Rank the current Rep. candidates: an unscientific poll for independents and Democrats

@sozobe,

If faced with doing this, I'll agree with Soz.

Sorry Johnson got slapped out, but it makes sense that he was. Not that I want him for president, there are aspects I don't know, but he sounds sane to me. I agree with Paul on one thing, but that's not enough given his other views (see John Cassidy, New Yorker). I admit to not knowing Huntsman but have not read anything about him that makes me barf, yet, so he's in first by default.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

He makes me barf occasionally, which is why I still like Joe's answer (and edgar's variation) best.

I like engineer's listing of reasons, thought of doing that and didn't, should have. For example, I think that Perry is just plain dumb and inept and if he really had the whole world in his hands that would be disastrous -- but as president he could surround himself with smart advisors and get by in a minimally OK way, probably. Bachmann, in contrast, is not that stupid and is a true believer, and would actively pursue various policies that I completely disagree with.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Well, that's my recent pushed motif, "the company they keep" (with ref to cells in hematology). I've admitted I've not been all swell with Obama's every choice of company, but even imagining who Perry would appoint sends me into apoplexy. Ok, not that rare, but still.

0 Replies

Perry is my governor. I see him as ruthless and heartless. Ambition in such a man is dangerous, in my view.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

I have homework to do on Huntsman. JPB likes him and she's well sane, if different to me politically (so, company they keep). I'll bother if he ends up well in New Hampshire.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I also like Huntsman. It's unfortunate he's so far down in the numbers.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Rank the current Republican candidates from the least anxiety inducing to the scariest

This thread is an unscientific survey aimed towards liberal Democrats, alleged centrists (who are not Republican wolves-in-independentSheeps' clothing)

Rank the current Republican candidates from the least anxiety inducing to the scariest:

I'll go first:
1. Ron Paul
2. Mitt Romney
3. Jon Huntsman

I choose: Jon Huntsman

I reject Mitt as being a R.I.N.O.

I must reject Ron Paul for his fanatical pacifism.
I can 't support a guy who thinks that a nuclear armed Iran is OK.

David

1 Reply

I was reading this today in the paper:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/issues

And sozlet, reading over my shoulder, suggested that we get a red and green marker and put dots next to the positions we agree with (green) or disagree with (red).

There was a whole lotta red going on, but it was instructive.

Huntsman came in first with 5.5 greens. (Some positions were half and half.) Paul was next with 3.5 greens. Romney and Perry each got a single green each. (Romney was tricky though because I often agreed with his past positions but not his current positions. So how to score? I decided to go with current and ignore past.) Santorum and Gingrich each rated a .25 (I sort of agreed with a part of one position). Bachmann was dead last with a big row of red and nothing but red.

So, in that case Paul should score above Romney -- but for one thing, I think Romney is more pragmatic than Paul, and for another, the things I disagree with re: Paul tend to be big things that would affect the country more than the things I disagree with re: Romney.

Overall though that was a very red page.

0 Replies

The only two of the bunch I'd have any reservations about at all are Paul and Huntsman. Other than that what we (pubbies) are looking for really is the best speaker of the group and that's because Bork Obunga can't really walk, talk, and/or chew gum at the same time without a teleprompter in front of him and ideally, you'd want the best possible contrast to that. An ideal candidate would be a pubbie version of Tony Blair but Romney or Gingrich either one would do and an ideal ticket with both guys on it would wipe the dem party into oblivion.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I reject Mitt as being a R.I.N.O.

All we're talking about here is getting the govt. back under adult supervision, and Mitt has the best and cleanest shot at that and according to Rasmussen he has the only shot at it:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/only-mitt-beats-obama/

Christine O'Donnell has come out in suppport of Romney:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-573 ... es-romney/

Ann Coulter supports Romney:

http://anncoulter.com/

And I have to assume that if Mitt is conservative enough for those two, he's at least as conservative as I need him to be.

With Romney in the whitehouse:

Apology tours will end.

The principal of fish/snail darters/shad/delta-smelts/lizards over people and human infrastructure will end.

The present Gaea-worshiping anti-energy policies will end.

Obunga-care will end. Anybody claiming there is more than a coincidental resemblance between what Romney did with health care and Obunga-care is either a liar or an idiot.

The present Bleeding-in-front-of-sharks foreign policy will end.

The Dodd/Frank/Freddie/Fannie policies which created the catastrophe of 2008 will end....

