Ok, so now what? Three states, three different winners.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The country is right about center. The center is far left of where it used to be.

We need better than Mitt, but we need Mitt because much of the center and somewhat left, disenchanted with O, will vote for him. So will most of the right, because we have no choice if we want to see O deposed.

I won't say a true conservative could NOT win this election, but any that could ain't running. A true conservative has to be charming, Reaganesque, smooth the message with likeability. We don't have anyone like that right now.

- OS

But isn't that assuming that all those food stamp recipients will vote? Their history

of voting is poor. The Ken doll is a poor choice and I would vote for him like I voted

for MaCain. There's no way around this stuff. The media is steering the boat all it

can to get the commie re-elected. That tells me what I need to know.

[K191145]

[/b]

The only one who will be bad news if he wins is Obama. If you think his three years has been bad, yov've not seen anything if he gets 4 more.

Anybody but Obama.

With the pathetic bunch of candidates we have, Romney has the best chanch of beating Hussien because he's generic just like many of the voters who claim to be center or moderate, their generic. In the primary i'm writing in Condeliza Rice. In the general i'll hold my nose and vote against Hussien, walk to the nearest trash can and vomit.

[thundersnow]

+1 to what lostpass said about media salesmen...

----

Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft (SIG) P229 and P6 /// Ruger Target 10/22

[mcurrier]

With the pathetic bunch of candidates we have, Romney has the best chanch of beating Hussien because he's generic just like many of the voters who claim to be center or moderate, their generic. In the primary i'm writing in Condeliza Rice. In the general i'll hold my nose and vote against Hussien, walk to the nearest trash can and vomit.

The liberal controlled media are praying that it WILL be Romney. They see him, like McCain, as the most "moderate", easy going, middle of the road, easy to beat. Plus he has the added baggage of Romney Care which Obama will use to beat him up with. They say that Obama Care was based on Romney Care, so that will make Romney out to look just like Obama, only he will be portrayed as a "rich, wall-street white guy".

The title of this thread is Ok, so now what? Three states, three different winners.

Answer: Stick it out for a few more states, or even ALL of them if necessary. What rule says that we have to have a choice after three states? Iowa and New Hampshire have been wrong 2/3 of the time in the last 20 years, so let's not make a hasty decision based on what they think. There are 47 other states (54 more to go if you're Obama).

[K191145]

The liberal controlled media are praying that it WILL be Romney. They see him, like McCain, as the most "moderate", easy going, middle of the road, easy to beat. Plus he has the added baggage of Romney Care which Obama will use to beat him up with. They say that Obama Care was based on Romney Care, so that will make Romney out to look just like Obama, only he will be portrayed as a "rich, wall-street white guy".

The title of this thread is Ok, so now what? Three states, three different winners.

Answer: Stick it out for a few more states, or even ALL of them if necessary. What rule says that we have to have a choice after three states? Iowa and New Hampshire have been wrong 2/3 of the time in the last 20 years, so let's not make a hasty decision based on what they think. There are 47 other states (54 more to go if you're Obama).

I know it's still early but who have we got to pick from? I like what Ron Paul says sometimes and he's a strong 2nd Amendment supporter but, his attitude about foreign policy is scary. Romney is a democrat but better than Obama which is not saying much, Santorum isn't alot better and is flaky on 2nd Amendment issues. Newt is flaky all around and can't beat Obama, he wont win over the generic voters. I really wish we had more choices. Draft Condi or Jeb, or both.

[kieefer]

I know it's still early but who have we got to pick from? I like what Ron Paul says sometimes and he's a strong 2nd Amendment supporter but, his attitude about foreign policy is scary. Romney is a democrat but better than Obama which is not saying much, Santorum isn't alot better and is flaky on 2nd Amendment issues. Newt is flaky all around and can't beat Obama, he wont win over the generic voters. I really wish we had more choices. Draft Condi or Jeb, or both.

RP's got an A+ and Rick's a B- on the Gun Owners of America's list, the other two fall short.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/67414-looks-like-gun-owners-will-losers-2012-a.html

[Oh Shoot]

I know it's still early but who have we got to pick from? I like what Ron Paul says sometimes and he's a strong 2nd Amendment supporter but, his attitude about foreign policy is scary. Romney is a democrat but better than Obama which is not saying much, Santorum isn't alot better and is flaky on 2nd Amendment issues. Newt is flaky all around and can't beat Obama, he wont win over the generic voters. I really wish we had more choices. Draft Condi or Jeb, or both.

So vote third party and help guarantee that Obama stacks the Supreme Court against 2A. A president is 4-8 years. A SCOTUS justice averages 20.

- OS

[K191145]

So vote third party and help guarantee that Obama stacks the Supreme Court against 2A. A president is 4-8 years. A SCOTUS justice averages 20.

