Romney and Perry are the main contenders in the GOP primary. Huntsman, I realize, hasn’t built any momentum yet but (call me crazy) I think he could be the McCain-ish moderate-ish wild card who wins the race. The other two people who could win a primary who some think might join the race are Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. Personally I don’t think either of them are going to join, but if they did, I think they’d both have a good shot at the nomination (Feel free to disagree with all of the above).
I realize the following is a speculative question, but I’m interested in what the teeming millions think: At the end of the day, how good of a chance do you think each of the above-mentioned individuals, respectively, would have of beating President Obama in a general election?
I think Romney has the best chance of making it close.
Perry might have a chance, depending on how much or how little the media focuses on his craziness.
The rest are non-starters because they are too ensconced within a very narrow portion of the electorate and can’t win a General Election (Perry should actually be in this category too, but for some reason the media has been putting him in the “sane” category).
The GOP is in a catch 22 in that the potential candidates who could have a broad enough appeal to win a General Election can’t pass the ideological purity test to get nominated. Romney is the closest thing they really have to a candidate who can both win the nomination and compete in the General.
I agree with Dio’s analysis. Perry seems to be somewhat of a media darling right now (for some unknown reason), but he sure looks like the someone who could implode on the national scene. We’re not all Texas here in the US of A.
I still say Obama takes it, assuming things are roughly as they are now. Even with the high unemployment rate, I just don’t see a GOP candidate who can lure the independents.
Obviously, we’re far enough away that someone could still come out of the woodwork, but I’m having a hard time thinking of one. Who knows?
Christie is starting to make some mild grunts; maybe he or some other more-or-less mainstream Republican will attempt to seize the opportunity presented by the lackluster support for Romney, and the plain fact that none of the Seven Dwarves could win an election for Dogcatcher in Chief.
If the economy does not improve significantly between now and Nov. 2012, many of the Republican candidates could defeat President Obama. Absent substantial improvement, the President will lose the general election, just as President Bush did in 1992 and President Carter did in 1980. As people keep reminding us during such elections, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
There are a few of the candidates who would struggle to accomplish it, and might well fail, but they are unlikely to obtain the nomination anyway.
I’m going to have to agree with this as well. I’ve seen every GOP hopeful called a “RINO” or worse on the right-wing forums. The Right has kind of painted itself into a corner in trying to cast Obama as a “socialist”- at this point, any potential candidate who isn’t willing to do the exact opposite of everything Obama has done is clearly too “far far ultra-left-wing”.
I hear this argument on this board all of the time that the GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot by nominating right-wing extremists that can’t get elected. Apart from possibly Goldwater in '64, when has this ever happened? Reagan and Bush II are examples of politicians who were very socially conservative and that didn’t hurt them a bit in the general election.
It seems that the GOP loses when it nominates the RINO type Bob Dole and John McCain candidates.
Nobody’s made that claim in this thread, nor do I remember it being made much in any other thread.
They’re in danger of doing that this time, since they seem to have been hijacked by the teabaggers, but that doesn’t amount to claim that they’ve done it in the past. Traditionally, the nutters do well in Iowa, and then the GOP corrects to safety and sanity afterwards. This year, the field is unusually heavy with nutters and unusually thin on credible candidates, and party may not be able to pull the process back away from the crazy.
Reagan was left of Obama, and Bush II lost.
W was practically a pinko by Tea Party standards anyway,
Huntsman is the only sane one in the bunch, and the only one who embodies what the Republican party used to be before the crazies took over. If he can gain enough traction to win the primary, he’s a very real threat to Obama as a moderate candidate. He’s gone on the attack on the other candidates, but I have my doubts that he can sell it without some pandering, which he doesn’t seem willing to do (to his credit).
Perry: the last prez candidate that people just wanted to have a beer with left the country with a gigantic hangover. It’s too soon for another boy-howdy aw-shucks Texan.
Romney: For a real dose of crazy, familiarize yourself with his belief system. Not that he’s unelectable, and in fact is probably favored to win the nomination.
Ron Paul: came in second in the vote, but his rational statements are outweighed by the crazy.
Gerry Ford was an old-school Republican who knew the value of compromise and even handedness in governance. The present crop is a radicalized mob that panders to extremist views.
I’m going to respectfully disagree that Romney’s religion is any more indication of insanity than anybody else’s. All religions look bananas when you really examine them.
Bush I won against Dukakis. I think I could have won against Dukakis. Plus his “Read my lips, no new taxes” was conservative. He nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. When he backtracked on his “no new taxes” pledge, he alienated the right and lost reelection.
Ford was never elected to the Presidency, and he lost the only time he ran.
Dio, Reagan to the LEFT of Obama? I’ve got to hear this. And no need to rehash the 2000 election arguments, but the results show Bush: 271 Gore: 266. Bush won.
And what was he? Religious, pro-life, anti gay marriage, pro tax cuts. Voters didn’t flee him in droves because of those positions.
Huntsman could beat any Democratic candidate except Obama. His problem is that he can’t credibly run against the guy whose administration he worked under. Well, his general-election problem, at least: His real problem, of course, is that there’s no chance he could win a primary. Near as I can tell, he’s running right now to build name recognition, and gambling on the Republicans both losing in 2012 and growing more sane by 2016, in which case he’d be very well-placed to go all the way.
Reagan raised taxes 11 times. Obama has never raised them once, and has, in fact cut them. The top marginal tax rate under Obama is 35%. Under Reagan the top marginal tax rate was over 50% for 7 of his 8 years in office, and dropped to 37.5%
Yes, that’s right. He lost, and he was as small-town, far-right, non-Establishment, Tea Party candidate as you were ever likely to have running for the Republicans in those days. He had a lifetime of bonafides as a pure right-winger, and about a year’s experience as a moderate in the Oval Office.
Bush I was done in by a compination of two things:
[ul]
[li]The Tax Increase he signed off on[/li]
[li]The 3rd Party run of Ross Perot - who was supported by those that would be termed Tea Partiers today.[/li][/ul]
I think the GOP is caught on the horns of dilemma; if they nominate a Teavangleist like Perry or Bachmann, they will lose moderates and independents in the general election; but if they nominate a mainstream Republican like Romney or Huntsman, the Tea Party will go ballistic and run their own candidate in a third party bid. Either scenario re-elects Obama by a comfortable margin.