Republican candidates for 2012

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Palin should do the party a favor and stay on the sidelines, but I don't know if her ego will let her.
  
  She's damaged goods (partly by her own hand, mostly because of the media's portrayal of her) and will NEVER be a viable big-time candidate again. Think of Dan Quayle but without the niche machine that Palin has managed to build up around her.
  
  The economy is going to determine this, folks. If things don't really turn around, and if gas prices stay high, all the Republican candidate should have to do is not fuck up, and this will be a very close race. If they actually have some good ideas that can be accurately relayed to the public through the filter of a hostile media -- they might win with some ease.
  
  It's all about the economy.
• Ty Webb

  

  John McCain: Palin can beat Obama
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/29/mccain-palin-can-beat-obama/
  
  Maybe he has finally lost it?
• Ty Webb

  

  http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0526.pdf
  
  Hmmm...up on Romney by 7...an increase on 2 points from the last PPP Poll
• Ty Webb

  

  Yea I know.....polls don't mean anything and a paper bag is going to beat him....
  
  But...I really dont know how in the world some of you can continue to ignore these numbers{taken from RCP}
  
  Beating Romney by an average of 6.5%
  
  Beating Pawlenty by an average of 14.1%
  
  Beating Gingrich by an average of 16%
  
  Beating Bachman by an average of 18.3%
  
  Beating Palin by an average of 19.5%
  
  Beating Paul by an average of 8%
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
  
  
  Also...his average Job approval is +8.7 percent
• believer

  

  Ty Webb;784708 wrote:Yea I know.....polls don't mean anything.....

  The last time you kept shoving polls in our faces was months prior to the November 2010 mid-term elections. You know....the ones that kept convincing you that the Dems were a slam dunk to retain the House.
  
  First, as many of us have said it's way too early.
  
  Second, the final Republican candidate has yet to surface.
  
  Third, you can bet the ranch that Palin, Paul, Bachman and Gingrich will not get the nomination. Romney and Pawlenty are possibilities but I sincerely doubt they'll be the Republican candidate either.
  
  Fourth, you waste way too much time looking at polls.
• Con_Alma

  Writerbuckeye;783545 wrote:...
  The economy is going to determine this, folks. If things don't really turn around, and if gas prices stay high, all the Republican candidate should have to do is not fuck up, and this will be a very close race. If they actually have some good ideas that can be accurately relayed to the public through the filter of a hostile media -- they might win with some ease.
  
  It's all about the economy.

  This.
  

  believer;784717 wrote:...
  
  Second, the final Republican candidate has yet to surface.
  
  ....

  
  ...and this.
• Ty Webb

  

  Wow....some of you here are really delusional
  
  Also....those of you holding out hope for Chris Christie...aint gonna happen
• Con_Alma

  What do you mean by "holding out" and how would someone do it if they wanted to?
  
  He's been pretty clear. "Short of suicide, I don't know what I'd have to do to convince you people that I'm not running. Zero chance."
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Ty Webb;784708 wrote:Yea I know.....polls don't mean anything and a paper bag is going to beat him....
  
  But...I really dont know how in the world some of you can continue to ignore these numbers{taken from RCP}
  
  Beating Romney by an average of 6.5%
  
  Beating Pawlenty by an average of 14.1%
  
  Beating Gingrich by an average of 16%
  
  Beating Bachman by an average of 18.3%
  
  Beating Palin by an average of 19.5%
  
  Beating Paul by an average of 8%
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
  
  
  Also...his average Job approval is +8.7 percent

  
  Repeat after me, "It is 2011, not 2012."
  
  If in a year, the polls say the same thing, then we can talk. Until then, I might as well pick the winner of the 2012 March Madness poll as that occurs before the election.
  There are so many things that can change that could sink or rise in the polls. Think about how much the polls change in the summer of the election year.
  Stop poll watching my friend.
• believer

  

  Ty Webb;784724 wrote:Wow....some of you here are really delusional

  Like I said, polls had you convinced a year ago that the Dems would retain the House. Now you're parading polls in front of us to convince yourself BHO will retain the White House.
  
  I'm reasonably certain of the one person on here that's "really delusional."
• stlouiedipalma

  Once again I must point out that, although it's early, it's all about the money. Fall behind in the campaign contribution race and you lose out on the nomination. Anyone who enters late will be at an extreme disadvantage.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;785194 wrote:Fall behind in the campaign contribution race and you lose out on the nomination. Anyone who enters late will be at an extreme disadvantage.

  
  That presumes that the money gets thrown at mediocre candidates as opposed to waiting on the sidelines for a worthy contender to enter the fray.
  
  As for the polls, you'll see consolidation when a candidate is chosen. Those numbers are all lower due to fragmentation than they otherwise would be if that person was the candidate (not to mention, when asked, a Paul supporter might choose Obama over Romney to prop-up Paul, but in an election would actually vote for Romney over Obama).
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  stlouiedipalma;785194 wrote:Once again I must point out that, although it's early, it's all about the money. Fall behind in the campaign contribution race and you lose out on the nomination. Anyone who enters late will be at an extreme disadvantage.

  
  I hear the opposite. Get in too early and burn money that won't make a difference and then there is no money left at the end. It's hitting the sweet spot, not too early and not too late. We are still in the too early phase.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;785194 wrote:...Anyone who enters late will be at an extreme disadvantage.

