If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Santorum is now on top of Romney   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 169
    More: Followup, Super Tuesdays, South Carolina primary, ticker symbol, Republican debates, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Governor  
•       •       •

2274 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2012 at 12:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-20 12:22:11 PM  

heinekenftw: [cdn.styleforum.net image 600x750]


Thanks, I needed that. I was unknowingly furrowing my brow so hard I was getting a headache.

No sane person should want to have anything to do with Santorum.
 
2012-02-20 12:22:21 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Backwards Cornfield Races: Can we please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASE PLEASE PLASE stop talking about the election until august when it will actually matter?

/oh wait, we need ratings

carry on

(yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)

You sound like you only watch the last five minutes of basketball games as well.


You make it sound like either of these things are bad things.
 
2012-02-20 12:25:41 PM  

I_C_Weener: Romney is competent, clean and articulate. And from day 1 has been criticized and targets from the left and right. And he's still the guy to beat in the primaries.


If the Romney running today were the Romney who governed MA, I'd give him more respect. Instead, he's spent the entire election cycle hopping from one foot to the other while occasionally dragging out some tired schtick he thinks plays well to the rubes. (C'mon Mitt--one more round of American the Beautiful! The crowd loves it). He seems anything BUT competent when he keeps contradicting his record. Had he just stuck to his guns, he'd probably be having a better run. Yeah, he'd scare off the Teabaggers, but they're not the majority, anyway. He'd have swayed the disaffected fiscal conservatives & the independents and probably even beaten Obama. But now, even if he gets the nomination, all he'll do is fail spectacularly.

After that, it's anyone's guess whether the GOP will FINALLY learn their lesson and actually take a look at the antiquated, moronic, hate-spewing group they've become.
 
2012-02-20 12:26:58 PM  

lennavan: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

Next time the Southern States start threatening to secede, I vote we just let them go.


as long as there's a sponsorship/refugee program for people like me who are reasonably intelligent but circumstances prevent being able to escape the Republic of Gilead Jesustan.

/although NC can be pretty reasonable... sometimes
//raised in SC, so I'm lucky I can read
 
2012-02-20 12:29:44 PM  
The GOP Convention this year is going to bring some epic and fatal drinking games.
 
2012-02-20 12:30:30 PM  

sdd2000: Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.

I don't know but I would make popcorn for that one!


www.milehimama.com

We're gonna need a bigger bowl.
 
2012-02-20 12:31:49 PM  
Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

As for Santorum, given the choice, a lot of repubs would rather be right than in power. That frees them of any responsibility if things go wrong, so running Santorum, even though he is a sure loser in the general election, means that a lot of people get to maintain their credentials as purists and morally superior. These are the same people who wanted Detroit to go bankrupt purely on principle, who wanted the banks to go under purely on principle, who want people to lose their homes purely on principle and be denied unemployment benefits purely on principle. It's a win/win situation--you know responsible people are not going to let you get your way, destroying the country in the process, and you get to complain about how bad things are because your radical policiesa weren't put into practice. The only thing I don't understand is why these folks aren't supporting Paul instead of Santorum. He is the natural candidate of the batshiat crazy contingent.
 
2012-02-20 12:32:36 PM  

Aarontology: SO the GOP is going to run on a "Let's turn America into Iran, but with Jesus" platform.

OK. Good luck with that.


Jesus is actually pretty big with those guys. But I see your point, and encourage the republicans to keep this shiat up until November.
 
2012-02-20 12:32:45 PM  

Im_Gumby: For some odd reason after reading your post, I feel the need to respond in Grand Moff Tarkin's voice.


You had better be right about this Obama. I'm taking a big chance letting them run Santorum.
 
2012-02-20 12:33:03 PM  

clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.


The far right would go nuclear and splinter.
 
2012-02-20 12:33:16 PM  

Macinfarker: The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.


Wading into the santorum pool

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-20 12:34:28 PM  

Notabunny: Macinfarker: The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

Wading into the santorum pool

[img.photobucket.com image 640x480]


pool lacks froth
 
2012-02-20 12:35:19 PM  

I_C_Weener: AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.

