that only our' belief in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and God's grace were the reasons for our salvation.  And while hopefully the political things which we participated in during our lifetimes were 'good works', they did not matter to the final result of our eternal salvation.

Current Alternatives To These Two Guys...

We have done our compromising to evil and look where it has gotten us,
atrocious and open depravity along with thousands of deaths every single day.

In this election I basically think the main candidates whom a Christian can vote for are: some small 3rd party candidate or write in Ron Paul.  I kind of want to discuss some of the main disagreements I have/had with Congressman Paul, and the main disagreements are foreign policy and Abortion/'Gay Marriage'.

Foreign policy
Foreign policy is a very interesting little conundrum.  As a Christian, if there is a dictator who is butchering hundreds of his citizens each day, then I would have a very hard time not intervening.  But, as a non-interventionist/Mayberriate, by stopping said-brutality I will likely be endangering American men and women.  So I am not really convinced as to which choice is right.

Abortion/'Gay Marriage'  
In a way this is the same problem as before, only this time the policy is only affecting those in America, so I am sure Congressman Paul is in the wrong.  It appears that Ron Paul believes that humans are basically good, or, at the very least, the government shouldn't interfere and Americans should be able to make their own decisions.  While the second belief isn't entirely wrong, it is misguided.

What is the government's role?  
Effectively speaking, the government's role is to persecute evil and uphold righteousness.  Paul's position on Abortion/'Gay Marriage' is to downgrade the choice from a national issue to a state issue.  This punting of important issues is a serious FAIL.  In my humble opinion, 'downgrading' the choice is (at best) a Pontius Pilate washing of the hands on the issues.  Simply regulating evil to a state-level doesn't solve anything.  If a child is allowed to be murdered by the state instead of the national government, then he or she is not any less dead.
       Question here..  Why should the regulation stop at the state level?  Why not district?  Why not county?  Why not town?  Heck, why not person?  Oh, that's right, there's no good answer for that..  Because, (according to Doctor Paul) all of this simply boils down to each individual having a 'right' to do evil lawfully.

       While foreign policy is rarely a huge deal-breaker in voting (for me), Abortion most definitely is.  Abortion and God's definition of marriage are (effectively) both non-negotiables for me.  So... on the bright side I won't actually be forced to vote for Paul, since I'm (technically speaking) not eligible to vote. However on the downside, A. I'm not able to vote, and B.  It would be a somewhat hard pill to swallow, but I think I would be willing to compromise slightly on my principles and vote for Ron Paul.  Why?  Because, in his Congressional voting history he has been extremely pro-life.  And if the Congress went crazy and voted for a pro-life bill, then I'm (obviously) all-but positive that he would vote for it.

An aside, that kind of deals with that..

Would you vote to regulate murder?  
If I was a Congressman, and my vote would be the deciding vote in a bill that would regulate abortion to only in the cases of rape and incest, I would have an insanely, insanely hard time not voting in favor of the bill.  In regulating abortion.  Regulating murder.

       I would be responsible for saving millions of children, sure, but I would also be responsible for killing thousands of children.  But, they were just going to die anyways, right?  Well....  Yes.  But, my vote still doesn't match-up to the Bible. To God.  And you do not argue with God.  And yet..  I honestly don't know what should be done in that situation.

Now that I have said most of our differences, I'll move on to some things I really like about Ron Paul.  One of the best compliments I can give him:  He and his supporters aren't here to get a seat at the political table...  They're here to smash the table.  He doesn't buy into the zombified partyline lie: Republicans good, Democrats bad, or vice versa.  Along the same lines, another good thing about him is that he is kind of a ctrl-alt-delete candidate who isn't afraid to upset anyone.  And lastly, his economic and monetary policies are some of the (if not the) best out there.

Both the abused and the Christian constituency are dealing with an insanity complex. 
(And I'm not trying to be too blunt or rude to either 'person', but sometimes the truth hurts.) 
The abused often goes back to the abuser, because they think they are unable to make it without them and they think that someday the abuser will change.  And applying that to the Republican Party..  How often does that 'someday' actually come for the abuser or the Republican Party?  Almost never.  
       The Christian constituency of the Republican party thinks that a third party would have absolutely no legitimacy and so they simply toss their vote to the lukewarm 'conservative'.  What's the definition of insanity?  Why do 'we' keep nominating lukewarm Republicrats and then expect them to be conservative if they get into office?  We think that creating a new party would be too hard.  We lose before we even try.  While we are mired in our complacency and stupidity, evil reigns, men and women commit atrocities, and babies are murdered.  We have fought the war of compromises and WE HAVE LOST.  And even though we have lost, we refuse to change our tactics.  We try our compromising, we try our incrementalism, and we get the taste of defeat over and over again. 

Fingerprints 
I know for sure that, one way or another, my fingerprints won't be on either candidate for the presidency, at least directly.  If you feel that voting for the 'lesser' of two evils is the way to go, then have fun with your affirmation of that candidate and their policies. If you like the way a sheep looks more than  a wolf, then feel free to vote for the wolf in sheep's clothing, rather than the wolf.  Only know this--compromising with evil does NOT work.  Why do Christians think that we need to compromise with evil?  (to repeat) We will never create a heaven on earth, but that doesn't mean we just lay down to evil.  Evil is evil.  It doesn't matter what realm evil is in, or how much lipstick is applied to it.  It is still evil. It doesn't matter whether evil is perpetuated by an individual or by the policies of a political party.  Say it with me now, evil is evil.