  Anyone who enters too early may experience the same fate.
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;784708 wrote:Yea I know.....polls don't mean anything and a paper bag is going to beat him....
  
  But...I really dont know how in the world some of you can continue to ignore these numbers{taken from RCP}
  
  Beating Romney by an average of 6.5%
  
  Beating Pawlenty by an average of 14.1%
  
  Beating Gingrich by an average of 16%
  
  Beating Bachman by an average of 18.3%
  
  Beating Palin by an average of 19.5%
  
  Beating Paul by an average of 8%
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
  
  
  Also...his average Job approval is +8.7 percent

  You need to learn how to read these things better, laddie. Regardless of the spread, the fact that he's running under 50% against half the field, and at 43% against the unnamed Pub is pretty damn significant.
  
  And his job approval is no where near +8.7. Most of the numbers fluffing that margin are almost 3 weeks old. The 3 day rolling averages of Gallup and Rasmussen are the only ones in that mess worth looking at. He's around 48% approval, and about +1 spread.
• stlouiedipalma

  ptown_trojans_1;785260 wrote:I hear the opposite. Get in too early and burn money that won't make a difference and then there is no money left at the end. It's hitting the sweet spot, not too early and not too late. We are still in the too early phase.

  gut;785249 wrote:That presumes that the money gets thrown at mediocre candidates as opposed to waiting on the sidelines for a worthy contender to enter the fray.
  
  As for the polls, you'll see consolidation when a candidate is chosen. Those numbers are all lower due to fragmentation than they otherwise would be if that person was the candidate (not to mention, when asked, a Paul supporter might choose Obama over Romney to prop-up Paul, but in an election would actually vote for Romney over Obama).

  Con_Alma;785291 wrote:Anyone who enters too early may experience the same fate.

  
  And while the "eventual nominee" waits, Romney continues to build a huge war chest, just like someone named Bush did prior to the 2000 race. Nobody could match W's money and the primary season was a mere formality.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;785658 wrote:And while the "eventual nominee" waits, Romney continues to build a huge war chest, just like someone named Bush did prior to the 2000 race. Nobody could match W's money and the primary season was a mere formality.

  
  
  Yep, it's a balancing act. Timing is very important.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  stlouiedipalma;785658 wrote:And while the "eventual nominee" waits, Romney continues to build a huge war chest, just like someone named Bush did prior to the 2000 race. Nobody could match W's money and the primary season was a mere formality.

  
  Sure W did, but in 2008, half the field in both areas ran out of money. McCain was nearly broke.
• Footwedge

  Ty Webb;784703 wrote:John McCain: Palin can beat Obama
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/29/mccain-palin-can-beat-obama/
  
  Maybe he has finally lost it?

  Ty...do you really want to see Obama re elected? If so...why?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "The economy is going to determine this, folks. If things don't really turn around, and if gas prices stay high, all the Republican candidate should have to do is not fuck up,"
  
  They still need to put up a viable candidate, I still think it is Romney even with his baggage. I'm not sure we can handle another 4 years of Obama and a possible $20T debt burden, we're living off of borrowed time until we can get our financial house in order. I barely remember the Carter years, but I'm not sure how it could be much worse than what a HLS grad with no business experience whatsoever provided. We're in trouble. I'm not sure Christie is polished enough to win, but his views are at least on the right track.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;785939 wrote:Ty...do you really want to see Obama re elected? If so...why?

  Hope & change...what else?
• Ty Webb

  

  Footwedge.....
  
  Why wouldn't I want him to win??
  
  I'm really scared for this country if any of these Republicans win
• Mr. 300

  

  Ty Webb;785998 wrote:Footwedge.....
  
  Why wouldn't I want him to win??
  
  I'm really scared for this country if any of these Republicans win

  
  And you're not scared if Obama is re-elected?
• Ty Webb

  

  Mr. 300;786004 wrote:And you're not scared if Obama is re-elected?

  
  NOPE.....not in the slightest
• BGFalcons82

  

  Ty Webb;785998 wrote:Footwedge.....
  
  Why wouldn't I want him to win??
  
  I'm really scared for this country if any of these Republicans win

  
  There is no doubt there is a price to pay for our undying lust for spending. The question is, do we pay the price right now...or kick the can down the road like we've been doing for the past 10 years at unprecedented levels? Electing someone to straighten our mess up now will have some negative consequences for sure. We can't gorge ourselves like we've been doing and not expect to have to pay for it. Or do we re-elect the quintessential king of spending and seal our doom to an even greater disaster? I've said this before and I'll say it again...by 2015, we will be spending $1,000,000,000,000 per year just to service the debt and that number is NOT coming down in 2016, 2017, 2018, etc. Hell, by 2020, it might even be $2,000,000,000,000 per year. Those numbers are unsustainable and regardless if the pansies in DC raise the debt ceiling or not, the world will yell, "I call", on us. The price to pay for belt-tightening is a cold compared to the stroke of an economic collapse.
  
  Beyond having our economic system collapse, the most worrisome element to an Obama re-election is the high probability that he will turn the Supreme Court into a Progressive rubber-stamp. It was just a little over a year or so ago that the SCOTUS let the 2nd Amendment stand by a vote of 5-4. With another Progressive or two on the bench, the vote goes the other way, along with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any semblance to the country that was formed over 230 years ago. If you want a "Living Constitution", re-elect Barry and you'll likely get your wish.