Which Candidates Do You Support

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

In order:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Buddy Roemer
Rick Perry
Everybody Else

[BrainGlutton]

Where's Santorum?!

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Where's Santorum?!

I'd write-in somebody else (Huckabee or Rubio or Daniels) rather than vote for him/. Not that it'd matter anyways, Obama would win in a landslide.

[BrainGlutton]

Why is Buddy Roemer even on the list?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Why is Buddy Roemer even on the list?

:confused: Because I agree with him, why else?

[computergeek]

Romney is the only one in the group that acts like a sane adult most of the time. I think he's pandering to the right wing, but I think he'll be more moderate if he wins (and the right wing thinks that too most likely, which is partly why they don't like him). I prefer my Republicans on the moderate side and not wackadoodles.

[zoid]

What, no poll?

I'll go with "Everybody Else" as I think the first 5 guys are knuckleheads.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

What, no poll?


This thread is not just listing your primary choice but all current candidates who are running you'd be willing to vote for in order of prefernce.

[Foggy]

In order:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Buddy Roemer
Rick Perry
Everybody Else

None of them. On my limited disability I can barely support myself, why would I even think about supporting these noddle heads?

[kenobi 65]

Romney. And, no one else. Now, let me explain...

I'm a liberal. I'm not thrilled with Obama, but I'd prefer him over any of the Republican candidates.

That said, of all the GOP dwarves, I find Romney the least objectionable. Let me rephrase that: Romney is the only one (with the possible exception of Hunstman) whom I don't find completely objectionable. If the nomination is still in doubt by the time of the Illinois primary, I'm going to declare Republican at my polling place, and vote for Romney, just to do my part to keep the nomination from falling to someone like Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Why not Zoidberg?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Where's Obama?

I would support Obama and Huntsman from what I know of them (caveats follow). I would cringe, but accept, Romney ( He might even be OK if Democratic control of the senate was guarenteed). The others would make me cry, nay, sob like a small child. The thought of total Republican control (or total Democratic control for that matter) of the legislative and executive branches is terrifying to me.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Where's Obama?

I would support Obama and Huntsman from what I know of them (caveats follow). I would cringe, but accept, Romney ( He might even be OK if Democratic control of the senate was guarenteed). The others would make me cry, nay, sob like a small child. The thought of total Republican control (or total Democratic control for that matter) of the legislative and executive branches is terrifying to me.

Mild aside, what do you think about the current political situation in Washington these days?

[WillFarnaby]

1 Ron Paul
2 Gary Johnson
3 Jon Huntsman
4 Barack Obama

3 and 4 I'd have to be convinced anyone else would be horrible.

[BobLibDem]

Barack Obama.

The rotted corpse of binLaden would be preferable to the clowns running for the GOP.

[DianaG]

Romney. And, no one else. Now, let me explain...

I'm a liberal. I'm not thrilled with Obama, but I'd prefer him over any of the Republican candidates.

That said, of all the GOP dwarves, I find Romney the least objectionable. Let me rephrase that: Romney is the only one (with the possible exception of Hunstman) whom I don't find completely objectionable. If the nomination is still in doubt by the time of the Illinois primary, I'm going to declare Republican at my polling place, and vote for Romney, just to do my part to keep the nomination from falling to someone like Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich.
Why vote for the only one with a tiiiiiiiiiiiiny chance of beating Barack Obama?

I certainly wouldn't support any of the Republican candidates, but I at least don't fear Romney. Being from Massachusetts I'm familiar with his profound lack of interest in actually governing. I don't see any particular agenda being advanced under his Presidency other than a push for more and better photo-opps.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Mild aside, what do you think about the current political situation in Washington these days?

It's a nightmare. Overly partisan with complete gridlock. This is on both sides of the aisle, but especially bad with the Republicans due to the freshman tea partiers being total ideologues and the old guard Republicans wanting to screw Obama at every turn, even at the expense of the country.

[DianaG]

I have to say it's a little baffling as to why the party that has publicly declared in so many words that their primary objective is making Obama a one-term president has given us these guys as alternatives.

[Martin Hyde]

I think some of the better Republican candidates out there didn't feel there was a good chance of unseating Obama back when the campaign season started.

If I had to rank the candidates by preference at this stage it'd be Huntsman > Romney > Gingrich.

I wouldn't vote for Santorum, Rick Perry or Ron Paul (nor would I vote for Obama in such a scenario, I'd just write something in.) Santorum is too fundamentalist, Rick Perry has all that plus he seems grossly stupid and incompetent, and Ron Paul is funny as an idea but would be an abortion of a President.

[Batfish]

I'd write-in somebody else (Huckabee or Rubio or Daniels) rather than vote for him/. Not that it'd matter anyways, Obama would win in a landslide.

Really? What do you have against Santorum. He seems like your kind of guy. If any of these Republican are elected you're going to get about the same results on the social conservative issues.

Does the reminder of anal sex make you uncomfortable? You hate sweater vests? The dead baby thing?

