Which Republican do you presently prefer for 2012?

Post Reply New Topic

The Iowa caucus is less than 3 weeks away, and the first primary election in New Hampshire close behind. We've seen a few candidates surge in the polls, and then collapse. We lost the funniest candidate ever, Herman Cain. Now that the final stretch is approaching, whom do you prefer?

Newt Gingrich: A sex criminal, and basically a bad, borish person. He is also a Science Fiction buff. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... proposals/

Mitt Romney: He seems to be forever in second place, even though we seldom hear anything about him, one way or the other.

Rick Perry: He was ahead in the polls, until word got out about his wild and perverted antics with male prostitutes. His low educational attainment makes him a favourite among Republicans. Lately, he has been desperate for the gay vote.

Michele Bachmann: the only chick in the race. I'm sure that she'll get some votes just for having a vagina. Other than that, the consensus is that she is just plain batshit crazy.

Ron Paul: He does very well in internet polls, and Libertarians are quite passionate about him. However, Libertarians usually end up getting far fewer votes in general elections than the enthusiasm of their supporters might lend you to believe. He'll probably win this poll, and then withdraw shortly after New Hampshire.

Rick Santorum: I don't know why he is even bothering.

Jon Huntsman: He is certainly among the top two Mormons in the race. He is probably too intelligent and too qualified to get many Republican votes. His dad is presently spending like crazy on advertising for him in New Hampshire. This may sway a few.

Elmer Fudd : endorsed by Rush Limbaugh himself. Mr. Fudd is a hunting enthusiast, a poster boy for the NRA, and about as intelligent as most Republicans. His name won't show up on ballots yet, and he is counting on a write-in campaign, as Rick Perry did during the Iowa straw poll.

Inuyasha: Absolutely no-one, not even Rupert Murdoch himself, knows the Republican/Fox News talking points more thoroughly, and is more willing to defend (to the metaphorical death) Republican actions and attitudes.

Michelle.

Ron won't drop out shortly after New Hampshire under any circumstances. He's polling at 20% in both states and has a decent chance of winning them. Things are looking good for a shocker come January 3rd.

Suppose he gets no delegates in either state? Will he continue?

Paul or Huntsman, the only reasonable choices. Now if Yosemite Sam were to throw his 10 gallon hat in the ring I might have reconsider.

There is no empirical evidence that Michelle Bachman has a vagina.

Yes even tho that is an impossibility. The amount of delegates available early on is largely irrelevant . Iowa and New Hampshire are proportional rather than winner take all too. Iowa and New Hampshire's importance stems from them being first in the nation to vote and building momentum.

Well, I guess for now I'm in favor of the two front runners, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. Believe they are the two that would have the best chances of winning the White House. Who ever gets the nod, it's going to be a close race. Independents hold the keys, and they are leaning away from the President right now.

"Why the 2012 Presidential Race is Too Close To Call"

From the article:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/ ... z1gXoTCVb9

Meh, it's Fox Noise. Take it with a bucket of salt.

Libertarians tend to be hopelessly optimistic.

Our platform supports the free availability of drugs, guns and sex; who wouldn't be optimistic?

I have sworn never to vote Republican in the past, but I throw my full support to Inuyasha!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Yeah, but you're within a party that is anti-sex and anti-drugs. Even Newt Gingrich claims that he will "uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1gbu7K2vF

Yeah, right. Who does he think that he is kidding?

Who are you calling a Republican? I don't know about Jacoby over there but I'm certainly not a GOP member. I may be anti-Obama this voting cycle because he's been a terrible president, that does not make me a Republican.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were a Republican--only that Ron Paul is operating within the context of the Republican party.

The alternative of going it alone in a third party or as an independent is pointless. Unless you're a billionaire who is willing to spend your own money, you can't even get noticed if you're not a Republican or Democrat let alone win and even if you did elected, you'd have no base of power. The only choice is to takeover one of the parties from the inside which has been done many times before by the the Neoconservatives in the GOP and New Left in the democratic party.