Does anyone else feel the Republican't win 2012?

[QUOTE="Darkainious"] Ahh, but would you vote for him if it was him and Obama?DroidPhysX

Neither.

Pauls views are too flawed and Obama caters to corporations too much.

Paul is the last chance for america...seriously. If he won the GOP, he would absolutely destroy Obama in the debates, no doubt. But unfortunately obama is a genuis speaker, so when he realizes he cant beat paul in arguments he would just keep going off on some conundrum to avoid looking bad in public eye. Paul would have a good shot if it was just him vs obama

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Darkainious"] Ahh, but would you vote for him if it was him and Obama?Ace6301

Neither.

Pauls views are too flawed and Obama caters to corporations too much.

I'm still going to vote for Huntsman in the primaries, and I'll vote for whichever Republican gets nominated in the general election. I do think they'll be able to get the White House in 2012, whether it be Newt, Romney or Huntsman. I think Huntsman is the most consistent candidate, but he doesn't seem to be getting any traction.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Neither.

Pauls views are too flawed and Obama caters to corporations too much.

DroidPhysX

I'm still going to vote for Huntsman in the primaries, and I'll vote for whichever Republican gets nominated in the general election. I do think they'll be able to get the White House in 2012, whether it be Newt, Romney or Huntsman. I think Huntsman is the most consistent candidate, but he doesn't seem to be getting any traction.

airshocker

most consistent? uhh no. ron paul has been saying literally the exact same stuff for 30+ yearsmingmao3046

Most consistent with an actual shot at winning. Ron Paul doesn't have one.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]most consistent? uhh no. ron paul has been saying literally the exact same stuff for 30+ yearsairshocker

Most consistent with an actual shot at winning. Ron Paul doesn't have one.

The liberal media is certainly dreading the possibility that Ron Paul might have a shot at the nomination. Their strategy is just to say he has absolutely no chance. Unfortunately conservative talk show hosts are in bed with the mainstream republican party, and they won't help him out either.

I do believe Ron Paul would have a chance against Obama. I can just imagine him standing next to that telepromter reading loser Obama. He would shine. I feel a geunine good heartendenss when Ron Paul talks. I had to study myself before I realized how much of this war-mongering is a joke. Turns out Ron Paul is spot on. I like Gingrich, but I just don't know... The beauty of Ron Paul is that where he really differentiates himself from Obama is on the economy. That could be a wonderful thing.

Darkainious

Speaking of regurgitating talking points....

Anyway, Ron Paul is not really that articulate. He just repeats his anti-government pro-Constitution creed over and over again.

????? Ron Paul has always been doing better than Huntsman in polls.mingmao3046

And national polls don't really mean much when the primaries haven't even started.

During the 2008 campaign Giuliani and Thompson were polling ahead of everyone else and McCain ended up getting the nomination.

Nice political cartoons.

Paul is the last chance for america...seriously. If he won the GOP, he would absolutely destroy Obama in the debates, no doubt. But unfortunately obama is a genuis speaker, so when he realizes he cant beat paul in arguments he would just keep going off on some conundrum to avoid looking bad in public eye. Paul would have a good shot if it was just him vs obama

mingmao3046

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]

Paul is the last chance for america...seriously. If he won the GOP, he would absolutely destroy Obama in the debates, no doubt. But unfortunately obama is a genuis speaker, so when he realizes he cant beat paul in arguments he would just keep going off on some conundrum to avoid looking bad in public eye. Paul would have a good shot if it was just him vs obama

GreySeal9

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

all of his answers have been completely on spot so far in the debates...there is no denying he is right on most everything. mingmao3046

Doesn't change the fact that Obama is far better at debating.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]

Paul is the last chance for america...seriously. If he won the GOP, he would absolutely destroy Obama in the debates, no doubt. But unfortunately obama is a genuis speaker, so when he realizes he cant beat paul in arguments he would just keep going off on some conundrum to avoid looking bad in public eye. Paul would have a good shot if it was just him vs obama

mingmao3046

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

I can certainly deny it and I do. I think the man is an ideologue who has the same shallow answers to every issue.

