Results of the 2015 ATS Presidential Straw Poll

After 2,414 votes, from members and visitors from 56 different countries, Rand Paul is the clear winner of the 2015 ATS Presidential Straw Poll with 26.92 percent of the votes (649 votes). A very close second, and on occasion running in the lead, was the "Any random person other than those listed here" option with 22.77% of the votes. Ted Cruz came in a very-distant second place with 8.67% of the votes, and Hillary Clinton not far behind with 7.05%. Lindsey Graham, the candidate accidentally outed by Senator McCain today as his choice for President, only received 6 votes.


Visitors and members from the United States made up 79.45% of the vote. And an interesting oddity was found when digging into the International votes: Rand Paul won by a broader margin, as "Any random person other than those listed here" won the US vote by 10 votes. Rand Paul performed much stronger Internationally, as did Hillary Clinton. Ted Cruz performed extremely poorly in international votes with less than 10 votes from non-US participants.

\






Anybody but a Bush or that Clinton coont. I will still write in Gumby.

a reply to: skunkape23

Unacceptable!

Bush / Clinton 2016 (Joking)

Interesting but would ATS do the same for the up coming election in the UK. Seems odd we would have one for a election next year but not for one in a few weeks

EDIT:

On another note I think any ATS political pole is fundamentally flawed (even more so than regular poles) because it does not target a diverse enough sample and most members will probably be inclined to vote the same way. I do not think these results are surprising and anyone could have predicted Rand Paul would have came out on top. However like I say due to poor sampling these ATS poles are probably the least reliable out there they only refect the views of members of ATS who have no influence as a group on the politics of the nation rather than presenting the views of the nation as a whole.

Only good for seeing which way most ATSters will vote and like I say anyone who has been about her for a few weeks could probably have predicted these results

A very close second, and on occasion running in the lead, was the "Any random person other than those listed here" option with 22.77% of the votes.

That sure says a lot about the situation we find ourselves in doesn't it???

What a sad sad time we are in here folks.

The US is officially gone in any real terms. What we have now is some kind of freaky imitation posing as the US and it sucks.

WHAT??

Scott Walker/Marco Rubio, or Marco Rubio/Scott Walker "either way works" 2016 dream team!!!

Ted Cruz 2nd? I thought the goal of this site is to deny ignorance. This guy is so anti science its ridiculous.

That's just damn scary.

But, I think there are a lot of young idealists here.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I didn't hear the Lindsay Graham news, but considering his platform mostly consists of preemptive war against brown people, just incase they might come over here to harm us. I don't think he's very viable, but it makes sense for McCain a war hawk to pick someone like that.

originally posted by: BoxFulder
Ted Cruz 2nd? I thought the goal of this site is to deny ignorance. This guy is so anti science its ridiculous.

The front runners never maintain momentum, and they know that when they announce. The whole purpose is to build a following and then sell their endorsement to someone else. Clinton and Cruz being front runners now only means we won't have to deal with them later when things actually matter. I think we can all be happy about that.

I didnt vote seeing as I wont have a vote in 2016.

But can see why Rand did better internationaly.

I for one want a strong but tame USA.

I want the US to remain the superpower with a strong economy but dont want you guys running round the world like rabid dogs bombing anything that is brown and moves, especialy as the UK more often than not gets dragged in.

Democrats seem to spend happy and unsafe with debt and most republican to us seem like religious nut cases like Cruz or rabid bomb happy nut cases like McCain or the Bushes.

Whever or not Rand could strike that Balance I dont know.
But its better than a clinton, Bush or a bible basher.

a reply to: crazyewok

Isn't Rand anti-intervention and pro-war with Islamic State?

Can he be both?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: crazyewok

Isn't Rand anti-intervention and pro-war with Islamic State?

Can he be both?

Thats why im conflicted with him.


He does seem to flip flop.


Whever he is just doing it to appeal to the typical main stream warhawk and chickenhawk republicans and get votes? I dont know.

If he got the job as president maybe he would go back to being more anti intervention?

As i said im conflicted.

Still better than a Bush in any case.


Also to add I do see a line between being anti interventionlist and actually acting cause a group or country is takeing the piss. Invading or bombing countrys based in lies is one thing but trying to stop a group like ISIS? Again im conflicted, I dont want further involvement in the ME but ISIS are pure evil and unlike Iraq or Iran pose a threat to us in the west as they have made it clear they want to go beyond the ME and kill us.

a reply to: crazyewok

Joe Public is allowed to be conflicted. It's not so good when the guy in charge is conflicted too!

I think both Cruz and Paul dispute climate change and would roll-back international efforts to towards carbon reductions and so forth. Then again, Clinton has that left-leaning disposition to gunboat diplomacy and would be leading us all into wars and sanctions.

No prizes from a UK perspective.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: crazyewok

Joe Public is allowed to be conflicted. It's not so good when the guy in charge is conflicted too!

I think both Cruz and Paul dispute climate change and would roll-back international efforts to towards carbon reductions and so forth. Then again, Clinton has that left-leaning disposition to gunboat diplomacy and would be leading us all into wars and sanctions.

No prizes from a UK perspective.

Your right there too, I would not trust hillery as far as I can throw her.

Way things are going with the climate in a year or two I doubt anyone can ignore it.
American just need to get over the old notion of global warming and that the new model is based more on eratic weather not just being hot.
But seeing as I think a lot is based on external factors out of our control and that us humans are just speeding the proccess
up im not sure if its more worth trying to mitigate the damage than trying to stop it.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah, I can agree with all that.

My perspective is that humanity has many more generations to come and do we want our descendents paying for the misdeeds of us and our predecessors?

That means I see the safest way forward is to keep trying to increase recycling, reducing pollution and being better custodians of the environment.

ANy leader who could find a way around the enormous levels of war/defence budgets would be a breath of fresh air for the future. More money on defence than health/welfare/education combined!

a reply to: crazyewok

His flipping and flopping is the reason I didn't choose him. He may be the son of Ron Paul but he is not his father.

I don't think he should get the vote based on who his father was, he should be judged on his own actions. Which as we have seen is mixed at best.

originally posted by: ObjectZero
a reply to: crazyewok

His flipping and flopping is the reason I didn't choose him. He may be the son of Ron Paul but he is not his father.

I don't think he should get the vote based on who his father was, he should be judged on his own actions. Which as we have seen is mixed at best.

I dont blame you to be honnest.

Intergrity in a ideal world should be a vote winner.

But in the real world interigty does not seem to get anywere in politics and you have to pander for votes

originally posted by: BoxFulder
Ted Cruz 2nd? I thought the goal of this site is to deny ignorance. This guy is so anti science its ridiculous.

Sadly it confirms what many on this site know to be true.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Visitors and members from the United States made up 79.45% of the vote. And an interesting oddity was found when digging into the International votes: Rand Paul won by a broader margin... Rand Paul performed much stronger Internationally, as did Hillary Clinton.

I think this is very easily explained.
United States members will be better informed about the whole range of potential candidates, hearing about them in the media.
The "international" membership will be relying, to a greater extent than the Americans, on what they learn from ATS.
That would benefit Rand Paul, who gets a lot of approval on ATS.
While Hillary Clinton benefits from being one of the few candidates with any kind of international profile.