Which GOP candidate would do the BEST in a debate against Barack Obama--BE HONEST

[oreo]

Cain or Paul...

Either one would make Obama look like a toddler...

I'd take Paul because I know what I'm getting but Cain is new.

Both have advantages, Paul is smarter, more established and has a more consistent voting record of the three, however Cain has a good resume as well and he is black and younger than Paul so the progressives cant say "you're a racist" or "your candidate will die" as they said with McCain.

Both would make Obamafuck look stupid in a debate and both could beat him in an election.

Nope both of these guys Cain or Paul would be literally taken apart by our constant campainger and debater President--and we would end up with another 4 years of Barack Obama.

 

[oreo]

In a debate? Gingrich, followed by Romney.

So you all know it--and you won't back it. Herman Cain is leading because of the Tea party movement in this country. We've been told for months now that Romney is the leader with Perry a close behind second.

This is your chance to speak your mind--the RNC is no longer controlled by the RNC.

And YOU know as WELL as I do that it's Newt Gingrich who would be best at kicking BO's ass--and would make the best POTUS.

 

[elvis]

In a debate? Gingrich, followed by Romney.

So you all know it--and you won't back it. Herman Cain is leading because of the Tea party movement in this country. We've been told for months now that Romney is the leader with Perry a close behind second.

This is your chance to speak your mind--the RNC is no longer controlled by the RNC.

And YOU know as WELL as I do that it's Newt Gingrich who would be best at kicking BO's ass--and would make the best POTUS.

Newt would beat him in the debates and lose to him in the election. Not a scenario I like.

 

[BluesMistress]

Newt is a con man

Obama is a marxist

 

[Wry Catcher]

Newt is a con man

Obama is a marxist

BlueMistress is an idiot.

 

[candycorn]

I said none of the above because the "best" is a nebulous standard. I think Newt would likely score the most points if it were being judged as a boxing match would. However, if the standard of victory isn't to punish your opponent but to appeal to the masses, Romney by a landslide; not even close. It wouldn't even be close if you barred him from using adverbs.

There is a difference between jacking up your opponent and propelling yourself forward; I think most Americans are tired of the jacking and would like to hear more about the solutions.

 

[007]

Newt is a con man

... and you're a fucking idiot... STFU.

 

[francoHFW]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obama will destroy these bought off charlatans...

 

[oreo]

In a debate? Gingrich, followed by Romney.

So you all know it--and you won't back it. Herman Cain is leading because of the Tea party movement in this country. We've been told for months now that Romney is the leader with Perry a close behind second.

This is your chance to speak your mind--the RNC is no longer controlled by the RNC.

And YOU know as WELL as I do that it's Newt Gingrich who would be best at kicking BO's ass--and would make the best POTUS.

Hey--You're singing to the choir here--I am a tea party member. The RNC and the media have completely ignored who I think is the best candidate Newt Gingrich.

I am thrilled to see Cain at the top spot--but I think Newt would make a better President.

 

[candycorn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obama will destroy these bought off charlatans...

I'm pretty sure about that. Unfortunately, we get a raw deal on the Presidential election side since the candidates now format their own debates--it used to be the League of Women Voters who set the format and the rules. How sad.

If you're a GOPster and you have 3 debates with Obama, tactically, what you should do is push him to the left in the first debate. Make him sound like the middle class's worst nightmare. In the 2nd and 3rd, moderate the stances and keep on harping on the chasm between Obama and the mainstream if you can.

In a one and done scenario; I'd take Newt to score the most points with his base; rich white guys. I'd pick Mitt to win over the most voters to the GOP side of the ledger. They're nuts for not embracing Mitt and with each passing day the GOP electorate are playing right into Obama's hands.

 

[oreo]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obama will destroy these bought off charlatans...

I'm pretty sure about that. Unfortunately, we get a raw deal on the Presidential election side since the candidates now format their own debates--it used to be the League of Women Voters who set the format and the rules. How sad.