Separation of politics and Christianity.  The Invisible Separating Wall.
Some Christians think that politics is somehow a 4 letter word that must be avoided.  They think that there is some sort of invisible line between politics and being a Christian.  Some Christians are afraid of politics.  They think that politics is better left to the world, and it doesn't really matter who wins, since God is in control anyways.  And I will say that while nothing happens in the world that God doesn't allow, that doesn't actually mean that God makes things go His way.  

       The spiritual is most-definitely more important than the political, but that doesn't mean you can't try to have both.  Really quick analogy here..  Let's say you have two children, and you have brought them up to be God-fearing Bible-believing Christians.  And then let's say that you don't care what kind of friends they have, whether or not they'll be able to find someone to marry, when they will die, and what kind of neighborhood they will live in, etc.  Don't you find that somewhat asinine?  

Future Alternatives

Here are the Republican nominees for President in the last 60 years:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. 

That's quite a list.  Not exactly bastions of conservatism.  Who stands out?  I would say Ronald Reagan (his first term).  With the possible exception of parts of Reagan's first term, they all largely implemented liberal policies. (Though admittedly I know basically nothing about what Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole supported)  (So with that possible exception also taken out..)  If you would have any of those Republican candidates run with a 'D' instead of an 'R', would anyone really know the difference?

Maybe it's just a rumor, but I think there's this thing called a primary.  While it wouldn't be easy, I think that the best looking possibility right now is to forget this facade called the Republican Party and start a new political party.

A good baseline on deciding whether or not to vote for any candidate
If a candidate or political party won't defend those who are innocent..  the indefensible.., then what in the world will he or she defend?  It's easy to tell that America is in a sad state when a person can't defend the innocent without being viewed as the antagonist, while the murderer is viewed as the victim.  

Predictions

Best case scenario

Each House and Senate seat goes to the Republicans, marriage wins in each of the four states, Obama and Romney each get 269 electoral delegates, and (I forget if this can actually happen or not) the Congress ends up picking Ron Paul to be the President, and if not, then they can pick Santorum-Biden...  Okay, okay, that wasn't very realistic.

Very optimistic best case scenario

Obama or Romney wins the presidency (it's kind of irrelevant who is actually in the White House), but the 'R's' tie the Democrats in the Senate, 50 seats to '49', the 'R's' get a larger lead in the House 250-185, all 4 'gay marriage' initiatives are passed in favor of marriage, the 'R's win a good majority of state wide seats.  Then the House Republicans get a spine, eliminate the funding to ObamneyCare, terminate the past, present, and future 'executive orders', invalidate judicial activism, which in turn leads to the annihilation of Roe vs Wade and various other 'legislative' decisions by judges, so the 'law' defaults to something called the Constitution, and abortion is thus outlawed.  Yeah, maybe my glasses still had just a tinge too much of rose in them.., especially considering that sticking up for good would require Republicans to actually show leadership and principles, which is something that very few of them actually have.

Likely best case scenario

The beginning of the previous scenario, but ending at 'Republicans get a spine'.  In this scenario the Republicans in the House simply shut down the funding to the government.  Take a principled stand, Republicans.  It's not exactly very complicated.  Simply, shut it down.  I think this actually has a chance of happening, around a 20% possibility, so this is the first scenario that could actually possibly happen.

What I think will happen

Romney 49.8%, Obama 48.5%, Others 1.7%. Marriage wins in Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine, but, thanks to being outspent 120-1, loses 52% to 48% in Washington.  Unlike 2008, when African Americans voted for Obama over 95% of the time, Obama doesn't even garner 90% of the black vote in 2012.  The election isn't 'decided' until 3 a.m. on November 7th.  The Republicans make small gains in the House 240-195, and Senate 48-'51'.  As for the Electoral college, Obama wins 281-257.  Effectively speaking, Obama and Romney are likely running to be president of Ohio, because the presidency will likely hinge on Ohio.  If Ohio goes to Obama, he probably wins, if it goes to Romney, then it's quite possible that he will win.

Predictions for the next four years

I'm going to randomly guess that the fear-mongers who think that America will collapse with another term of Obama and that Americans will have trouble simply surviving, much less prospering, will be wrong.  And I'll also guess that those who think we can simply put evil+incompetence together and it will somehow = economic prosperity, will be extremely wrong as well.

       No matter who is elected I would tend to guess that over the next 4 years the DOW J will dip to 12,250, 'real' unemployment goes to around 19% (it's at 14.6% right not),  inflation will be viewed as a large problem in the US (which admittedly could/would curtail or eliminate my DOW J prediction), the world suffers general economic difficulty, another 5 million babies are murdered, and an Iranian conflict nearly escalates into a 'minor' nuclear war.

       Eventually the kicking-down-the-road of problems will snowball into a problem that will basically envelop America.  And while America will quite possibly suffer some of my above predictions, I don't think that the majority of America's problems will catch up to America in the next 4 years. But, please remember that no matter the economy, the politics, or the regime president over the next 4 years, the True King is still alive and always shall be.

Psalm 27:1 “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid?” 

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated Me first.” 

Hebrews 4:16 “Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”