[pkbites]

Rick Perry
Ron Paul
Rick Santorum
Pat Paulsen

[DianaG]

Being a teenager, Qin understands all too well that Santorum's views don't exactly lead to popularity.

[LouisB]

I support Obama; I wouldn't spit on the current republican candidates if they were on fire.

[Enlightening Meditation]

I support Gary Johnson. He dropped out of the GOP primary to run for the Libertarian primary.

[DrumBum]

Pres. Obama
Former Gov. Huntsman
Former Gov. Romney

The rest of them, with the exception of Rep. Paul, are just auditioning for a full time gig on NRO or Fox News.

[John Mace]

Pres. Obama
Former Gov. Huntsman
Former Gov. Romney
That about sums it up for me.

The rest of them, with the exception of Rep. Paul, are just auditioning for a full time gig on NRO or Fox News.

Paul could make a good bit of dough on FOX, and they would be wise to offer him a job. He's got a very dedicated following. Or maybe he'd be a good fit on MSNBC as a non-progressive voice that is often at odds with the GOP.

[kenobi 65]

Why vote for the only one with a tiiiiiiiiiiiiny chance of beating Barack Obama?

Because a lot could happen between the primaries and the general election. If the economy goes back into the tank, Obama may have a very hard time getting re-elected, regardless of who the GOP runs.

[AtomicDog]

Obama.

[Chefguy]

Of those listed, and if tortured, I would choose Huntsman first, then Romney. They're more moderate and Huntsman has a realistic notion of what it takes to govern. Romney is too much of a rich boy wannabe, but his biggest problem seems to be a lack of personality; he's the Republican equivalent of Al Gore. He also seems more than willing to spout platitudes that he thinks the right wants to hear. Huntsman has refused all requests to sign those bullshit pledges about taxes or anything else, which makes him more of a realist than Romney is.

Ron Paul's scorched earth ideas of doing away with taxes and most of the government is not only unrealistic, but not possible unless by some magic congress is suddenly taken over by libertarians; it's pure demagoguery. Rick Perry is George Bush redux. The others have extremist and unrealistic views of governance that would go nowhere, basically wasting four more years of White House occupancy.

[John Mace]

Rick Perry is George Bush redux.

He's like Bush without the brains. :eek:

[The wind of my soul]

See, I separate the candidates into three categories: those I'm okay with, those I have a problem with but see redeeming qualities in, and those whom I just plain don't like.

Those I Don't Have a Problem With
Gary Johnson
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman
Barack Obama

Those I Have a Problem With, But Have Some Redeeming Qualities
Romney (mostly okay, but too militant for my tastes)
Gingrich (obnoxious, but fiercely intelligent)

Those I Don't Like At All
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum

[DianaG]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find "too militant" about Romney? I mean, I'm no fan, but the man is a human weathervane. He has no deeply held principles at all except for the conviction that he deserves to hold public office.

[foolsguinea]

I hear good things about Gary Johnson.
http://holdfastblog.com/2012/01/03/gary-johnson-civil-liberties/

[foolsguinea]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find "too militant" about Romney? I mean, I'm no fan, but the man is a human weathervane. He has no deeply held principles at all except for the conviction that he deserves to hold public office.Too nationalist, maybe. The man does have some overtones of Manifest Destiny in his rhetoric.

[The wind of my soul]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find "too militant" about Romney? I mean, I'm no fan, but the man is a human weathervane. He has no deeply held principles at all except for the conviction that he deserves to hold public office.

A big part of his rhetoric seems to be that we need to build up a big national defense, and intimidate everyone else by being the biggest and baddest. Admittedly, this viewpoint is not exclusive to Romney, but among the candidates, some seem to be more open to the idea of intelligent discussion and diplomacy with other countries than others. Santorum comes across as the most war-mongering of the bunch (to me), but Romney is right after.

[Frank]

In order:
Jon Huntsman
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Buddy Roemer
Rick Perry
Everybody Else
Why would I support any of them? I've already got a candidate of my own party that I'm unhappy with; I'm supposed to consider supporting a candidate of the opposing party that would make me even more unhappy?

A few months ago, I was attempting to make a case that Obama should not be depending on the liberal vote to get re-elected. The more I watch the Seven Dwarves, the more Obama can count on my vote. What a bunch of numbskulls!

[Grumman]

If I was an American, I would gladly vote for either Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul. I like Huntsman, and I like Paul's position on war, torture and habeas corpus.

Ron Paul's scorched earth ideas of doing away with taxes and most of the government is not only unrealistic, but not possible unless by some magic congress is suddenly taken over by libertarians; it's pure demagoguery.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'd rather have a President whose bad ideas are so bad that they're impossible to advance than a President whose bad ideas actually have a chance of success.

[Chefguy]

You say that like it's a bad thing. I'd rather have a President whose bad ideas are so bad that they're impossible to advance than a President whose bad ideas actually have a chance of success.