- OS

Read my post again, I said in the PRIMARY I would write in Condi but in the General I would hold my nose and vote against Obama. That means I will vote for what ever clown wins the nomination and runs against Hussien.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

With the pathetic bunch of candidates we have, Romney has the best chanch of beating Hussien because he's generic just like many of the voters who claim to be center or moderate, their generic. In the primary i'm writing in Condeliza Rice. In the general i'll hold my nose and vote against Hussien, walk to the nearest trash can and vomit.

How do you know that? Because some are saying it? Primaries turn candidates on ends

and the media is a willing accomplice of the Democrats, so knowing this, I might draw

a very different conclusion. Romney is weak on strong conservative issues and confused

on liberal issues. He is, at best, a lukewarm moderate who says what his finger tells him

to say, and I would take him for a last resort Republican candidate. He is much more of

a John McCain and we don't want that happening again.

Yankee Republican elitists and the media want him. If they really despise Newt that much,

I'm for Newt. The Rockefeller crowd has run the Republican Party for way too long.

[kieefer]

How do you know that? Because some are saying it? Primaries turn candidates on ends

and the media is a willing accomplice of the Democrats, so knowing this, I might draw

a very different conclusion. Romney is weak on strong conservative issues and confused

on liberal issues. He is, at best, a lukewarm moderate who says what his finger tells him

to say, and I would take him for a last resort Republican candidate. He is much more of

a John McCain and we don't want that happening again.

Yankee Republican elitists and the media want him. If they really despise Newt that much,

I'm for Newt. The Rockefeller crowd has run the Republican Party for way too long.

+1

Even George Soro's says there's not much difference between BHO and the Mitt. The Mitt who tells those who will listen, just what they want to hear.

[Oh Shoot]

How do you know that?...

So far, most polls I've seen show O beating Newt by at least 10%. Some double digits.

Romney vs O showing at roughly dead heat at worst.

- OS

[mcurrier]

I know it's still early but who have we got to pick from? I like what Ron Paul says sometimes and he's a strong 2nd Amendment supporter but, his attitude about foreign policy is scary. Romney is a democrat but better than Obama which is not saying much, Santorum isn't alot better and is flaky on 2nd Amendment issues. Newt is flaky all around and can't beat Obama, he wont win over the generic voters. I really wish we had more choices. Draft Condi or Jeb, or both.

The rule of politics is:

Vote for who you like/want in Primaries, vote for who you HAVE TO in the General Election.

There's little risk in voting your heart in primaries, that's how we (hopefully) get the candidate that is closest to what the people of that party want. It's not a science, there are no guarantees. You play the hand you're dealt, the candidates that show up. There may a few we'd rather have, but...why did they choose not to show up this go round?

But in the general election, it goes like this:

1. Vote for Candidate A = vote for Candidate A

2. Vote for Candidate B = vote for Candidate B

3. Vote for Candidate C = vote for Incumbent Candidate

4. Abstaining from voting = vote for Incumbent Candidate

People may not like answer #3 or #4, but it's pretty much mathematical that when you vote for a third-party candidate, MOST other people are not going to be going that route, so statistically you are helping the incumbent candidate with your vote. There would have to be a MASSIVE grass roots movement where you absolutely KNOW that most people are on the same page to be able to pull off a third-party candidate or a write-in on a national level election. The only two times I can remember that there has been that much agreement, unity and solidarity over ANY issue where you could say to yourself, "I KNOW with a certainty what MOST people are thinking right now...", would be the day after Dec. 7, 1941 and the day after Sept. 11, 2001. Other than those times, it's near impossible to get a super-majority of people on the same page.

[mcurrier]

So far, most polls I've seen show O beating Newt by at least 10%. Some double digits.

Romney vs O showing at roughly dead heat at worst.

- OS

For the most part, polls are poopy. Years ago they may have meant something. We live in the instant age of communication. Things can change worldwide in hours or even minutes. Most polls are stale the moment they finish taking them. The only poll that's going to count is in November.

[Oh Shoot]

... The only poll that's going to count is in November.

Folks, on other polls , admit that polls affect their votes.

Polls seem to have meaning regarding the primaries. Most taken shortly before them are borne out. Debatable as to whether they also influence the vote to further skew toward winner or merely reflect the trend.

If indeed they do influence the results, a widely disseminated poll based belief that Mitt has a better chance against O than Newt will certainly influence the primaries all the way through for the folks who want to see O deposed as goal number one.

- OS

Edited January 27, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So far, most polls I've seen show O beating Newt by at least 10%. Some double digits.

Romney vs O showing at roughly dead heat at worst.

- OS

I think most polls are so far out of whack about a match up between "doofus"

and a named candidate like Newt or Mitt. About the only ones I pay attention to

are the unnamned candidate versus said doofus. They all are at least showing

trends, but the one that will matter is the one that lasts through the vetting.

