2012 Presidential Poll

[Jarhead]

We get regular attack threads on Jindal and Christie here on the board. Jindal has been forgotten since they plugged the hole in LA, but Christie still gets regular attention here. Mostly from Dante types.

Incumbent presidents almost never face challenges. And I don't know of any challenge that succeeded.

I'm not much of a Presidential historian, but if the dems backed Carter, they will back obama.

He will get little to no support as no one will want to go down with him.

Politics is a power game. Let no one be confused that those in power will do whatever it takes to keep that power, that's including sacrificing obama to anyone that runs against him.

That's not always true. In the case of George H.W. Bush, he lost to Clinton but only because Independent votes that would have gone to Ross Perot went to Clinton, not Bush. The same kind of upset could happen to Obama, but it would have to be a blue dog type candidate to knock him out. So again, it all rests of the state of the economy because if it is still bad, or worse, that's the only way a blue dog would win. "It's the economy, stupid," would belong to Obama. And a blue dog, if that happened, could beat a conservative Republican.

Correct....In my opinon

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not much of a Presidential historian, but if the dems backed Carter, they will back obama.

Well, at the time the other two choices were Teddy Kennedy and Jerry Brown.

Yup, so there's another historical point of fact: Two also-rans against an unpopular president will lose when fresh meat is what the public demands and they don't care which store it came from.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I like the sense of irony, whereby the Left would self-immolate if/when she won!! The icing would be if she made a better prez, but now I'm dreaming, I don't know if she has the brains or time to devote to running the US when she has small kids.

IMHO she will keep doing what she is now doing, making money and raising the energy level of the GOP as a TEA Party cheerleader. Living a great life in AK with her family. She simply doesn't need the aggravation of running for high office.

Oh balony. She wants it so bad she can taste it, but Palin will need to bone up on a shitload of basic facts unless she wants to remain a running joke.

Yeah, I keep hearing how stupid Palin is, meanwhile Obama is campaigning 57 states, Al Gore doesn't know who Thomas Jefferson is, Sheila Jackson Lee thinks we set astronauts on Mars, and what lib claimed that Alexander Hamilton was an illegal alien?????????

That's just the example of stupid liberals I can think of off hand.

Yet Palin is the one that needs to bone up?

 

[MaggieMae]

Right now/ i'm not so sure regarding Obama. There seems to be an undercurrent in the Democrat Party (As seen during the election campaigns) of Democrats distanceing themselves from Obama's agenda...offering excuses for it, and the shallow list of Democrats that actually wanted Obama to speak at campaign rallies.

So who would challenge Obama for the dem's nomination????

Hillary swears it won't be her. I have no clue who else would be "drafted" by the convention. Harry Reid??? Crazy Nancy Pelosi??
You need to put up a credible candidate or two.

As to Dingy Harry and San Fran Nan? Both are largely the most despised Congresscritters there are. They are out. As to the Hildebeast? Who knows? Personally? She's got too much baggage that comes from her hubby, her stint as a First Lady and Womb-to-the Tomb HillaryCare of the 1990's...and her tolerence of Billy-Bob's exploits.

So what gives you the idea that Denny Fatass Hastert and Bill Nostrils Frist were any better at the job?

Grow the fuck up, would ya? The childish titles you and your ilk continue to use is tiresome. It does NOTHING to sway anyone's opinion, except of course, opinions of you.

 

[MaggieMae]

There are any number of fine Republicans who don't fall into the extremist category, and those names will start to appear on the horizon after January. Although he has never been mentioned as a candidate, I personally like Judd Gregg who is a conservative but a fair one when it comes to mounting social issues. He decided not to run for reelection, mainly because he was sick of the gridlock, spinning his wheels, so someone LIKE Gregg who really might be able to move that needle is the one who will ultimately win the Republican nomination. In any event, I'm predicting it will be someone new. The chatter I'm hearing is that people in general are sick of also-rans and extremist platforms offering nothing more than a lot of noise.

What exactly is "extremist" to you.

Seems to me any real conservative is "extremist."

Yeah we went with a "reasonable" conservative willing to compromise with Democrats in 2008. Yeah that "maverick."

Yeah that worked out well didn't it.

Was Reagan an "extremist?"

Last time I checked, he won.

Heck to them? Wanting to go back toward originalist intent per the Constitution where real Liberty with responsibility abounds is extremist.

Another word would be draconian.

Extremism regarding the Constitution means actually believing that all the thousands of laws that have taken effect since it was signed in 1789 could actually be overturned, or at best re-argued.

 

[MaggieMae]

None of the above:

Christie/Ryan

ETA: McCain ran on the fact he would openly embarace liberal policies, which the GOP mistakenly thought would appeal to independents and centrists from both parties.

I like Christie, really, I do. But it does seem that every time a really really EXCELLENT Republican comes along, the public just goes nutso and assumes he's presidential material.

