Facebook Poll - Who of the Current Possible Candidates Would Win In 2016 based on Facebook "Likes"

So if you're looking for who Facebook users might vote for in 2016, I did a quick poll.
According to this page these are the current possible candidates for president on the Democratic and Republican, bipartisan agenda.  After their names, I have added how many facebook likes they have currently as of 11/19/2014 followed by a brief commentary.

Joe Biden - as a "politiciain" 845,800
Bernie Sanders - as a "politician" 732,964, independent considering running on the Democratic line.  Once described himself as a "democratic socialist." Also has a page encouraging him to run for prez. as a "political organization" with 16.157 likes.  Judging from the "politician" page alone, Sanders is second to Biden in FB "likes," above Clinton.
Hillary Clinton - as a "politician" 298,161
Martin O'Malley - as a "politician" 59,703
Joe Manchin - as a "Govenment Official" 22.165
Jim Webb - as a "public figure" 15,447, as a "politician" 447

Mitt Romney - as a "politician" 11,345,953, "for president in 2016" 10,693, "mitt romney sucks" 29,581, former GOP Presidential nominee
Paul Ryan - as a "politician" 5,041,723, "paul ryan is a douchebag" 228,137, former GOP vice-Presidential nominee
Rand Paul - as a "politician" 1,823,410, maverick "libertarian" Republican, son of Ron Paul
Mike Huckabee - as a "politician" 1,640,298
Rick Perry - as a "politician" 1,142,604, "not having rick perry as governor" 21,908
Dr. Ben Carson - as an "author" 1,090,141, "for president" as a "public figure" 115,088, retired neuosurgeon, It is his "author" page that has the majority.  Thus, many folks may appreciate his work as a neurosurgeon, but may not agree with his politics.
Ted Cruz - as a "politician" 1,033,148, as a "governmental official" 862,098, His "politician" page likes still dwarf Joe Biden's, the leading Democrat.
Scott Brown - as a "Public Figure" 382,908
Marsha Blackburn - as a "Government Official" 32,401, as a "politician" 14,763
Bob Corker - as a "politician" 25,009, as a "government official" 12,572
John Bolton - as a "business person" 6,537
Jan Brewer -
Jeb Bush - as "public figure" 107,400
Chris Christie - as a "politician" 102,809
Carly Fiorina - as a "public figure" 23,103
Lindsey Graham - as a "politician" 87,918, as a "government organization" 25,759
Bobby Jindal - as a "politican" 224, 754
John Kasich - as a "politician" 1,249, as John R. Kasich "politician" 104,381
Pete King -
Steve King -
George Pataki - as a "politican" 372, as George E. Pataki "politician" 1,173
Mike Pence - as a "politician" 59,653, as a "government" official" 14,444, "Mike Pence Is A Douche" 245
Rob Portman - as a "politician" 129,485 as a "government official" 41,400
Marco Rubio - as a "politician" 705,629, also as a "politician" 8,223, as a
government official" 228,948
Rick Santorum - as a "politician" 262,601, "for president" 1,052 also a "closed group"
Scott Walker - as a "community and government" 195,376

Notable third party candidates:

America's Party - Tom Hoefling - as a "politician" 1,709, ultra-right party that apparently thinks the Republicans are not conservative enough
Green Paty - Jill Stein - as "public figure" 102,547, "for president" 1,031, as a "politician" 9,041, the main left-alternative, although she doesn't approach the numbers of even to top Democratic politicians, she still has more "likes" than any of the other third-party candidates
Libertarian Party - Gary Johnson - as a "politician" 360,296, former Libertarian Party Presidential nominee
also Libertarian Party - Judge Andrew Napolitano as a "News Personality" 618,470

Of course, we know the old cliche that if voting changed anything it would be illegal.  However Lenin wrote in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder:

...[T]he Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before and after the proletariat conquered political power. That these elections yielded exceedingly valuable (and to the proletariat, highly useful) political results has, I make bold to hope, been proved by me in the above-mentioned article, which analyses in detail the returns of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia.

The conclusion which follows from this is absolutely incontrovertible: it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before - the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism "politically obsolete". To ignore this experience, while at the same time claiming affiliation to the Communist International, which must work out its tactics internationally (not as narrow or exclusively national tactics, but as international tactics), means committing a gross error and actually abandoning internationalism in deed, while recognising it in word. 

- From the chapter entitled "Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments"

Non-violent movements and their violent counter-parts

I hear people demonizing Ferguson rioters lately.  Mainly their arguments revolve around some sort of Thoreau/Ghandi/MLK idea of the power of non-violence.  Stokley Carmikel, of course, had the best critique of the non-violent approach in general, and Dr. King's approach in particular.

If individuals are masochistic enough to be non-violent, it can be an effective strategy, but only when coupled with more aggressive tactics.

One of the most invaluable resources dealing with those who would oppose rioting as a tactic is a piece entitled Barack Obama, Ferguson, and the Evidence of Things Unsaid written by Ta-Nehisi Coates for the Atlantic Monthly.  Most notably, he writes:

"Property damage and looting" is a fairly accurate description of the emancipation of black people in 1865, who only five years earlier constituted some $4 billion in property. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is inseparable from the threat of riots. The housing bill of 1968—the most proactive civil-rights legislation on the books—is a direct response to the riots that swept American cities after King was killed. Violence, lingering on the outside, often backed nonviolence during the civil-rights movement. "We could go into meetings and say, 'Well, either deal with us or you will have Malcolm X coming into here,'" said SNCC organizer Gloria Richardson. "They would get just hysterical. The police chief would say, 'Oh no!'"

Ok, so MLK didn't win Civil Rights alone.  We also know that Nat Turner and John Brown provoked violent slave uprisings that culminated in the Civil War to end slavery.  

What about Ghandi and Indian independence?  Well, there was of course the violent movement of Bhagat Singh. Additionally, Ghandi's form of non-violence was essentially to put people into harm's way and then have them not defend themselves.  Passive resistance courts violence.  That is the basis on which the tactic is founded.

Remember, Obama said nothing about Mike Brown or police violence until Ferguson was in flames.

What about the Arab Spring? The Arab Spring resulted in bloody civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen.  In Egypt, where there was a bloodless coup, the people elected Mohamed Morsi after ousting Mubarak, who turned out to be worse.  Then they elected Mubarak's party back into power.

Surely the labor movement in this country has always been peaceful.  Actually, all the gains made by the labor movement came after bloody altercations.  In fact, there are two, separate Wikipedia entries for union-violence (violence perpetrated by unions) and anti-union violence (violence perpetrated by thugs, cops and union-busters against union workers).

For every successful non-violent movement, there is a violent faction that helps it succeed.  The violent action shows the urgency.  The non-violent shows the legitimacy.  Both tactics are necessary.