Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
IT Politics Technology

IT Industry Presidential Poll: 'Not Sure' Beats Both Obama and Romney 238

CIStud writes "A new poll conducted of IT industry executives and integrators shows a divided and unsure industry regarding which presidential candidate is better for Information Technology to prosper. The poll, conducted by JZ Analytics on behalf of CompTIA, shows 'Not Sure' winning in four out of five areas. President Obama holds and edge over Mitt Romney in every category, including which person is best for the IT industry in terms of tax policy (remarkably), access to capital, tech exports, education and privacy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IT Industry Presidential Poll: 'Not Sure' Beats Both Obama and Romney

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj ( 2598719 ) * on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:20PM (#41115245)

    I heard he talked all faggy, and his shit was totally fucked up.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:21PM (#41115273)

    He's gonna fix EVERYTHING!

  • Romney and Obama both serve special interests.. the only real difference I can see is that one can prove he's eligible to be President of the United States and the other has used every trick in the book to conceal his true self. Pick the devil you know or the one you don't. Either way, the people lose.
    • Agreed. Romney or Obama. Who cares who wins?
      Oh and this isn't really news. Every election for the last 30 years or so has had more non-voters than voters, because the non-voters are "not sure" who they prefer. So they just stay home.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      Main difference is where they fall on support for the middle class & social programs. In addition, while I dont think of myself as partisan, I find the actions of the Republicans in their attempts to disenfranchise lower class and minority voters to be down right evil. Stuff like the voter id laws and redistricting they are pushing through shows that they have such a low opinion of their own policies that they feel it necessary to cheat to win. That combined with their obstinate position of "anything th
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Feyshtey ( 1523799 )
        How dare the republicans attempt to determine that you actually have a legal right to vote. The demons. I bet they eat babies for sport.

        On the topic of redistricting, do some homework. Republicans and Democrats both use this is a regular tactic and mechanism to control voting results.

        Why is it that the President can run on a campaign that includes a promise to reduce the debt, increase the debt by multiple trillions, and then have his supporters tell Republicans that they are the party of NO for tryin
        • by Ziggitz ( 2637281 ) on Friday August 24, 2012 @06:30PM (#41116277)

          You are full of shit. What you are referencing is called gerrymandering and it is not the same. Gerrymandering is redistricting such that you shove all of the other party's voting block into one area as much as possible to make their popular vote as least effective as possible, allowing you to get more of your own guys into the house of representatives. It has nothing to do with the straight up disenfranchising of voters i.e. putting laws in place to purposefully get less people to vote, such as requiring id, restricting means by which to register and purging valid voters from the registry.

          We have had a wave of voter ID laws in swing states by Republicans that clearly disproportionately voting blocks that tend to vote Democrat. We had Republicans attempting to allow early voting for Republican counties in Ohio but not for urban counties that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. This is isn't typical gerrymandering and there is no whitewashing it. All of the Voter ID laws are to prevent a crime that is less frequent than the rate that people get struck by lightning in those same states. Republicans are doing it, Democrats aren't. If they were Fox News would be all over that shit.

          As for your third line are you one of the members of the Republican party that thinks the Universe was created in January of 2008? Because you are completely fucking lost to reality and have the attention span of a goldfish if you think Republicans give two shits about the national debt for any reason other than a Democrat is in the White House.

        • by riverat1 ( 1048260 ) on Saturday August 25, 2012 @04:13AM (#41120777)

          The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls. Your voter registration card and your signature should be all you need at the polls.

          If there was any evidence that people without the legal right to vote were doing it in large numbers I'd be more sympathetic to the voter ID laws but an exhaustive search only found 10 cases of voter fraud that presenting ID at the polls would have prevented since 2000. Why would Republicans who have such a problem with over regulation want to increase regulations in this area? It's simply because the people who are inconvenienced and/or disenfranchised by these regulation are more likely to vote for Democrats.