Both are a waste of time. The former never gets anything done. The latter gets things done that then need to be undone, or at least modified. Ron Paul is a crackpot and a racist, and I believe he's on the verge of full-on dementia.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Barack Obama.

The rotted corpse of binLaden would be preferable to the clowns running for the GOP.

Anybody other than Ron Paul would have approved killing Bin Laden.

Really? What do you have against Santorum. He seems like your kind of guy. If any of these Republican are elected you're going to get about the same results on the social conservative issues.

Does the reminder of anal sex make you uncomfortable? You hate sweater vests? The dead baby thing?

He seems to think focusing on social issues will win him the election. Other than typical GOP platitudes, he hasn't said really any word on economic policy. From what I have seen he will be the left's caricature of George W Bush (which Bush really wasn't)-divisive social reactionary, Islamophobic and ultraaggressive foreign policy, and no real reform of the economy.

[Chronos]

Anybody other than Ron Paul would have approved killing Bin Laden. Well, McCain said he wouldn't, and Bush considered bin Laden to not be a priority at all. But I think you're missing the point BobLibDem was making.

[WillFarnaby]

Anybody other than Ron Paul would have approved killing Bin Laden.

Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden and kill him. What he criticized is the way we carried out the mission without even notifying Pakistan. Encouraging good relations with nations that hold nuclear arms is one of his more unorthodox views.

[kaylasdad99]

Barack Obama.

The rotted corpse of binLaden would be preferable to the clowns running for the GOP.Or, for that matter, ever again putting a Republican into the WH.

[Batfish]

Anybody other than Ron Paul would have approved killing Bin Laden.



He seems to think focusing on social issues will win him the election. Other than typical GOP platitudes, he hasn't said really any word on economic policy. From what I have seen he will be the left's caricature of George W Bush (which Bush really wasn't)-divisive social reactionary, Islamophobic and ultraaggressive foreign policy, and no real reform of the economy.

Which one is offering economic reforms in their campaign? Really, the differences on policy between these candidates is merely campaign rhetoric. If I were a Republican choosing a nominee my standards would be simple.

1. Who can do the job; that is who can actually carry out the policies they're promoting. That eliminates Cain, Bachmann and Perry.

2. Who can be elected. You're suddenly down to a choice of one, Romney.

[IntelliQ]

The problem many republicans face is choosing someone who can actually defeat Obama during debates. Being a good governor, leader, economic expert, doesnt matter much if Obama can out-debate the nominee just out of sheer "used car salesmanship" skills. That's what happened last election.

Substance is largely out the window unfortunately. Smooth goes a long way with Americans who know the names of the Kardashian friends and family members but haven't a clue who our founding fathers are.

[Measure for Measure]

The problem many republicans face is choosing someone who can actually defeat Obama during debates. Being a good governor, leader, economic expert, doesnt matter much if Obama can out-debate the nominee just out of sheer "used car salesmanship" skills. That's what happened last election. Romney isn't an economic expert: he's a leveraged buyout guy and former hedge fund salesman. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, though there is. But it's a living and I don't doubt Romney's analytic skills or managerial ability. Some legislative background would help, but you can't have everything. Substance is largely out the window unfortunately. Smooth goes a long way with Americans who know the names of the Kardashian friends and family members but haven't a clue who our founding fathers are. I think most Americans can name George Washington and Thomas Jefferson but I don't believe that this is a sign of either great intelligence or mastery of contemporary public policy. And you didn't mention Obama's expertise in Constitutional Law, nor his managerial ability reflected in his campaign's victory over the Democratic frontrunner. Surely those are relevant for the Presidency. So perhaps you should hesitate before casting aspersions on our fellow Americans.


My list:

Obama
Buddy Roemer
Gingrich, because he can take down Romney and he's an unelectable walking time bomb.
Santorum, because he's an unelectable opponent of contraception.
Perry, because he's a drooling unelectable moron.
Ron Paul, because he's an unelectable crank of the purest variety and a peddler of bigotry besides.

None of the Republican candidates show any signs of backing textbook economics. All would be beholden to the Republicans in Congress and a constituency whose idea of subtle policy analysis runs towards death panels, long form birth certificates, moral panic, black helicopters and pious ignorant nonsense about the founding fathers. Cite on George Washinton (http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_GWashington.htm).

[DrumBum]

Here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game?loc=interstitialskip) is something that might help out. Amazingly enough, it match my selections I posted earlier.

[Skammer]

I'm not going to support or vote for any of them, but if forced at gunpoint, I would choose Huntsman > Romney > getting shot > anyone else on the list.

[Shodan]

Romney Gingrich Huntsman Obama

Regards,
Shodan

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Or, for that matter, ever again putting a Republican into the WH.

:rolleyes:

Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden and kill him. What he criticized is the way we carried out the mission without even notifying Pakistan. Encouraging good relations with nations that hold nuclear arms is one of his more unorthodox views.

Pakistan's government is infested with Islamists, any sort of notification would undoubtedly have been leaked to Bin Laden and he would have fled and a trap would have been sprung for our soldiers.