PDA

View Full Version : Down to Mitt and Mike: The Poll


patteeu
12-22-2007, 07:58 AM
Cochise posted an interesting column by Pat Buchanan (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=177149) in which Buchanan speculated that the GOP race for the presidential nomination may already be down to Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Which one would you rather see win the nomination and why?

If Ron Paul wins this poll, it's definitely been hacked.

banyon
12-22-2007, 08:01 AM
Romney, because he'd be easier to beat in the general election, IMO.

mlyonsd
12-22-2007, 08:53 AM
Romney, because he'd be easier to beat in the general election, IMO.

I don't know, I don't see either of them winning a general election. Unless of course Bill's wife is the opponent. Then both have a shot.

Sully
12-22-2007, 09:15 AM
I'd pick Romney for both reasons.

I lik ehis health care plan in Mass., and I think it'd be easier for Obama to beat him...

jAZ
12-22-2007, 09:16 AM
I've said this for months now...

I don't think I would agree with much of Huckabee's platform, but I trust that he's an intellectually honest person who will sincerely consider his decisions as President and not just be a blank slate to be manipulated by a small faction of the rightwing ideologues

irishjayhawk
12-22-2007, 09:51 AM
Neither. Because at that point, I'm voting Democrat or writing in.

What a horrible GOP race...

irishjayhawk
12-22-2007, 09:52 AM
I've said this for months now...

I don't think I would agree with much of Huckabee's platform, but I trust that he's an intellectually honest person who will sincerely consider his decisions as President and not just be a blank slate to be manipulated by a small faction of the rightwing ideologues

Wow, I think the opposite. :shrug:

wazu
12-22-2007, 09:59 AM
Romney because I would like for him to win.

bango
12-22-2007, 10:04 AM
Neither, I would vote third party. Actually I had better learn to choose between them to vote against Bill's Wife with her being a Socialist and all.

banyon
12-22-2007, 10:11 AM
Neither, I would vote third party. Actually I had better learn to choose between them to vote against Bill's Wife with her being a Socialist and all.

The poll didn't ask who you'd vote for in the actual election.

patteeu
12-22-2007, 11:11 AM
Romney because I would like for him to win.

That's how I voted too. If the race is down to Romney, Huckabee, and whoever the democrats nominate, Romney is easily my guy.

I don't really understand why people think that he'd be easier to beat than Huckabee either.

bango
12-22-2007, 11:20 AM
I know that the poll did not ask me who I would vote for to in the actuall election. If I am writing, I might be able to read? I was just trying to answer the question the best that I can. I think that in order to secure either of the nominations of the two main parties you have to show that you will be able to maintain the staus quo of what the platform is. They can say that they are not the same as the rest that are running for a ticket, but they can say anything as long as they do what they are asked. That is why those that really stand apart do not have a chance.

KCJohnny
12-22-2007, 12:54 PM
Senators never beat governors in presidential races. The last time a senator defeated a governor was 1920. The last senator elected president was JFK, a war hero, and he by the slightest of margins.

All the democratic candidates are senators - any GOP CEO beats a senator head-to-head in a long, intense campaign.

Silock
12-22-2007, 01:16 PM
Look like a Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich situation here. Neither.

Adept Havelock
12-22-2007, 01:27 PM
Mitt, the flip-flipper, or the Huckster, who thinks the proper role of Government is a social engineering nanny state, saving people from their own decisions.

And a Dem crop that's just as bad. :banghead:

Bowser
12-22-2007, 01:31 PM
Mitt, the flip-flipper, or the Huckster, who thinks the proper role of Government is a social engineering nanny state, saving people from their own decisions.

And a Dem crop that's just as bad. :banghead:

Yep. This has to be the worst presidential race evah.

Adept Havelock
12-22-2007, 01:34 PM
Yep. This has to be the worst presidential race evah.

Quite possibly. :shake:

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 02:53 PM
I like his health care plan in Mass.

Massachusetts will not have the streets plowed this winter, because Mitt bled the state dry for govt services and money has gone to various pressure groups.
Just wait 'til his health care kicks in.


ROFL

ClevelandBronco
12-22-2007, 03:32 PM
Put me down for Mitt.

recxjake
12-22-2007, 04:05 PM
NH paper shreds Romney Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:35 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Romney


From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Chuck Todd

The Concord Monitor writes an absolutely blistering editorial to be published tomorrow entitled, “Romney Should Not Be The Next President.” The paper does, however, have a rather small circulation (only about 20,000 -- a medium-sized paper is about 40,000 circulation), a liberal bent and the editorial seems to be made for a direct mail piece or TV spot. Here are some excerpts:

“If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.

“Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.” …

“If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.” …

“People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds [on gay rights, abortion, stem cell research and tax pledges] in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.” …

“When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

“Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/22/531593.aspx

irishjayhawk
12-22-2007, 05:00 PM
Look like a Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich situation here. Neither.

Mitt, the flip-flipper, or the Huckster, who thinks the proper role of Government is a social engineering nanny state, saving people from their own decisions.

And a Dem crop that's just as bad. :banghead:

Those are the two best descriptions if this is what the GOP wants.

BIG_DADDY
12-22-2007, 09:59 PM
RP

SNR
12-22-2007, 10:27 PM
Those are far and away my least favorite two Republican candidates. Who holds the most ire on that list depends on who opens their mouth.

At the moment, I think Romney would win between the two and I'd probably rather see Romney as president than Suckadick.

BIG_DADDY
12-22-2007, 10:54 PM
RP

BTW if they ever though RP had a real chance of winning they would kill him.

Calcountry
12-23-2007, 07:48 AM
Neither, I would vote third party. Actually I had better learn to choose between them to vote against Bill's Wife with her being a Socialist and all.no no no, you must coin a sexy sounding term for her, how bout "neo-soc". (neo-sosh)

Calcountry
12-23-2007, 07:58 AM
Yep. This has to be the worst presidential race evah.That's because you fools sweat this shit 24/7.

Get over it all ready. The election for president isn't until November, the ruling elites will have decided who us plebes are to choose from to placate us with the illusion of a "choice".

The primary process will have coalesced around 2 candidates before California even votes and so has it been my entire voting life. The general elections are called, with the exception of 2000, long before California's polls are closed on election night. Therefore it is conceivable that I can cast both votes in real time when they are inconsequential except to the "landslide claimers" and "inference drawers".

Why sweat the shit then I ask you?

I am sorry but this is the reality of the situation. The rest of it is a spectator sport like football, perhaps that is why you all are so interested?