They're doing it again: Media starts picking 2012 GOP candidates

Palin, Romney, Rubio, Cantor, Allen, I gotta keep doin alotta critical thinkin before I decide which one of them I want where on my ideal Prez. ticket.....and which one of em is really gonna run.

This is the $64,000 question... who is actually going to throw their hat in the ring? It's hard to know who the front runner is unless we know who's going to be in it. One thing's for sure though, this race is going to get interesting.
 
Palin, Romney, Rubio, Cantor, Allen, I gotta keep doin alotta critical thinkin before I decide which one of them I want where on my ideal Prez. ticket.....and which one of em is really gonna run.

This is the $64,000 question... who is actually going to throw their hat in the ring? It's hard to know who the front runner is unless we know who's going to be in it. One thing's for sure though, this race is going to get interesting.

The front runners are already clearly Palin, Huckabee, and Romney.
 
Never made that conclusion.

Futher, since when does a media outlet's polling firm have to be "reputable" in order for their polling to influence voters?

Uh, excuse me, genius, but when you said this:

All done by media outlets and NOT reputable polling orgs.

...you did. So again, I'll repeat the question. What's your evidence that Opinion Research Corp., CNN's pollster, isn't reputable?
I thought the "carbineer" in your username was familiar.
Now I know why many animals eat their young at birth.


Ok. Let's review....
I said this:


Now, although I have no proof that CNN's pollster ISN'T reputable, it is clear that CNN paid for the poll to be done. Need I say more? If anyone here wants to retain the option to suggest that "FoxNews is nothing more than a conservative media think-tank talking-point generator", then I get to remind YOU of the truth about CNN -- that they are a hot-bed of liberal idiocy..

Oh and, by default, you have now acknowledged that the pollster for FoxNews may very well be reputable as well, even though I'm quite certain you wouldn't agree with their results.



Someone more conservative than Bush.

Not talking a "social con" mind you, but someone more conservative when it comes to the fiscal side of things.

Someone? Why didn't Republicans vote for that someone in the 2008 primaries then?

Ask the indy voters...THEY are what pushed obama over the top.
Not liberals...Not conservatives.

Obama wasn't in the Republican primaries.
 
Uh, excuse me, genius, but when you said this:

All done by media outlets and NOT reputable polling orgs.

...you did. So again, I'll repeat the question. What's your evidence that Opinion Research Corp., CNN's pollster, isn't reputable?
I thought the "carbineer" in your username was familiar.
Now I know why many animals eat their young at birth.


Ok. Let's review....
I said this:


Now, although I have no proof that CNN's pollster ISN'T reputable, it is clear that CNN paid for the poll to be done. Need I say more? If anyone here wants to retain the option to suggest that "FoxNews is nothing more than a conservative media think-tank talking-point generator", then I get to remind YOU of the truth about CNN -- that they are a hot-bed of liberal idiocy..

Oh and, by default, you have now acknowledged that the pollster for FoxNews may very well be reputable as well, even though I'm quite certain you wouldn't agree with their results.



Someone? Why didn't Republicans vote for that someone in the 2008 primaries then?

Ask the indy voters...THEY are what pushed obama over the top.
Not liberals...Not conservatives.

Obama wasn't in the Republican primaries.

No shit? :cuckoo:

If you can't put 2 and 2 together, that's your fault.

Indy voters DIDN'T PARTICIPATE in the repub primary season, because they were more for obama, than for ANYONE running in opposition.

Does everyone here have to hold your hand through every debate/discussion you attempt to engage in, or can you handle some of them on your own?
 
<SNIP>
Huckabee?
Are you serious?

*He favors a total ban on smoking in public, even outdoors.
*He agrees with Michelle Obama's "food police" notions.
*He used his faith in an attempt to gain votes in the Iowa caucus (I attended the caucus in my district), and then dropped his faith like a hot 'tater when he made his way to New Hampshire. (Yes, this tactic could be chalked up to simple campaign strategy, but, for a "man of the cloth" who apparently wants to reform our constitutional republic into a quasi-theocracy, this was a man merely "pimping" his faith when necessary). He then used his faith again, telling voters that he didn't understand why Christians weren't voting for him, and that they weren't thinking of their faith first, if they didn't vote for him.

I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher, much less president.
The Huck did more to undermine Romney and propel McCain to the nomination than any other factor in the summer of 08.
 
Last edited:
Palin, Romney, Rubio, Cantor, Allen, I gotta keep doin alotta critical thinkin before I decide which one of them I want where on my ideal Prez. ticket.....and which one of em is really gonna run.