Two things. If it isn't Romney, I'll abstain from voting, because the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama.


I don't get that thinking. Shouldn't you actually for the best available, even if it's holding your nose? Do you really want to be responsible if your "worse than X" actually comes true because you didn't try to prevent that from happening? That's some real Peter Parker-level thinking there! Or it's only important to pick the best of the guys with a particular letter next to his name? What a way to be an independent thinker! What a way to be a part of process! VERY American Exceptionalismly, because you ONLY SUPPORT YOUR GAY! and noone else! I DON'T NEED A PURPLE FINGER!
 
2012-02-20 12:35:46 PM  

Macinfarker: The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.




I know no one is really voting FOR any of the candidates, but I can't imagine any good coming from nominating/appointing a candidate that's not currently in the running. I would actually bet the results would be worse than if any of the current people were running.
 
2012-02-20 12:35:52 PM  

SixPaperJoint: sdd2000: Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.

I don't know but I would make popcorn for that one!

[www.milehimama.com image 348x208]

We're gonna need a bigger bowl.


Golf clap- Bravo sir
 
2012-02-20 12:36:28 PM  

clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.


No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."
 
2012-02-20 12:37:07 PM  

Im_Gumby: Macinfarker: I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.

For some odd reason after reading your post, I feel the need to respond in Grand Moff Tarkin's voice.


Any attack made by the Democrats against our party would be a useless gesture, no matter what oppo data they have obtained. Santorum is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it!
 
2012-02-20 12:39:58 PM  

DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."


Huntsman DID run.

And The VP nominee often was not a candidate. (See... Well... everyone in the last few elections anyway... Biden, Palen, Cheney, Lieberman, I guess edwards had run.)
 
2012-02-20 12:40:17 PM  

heinekenftw: [cdn.styleforum.net image 600x750]


Much appreciated!
 
2012-02-20 12:40:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.


What's black, frothy, and covered in animal hair?
 
2012-02-20 12:41:19 PM  
Well, sure. You didn't think the Christers were going to let the Mormon take the nom without a challenge, did you?
 
2012-02-20 12:41:37 PM  

DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."


Huntsman did run, which is why I'm putting him at the top of the ticket. But you're right, the repubs would never run on one platform or set of issue, then turn around and do the complete opposite, alienating and screwing over their own people. It's only happened like twenty or thirty times in the last three years. Or as Gingrich would put it: "Shut your whore mouth and do as you're told."
 
2012-02-20 12:42:52 PM  

clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.


Such a ticket would be the end of the Republican party, it would be a big FU to social conservatives who would go on and vote third party, breaking up the alliance of interests that allows Republicans to win any races in the first place. The most reasonable thing Republicans can do right now is let Santorum win the nomination this year since they will lose the general election regardless. Then Republicans can come back in 2016 with a more moderate candidate who actually has a chance to becoming president, telling the extremists they had their chance and going to the far right doesn't win elections.

My hope though is that they go with Romney so the Republican party can continue to flounder in irrelevance through 2016 and beyond.
 
2012-02-20 12:43:11 PM  
Republicans just aren't thinking this all the way through. Romeny can easily pick a religious kook for VP to appeal to teabaggers, but there is no one on Earth that Santorum can pick that will make him appealing to independent voters.
 
2012-02-20 12:43:27 PM  

I_C_Weener: Romney is competent, clean and articulate.


I'll coincide "clean" but not the other two. Romney flubs constantly on camera (I like firing people, I don't care about the poor). As for referring to Romney as competent, no. Whoever is running Romney's campaign is obvious very competent but Romney himself is just another rich boy figure head like GW. Most people forget George Romney was a politically connected multimillionaire CEO. On top of all that Romney changes his position constantly.
 
2012-02-20 12:44:08 PM  

clambam: DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."

Huntsman did run, which is why I'm putting him at the top of the ticket. But you're right, the repubs would never run on one platform or set of issue, then turn around and do the complete opposite, alienating and screwing over their own people. It's only happened like twenty or thirty times in the last three years. Or as Gingrich would put it: "Shut your whore mouth and do as you're told."


Huntsman never got more than 3% in the Gallup tracking. He has no support in the party.
 
