Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Looking for an honest answer here....not who you'd vote for....but what you think will happen.

Drewski

Mrs are we able to pick multiple options, or is it assumed that if one happens, others cant?

EDIT: Ill just go ahead an answer the question.

In my humble opinion the only R candidate that has a chance in the general election is Romney.

1. Paul (whether you agree with the term or not) scares a lot of people on "both" sides of the aisle.
2. Santorum and my Pet Newt will both suffer from the same situation. While they can placate to and are viewed attractively by the the Conservative base, their appeal is lost (for various reasons) on Independents, which, like almost every other election is where it is won.

I think it honestly comes down to how much faith Independents will have in the President come November. If he can get some of it back (not from the Left base cuz they arent going to win it for him) then he should fare all right. If Independents en mass "feel" Romney will more closely represent their brand of government better than what he have had for the last 4 years, then it is his to lose.

JackBauer

It depends what happens with the economy. It's actually pretty interesting how closely the two correlate; it's no coincidence that Obama's approval is back in positive territory just as consumer confidence and right track/wrong track has risen.

Assuming the trend continues and we/Europe don't plunge into a recession, I don't see any of the Republican candidates beating Obama. And if we do plunge into a recession, the only one I can really see winning is Romney.

Regardless, a terrible slate of candidates no matter how you slice it.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

I didn't set it up for multiple answers....but if you've got some sort of theory or formula (such as, if Santorum drops out now and endorses Gingrich....or If Paul runs as an Independent it'll take votes from Obama) it'd be good to state so here.

I realize there are all sorts of possibilities, but after watching last night's debate I really think they're actively destroying everyone's chance of winning.

Paul and Santorum came out looking the best last night, if you ask me. But I don't think either of them has a chance in the general election. They are too far into their own positions and not amendable to the middle at all. Gingrich and Romney are just doing Obama's dirty work for him.

Romney actually looked presidential last night - but now there's more stuff coming out about his released tax return and the things they "forgot" to release....(like several more Swiss and Cayman Island accounts.) I think, if people ask him to go back even further, it's going to be ugly. And, if I were Obama and Romney was my opponent, I'd sure be asking. Obama's got nothing to lose by doing so, his past returns are already out there and they've been scrutinized to death.

Drewski

I agree Jack. I think most of the candidates (on both sides) the last few cycles have been underwhelming to say the least.

I seems to me that the only ones we get are the ones we can stuff into one box or the other. People who have middle of the road ideas/stands (two examples for me would be the Clinton's in the Left of Center-Center role, and Jon Huntsman in the Right of Center-Center role) seemingly get lost along the way.

The more extreme candidates generally seem to be the ones who make it to the end, IMHO, to the detriment of us all. This is America for peets sake, we should have to pick between two awesome people, not the best of two "bad" options, which is how many people vote. Further more, when you have one of the extremes, you are leaving anyone who doesn't subscribe to that brand (whether its the middle of the road people, or the opposite extreme) "out in the cold". We should all be included, listened to and responsible for setting our county's path.

Just my 3 cents.

Drewski

I voted none of the above. Reason:

While I think Romney is the only R who can beat Obama (as I stated in my previous post), currently Romney has a Republican problem.

The longer My Pet Newt is allowed to remain relevant in this discussion (which I still cant grasp), the worse it is for Romney. Not in a "if you let Newt hang around he will gain momentum" way, but in a My Pet Newt is a snake, dirty politician through and through. He will utilize issues (like the income tax stuff) to paint Romney in a negative light.

While I dont think Newt will win the nomination (although I could be wrong). I think the longer My Pet Newt stays in it, the more damage he will do to Romney in the eyes of more centrist voters.

Thus by the time the general election comes along (all things being equal) Obama will face a Romney who is "physically beaten"* already. Obama could make that square off more about Romney than the issues.

* Similarly to how some people were saying at the beginning of the playoffs that they hoped the Pats would play Baltimore after Balt. had played the Steelers. Having Baltimore after they would be beaten up by the Steelers would make the Pats beating Baltimore easier.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

He does, but I think Newt actually has the bigger Republican problem. All you have to do is read Drudge, Ann Coulter, WSJ or any number of right leaning publications.

Thing is, as long as he stays in it, Romney is forced to resort to Newttactics to compete with him. I read that his campaign has ex-republican congressmen who worked with Newt showing up at Newt rallies and bad mouthing him to his followers.

I also think that most people are already disgusted with the SuperPacs of both Newt and Romney....so the more either of them rely on lots of nasty ad time and robocalls, the worse each of them ends up looking.

Yes, I agree. They keep forcing one another into corners - "I'm more right that you are," "I'm tougher on immigration," "I'm going to the moon," etc.. It'll be hard for the victor to wiggle back out of the box he's put himself into.

Plus, they're telling outright lies about one another....and once the lie is out there and repeated often enough, it becomes as truth to most people.

I understand that partisan politics are bad business, but there's a discipline which comes with a tightly-knit organization which is sadly lacking in today's Republican party and that might end up making all the difference.

I suppose much may still depend on who the winner chooses as his running mate - but at this point I don't even trust either Romney or Newt to even have enough sense to chose that wisely, either.

Wolfpack

Every primary has one party engage in a tremendous amount of infighting, only to kiss and make up in summer at the convention. Obama v. Clinton was probably the most contentious primary of the past almost 50 years in terms of going down to the wire, but that certainly didn't stop Obama from winning the general election.
Sure thing, Mrs. Only the republicans have these sorts of problems. It's all sunshine and roses for the democrats.

Drewski

Agreed. It was a knock down drag out it seemed between those two.

For the life of me I still dont understand during a primary that one person can claim the other isnt qualified etc etc etc, then turn around and have them in the admin. Just always found that funny.

Or like McCain last year bad mouthing Romney during the primary, to turn around and endorse him this year.

Drewski

They were talking about this situation last night on NBC Nightly News. Makes for good political theater if that is your thing. Id personally rather all the drama be gone from the process and we just hear the stances on the issues. Not this tear down for a year until one remains standing.

But then it wouldnt be politics right