This is the $64,000 question... who is actually going to throw their hat in the ring? It's hard to know who the front runner is unless we know who's going to be in it. One thing's for sure though, this race is going to get interesting.

The front runners are already clearly Palin, Huckabee, and Romney.
But if Palin doesn't run, it throws the whole calculus out the window. Another name that gets a lot of attention is Newt Gingrich. I think it's a 50/50 chance at least one of the four won't run.
 
Never made that conclusion.

Futher, since when does a media outlet's polling firm have to be "reputable" in order for their polling to influence voters?

Uh, excuse me, genius, but when you said this:

All done by media outlets and NOT reputable polling orgs.

...you did. So again, I'll repeat the question. What's your evidence that Opinion Research Corp., CNN's pollster, isn't reputable?
I thought the "carbineer" in your username was familiar.
Now I know why many animals eat their young at birth.


Ok. Let's review....
I said this:


Now, although I have no proof that CNN's pollster ISN'T reputable, it is clear that CNN paid for the poll to be done. Need I say more? If anyone here wants to retain the option to suggest that "FoxNews is nothing more than a conservative media think-tank talking-point generator", then I get to remind YOU of the truth about CNN -- that they are a hot-bed of liberal idiocy..

Oh and, by default, you have now acknowledged that the pollster for FoxNews may very well be reputable as well, even though I'm quite certain you wouldn't agree with their results.


.

You're here ten minutes and already you're denying you said what can easily be quoted from the post you said it in.

And it's YOU who has proclaimed Foxnews a non-reputable pollster.

btw, what was your point again? Specifically, in regards to what you allege the CNN poll is doing? You really didn't make that clear in the OP.
 
Palin, Romney, Rubio, Cantor, Allen, I gotta keep doin alotta critical thinkin before I decide which one of them I want where on my ideal Prez. ticket.....and which one of em is really gonna run.
.....i.e. your throw-away candidate; CRUSHED by Obama....never to be seen or heard-of, again.

See: Bob Dole
 
In the last presidential election cycle, we saw some solid conservative candidates get blown out of the water by the media's unspoken but tenacious insistence that THEY pick the GOP candidate for president.

And, like lambs to the political/proverbial 'slaughter'...Most didn't even realize it was happening, and/or, didn't care one whit about it. They followed along, and put their mark on the ballot, like good little children, accepting the media's choice in the race against "the one".

Well...It's beginning again, and is shouldn't surprise anyone.
These kinds of stories have been few and far between over the past year, but I've seen at least 3 different polls come out over the past few weeks, with differing results. All done by media outlets and NOT reputable polling orgs.

Link: CNN 2012 Poll: Obama and Palin going in different directions?
(snip)
Two-thirds of Republicans questioned say they would likely support Huckabee as their nominee in 2012. The former Arkansas governor and 2008 GOP presidential candidate is considering another bid for the White House. So is another candidate from the last election, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans say they would likely support Romney. That number drops to 54 percent for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who is also contemplating a run for the White House.
Read the rest at the link....


Huckabee?
Are you serious?

*He favors a total ban on smoking in public, even outdoors.
*He agrees with Michelle Obama's "food police" notions.
*He used his faith in an attempt to gain votes in the Iowa caucus (I attended the caucus in my district), and then dropped his faith like a hot 'tater when he made his way to New Hampshire. (Yes, this tactic could be chalked up to simple campaign strategy, but, for a "man of the cloth" who apparently wants to reform our constitutional republic into a quasi-theocracy, this was a man merely "pimping" his faith when necessary). He then used his faith again, telling voters that he didn't understand why Christians weren't voting for him, and that they weren't thinking of their faith first, if they didn't vote for him.

I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher, much less president.

The Huck did more to undermine Romney and propel McCain to the nomination than any other factor in the summer of 08.

Got that right.

He worked with push Thompson out when they got around to the Carolina's.
 
This is the $64,000 question... who is actually going to throw their hat in the ring? It's hard to know who the front runner is unless we know who's going to be in it. One thing's for sure though, this race is going to get interesting.

The front runners are already clearly Palin, Huckabee, and Romney.
But if Palin doesn't run, it throws the whole calculus out the window. Another name that gets a lot of attention is Newt Gingrich. I think it's a 50/50 chance at least one of the four won't run.

If Palin doesn't run it's a huge boost to Huckabee because they're the two Christian fundies in the race. If Palin runs, and hangs in there, she will pretty much guarantee Romney wins.

Palin is in headlong downslide now, btw, her chances are all but dead.
 
The front runners are already clearly Palin, Huckabee, and Romney.
But if Palin doesn't run, it throws the whole calculus out the window. Another name that gets a lot of attention is Newt Gingrich. I think it's a 50/50 chance at least one of the four won't run.