If you're a GOPster and you have 3 debates with Obama, tactically, what you should do is push him to the left in the first debate. Make him sound like the middle class's worst nightmare. In the 2nd and 3rd, moderate the stances and keep on harping on the chasm between Obama and the mainstream if you can.

In a one and done scenario; I'd take Newt to score the most points with his base; rich white guys. I'd pick Mitt to win over the most voters to the GOP side of the ledger. They're nuts for not embracing Mitt and with each passing day the GOP electorate are playing right into Obama's hands.

The two polls I have put on boards--are stating the if Obama had to face Newt Gingrich--those Greek columns' would come tumbling down within seconds and the Presidential teleprompter would explode--leaving Obama on the stage mumbling something incoherent.

As far as the chances of Obama winning a second term--about as much chance as Custer and 7th calvery had against the Sioux nation.

 

[Sallow]

In a debate? Gingrich, followed by Romney.

So you all know it--and you won't back it. Herman Cain is leading because of the Tea party movement in this country. We've been told for months now that Romney is the leader with Perry a close behind second.

This is your chance to speak your mind--the RNC is no longer controlled by the RNC.

And YOU know as WELL as I do that it's Newt Gingrich who would be best at kicking BO's ass--and would make the best POTUS.

Newt would beat him in the debates and lose to him in the election. Not a scenario I like.

He wouldn't beat him in any debate except the one at the looney bin. He's been saying some absolutely crazy shit at the republican debates.

 

[Sallow]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Obama will destroy these bought off charlatans...

I'm pretty sure about that. Unfortunately, we get a raw deal on the Presidential election side since the candidates now format their own debates--it used to be the League of Women Voters who set the format and the rules. How sad.

If you're a GOPster and you have 3 debates with Obama, tactically, what you should do is push him to the left in the first debate. Make him sound like the middle class's worst nightmare. In the 2nd and 3rd, moderate the stances and keep on harping on the chasm between Obama and the mainstream if you can.

In a one and done scenario; I'd take Newt to score the most points with his base; rich white guys. I'd pick Mitt to win over the most voters to the GOP side of the ledger. They're nuts for not embracing Mitt and with each passing day the GOP electorate are playing right into Obama's hands.

The two polls I have put on boards--are stating the if Obama had to face Newt Gingrich--those Greek columns' would come tumbling down within seconds and the Presidential teleprompter would explode--leaving Obama on the stage mumbling something incoherent.

As far as the chances of Obama winning a second term--about as much chance as Custer and 7th calvery had against the Sioux nation.

At this point..I am wlling to say Obama is a lock for a second term.

The only "serious" candidate is Romney..and he's been majorly blowing it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I thought this poll would be interesting. Now I don't want to vote for who you LIKE and or are supporting--I would like an HONEST answer from you to this poll.

The Question:

Which current GOP candidate would be the BEST at cleaning Barack Obama's clock in a debate with Obama.

Remember--be honest in your answer.--and then comment as to why you picked a certain candidate.

I picked Cain.

The race card can't be used against him.
He has a history of success.
He's firm in his stances.
And I don't think he'd let big 0 get away with lying or not directly responding to questions.

Plus, he's one of Two that have an actual plan out there.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm pretty sure about that. Unfortunately, we get a raw deal on the Presidential election side since the candidates now format their own debates--it used to be the League of Women Voters who set the format and the rules. How sad.

If you're a GOPster and you have 3 debates with Obama, tactically, what you should do is push him to the left in the first debate. Make him sound like the middle class's worst nightmare. In the 2nd and 3rd, moderate the stances and keep on harping on the chasm between Obama and the mainstream if you can.

In a one and done scenario; I'd take Newt to score the most points with his base; rich white guys. I'd pick Mitt to win over the most voters to the GOP side of the ledger. They're nuts for not embracing Mitt and with each passing day the GOP electorate are playing right into Obama's hands.