2012-02-20 12:44:48 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: clambam: DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."

Huntsman did run, which is why I'm putting him at the top of the ticket. But you're right, the repubs would never run on one platform or set of issue, then turn around and do the complete opposite, alienating and screwing over their own people. It's only happened like twenty or thirty times in the last three years. Or as Gingrich would put it: "Shut your whore mouth and do as you're told."

Huntsman never got more than 3% in the Gallup tracking. He has no support in the party.


Thats because he was the only one there who wasnt trying to sell a book.
 
2012-02-20 12:45:50 PM  

snowshovel: I_C_Weener: AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.

Two things. If it isn't Romney, I'll abstain from voting, because the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama.


I don't get that thinking. Shouldn't you actually for the best available, even if it's holding your nose? Do you really want to be responsible if your "worse than X" actually comes true because you didn't try to prevent that from happening? That's some real Peter Parker-level thinking there! Or it's only important to pick the best of the guys with a particular letter next to his name? What a way to be an independent thinker! What a way to be a part of process! VERY American Exceptionalismly, because you ONLY SUPPORT YOUR GAY! and noone else! I DON'T NEED A PURPLE FINGER!


I don't support Obama. Some things of his I agree with, but I disagree with more than I agree. Can't support a candidate if I don't support enough of his positions.

And yeah, I haven't voted for a Dem for president ever. I probably would have reconsidered my 1996 vote though.

Don't worry, I'm not voting for Lugar either. I'll abstain that time too. I can't support another 6 years for any old Senators, much less ones who instead of listening to their constitutency put them on a junk email list.

Basically, I'm going to have very few national office candidiates I'll vote for this year.
 
2012-02-20 12:47:47 PM  
i373.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-20 12:48:30 PM  

Felgraf: The far right would go nuclear and splinter.


There may be no way to avoid that.
 
2012-02-20 12:51:08 PM  

Gwyrddu: Such a ticket would be the end of the Republican party, it would be a big FU to social conservatives who would go on and vote third party, breaking up the alliance of interests that allows Republicans to win any races in the first place. The most reasonable thing Republicans can do right now is let Santorum win the nomination this year since they will lose the general election regardless. Then Republicans can come back in 2016 with a more moderate candidate who actually has a chance to becoming president, telling the extremists they had their chance and going to the far right doesn't win elections.

My hope though is that they go with Romney so the Republican party can continue to flounder in irrelevance through 2016 and beyond.


Or, they'll conclude that Santorum wasn't a true conservative (damn rhino will be uttered by the same people drooling over him now) and that they need to go further to the right.
 
2012-02-20 12:52:22 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


A lot of them don't know a damned thing about his positions, they just think he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. A lot of people barely have functioning brains.
 
2012-02-20 12:54:41 PM  

WhyteRaven74: There may be no way to avoid that.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-02-20 12:54:50 PM  

I_C_Weener: the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama


I predict a slow realization that Obama is actually not that bad, followed by the realization that more liberal policy results in better quality of life, followed by the realization that Democrats are just better for America. 20 years ago, it would have been laughable to think that Republicans would switch sides in droves to support a black President, but that was before Bush got greedy and dumped the contents of the cookie jar out onto the floor for his cronies to consume in record time.

The Right went full-on cartoonish supervillian. Meanwhile, Obama's America didn't result in mass starvation and re-education camps. Even the gibbering idiot Republican base can't ignore it forever: Life is better now than it was when Fartbama N0bongo took office.
 
2012-02-20 12:56:15 PM  

Gwyrddu: Then Republicans can come back in 2016 with a more moderate candidate who actually has a chance to becoming president, telling the extremists they had their chance and going to the far right doesn't win elections.


The moderates aren't directing the party. The nutters have found their voice and they are running to the far right as fast as they can and requiring stricter purity tests with each debate. What's amazing to me is the number of people following them. These people cheered for letting the uninsured die, publically denounce a member of the military that is gay and celebrating Texas having the most executions. Charming folk.

I don't see them swinging back to the middle in 2016 like you do.
 