If Palin doesn't run it's a huge boost to Huckabee because they're the two Christian fundies in the race. If Palin runs, and hangs in there, she will pretty much guarantee Romney wins.

Palin is in headlong downslide now, btw, her chances are all but dead.
You may be onto something with the Palin vs. Huckabee dynamic. I can imagine a big battle in Iowa for evangelical voters between those two, then Romney takes New Hampshire. No idea how Gingrich fits into it though.
 
The Republicans have made a deal with the devil in annointing Fox News as their 24/7 propaganda arm. They recieved their weapon to attack the President regardless of what he did but gave up individual autonomy to form positions contrary to the Fox agenda

The Republican candidate will probably be Mitt Romney who will be forced to accept a VP acceptable to Fox. He will also have to "refudiate" his own healthcare plan to attack Obamacare. Romney, in much the same way McCain did, will have to sell his soul to conform to the Fox directed agenda

yes Romney does need to refute it because its a POS. if he doesn't he gets no truck from me.

Romney will become an obedient little boy......just like McCain did

you are creating your own framework for a debate then answering it yourself vlidating your own viewpoint...I forgot, whats that called?



measures of success that a clear majority the public would sppt. aren't found in the Mass. HC changes Romney fronted, to apologize would be prudent.
 
Uh, excuse me, genius, but when you said this:

All done by media outlets and NOT reputable polling orgs.

...you did. So again, I'll repeat the question. What's your evidence that Opinion Research Corp., CNN's pollster, isn't reputable?
I thought the "carbineer" in your username was familiar.
Now I know why many animals eat their young at birth.


Ok. Let's review....
I said this:


Now, although I have no proof that CNN's pollster ISN'T reputable, it is clear that CNN paid for the poll to be done. Need I say more? If anyone here wants to retain the option to suggest that "FoxNews is nothing more than a conservative media think-tank talking-point generator", then I get to remind YOU of the truth about CNN -- that they are a hot-bed of liberal idiocy..

Oh and, by default, you have now acknowledged that the pollster for FoxNews may very well be reputable as well, even though I'm quite certain you wouldn't agree with their results.


.

You're here ten minutes and already you're denying you said what can easily be quoted from the post you said it in.

And it's YOU who has proclaimed Foxnews a non-reputable pollster.

btw, what was your point again? Specifically, in regards to what you allege the CNN poll is doing? You really didn't make that clear in the OP.

Same posting pattern.
Same side-step avoidance of substantive debate and discussion.

I've seen your act before.
It's old.

Don't hold out for a Tony...You won't win.
 
I thought the "carbineer" in your username was familiar.
Now I know why many animals eat their young at birth.


Ok. Let's review....
I said this:


Now, although I have no proof that CNN's pollster ISN'T reputable, it is clear that CNN paid for the poll to be done. Need I say more? If anyone here wants to retain the option to suggest that "FoxNews is nothing more than a conservative media think-tank talking-point generator", then I get to remind YOU of the truth about CNN -- that they are a hot-bed of liberal idiocy..

Oh and, by default, you have now acknowledged that the pollster for FoxNews may very well be reputable as well, even though I'm quite certain you wouldn't agree with their results.


.

You're here ten minutes and already you're denying you said what can easily be quoted from the post you said it in.

And it's YOU who has proclaimed Foxnews a non-reputable pollster.

btw, what was your point again? Specifically, in regards to what you allege the CNN poll is doing? You really didn't make that clear in the OP.

Same posting pattern.
Same side-step avoidance of substantive debate and discussion.

I've seen your act before.
It's old.

Don't hold out for a Tony...You won't win.

I'm trying to debate you, but you have to have a point first, AND, you can't deny what you've said in one post 2 posts later.

Can you list the pollsters you personally consider reputable?
 
But if Palin doesn't run, it throws the whole calculus out the window. Another name that gets a lot of attention is Newt Gingrich. I think it's a 50/50 chance at least one of the four won't run.

If Palin doesn't run it's a huge boost to Huckabee because they're the two Christian fundies in the race. If Palin runs, and hangs in there, she will pretty much guarantee Romney wins.

Palin is in headlong downslide now, btw, her chances are all but dead.
You may be onto something with the Palin vs. Huckabee dynamic. I can imagine a big battle in Iowa for evangelical voters between those two, then Romney takes New Hampshire. No idea how Gingrich fits into it though.

Gingrich is a fat toad whose personal repugnance not to mention the fact that he's old news, and not much of it that good,

will guarantee that he goes nowhere.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top