I guess you can tell I still like your "doofus" even though he isn't one. No one

can cry "racist" when I use it:D

Way too early to tell. There will be a lot of soul searching right before the election

this time. A lot of folks who might actually hate the Republican candidate will

possibly use that reason and logic, like you and I.

[kieefer]

Polls?

IOWA had Romney and Paul ahead of Rick

[Oh Shoot]

Polls?

IOWA had Romney and Paul ahead of Rick

Caucus much different than primary. Even the results of a caucus don't necessarily translate to actual delegate votes.

- OS

[kieefer]

Caucus much different than primary. Even the results of a caucus don't necessarily translate to actual delegate votes.

- OS

Didn't John Kerry poll better than George?

I don't put much faith in them, polls usually end up with the result the pollster wants anyway and keep in mind that they are driven by the media.

Take online polls for example, if you had betted on them RP would have lost you a lot on money.

[Oh Shoot]

Didn't John Kerry poll better than George?

I don't put much faith in them, polls usually end up with the result the pollster wants anyway and keep in mind that they are driven by the media.

Take online polls for example, if you had betted on them RP would have lost you a lot on money.

Well, my only real point was not the validity of any given poll, or even polls in general, but if polling over a long period reveals a trend, valid or not, and that trend becomes widely known, it can affect voting.

So far, again rightly or wrongly, the trend or at least perception of that trend, is that Mitt stands better chance than Newt against O and a certain percentage of folks will vote for Mitt in the primaries because of that.

- OS

[K191145]

The rule of politics is:

Vote for who you like/want in Primaries, vote for who you HAVE TO in the General Election.

There's little risk in voting your heart in primaries, that's how we (hopefully) get the candidate that is closest to what the people of that party want. It's not a science, there are no guarantees. You play the hand you're dealt, the candidates that show up. There may a few we'd rather have, but...why did they choose not to show up this go round?

But in the general election, it goes like this:

1. Vote for Candidate A = vote for Candidate A

2. Vote for Candidate B = vote for Candidate B

3. Vote for Candidate C = vote for Incumbent Candidate

4. Abstaining from voting = vote for Incumbent Candidate

People may not like answer #3 or #4, but it's pretty much mathematical that when you vote for a third-party candidate, MOST other people are not going to be going that route, so statistically you are helping the incumbent candidate with your vote. There would have to be a MASSIVE grass roots movement where you absolutely KNOW that most people are on the same page to be able to pull off a third-party candidate or a write-in on a national level election. The only two times I can remember that there has been that much agreement, unity and solidarity over ANY issue where you could say to yourself, "I KNOW with a certainty what MOST people are thinking right now...", would be the day after Dec. 7, 1941 and the day after Sept. 11, 2001. Other than those times, it's near impossible to get a super-majority of people on the same page.

Well I plan on voting for the RINO running against Obama, my hope is that we can pressure our state elected Congressmen/women and Senators to stand up to whoever is POTUS, and not allow them to futher destroy our economy, Constitution, and our values.

I vote we start sending e-mails to our Reps and seriously look at who is running against them. Congress has a horrible approval rating but everybody keeps electing the same ol bootlickers.

[mav]

Personally, I have no use for polls. I don't give a s*** what the rest of the voting public thinks about an issue or candidate. I will make up my own mind on an issue and leave it at that. However, polls, while not infallible, do show important trending patterns that are important to candidates, businesses, and the media. If they did not provide useful data, nobody would spend the money conducting them.

In regards to the candidates and polling data, I believe it is too premature to make any claims on who would be the better candidate against Obama; too many assumptions are made. For example, current polling shows Romney either slightly beating or narrowly losing to Obama in the general. The failure of this poll is that it is based on the Romney of the primaries.

We all know that Romney, regardless of what he says, is a liberal establishment-type Republican. Carefully examining his record clearly proves this to be the case. During the primaries, Mitt is portraying himself as a staunch conservative. Let me ask, does anyone honestly think that Mitt will run as a conservative in the general against Obama? Heck no he won't. He will transition so fast to a moderate, which is what he really is, that it will be the mother of all flip-flops. He will make the argument that he is moderating his position to appeal to other moderates and independents (seems like we have went through this not too long ago and it didn't work out so well). This is where the poll fails. The current poll is being based on the conservative speaking Romney not the moderate Romney.

The downside to all of this is that there is a distinct possibility that such a transition from Romney will alienate conservative and semi-conservative voters, who don't like him anyway, and cause them to stay home. Nobody is talking about any of this and I think this is a very important point to consider when looking at Romney.

I have said in the past that both Romney and Gingrich will have a very difficult time beating Obama, for different reasons of course. Santorum will have a difficult time as well since some of his views will no doubt be portrayed as extremist, which is anathema to moderates and independents. When I look at all of the flaws of the individual candidates, I honestly don't think one has a better shot than the other in regards to beating Obama. Therefore, the best thng I can tell people is choose the candidate you like, or the lesser of the evils, and fight like hell to help them defeat Obama in the general.