Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?
 

Two weeks ago I wrote my newspaper column about Rick Perry's double-dipping. I usually don't read the anonymous comments on the newspaper's website (too easy to have keyboard courage; if you want to challenge me on something sign your name just as I do every week) but I did catch one comment - "Okay, you don't like Rick Perry - who do you like?" I answered him so far I don't LIKE any of the candidates. There are currently some I find less repugnant than others, but that's no way to vote.

SO - those of you voting for the Republican nominee - tell me who and why. Why should I (or anyone) vote for your candidate?

I know this doesn't answer your question, but I'm struggling with finding a person I actually like vs. someone who could actually win in the general. And I still have no idea. :/

Well, I'm not getting any closer to finding a candidate, but I do feel less alone!

Not crazy about my choices, but...
 

Mitt Romney.

Executive experience. Business experience. Not too right wing.

I was actually talking about this with one of my co-workers yesterday.

I don't identify with either party, so I keep up with both sides. I don't know if any of the candidates are really ready to go up against the current administration. I guess we'll have to wait to see how things play out.

As long as it's not Bachman, Perry, or Gingrich, I think it'll be interesting ;)

Thank you for asking this. I'm also in the camp that I don't like anyone so far. Would love to hear some reasons for favoring someone.

Knowing that I lean to the left, I would say that Romney is the most moderate of the bunch and I might be able to tolerate him. Might. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the union and he was governor there so he has to be fairly moderate. However, he is back pedaling on things and saying "what was right for our state isn't right for the country" with regards to things like national health care. Interestingly, his campaign site doesn't address any social issues at all. Under issues, it only has national security, jobs and healthcare. Nothing on gay marriage, abortion, education, etc.

Unfortunately, I feel like I'm the opposite and Romney is too left for me! But, I think he'd have the better shot at the general. I think that he would do well in helping the economy, but I don't know. I have been a fan of Gingrich and his experience, but on the other hand, a) I'm sick of career politicians and b) he's not on the ballot in VA (which, btw, should be viewed as a failure of his campaign staff, not him, but that's a whole 'nother thing).

Same boat. I think they are all nucking futs. None of them represent who I am as a moderate Republican. I guess Mitt is the lesser of all evils, but I'm not a huge fan of his either.


I <3 Huckabee, he just makes me smile. I was a big McCain fan. And I actually kinda liked Herman Cain. He was interesting at least, and not completely batshit crazy, just batshit horny. I would like a candidate who isn't a womanizer, a religious zealot, or anti-gay. Just someone who is from an average walk of life.

Maybe I should run for office.

AKD, a girl I went to high school with took half her junior year off to work as a Page in Gingrich's office when he was Speaker. She loved her experience in DC, but she said he rubbed her the wrong way.

@IL, I'd vote for you. And yes, I just want a f-ing normal person.

Huckabee seems like he'd be a cool grandpa. :)

I think Gingrich thinks we have forgotten about why he resigned as Speaker of the House. You can't go around bashing one guy for having an affair and then have it come out that you had one too. Not to mention he was the first ever Speaker of the House to be punished by the House for ethics violations. Republican or Democrat, I couldn't support someone with that history.

However, one thing I kind of liked about him was that he has said, for a long time now, "Yeah, I was a shitball, I shouldn't have been an ass, I know it looked insensitive when my wife and I broke up when she may have been sick, but it was a benign growth removed and she wasn't on her deathbed, but I'm sorry and I have not only realized I was a shitball but I have grown in the time that has passed. And ____ is what I could bring to the country and economy, and ____ is why I believe I would be a good Republican candidate versus the other main candidates, etc.". Or not in those words, but you get what I mean. :)

:eek:

That just sounds filthy.

It's interesting. The only candidate that (IMO) non hardcore-Republican voters would take seriously is Romney, but he might lose a lot of the Republican vote for being LDS.

I don't see Republicans voting for Obama instead of Romney. They might simply not vote at all.

I should also note that Romney has a good chance of taking Michigan, a swing state, because his father was our Governor once upon a time and a lot of people liked him. He won the primary here in 2008.