That says two things: One: conservatives KNOW they can't win without someone like Christie, and two, in your heart of hearts, you really do NOT like any of the other top candidates, including Romney and Palin, but you won't admit it. (You is used collectively here.)

Absolutely correct, in my case at least. Romney tries to talk like a conservative, but you can see the heart of liberal beating in his chest...

Huckabee seems like the type you'd invite over for dinner and think "What a great guy!" afteward. Until the next day, when you saw Grandma's silverware for sale on ebay...

McCain is a RINO. Nuff said...

I liked Ron Paul. But his foreign policy ideals seemed very naive. I think it's possible to protect our allies without nation building...

Palin is the mirror image of Obama. Her very presence is divisive and would hinder anything she tried to accomplish...

And it's not that conservatives can't win without someone like Christie, just that they don't win without a true conservative like Christie.

Still, and to make my point further about extremists, Christie does NOT promise to undo Social Security and Medicare or even the new health care program. He chips away at problems, one by one, which is the ONLY way to do it and remain popular.

 

[ConservativeDad]

I like Christie, really, I do. But it does seem that every time a really really EXCELLENT Republican comes along, the public just goes nutso and assumes he's presidential material.

That says two things: One: conservatives KNOW they can't win without someone like Christie, and two, in your heart of hearts, you really do NOT like any of the other top candidates, including Romney and Palin, but you won't admit it. (You is used collectively here.)

Absolutely correct, in my case at least. Romney tries to talk like a conservative, but you can see the heart of liberal beating in his chest...

Huckabee seems like the type you'd invite over for dinner and think "What a great guy!" afteward. Until the next day, when you saw Grandma's silverware for sale on ebay...

McCain is a RINO. Nuff said...

I liked Ron Paul. But his foreign policy ideals seemed very naive. I think it's possible to protect our allies without nation building...

Palin is the mirror image of Obama. Her very presence is divisive and would hinder anything she tried to accomplish...

And it's not that conservatives can't win without someone like Christie, just that they don't win without a true conservative like Christie.

Still, and to make my point further about extremists, Christie does NOT promise to undo Social Security and Medicare or even the new health care program. He chips away at problems, one by one, which is the ONLY way to do it and remain popular.

True, but I think you can leave off the "and remain popular" part. I don't think Christie give a rat's patootie about remaining popular, just remaining electable...

 

[MaggieMae]

Right now/ i'm not so sure regarding Obama. There seems to be an undercurrent in the Democrat Party (As seen during the election campaigns) of Democrats distanceing themselves from Obama's agenda...offering excuses for it, and the shallow list of Democrats that actually wanted Obama to speak at campaign rallies.

What you see as "excuses" just might be the rational view that no presidency is ever perfect, nor has the first term ever gone quite as swimmingly as the candidate hoped. I know that people like you are ready to pounce on every hiccup and pretend that the Obama presidency has been a great big bad FAIL, but you would be wrong.

But the rub is, is that those same Democrats voted for Obama's agenda... whether coreced or not, and yet don't want him to speak for them...nor would they address why they voted for the agenda in the first place.

The 'ol Potamic two step that involves having the cake and eating it too.

Clear enough?

My God, don't you *get it* by now? During the last midterm campaign, the health care bill just passed remained UNPOPULAR in their districts and in order to get reelected, they had to at least act as though they were on their constituents' "side." If it hadn't been an election year, there's no way in hell you would have seen Democratic candidates distancing themselves from Obama. It was the same when Bush ran for reelection: By then, the war was going very badly and many legislative candidates distanced themselves from him in order to get reelected, period. This is politics, my friend. Especially in the House where candidates spend their second elected year campaigning and nothing else. Look for the same thing to happen with the noobs just elected for the first time last month.

 

[MaggieMae]

Absolutely correct, in my case at least. Romney tries to talk like a conservative, but you can see the heart of liberal beating in his chest...

Huckabee seems like the type you'd invite over for dinner and think "What a great guy!" afteward. Until the next day, when you saw Grandma's silverware for sale on ebay...

McCain is a RINO. Nuff said...

I liked Ron Paul. But his foreign policy ideals seemed very naive. I think it's possible to protect our allies without nation building...

Palin is the mirror image of Obama. Her very presence is divisive and would hinder anything she tried to accomplish...

And it's not that conservatives can't win without someone like Christie, just that they don't win without a true conservative like Christie.

Still, and to make my point further about extremists, Christie does NOT promise to undo Social Security and Medicare or even the new health care program. He chips away at problems, one by one, which is the ONLY way to do it and remain popular.

True, but I think you can leave off the "and remain popular" part. I don't think Christie give a rat's patootie about remaining popular, just remaining electable...

I didn't mean it that way. I meant "popular" in spite of what he does.

