2012 Presidential Poll

[MaggieMae]

Lucky for who? IMHO 2012 will be a serious election. No Nader, No Stassen, No Ron Paul, etc. It will be a real dog fight, and the TEA Party will be the most motivated.

The Tea Party will be motivated to nominate Romney? That would prove without a shadow of doubt that they were co-opted by the Republicans.

As far as I know, Romney is an articulate, can-do candidate, with no real baggage. The main reason is that he polls higher than Obama, that simple factoid won't go unnoticed by GOP voters. The TEA Party has faith in the re-born conservative Romney, did I mention that he beats Obama in polls??

Polls mean zilch at this point in time. Romney, of course, will have to deal with all his several faux pas during the 08 campaign, like his many flipflops. So now he's proclaiming to be a "reborn" conservative? Interesting. He went down in flames in the Iowa primary because he tried to buy the election (just as Meg Witman, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon discovered when they put millions of their own money into their campaigns). People just don't trust that kind of desperation.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Mit Romney is a bigger flip flopper than John Kerry.

I judge a man by his DEEDS not his words.

Romney's deeds as Gov WERE NOT CONSERVATIVE, they were as far left AS OBAMA!

How UTTERLY STUPID do people have to be to glom onto Romney as the answer to Obama, when there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Romneycare and Obamacare?

Romney went on record as being for abortion, gay marriage, banning the Boy Scouts, on and on and on.

Romney is as liberal as OBAMA!

I judge a man by his ACTIONS. He led his state as liberal as Ted Kennedy and once he has presidential aspirations all of a sudden he starts talking conservative to fool the REST OF THE COUNTRY.

And you some of you people are stupid enough to buy it?

What difference is there between Clinton talking like a conservative to fool people and Romney doing it?

YOU GUYS CANNOT BE THIS DAMN STUPID.

You vote for Romney you might as well vote for Obama. That's no lie.

If you don't believe me. Deny all this EVIDENCE!

Romney haunted by liberal past

Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President

American Thinker: Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President

PolitiFact | Romney haunted by liberal past
"Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' "
(NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!)
- Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
Video of Romney vs Kennedy 1994 debate.

The Mitt Romney Deception

Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group

• "Romney, a Republican and the former Winter Olympics chief, was endorsed by the New York-based Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. He mentioned his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case affirmed women's constitutional right to abortions. . . . Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's 'commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose' in a letter on Wednesday."
  - Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002

The Mitt Romney Deception

Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486

The Mitt Romney Deception

Homosexual "Rights"

Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists

The Mitt Romney Deception

Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics

The Mitt Romney Deception

That's just some of the evidence.

NO WAY is Romney a conservative. He's as conservative as Arlen Specter!

 

[The T]

It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for Romney...I agree with several posters...The days of media chosen, wishy washy Repubs is over...If there isn't a VERY clear difference in the two candidates then Barry gets his second term...Romneycare/Obamacare? Does John McCain ring a bell? The only candidates I would vote for right now are Newt, Christie, and Palin...in that order. Newt because he has balanced a federal budget...Christie because he isn't afraid of unions...and Palin because she did a VERY good job as governor of Alaska (80% approval means something...and the libs are terrified of her for some reason). Otherwise, I will not vote for an elitist RINO ever again

As to Palin? Think Cult of personality...and the Democrats unswerving ability to sway opinion about folks by the politics of personal destruction even though the things they portray of someone may or may not be necessarily true...stretched, or whatever...they just put it out there and hope the gullible bite on the bait.

 

[MaggieMae]

As far as I know, Romney is an articulate, can-do candidate, with no real baggage. The main reason is that he polls higher than Obama, that simple factoid won't go unnoticed by GOP voters. The TEA Party has faith in the re-born conservative Romney, did I mention that he beats Obama in polls??

Yeah, should they trust in the "born-again" conservative Romney, or a Governor with a record the Tea Party can support like Gary Johnson? The answer is clear.

The governor of New Mexico?! Not a serious presidential candidate. Not vetted. Not lampooned on SNL. A nobody. Not a chance in 2012. If he comes in 2nd to Romney, maybe we'll look at him in 2016 or 2020.
Gary E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah, should they trust in the "born-again" conservative Romney, or a Governor with a record the Tea Party can support like Gary Johnson? The answer is clear.

The governor of New Mexico?! Not a serious presidential candidate. Not vetted. Not lampooned on SNL. A nobody. Not a chance in 2012. If he comes in 2nd to Romney, maybe we'll look at him in 2016 or 2020.
Gary E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[The T]

The governor of New Mexico?! Not a serious presidential candidate. Not vetted. Not lampooned on SNL. A nobody. Not a chance in 2012. If he comes in 2nd to Romney, maybe we'll look at him in 2016 or 2020.
Gary E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

The governor of New Mexico?! Not a serious presidential candidate. Not vetted. Not lampooned on SNL. A nobody. Not a chance in 2012. If he comes in 2nd to Romney, maybe we'll look at him in 2016 or 2020.
Gary E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The former-Governor of New Mexico. And why isn't he serious? He's a more credible Tea Party candidate than Romney.