The Obunga war against middle class America will end along with the Obunga "justice" department.

Basically the government will be back under adult supervision. It is clear that Romney can win this one and do all of that and it's pretty far from clear that any of the other pubbies can. Newt Gingrich in particular may have ten or fifteen IQ points over the others but he clearly looks like somebody whose best days are way behind him and I'd really rather not take the chance on that putting Obunga back in the whitehouse for another 4 years, the nation would not survive it.

0 Replies

Ann Coulter in particular has taken a cold, hard look and assessment of the situation:

www.anncoulter.com

She has taken an accurate assessment of the American voting public and the question of who has the best shot at actually winning this thing, and she correctly notes that neither Perry nor Gingrich has ever won a major election outside of solid red territory. Romney has actually achieved something which none of the loudmouths or Jim Robinsons of the world or triple-chromosome super conservatives have ever done i.e. gotten himself elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Other than that what we (pubbies) are looking for really is the best speaker of the group and that's because Bork Obunga can't really walk, talk, and/or chew gum at the same time without a teleprompter in front of him and ideally, you'd want the best possible contrast to that.

Riiiight. The bubble is amazing (but useful).

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Quote:

Riiiight. The bubble is amazing (but useful).

Aside from whatever question there might be about the number of dumbed-down and/or indoctrinated people which might have been added to the voting lists since Reagan was elected, there's also the consideration that more than 50% of all voters everywhere are women and there's a question as to who measures up the best along that sort of a scale, which clearly would not be Gingrich.

I mean, by issues my first choice would be Perry but, again, the main concern here is simply getting rid of Bork Obunga and Romney appears to have the best shot at it.

0 Replies

What Edgar and Joe said!!!

0 Replies

Since my kind has been requested not to provide a ranking, I will not but I have to say that the majority of the posts in this thread strongly suggest that most of you have no clue as to what the Republican candidates actually stand for.

Case in point: The Liberal flirtation with Jon Huntsman.

It is the same superficial regard that has resulted in his candidacy not being supported by Republicans.

It's pretty effin obvious that the majority of Democrats responding to this thread are going to favor the GOP candidates who have the least support of Republicans.

The thinking certainly goes: If those Neanderthals don't like _____, he/she must be the least offensive to a good Liberal.

Huntsman's conservative bonafides are pretty solid. Personally he is unappealing, but in addition to this flaw, the main reason he hasn't gotten traction is that he served in the Obama administration.

This is an idiotic reason to dislike him or like him.

Ron Paul: The guy spews isolationist, truther nonsense and Liberals say, "This guy may not be so bad." If any of you have Ron Paul in your top three you know nothing about Ron Paul.

The expected common theme here is that anyone who can be identified as a Social Conservative drops to the bottom of the list.

This is interesting and ironic.

If your number one concern is about a candidate for whom social issues are extremely important, then you have a lot more in common with that candidate than you would ever admit.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The expected common theme here is that anyone who can be identified as a Social Conservative drops to the bottom of the list.

This is interesting and ironic.

How is that ironic? A group of socially progressive people are turned off by the idea of government interference in their personal lives.

In other news, water is wet.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

How is that ironic? A group of socially progressive people are turned off by the idea of government interference in their personal lives.

The fear is something like "God in heaven, those lunatic republicans are gonna force me to have six kids!!!!!"

Two things to note:

1. It ain't gonna happen.

2. For what the dems are gonna cost you, you could AFFORD six kids.....

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Ann Coulter in particular has taken a cold, hard look and assessment of the situation:

www.anncoulter.com

She has taken an accurate assessment of the American voting public and the question of who has the best shot at actually winning this thing, and she correctly notes that neither Perry nor Gingrich has ever won a major election outside of solid red territory. Romney has actually achieved something which none of the loudmouths or Jim Robinsons of the world or triple-chromosome super conservatives have ever done i.e. gotten himself elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican.

He did that by being a R.I.N.O., apostate.

The GOP is America's conservative party.
If Romney had espoused conservative principles there he'd have had NO chance of election.

Individual freedom at the expense of government jurisdiction does not stand high in his ideals.

David

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Same sex marriages are an issue greatly exaggerated by their supporters and opponents.

Exaggeration is the common trait of Social Progressives and Social Conservatives.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

He did that by being a R.I.N.O., apostate

The key is that he did it.

0 Replies

Rank the current Rep. candidates: an unscientific poll for independents and Democrats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know