The general theory holds: If things are going bad, then the incumbent gets voted out. Could be a toss up at this point. I haven't seen anything that would give either side the definitive victory.DroidPhysX

Not always the case. In Australia we had our Prime Minister from 1996 to 2007. Times were great, but he got voted out due to a "need for change".

Back on topic, I don't think anyone in the Republican field has the ability to overthrow Obama. And I'm a conservative.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]all of his answers have been completely on spot so far in the debates...there is no denying he is right on most everything. airshocker

Doesn't change the fact that Obama is far better at debating.

This too. Ron Paul is actually painful to listen to sometimes.

Not to mention that debates are pretty much where you make yourself look good. They're not about ideas.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Not going to vote? mingmao3046

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]'

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

GreySeal9

I can certainly deny it and I do. I think the man is an ideologue who has the same shallow answers to every issue.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]

Paul is the last chance for america...seriously. If he won the GOP, he would absolutely destroy Obama in the debates, no doubt. But unfortunately obama is a genuis speaker, so when he realizes he cant beat paul in arguments he would just keep going off on some conundrum to avoid looking bad in public eye. Paul would have a good shot if it was just him vs obama

GreySeal9

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] all of his answers have been completely on spot so far in the debates...there is no denying he is right on most everything.mingmao3046

I can certainly deny it and I do. I think the man is an ideologue who has the same shallow answers to every issue.

No, you just agree with him, which is fine.

I don't buy into his tiny government ideology.

But just for the heck of it, I'll tell you one issue where I think his thinking is flawed:

He thought that we should have worked with Pakistan to take down Bin Laden. That is just ridiculously naive. There's a reason we carried out the operation unilaterally.

Why are so many political cartoons terrible?Lonelynight

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]

Paul is the last chance for america...seriously. If he won the GOP, he would absolutely destroy Obama in the debates, no doubt. But unfortunately obama is a genuis speaker, so when he realizes he cant beat paul in arguments he would just keep going off on some conundrum to avoid looking bad in public eye. Paul would have a good shot if it was just him vs obama

surrealnumber5

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

Yeah, and some people like that. But I'm not one of them. I mean, in a sense, his consistency looks good next to Romney's complete lack of any principles, but RP is just way too dogmatic about his beliefs IMO.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]'

lol, No he wouldn't. Ron Paul is completely one-note.

GreySeal9

Yeah, and some people like that. But I'm not one of them. I mean, in a sense, his consistency looks good next to Romney's complete lack of any principles, but RP is just way too dogmatic about his beliefs IMO.

edit: but i cant say your opinion is wrong, just that mine differs.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] yep, one consistent note, has been that way for longer than most here have been alive.surrealnumber5

Yeah, and some people like that. But I'm not one of them. I mean, in a sense, his consistency looks good next to Romney's complete lack of any principles, but RP is just way too dogmatic about his beliefs IMO.

edit: but i cant say your opinion is wrong, just that mine differs.

Well, I do think I kind of understand your point that when you're one of the only ones espousing a certain set of principles, you have to be more anchored than others.

I think Huntsman is the most consistent candidate, but he doesn't seem to be getting any traction.

airshocker

The problem is that he just isn't a leader. That has been made painfully obvious during the debates. His stupid little jokes and passive aggressive attacks on the rest of the field are annoying at best, shameful at worst. Coming from someone who would likely agree with him more often than not, I can't see Huntsman as being POTUS material.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I think Huntsman is the most consistent candidate, but he doesn't seem to be getting any traction.

QuistisTrepe_

The problem is that he just isn't a leader. That has been made painfully obvious during the debates. His stupid little jokes and passive aggressive attacks on the rest of the field are annoying at best, shameful at worst. Coming from someone who would likely agree with him more often than not, I can't see Huntsman as being POTUS material.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I think Huntsman is the most consistent candidate, but he doesn't seem to be getting any traction.