2012-02-20 12:56:34 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: No, they don't. If they were this well-oiled machine, Palin would have vanished after 2008. The Republicans would have the Senate by a hair, and we wouldn't have seen the mess that jacked up our credit rating. The Republicans have been faltering for four years at this point, and that's being generous and ignoring Dubya like they've already done.

The people running have been a joke and their selected person has been another failure in a long line of them. They haven't planned anything. They've just trying to regain their footing after farking up in a spectacular way.

Anybody introduced now is going to be at a loss to win anything. Anybody introduced a few months before the election will be demolished.


The GOP did not anticipate Biden as the VP choice in 2008, and their guns were all heavily loaded with anti-Clinton propaganda. They knew that a black Dem candidate with a blue-collar untarnished VP choice would be unbeatable, so in a move of desperation they took on Palin to get the "sex" vote. The blitz worked, and the result was much closer than it would have been otherwise.

As for Palin disappearing, a popular psycho is still a useful psycho, and she's entering the mix here and there as the GOP sees as use for it. She isn't hurting their chances...yet. I agree that the GOP's chances in the next race are slim, and that's why I predicted strategy as I did....the only way to get momentum is to capitalize on the short-term effects of a "promising" candidate. Pour all your resources into it, and hope that the short-term poll gains are enough to tip the scales.

nmrsnr: Yeah, I don't think so. According to RCP, Obama is up on Satorum by 7, and up on Romney by 6 (new window), meanwhile, Obama's number are still going up (new window).


Precisely. This is exactly what happened in the 2008 race...the GOP knew they couldn't beat Obama, so they changed up their strategy to capitalize on Palin's sex appeal, novelty and charisma. See more below about the vetting.

For some reason I don't think finding a "middle" candidate between Santorum and Romney will help too much, and throwing a new candidate into the ring at that late a date means he won't be inoculated against any line of attack.

True, which is why the Palin choice failed...they didn't vet her and failed to foresee that she might be a nitwit. However, Palin was a last minute decision, based entirely on Obama's not choosing Hillary as his running mate. Now that there are (seemingly) no variables on the Dem side, I predict the GOP have their actual candidate kept secret, well vetted, and properly marketable to spring just at the right time.

Notabunny: Wading into the santorum pool


Couldn't agree more. While I'd love to see the GOP fade away, and certainly the constituency that follows Santorum, the bottom line is that those with the most money understand marketing strategy better than everyone else, and simply are not stupid enough to keep Santorum for the election. He's useful for the fringe vote, and nothing more.

FeedTheCollapse: I know no one is really voting FOR any of the candidates, but I can't imagine any good coming from nominating/appointing a candidate that's not currently in the running. I would actually bet the results would be worse than if any of the current people were running.


See McCain/Palin 2008. McCain was nowhere close in the polls until Palin came along, and the GOP voters got fired up. Voters have a tremendously low attention span, and even worse memory, so that strategy is bound to work more than once.

Edsel: Any attack made by the Democrats against our party would be a useless gesture, no matter what oppo data they have obtained. Santorum is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it!


Don't be too proud of the philosophical terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a black President is insignificant, next to the power of legalized marijuana.
 
2012-02-20 12:56:43 PM  
I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani
 
2012-02-20 12:56:44 PM  

malaktaus: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

A lot of them don't know a damned thing about his positions, they just think he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. A lot of people barely have functioning brains.


Actually, I think they have a pretty good idea of what his positions are. They WANT a "true conservative" as their candidate, and out of all the people in the race he fits that mold best right now.
 
2012-02-20 12:57:11 PM  
GOP Primary Calculator

Link (new window)

Mittens needs to win in Ohio a lot more than he needs to win in Michigan.
 
2012-02-20 12:58:30 PM  
Macinfarker
I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer


Summer is way too late. Primaries don't work that way anymore. Delegates are pledged per the primary voting. The party machine won't just make them all switch their votes from who their state primary selected.

I think we will see a Romney/Santorum ticket.

I_C_Weener
There are 3 big problems with Mitt Romney...he has changed his positions, he is like the Republican Obama...centrist, and he is Mormon and Republican.