Romney might also lose a lot of the Republican vote because he's seen as a RINO to most conservatives and "hard-core" republicans. My money is on Newt even though I like Romney and I wouldn't mind seeing a Detroiter in the White House.

When the Republicans refused to invite Gary Johnson to the debates, I started researching him. So far I don't love him, but for the first time in my adult life, I hope to vote for someone instead of against the opponent.

In Virginia, only Romney and Paul will appear on the primary ballot. And the state party has decided to require a loyalty oath. I can't in good conscience say at this point that I will support the Republican nominee. In fact, I likely can't.

I may go Libertarian. I will also be closely following the Americans Elect project.

I'm having the same issue.

Whoever it is, I hope it is someone who is a great debater. Regardless of one's feelings about Obama, he is a great debater & speaker. A Republican opponent needs to be the same or Obama will defeat them every time in a debate.

Based on the Republican debates alone, there are few who have risen to that challenge. Perry & Bachmann both look like deer caught in headlights. Gary Johnson unfortunately has not been in many of the debates but the few he was in, he looked extremely nervous & uptight.

While I do think that Romney is a bit left for me, what I don't appreciate is other Republicans saying that they wouldn't vote for him simply due to his being in the LDS. I have heard the argument that they believe he would have to follow directions of the church while in office, possibly contradicting what he would normally do. That is no more true than someone like JFK not being able to be in office because he would have to follow the Pope's direction rather than anything else. I think it's not only shortsighted of them, but just another reason why people say that Republicans are bigoted, and I don't like it when the idiots unfortunately represent the entire group. :-/

There are also quite a few people in the Bible Belt, not entirely but predominantly Republican, who would refuse to vote for somebody they don't consider Christian. I htink that is a large reason there was all that mess about Obama being Muslim, though that held another element because of the massive anti-Islamism in this country.

Can a (generally blue dog) Democrat who likes watching politics chime in? I promise I'll behave.

iLaughed.

I'll organize Democrats for IrishLake!!

Of the Republican candidates, I agree that he is probably the most electable in terms of the electorate as a whole. But . . .

I think Romney has two problems. First, there are people who will not want to vote for him because of the Mormonism. That will likely include many evangelical voters who otherwise would be part of the base for the GOP. My guess is that his choice for a running mate might be crucial here.

But perhaps even bigger is the second problem: He has a moderate track record, even if he is trying to position himself as more conservative now. There are many in the Tea Party movement who have already said that if Romney is the nominee, they will not support him but will likely put forth their own candidate. And that third candidate might well be someone who also appeals to the evangelicals leery of Romney's Mormonism.

So, if Romney is the GOP nominee, I fully expect to see a more conservative/libertarian candidate enter the race, either as an independent or as a third-party candidate. And I think that would hurt the Republican candidate more than it would hurt Obama. (Think Ross Perot in 1992.) I really think it presents a quandary for the GOP this year: Either nominate a candidate who is more conservative and won't draw opposition in the form of an independent or third-party candidate but who may have a harder time in the general election, or nominate the person who probably has the best chance defeating Obama in the general election, but who may draw third-party opposition and in the process strengthen Obama's chances in the general election.

That's how it looks to me right now.

As a moderate Republican I feel pretty torn myself. No one really excites me and that is going to be the biggest problem for the GOP candidate in the general election. Obama is beatable simply because he hasn't turned the economy around or lived up to his hype, so if the GOP can't win it will likely be because they didn't field a good candidate. I really like Jon Huntsman but his campaign hasn't really gotten off the ground. Maybe because he isn't participating in Iowa and is focusing more on New Hampshire, he isn't getting much press. Just seems like you need some momentum at this point, but we've seen a lot of the candidates peak and fall (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich). Hell even Santorum is running 3rd in Iowa now, so I guess if Huntsman can do well in NH he has a chance. Check out his policies if you can, he's intelligent and rational.