The two polls I have put on boards--are stating the if Obama had to face Newt Gingrich--those Greek columns' would come tumbling down within seconds and the Presidential teleprompter would explode--leaving Obama on the stage mumbling something incoherent.

As far as the chances of Obama winning a second term--about as much chance as Custer and 7th calvery had against the Sioux nation.

At this point..I am wlling to say Obama is a lock for a second term.

The only "serious" candidate is Romney..and he's been majorly blowing it.

I doubt it.

No matter who gets the nod, everyone to the right and most of the moderates will support him or her, just to get big 0 out of ofc.

 

[auditor0007]

Okay, Newt is winning and Romney is second. I voted for Romney and the reason is simple. Newt is extremely intelligent, but in a debate he would lose a lot of viewers who just aren't up to par with that type of intelligence. Romney, on the other hand, is just as intelligent, but he doesn't broadcast himself in that manner. He comes across as more everyday, and that works best with most viewers. So for me, Romney has the best shot in a debate. Not saying he would win, but he definitely has the best shot.

 

[Rinata]

I really don't know because I think he can kick all their butts!! So no one candidate comes to mind that I think can take him in a debate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I really don't know because I think he can kick all their butts!! So no one candidate comes to mind that I think can take him in a debate.

I also find it interesting that these nutters have zeroed in on the Presidents oratory skills as a perceived weakness.

Do you people have liberal "friends" IRL who express concern for how the POTUS will handle debates with people like Newt and Cain?

To the OP. The guy who has the best chance of engaging in a meaningful debate with the President.....one in which the audience will come away with an understanding of the differences between the candidates and not just an unending string of snark and talking points.......is Huntsman.

 

[JoeB131]

In a debate? Gingrich, followed by Romney.

I have watched all of these debates--and have finally made a decision and today donated to Newt Gingrich's campaign. There is no one that has impressed me so much during the last 4 debates other than him--and I know that he has some personal marital problems--affairs--and has even made a couple of stupid ads with Pelosi over Global warming, etc.. I know his faults and the mistakes he has made.

In my opinion out of the candidates we have I believe that Newt Gingrich--no doubt in my mind that he would wipe the carpet in any debate with Barack Obama--and make the BEST President out of any other candidate that is on the stage. He has the best tax plan--and he has the best 21 century contract with America plan.

["]And YOU know it too.[/SIZE]

Are you like, delusional?

Newt Gingrich has so much personal baggage, it doesn't matter what he does in a debate.

People don't like guys who impeach people over cheating on their wives while they are cheating on their wives themselves.

Honestly, I think Newt would make a horrible president. I wouldn't trust his judgement.

Look at impeachment. He was the one who insisted on going forward on impeachment even though he knew 1) 67% of the population opposed it and 2) there was no way you'd ever get enough Democratic Senators to vote to convict. But he insisted on going forward anyway.

And the voters slapped down the GOP hard in the midterms, costing them five house seats in a cycle they were expected to gain 20. One of the victims was B-1 Bob Dornan, one of the loudest Impeachment voices. As an end result, Newts own caucus insisted he step down, and he did.

He played a game of brinksmanship with Clinton, and at the end, he lost his job, and Clinton kept his.

Is this really the guy you want engaging in brinksmanship with Putin, Hu or Amadihijad? I don't.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, Newt is winning and Romney is second. I voted for Romney and the reason is simple. Newt is extremely intelligent, but in a debate he would lose a lot of viewers who just aren't up to par with that type of intelligence. Romney, on the other hand, is just as intelligent, but he doesn't broadcast himself in that manner. He comes across as more everyday, and that works best with most viewers. So for me, Romney has the best shot in a debate. Not saying he would win, but he definitely has the best shot.

Oh, please. The Pundiots have credited every last debate to Romney, and yet he has yet to break out of the 25% prison he is in. He's not even making the sale to Republicans.

Here's Romney's problem. He's not likeable. He comes off like some weird Mormon robot.