He's not serious because he wasn't on stage in 2008. Christie is a better "dark horse". What part of "Romney beats Obama in the 2012 polls" don't you understand?

The country would have to remain completely stagnant for those polls showing that (some don't) to stay the same, plus there's certainly no landslide polling numbers to date, except probably Rasmussen which is a Republican poll anyway.

WH2012: General

 

[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.)

 

[Jarhead]

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.)

Actually, I like Christie becuase on day one he started to do what he promised to do during the campaign.
And he did it without the support of the media.

 

[The T]

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.)

Actually, I like Christie becuase on day one he started to do what he promised to do during the campaign.
And he did it without the support of the media.

And directly addressed the media and told them where they could get off.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

Buggins turn gives us super lame candidates who won't win. Republicans do badly with it. Nixon in 60, Dole and McCain.
Romney has too much policy damage. He is the father of Obamacare. That kills him right there.

Huckabee is dead too. Him and his revolving door jails.

The ones with momentum are the ones the Democrats are concentrating their fire on: Christie, Jindal, Palin. Palin is the one who is getting the most traction from the Democrat ire. I personally like Christie and Jindal better, but I love watching PDS meltdowns. The fact her biggest fan is USArmyRetired is not much of an endorsement.

It will be an interesting election no matter what.

I'm sorry, but Bobby Jindal comes off for me as a fast-talker playing a shell game. Plus he's a whiner and some of his ideas are more radical than Rand Paul's.

 

[MaggieMae]

None of the dopes and mopes you mentioned in your poll will even be on the 2012 Presidential ballot. To early to know who will be running for sure but I can promise you that Obama/Biden will not be.

What do you base your "promise" on? I've always thought Obama might not run again, but not for all the reasons the bashers will claim. If he decides not to run it will be because HE thinks his policy preferences could be better advanced by someone else, like Hillary Clinton. But I believe his main reason would be consideration of the potential damaging effect on his daughters that the extremists posting nonstop on the Internet have caused. That said, I certainly don't go so far as PROMISING anything.

 

[MaggieMae]

None of the dopes and mopes you mentioned in your poll will even be on the 2012 Presidential ballot. To early to know who will be running for sure but I can promise you that Obama/Biden will not be.

obama/biden will be. The dems won't turn their back on him no matter how bad it gets.

He is the pied piper and can out campaign anyone. Hillary is done also, come 2016 she will be to old for dems to support her.

I love these predictions. I think I'm going to start saving them just for giggles to post following subsequent elections.

You're anticipating "things" will get worse, whereas economists are already predicting they will get better, and already are. Ronald Reagan was 70 when he first entered the Oval Office; Hillary Clinton would be 69 in 2016, and women outlast men in every category.

 

[MaggieMae]

None of the dopes and mopes you mentioned in your poll will even be on the 2012 Presidential ballot. To early to know who will be running for sure but I can promise you that Obama/Biden will not be.

obama/biden will be. The dems won't turn their back on him no matter how bad it gets.

He is the pied piper and can out campaign anyone. Hillary is done also, come 2016 she will be to old for dems to support her.

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.

 

[ConservativeDad]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

obama/biden will be. The dems won't turn their back on him no matter how bad it gets.

He is the pied piper and can out campaign anyone. Hillary is done also, come 2016 she will be to old for dems to support her.

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.

Why? George W. Bush had no competition for reelection.

 

[The T]

obama/biden will be. The dems won't turn their back on him no matter how bad it gets.

He is the pied piper and can out campaign anyone. Hillary is done also, come 2016 she will be to old for dems to support her.

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?

 

[MaggieMae]

Buggins turn gives us super lame candidates who won't win. Republicans do badly with it. Nixon in 60, Dole and McCain.
Romney has too much policy damage. He is the father of Obamacare. That kills him right there.

Huckabee is dead too. Him and his revolving door jails.

The ones with momentum are the ones the Democrats are concentrating their fire on: Christie, Jindal, Palin. Palin is the one who is getting the most traction from the Democrat ire. I personally like Christie and Jindal better, but I love watching PDS meltdowns. The fact her biggest fan is USArmyRetired is not much of an endorsement.

It will be an interesting election no matter what.

What "Democrats" have been attacking Christie or Jindal?

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 like Christie, but I think Jindal is weak. It may seem like it should be insignificant in choosing a president, but he should have a presence--Jindal has none. And don't forget all the bigots who will also see Bobby Jindal as a "foreigner."

 

[MaggieMae]

What "Democrats" have been attacking Christie or Jindal?

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.