 

[Shmoogas B]

I think Mitt Romney is a great choice. I've been following him, and he seems like he'd be a better candidate now than he was in 2008. I also disagree with those who are saying Romney is like McCain. They're both moderate Republicans, but there's more to it than that. McCain is a retard, and Romney is not.

 

[The T]

What you see as "excuses" just might be the rational view that no presidency is ever perfect, nor has the first term ever gone quite as swimmingly as the candidate hoped. I know that people like you are ready to pounce on every hiccup and pretend that the Obama presidency has been a great big bad FAIL, but you would be wrong.

But the rub is, is that those same Democrats voted for Obama's agenda... whether coreced or not, and yet don't want him to speak for them...nor would they address why they voted for the agenda in the first place.

The 'ol Potamic two step that involves having the cake and eating it too.

Clear enough?

My God, don't you *get it* by now? During the last midterm campaign, the health care bill just passed remained UNPOPULAR in their districts and in order to get reelected, they had to at least act as though they were on their constituents' "side." If it hadn't been an election year, there's no way in hell you would have seen Democratic candidates distancing themselves from Obama. It was the same when Bush ran for reelection: By then, the war was going very badly and many legislative candidates distanced themselves from him in order to get reelected, period. This is politics, my friend. Especially in the House where candidates spend their second elected year campaigning and nothing else. Look for the same thing to happen with the noobs just elected for the first time last month.

Bush is gone. get over him already.

 

[ConservativeDad]

Still, and to make my point further about extremists, Christie does NOT promise to undo Social Security and Medicare or even the new health care program. He chips away at problems, one by one, which is the ONLY way to do it and remain popular.

True, but I think you can leave off the "and remain popular" part. I don't think Christie give a rat's patootie about remaining popular, just remaining electable...

I didn't mean it that way. I meant "popular" in spite of what he does.

I understand. I see the disconnect now. You see him as remaining "popular" in spite of what he does, and I see it as because of what he does, which in the end is what would enable him to remain electable, (as long as he is successful)...

 

[The T]

True, but I think you can leave off the "and remain popular" part. I don't think Christie give a rat's patootie about remaining popular, just remaining electable...

I didn't mean it that way. I meant "popular" in spite of what he does.

I understand. I see the disconnect now. You see him as remaining "popular" in spite of what he does, and I see it as because of what he does, which in the end is what would enable him to remain electable, (as long as he is successful)...

And Obama's success is our failure based on his agenda. And precisely why he must fail.

 

[ConservativeDad]

I didn't mean it that way. I meant "popular" in spite of what he does.

I understand. I see the disconnect now. You see him as remaining "popular" in spite of what he does, and I see it as because of what he does, which in the end is what would enable him to remain electable, (as long as he is successful)...

And Obama's success is our failure based on his agenda. And precisely why he must fail.

It's not enough. We also need to roll back some of his "successes". This will be the hard part, as congresscritters see entitlement programs as votes, rather than whether or not they are detrimental to our country. Which is why they always seem to become part of the permanent politcal landscape despite their negative impact on the economy...

 

[glew]

Extremism regarding the Constitution means actually believing that all the thousands of laws that have taken effect since it was signed in 1789 could actually be overturned, or at best re-argued.

I have no idea what this means?

I think Mitt Romney is a great choice. I've been following him, and he seems like he'd be a better candidate now than he was in 2008. I also disagree with those who are saying Romney is like McCain. They're both moderate Republicans, but there's more to it than that. McCain is a retard, and Romney is not.

Just go ahead and register as a democrat...If you don't realize that "moderate republican" is media speak for someone that can be manipulated by democrats, then you are better off on the other side of the isle anyway.

 

[Shooter]

Luckily the Libertarian, Constitution, Green parties will all be on the ballot as well.

When is the last time someone from one of those parties won the presidential election?

 

[SwingVoter]

The dud Romney blocks Christie or Rubio for 2016, who are far better candidates. Plus, Obama's record on private sector job creation in his 2nd year has been far better than Bush's. I'll take Obama in 2012, with Rubio or Christie in 2016, and no more of these atrocious dud GOP candidates, which includes Romney/Jindal/Pawlenty.

 

[JWBooth]

Luckily the Libertarian, Constitution, Green parties will all be on the ballot as well.

When is the last time someone from one of those parties won the presidential election?

Nominate Romney and the end result will be the same, they won't have any better chance of occupying the White House than he will.

 

[Shooter]

Luckily the Libertarian, Constitution, Green parties will all be on the ballot as well.

When is the last time someone from one of those parties won the presidential election?

Nominate Romney and the end result will be the same, they won't have any better chance of occupying the White House than he will.

The polls show you wrong.

 

[p kirkes]

While I voted for Romney/Petraeus I would prefer it was the other way around.

The US has benefited from Generals turned politician on many occassions. In these times I would prefer a competent, successful General than a professional politician.

Regards,