DroidPhysX

The problem is that he just isn't a leader. That has been made painfully obvious during the debates. His stupid little jokes and passive aggressive attacks on the rest of the field are annoying at best, shameful at worst. Coming from someone who would likely agree with him more often than not, I can't see Huntsman as being POTUS material.

Without any actual substance to them, he comes off as really small and petty. The reason why Huntsman is buried in the polls has little to do with his positions on issues.

The biggest change American politics needs right now is congress. Regardless of who wins the election, it'll be just another year of filibusters unless one party takes control of both houses.

Blue-Sky

I honestly dont believe we are going to have a 2012 election

The liberal media is ..Darkainious

Romney could easily win. He could easily lose as well tho.

GreySeal9

He would be the worst possible guy to make the argument in the general election that "Obamacare" was wrong when "Romneycare" was the blueprint for it.

peaceful_anger

This has been settled already. The Romneycare blueprint was never intended to be applied on a national level.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

He would be the worst possible guy to make the argument in the general election that "Obamacare" was wrong when "Romneycare" was the blueprint for it.

QuistisTrepe_

This has been settled already. The Romneycare blueprint was never intended to be applied on a national level.

Back to the question in the Topic line....

Consider that according to today's Rasmussen poll, Gingrich is leading Obama 45% to 43%, it is certainly possible.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

NOTE: I personally don't put too much weight in polls in general. Only mentioning this one and presenting it as anecdotal evidence that an Obama second term is not written in stone.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

He would be the worst possible guy to make the argument in the general election that "Obamacare" was wrong when "Romneycare" was the blueprint for it.

QuistisTrepe_

This has been settled already. The Romneycare blueprint was never intended to be applied on a national level.

That is simply Romney's damage control.

I would be very surprised if they do.

But you US folks are all crazily unpredictable so who knows.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

He would be the worst possible guy to make the argument in the general election that "Obamacare" was wrong when "Romneycare" was the blueprint for it.

GreySeal9

This has been settled already. The Romneycare blueprint was never intended to be applied on a national level.

That is simply Romney's damage control.

Back to the question in the Topic line....

Consider that according to today's Rasmussen poll, Gingrich is leading Obama 45% to 43%, it is certainly possible.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

NOTE: I personally don't put too much weight in polls in general. Only mentioning this one and presenting it as anecdotal evidence that an Obama second term is not written in stone.

Planet_Pluto

The entire dynamic changes once you start going state by state.

In the end, it will probably be either Gingrich or Romney facing Obama.

What is sad in the United States today is that they're all the same candidates. If you think any one of them is going to bring change in the United States, you're fooling yourself. Today's day in age, you need to cater to Wall Street to get the campaign funding you need to get elected. The oval office seems to be a middle man to the public on how to sell crap ideas and make it seems great. Well, crap ideas for the public, tremondous for the big banks.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Back to the question in the Topic line....

Consider that according to today's Rasmussen poll, Gingrich is leading Obama 45% to 43%, it is certainly possible.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

NOTE: I personally don't put too much weight in polls in general. Only mentioning this one and presenting it as anecdotal evidence that an Obama second term is not written in stone.

QuistisTrepe_

The entire dynamic changes once you start going state by state.

Good thing the world ends next year. >.>

Back to the question in the Topic line....

Consider that according to today's Rasmussen poll, Gingrich is leading Obama 45% to 43%, it is certainly possible.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

NOTE: I personally don't put too much weight in polls in general. Only mentioning this one and presenting it as anecdotal evidence that an Obama second term is not written in stone.

Planet_Pluto

It seems that Rasmussen is Repblican-biased. Also, Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com came to conclusion that their questions in the Wisconsin dispute may also have been biased and to look at their work with skepticism in the future. I wouldn't put too much stock in them

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

This has been settled already. The Romneycare blueprint was never intended to be applied on a national level.

surrealnumber5

That is simply Romney's damage control.

Well, if you want to know my theory on why Republicans are for Romney, I think the perception of electability is the only reason. If someone that seemed more electable/just as electable and more conservative came along, I think they'd drop him in a heartbeat.