          Obama did not promise to reduce the debt. He's smart enough to know that's not possible in the short run. What he promised to do is reduce the deficit and he has done that. Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        Both parties have redistricted to their heart's content when they had the power to do so. This census, it was the Republicans. I do admit the voter id laws are pushed by Republicans to lower lower class turn out which would benefit the Democrats. Both sides are cheating to win. Every little misstep by either party's members are getting inflated to Biblical Proportions (dogs and cats living together kind of thing).

        I also think the Republicans have gone overboard and not at all acting like the loyal oppositio

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I do admit the voter id laws are pushed by Republicans to lower lower class turn out which would benefit the Democrats. Both sides are cheating to win

          Can you point to anything even remotely on this scale democrats have done? You pointed out a horrible and indefensible one republicans did, then said "but both sides are bad" without even one example of democrats do it. It's literally disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people. Literally. This is not an exageration, it is a fundamental attack on democracy so their side can "win".

    • "Either way, the people lose."

      Correct. The question isn't so much "Which one is better?", but more like "Which one is less bad?"

      But even that is false dichotomy. Paul is out of the running but there is always Gary Johnson.

      (People, please don't reply with that "wasted vote" garbage. If you don't vote for who you want to win, then who you want will never win. That's a "self-fulfilling prophecy". Politics is not like gambling. In gambling, you vote for what you think will win. In politics, you vote for who you want to win. If you don

    • Pick the devil you know or the one you don't.

      What's better, someone who is ineffective but means well or someone who is extremely competent but means you harm?

      As someone who has experienced learning on the job first-hand, I think I know which way I'll go.

  • by hawks5999 ( 588198 ) on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:24PM (#41115333)
    • That's what happens when you elect a Democrat president and Republican congress.

      You get a government that can't actually do anything. i.e. that acts exactly as if it's not sure of anything.

      And thus the libertarians actually win a lot of the time, since there are so many castrated governments in the US.

      • "Democrat president and Republican congress."
        or vice versa, of course. Doesn't really matter. Impotence is what you get either way.

  • Lack of Options (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:25PM (#41115359) Homepage Journal
    I posit that the only reason 'Not Sure' was the number one response is likely because 'None of the Above' wasn't an option.
    • They didn't mention that the most common write-in vote among IT staff was Gordon Freeman.
    • I got a phone call from an automated polling company. I started to answer but then questions at to which candidate I preferred came up. It was only Obama or Romney. I couldn't go in with the test since I think they are both horrible and evil. So I hung up.

  • None of the Above (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Apathy ( 584315 ) on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:25PM (#41115361)

    Put none of the above on all the ballots. So that people can send a message that they don't want any of the candidates in office. If none of the above wins the election then those that are running are disqualified from the election. Time to chose new candidates.

    • Can't you just put nothing on the ballot? At least where I live, blank votes are valid and counted separably from spoiled ones.

    • So...who runs the country in the meantime?

      This always sounds like a neat idea--"None of the above! That'll show those bastards!" But if "None of the Above" wins, what do we do while we pick new candidates? Does the incumbent stay on office until new candidates are picked? Wouldn't this sort of push incumbents into negative campaigning in order to convince voters that you don't like anybody?

      • Well I would think that some reasonably and well planned out plan would be put in place. Now that we can stop laughing, i would assume the current incumbent would stay in office. I think he would be just like any other lame duck in office. p. I also don't think it would put incumbents into negative campaigning because they to fall under the none of the above vote, only worse. If the none of the above is selected his ass is out of office with no chance at reelection. If anything I think it would cut

        • i would assume the current incumbent would stay in office. I think he would be just like any other lame duck in office.

          Well, that depends. For example, a "lame duck" president is in office for about 2 months. So assuming we have an election in, say, November and "None of the Above" wins, do we have only two months to decide? Considering that primaries run for about 5 or 6 months (and it takes time to set up primaries), I'd say you're looking at a minimum of one year of "lame duckiness."

          If the none of the above is selected his ass is out of office with no chance at reelection.

          Unless he's the incumbent, in which case he stays on in a "lame duck" mode for another year.