I really liked Gingrich the last couple months and while I think he is a brilliant intellectual, his ego seems to get in the way and his campaign has lost A LOT of its steam in the last week or two. I worry about how he would handle himself in the oval office and if he would become someone who would only listen to himself and not others. I think voters don't view him as electable in the national election against Obama and that is his biggest problem, along with being a career politician with a lot of baggage.

Romney appears to be the most electable and I guess I could vote for him, but he's just kind of blah or something is off with him. He seems to just say whatever he thinks will earn him votes. I feel like I don't know who the real Mitt Romney is and what he stands for. I think we do need someone who is business-minded to help the economy and that is one of his strongpoints. If he does get the nomination and ultimately I think he will, he needs a really good VP on the ticket, maybe Chris Christie (NJ gov) or Paul Ryan (Budget Chair in the house and Delt ;)). That can excite the Tea Party base and voters concerned with the national debt and government spending.

I don't discuss my own personal politics because of my job, but I think Romney is the closest the GOP could come to defeating Obama and I still don't think it will happen. MysticCat's post is completely on point:

I agree with MC's analysis of the situation. I have mentioned it here before, but one of the interesting things about the primaries when there is an incumbent for one party, is watching the other party tear each other part in debates but then have to come together to get their candidate elected in the long run. It's not easy for them to do, no matter which party it is. I think if Romney gets the nomination, he'll pick a conservative Southerner as a running mate to offset his moderate reputation.

- I have never understood why a vice presidential pick might be the deciding factor for a voter. Well, I could understand calling into question a candidate's decision making ability if they chose an undesirable v.p. (cough - McCain - cough) but to decide yes, I'll vote for a candidate I don't really like because I like his/her v.p. pick? Are you hoping the presidential candidate will join the choir invisible shortly after being sworn in? So often it seems like obvious pandering, which I find insulting.

It is pandering I think. I think the theory is that if the "iffy" candidate picks someone who appeals to whatever group, people in that group will say "Well, iffy nominee can't be that bad if candidate we like is willing to support him and work with him."

I would vote for Romney with no problem if he's the nominee. If Ron Paul is the nominee, then Barack Obama is going to be re-elected. I think that Romney is a better debater than you may think. He's certainly more cerebral than McCain. I also think that anyone who won't vote for him because he's "not a Christian" is simply an ignorant person who cannot be very educated.

And in '08 Obama had the thinnest of resumes and record for an opponent to "mine". That is certainly not the case now. Romney also has earned a paycheck in the private sector, which the President has not done.

Is Romney the tea party's ideal? No. He's a person who was elected as a Republican in one of the very bluest states and if he were any more right of center he would have had no chance. That said, I think that if the Republicans hold the house and can take the Senate, it won't matter because voters are so upset there will be some major shifting in Washington, and Romney's feet will be held to the fire. At least, I hope so.

I hope Rubio or even Christie would be considered for VP. That would be an attractive choice for those who are ready for strong and effective speeches on the trail.

President Obama has some private sector experience, though he was only out of law school for 6 years before being elected to IL legislature.

I think that identity politics can be a big win, here. If you think "I don't like either guy, I'm staying home", you maybe would make it out to the polls for the chance to put the first Latino/woman/Jew/queer/whatever into the VP spot. It is one way of being part of history.

Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He's like Al Sharpton... has his own cult following, brings up some interesting points and adds flavor to the mix, but totally polarizing and unelectable.

I will also be quite surprised if Christie doesn't end up on the ticket for VP. The guy's a shoo-in. His huge media event to announce that he wasn't going to run in 2012 set the stage for VP IMO.

If Romney gets the nod, it won't be Christie. (See above "pandering" discussion). No way they are going to have two east coasters on the ticket.

Happy Iowa Caucuses day. As a "thinks Obama isn't liberal enough" lefty, I'm interested to see how this plays out. Instinctively I think it will be Romney. My parents, Republicans god help them, are and have been Mitt fans and since I don't think they're COMPLETE wingnuts, I'll trust them to that extent. I think the tea-partiers should be beating down doors to be Ron Paul fans but I think when the rubber hits the road they don't want strict constitutionalism to the extent he proscribes. They like to TALK about less taxes but not where it butts up against shrinking our military to the extent he thinks it should be. I do think a general between true fiscal conservatism (Paul) and what will have to pass for liberalism would be an interesting fight and really force people to think about what they believe.