Centrist? But the right wing talking heads and politicians keep telling me that Obama is the most liberal lib who ever libbed! Would they lie to me?

Three Crooked Squirrels
The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.


THIS! Why must people in this country keep proving, year after year, that they are even stupider than I thought?

Fark it. Go ahead and do it, bigoted, fundie morons. Nominate Santorum. DO IT! DO IT NOW! I think it's very unlikely he will win, but let's go ahead and have this showdown. It's right leaning moderate portrayed as super lib on one side vs. batshiat crazy, bigoted, far right wing, woman hating fundamentalist on the other. Elect the latter and at least those of us who are still sane will know how seriously we need to consider getting the fark out of the backwards ass country as it gets flushed down the toilet.
 
2012-02-20 12:58:59 PM  
Posted this in the wrong thread....

Perhaps this is the cumulative effect of ignorance and "all politicians are liars" mentality wherein the voters believe they really are choosing a "frothy discharge" over actual human candidates. And I can't blame them for it.
 
2012-02-20 01:00:03 PM  

Felgraf: 2.bp.blogspot.com


Ditto. I can't see any scenario involving a brokered convention that doesn't fracture the party. And even absent a brokered convention, the party may still fracture.
 
2012-02-20 01:00:18 PM  

clambam: I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani


It could technically happen, although they'd get slaughtered in the general election because it's just too farking late for a candidate to jump in the race now, with no time to build a campaign structure, raise funds, etc.

But Huntsman and Giuliani are widely viewed as RINOs. No way would they wind up with the nomination. Much more likely it'd be somebody like Daniels, Christie, Rubio, etc.
 
2012-02-20 01:00:47 PM  

clambam: I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani


You are on dope if you think the Republican Party is going to have a guy like Huntsman leading them this time around. Sorry. The GOP has gone off the rails and they're all about the crazy right now.
 
2012-02-20 01:02:09 PM  
Oh yeah, Santorum is all over Romney these days:
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-02-20 01:03:41 PM  

clambam: I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani


Huntsman has generated support from no more than 3% of Republicans in Gallup's national GOP tracking since Dec. 1. His Positive Intensity Scores among Republicans were generally the worst of any candidate measured, often in negative territory, meaning that more Republicans felt strongly unfavorably toward him than felt strongly favorably. Only 21% of Republicans in our recent early January poll said Huntsman would be an acceptable nominee, the lowest of all candidates tested.
(new window)
 
2012-02-20 01:04:32 PM  
far and wide, the corporate money has been behind Romney.

even though santorum is supported by a creepy rich dude, his rise is giving a nice "fark you" to Wall Street.

i don't support santorum's policies at all, but it is nice to see david beat up goliath once in a while.
 
2012-02-20 01:06:15 PM  

patrick767: Centrist? But the right wing talking heads and politicians keep telling me that Obama is the most liberal lib who ever libbed! Would they lie to me?


Averaging (in other words...guesswork) his positions, and he averages out as centrist. So would Romney. Though in both cases, the more extreme positions would definitely lean toward their base. For Romney that may be gay marriage. For Obama it was and is "socialism" or what is claimed to be that...maybe in a way it is in that Obama is taking a bigger hand than ever in controlling and guiding the economy.

But neither one will change the Bush precedents on tax breaks, detention, military adventurism (because terrorists), DHS running their TSA hands in our pants (because terrorists), etc...

Which, when you look at it makes Bush look better by comparison. In the history books he will be the one that the next few presidents followed in word and deed.
 
2012-02-20 01:11:28 PM  

mccallcl: I predict a slow realization that Obama is actually not that bad, followed by the realization that more liberal policy results in better quality of life, followed by the realization that Democrats are just better for America. 20 years ago, it would have been laughable to think that Republicans would switch sides in droves to support a black President, but that was before Bush got greedy and dumped the contents of the cookie jar out onto the floor for his cronies to consume in record time.


I'd be happy if people realized that Obama is "slightly left of center", and not a "liberal".
 
2012-02-20 01:13:20 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.


Desperate men in desperate times do desperate things.

/Republicans: This year, they're desperate.
//Paid for by the "Anyone Except for Mitt Romney Coalition."
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report