  • NEITHER (Score:4, Informative)

    by detritus. ( 46421 ) on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:25PM (#41115363)

    Don't just point out Not Sure, the third option was was Not Sure/Neither.

  • We all know who they want Mittens and his money buddies. Executives and integrators have no interest is "what's best for the IT industry", they only care about the $$$$$.
  • by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Friday August 24, 2012 @05:28PM (#41115415) Homepage Journal
    A well designed poll would had put CowboyNeal as president.
  • One or both of them should change his/their name(s) to Not Sure.

  • This is the wrong question.

    IT is highly, highly dependent upon a strong business economic situation to do well. Without actual production, there is no market for IT products and services (other than the bare minimum to keep things running). Many, many businesses have cut back over the past 10 years on IT spending, and it shows in both jobs available and the current state of most company's IT infrastructure: many 'big companies' are still running 8-10 year old equipment because it still works.

    The correct que

  • That should beat 'Not Sure'

    A vote either Romney or Obama is wasted chance for something different. But if you like things the way they are, you can't beat those two.

  • The fact that "derp" is generally a more popular choice than a reasoned, deliberate stand on one side of a choice is news because...?

  • Very very few people are really not sure. What this really means is that most people are voting "I'm not a republican but I'm voting Romney anyways and don't want to admit it."
    • by jfengel ( 409917 )

      Yeah, I'd kinda like to follow it up with a few questions:

      * Did you vote for somebody last time?

      * Did you vote for somebody of the same party the time before that?

      * Do you expect me to seriously believe that you're not going to do the same this time?

      * On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is "Not even the slightest bit independent" and 7 is "A raging partisan hack", where do you fall?

    • "Obama didn't cut it so I might vote for Romney, let's see if his policies will fail as hard as Bush's or even harder. We haven't had a serious bubble bursting in years."

  • Romney just doesn't do well with off the cuff remarks, at all' His latest gaffe, his birther remark, shows once again what a loose cannon he is. I don't think he means to sound malicious and mean, he just can't help himself. Someone glue a teleprompter to him 24/7.
  • Let's add "None of the above" as a choice and require the winner (of a states electoral votes) to have a simple majority in that state's race.

    Of course, if we did that, we'd need to shorten the length of the election process dramatically or we'd all go insane.
  • Between a lying, two-faced, hypocritical tyrant wannabe and a lying two-faced, hypocritical, predatory mega millionaire either one of which will say absolutely anything to get elected!

    Oh wait! there ARE "OTHER" candidates and political parties, all of which have been systematically ignored by the corporate media and excluded from any presidential debate!

    Assuming ANY presidential election isn't rigged and assuming that your vote matters (BIG ASSUMPTION) vote you conscience, but keep both eyes open!

  • All the folks stumping for Not Republican AND Not Democrat need to get in a room and then hash things out so that there is a Single Viable Candidate (or at least maybe a Green and a Purple Candidate). Then hit they can hit the road and when 2016 gets here we can attempt to break the Red/Blue lockup.

    right now what we have is Donkey Elephant and a Zoo full of chattering Critters

    • by Velex ( 120469 )

      Like these guys [lp.org]?

      It's hard to be a viable canidate when you have to fight an uphill battle just to get on the ballot, and then good luck getting any major media coverage. Just look at how the media treats Crazy Uncle Ron.

      If the red-colored Republicrats were serious about repealing Romney/Obama-care, Ron Paul has the perfect credentials. It's almost as though the red-colored Republicrats are trying to lose. And just think of all that delicious money medical insurance companies will make with their 10%

  • I have several other potential candidates I'd love to see polled against those two:
    1) "Some Puerto Rican guy"
    2) "Lance Armstrong"
    3) "None of the Above"
    4) "Seymore Heinee"

    I'm pretty sure they'll all do better than Obama or Romney. Just goes to show you Romney should have chosen Seymore Heinee as his running mate.

  • both obama and romney gave that answer when asked "what the fuck are you doing here?"

"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone