Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Candidate most likely to defeat Obama | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2012, 09:19 PM (490 Views) | |
| brumdog44 | Jan 23 2012, 09:19 PM Post #1 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
Which republican candidates do you believe stand have the best chance to beat Obama, and in what order? Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Santorum.... Here is what realclearpolitics (which takes an average of all polls) has it as: 1. Romney 2. Paul 3. Santorum 4. Gingrich IMO, Gingrich most definitely would have a better shot than Santorum and maybe marginally better than Paul....but it speaks to an issue. Romney definitely looks to be the one with the best chance should he get the nomination; Gingrich may please the hard line conservatives but not independent or crossover vote. So what is the order you feel -- based solely on electability -- the four candidates fair? And, for conservatives on the board, if Romney stood a 60% chance to win and Gingrich a 30% chance, Paul a 20% chance, and Santorum a 10% chance, who would you prefer be the candidate? |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | Jan 23 2012, 10:34 PM Post #2 |
|
Coach
|
If Paul were to win the nomination, I think he'd have the best shot. The majority of Paul supporters I know voted for Obama. If he managed to get the full Republican base to support him, I don't think the election would be close. That said, his speech-giving skills are clearly lacking, so its going to be hard for him to win the casual voter. |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jan 23 2012, 10:55 PM Post #3 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
Polls do not back up your supposition, yawnzzz. The reality is that there are some very important people in the republican pecking order that don't want Paul to be the nominee because, simply put, he isn't someone that they can control. Romney is and will support what their will is....if you take a look at the endorsements of legislatures that the difference candidates are getting the sheer numbers that Romney has been getting dwarf the rest....and controlability and electability are the major reasons. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jan 24 2012, 07:56 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Coach
|
I'm not sure how many votes those "very important people" have. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jan 24 2012, 09:57 AM Post #5 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
I agree with the poll's order. If by some miracle Paul won, and got enough Congressional support to make the drastic cuts he proposes, our economy would crater, and the liberals would be back in charge in 2014. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jan 24 2012, 10:31 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Coach
|
cutting deficit spending would crater our economy? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jan 24 2012, 11:17 AM Post #7 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Short term, there would be great pain felt by many, more than enough to elect liberals. For years people talked about how entitlements would eventually be unsustainable. Politically, nobody has been willing to address it, as it would be political suicide. Inflation will have to be the bad guy... |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jan 24 2012, 12:17 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Coach
|
The attacks on Romney's tax return (which is an attack on capitalism) is almost enough to make me support him. He gave 15% to charity, paid 15% in taxes on capital gains only, which was earned with money that he was already taxed on previously. And somehow this enrages the left. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| tAmazingHoosier | Jan 24 2012, 02:17 PM Post #9 |
|
Coach
|
Santorum? LOL He doesn't have a penguins shot in hell. No way he out-bids Gingrich. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM Post #10 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
You know as well as I do that the higher ups have huge influence. Bob Dole never wins a republican primary without support of the establishment. If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader. If you don't think that the establishment has a huge influence, then I want you to answer how a vice presidential candidate was chosen last time when they most certainly were not in the top five choices of the presidential candidate. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jan 25 2012, 08:07 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Coach
|
the "higher ups" have influence, but they also need the people more than the people need them. They are chameleons when it comes to who/what they support. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM Post #12 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Ummm..... No. 1) Too old 2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof) 3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve 4) Wants to legalize narcotics 5) Poor orator |
| |
![]() |
|
| chops1221 | Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM Post #13 |
|
Coach
|
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'. I really don't get that one. |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM Post #14 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Gingrich has some serious issues. 1) He was impeaching Clinton for sex while he was having a scandal with an aid. Americans hate hypocrisy. 2) Ethics violations 3) Kicked out of the House leadership by his own party. Yes, he would be good at bashing Obama, but the campaign will be about his dubious past, and sadly, Obama would prevail. |
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM Post #15 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:51 PM Jul 10
|










7:51 PM Jul 10