And I want to believe the era of religion over any sort of common sense or rights for anyone who doesn't believe just like you is on the wane. That cuts out a couple of candidates. And although I think there will be people who won't support Mitt just because of his religion, I don't think it should affect most voters. I personally think the religion is goofy but he's not going to be looking at any peepstones for decisions so I think we're safe.

I have a feeling Perry will fail because of how he chose to position himself, not how he actually believes. But then that's true of SOOOOO many politicians. Why oh why can't you campaign on your actual beliefs and plans and let the chips fall where they may?

I hear ya. I think it would be more about beliefs and plans if Presidents were limited to one term. Since they're already looking ahead to the next election though, they're too afraid to do what they believe until re-election is off the table. We've got it all backwards, I think. I'd like to see the POTUS term go from a maximum of two 4-year terms to only one 6-year term.

Regarding those who want a talented debater, I can't help but wonder why that is important in the grand scheme of things. I realize that this year, for a republican to win they'll have to outshine Obama, so I guess I'm asking a general question about why debating is important. It's not like POTUSes have to actually debate once they're in office. And they have all kinds of speech writers to make sure that what they deliver on camera comes out as antiseptic as possible. I just don't get why debating is such a crucial thing. It seems to me that it's crucial to a candidate's success in the election, but not crucial to the person who is actually elected. Like we're more interested in who can put on a good show instead of who can run a good show.

I would contend that the president has to be an excellent debater because all of his/her real work is done in the oval office one on one with other world leaders, congressional leaders, lobbyists, etc. THIS is why I want my president to be the smartest person in the room and I could care less if I could sit around drinking a beer with him. I don't need him to be able to talk to ME; I want him to be able to talk to a third world dictator. And I'm right and god's going to strike you down isn't going to get that conversation done.

Because presidential campaigns are highly scripted and controlled, the debates are among the few opportunities to see candidates forced to react to occassional unforseen moments. In these moments voters sometimes get a glimpse behind the mask, to see how a candidate thinks on their feet, unprotected by media handlers or strategy.

Look back to Gerald Ford "no soviet domination in the eastern (European) block" comment in his 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter. Or George H.W. Bush
(41)'s perceived "can't be bothered with this" when the camera caught him looking at his watch in a somewhat annoyed manner during his '92 debate with Bill Clinton.

Not to say that debates definitely provide game changing moments, but the media drama attendant to such events tends to set the story/campaign narriative going forward -- particularly for voters who are only casually, or more likely, minimially informed on the issues in the first place.


...I think a single, 6-year presidential term is an interesting idea also, but the office/process will obviously never be free of "politics."

Romney by 8 points in Iowa. That's not much of a win. Gingrich sounded pretty bitter in his speech. Ron Paul 3rd...

Ron Paul on the Today show "The top two were so close that it was more like they were tied for first and we were second" Um, when two tie for first, there is no second and third is still third. Sorry.

Place isn't as important as percentage - and the top three are amazingly close.
Argument that Santorum won - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ampshire_.html

On the plus side - looks like Texas will get its governor back - oh, wait . . .

Sorry don't have the original link. got this from another board.

That's a fabulous story! And AGDee, that's 8 VOTES, not 8 points. But the important thing for people to remember is the candidates all take their delegates with them, so top 3 (or 4 if it's close which in this case it wasn't) can hold their heads high moving forward.

As a person with no horse in this race, I was reasonably happy with the outcome. I don't like Santorum AT ALL, but knowing caucus goers are generally blue-hairs, it's not a surprise he did well. Paul was the big surprise to me, and the scariest for the Democrats in my opinion because he provides the clearest counterpoint to the president. Romney may be the most sane of the bunch, but like Kerry, (is everyone from MA boring?) it's hard to get very excited about someone who's such a yawnfest. And you need exciting to get out the vote. "I think he'll do an ok job and not run the country into the crapper" is no way to get frenzied voters beating down the doors on November 6th.