Who do you LEAST want to be the Republican nominee?

[Hotblack Desiato]

Romney for the fact that he'd merely be Obama's second term.

[NHI]

Perry, he's nominated it's the end of the GOP.

[Lincoln Republican]

I don't know why Republicans would least want Romney as the nominee, as he is the Republican with the best chance to defeat Obama.

I least want Palin as the nominee, and of those on the list, Paul is the one I want least.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I don't know why Republicans would least want Romney as the nominee, as he is the Republican with the best chance to defeat Obama.

I least want Palin as the nominee, and of those on the list, Paul is the one I want least.

Winfield, look at Romney's record in his state. He's governed as a squishy moderate at best and even instituted the prototype for Obama's healthcare plan. Yes, Romney has the best chance to pull off a few democrats or moderate-leaning indies but at the cost of alienating the base. This wouldn't mean high third party turnout, but it'd mean less republicans come out to vote for the house, the senate and most importantly the presidency.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

See my screen name.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Huntsman, to piss off his groupies. I think I'd rather vote Paul to make a statement.

I thought you were a Nationalist and Neo-Conservative? But you'd want to vote for Paul to make a statement? I'd have pegged you more in the Santorum group.

The statement would be that I don't want a me-too Republican and would rather vote for an anti-establishment sort of candidate than Huntsman. While I may be a Neo-con, I see government spending as the main problem that we're facing.

I'm hoping for Perry or Romney. Romney: sane moderate who didn't work for Obama and someone who is actually willing to differentiate himself from Obama. Perry: less sane Conservative who isn't just a three term member of Congress and despite comments about secession I see him as a better candidate than Santorum, Bachamann, Huntsman, etc.

[Hotblack Desiato]

The top 5 republicans I least want.

1. Romney
2. Huntsman
3. Santorum
4. Gingrich
5. Pawlenty

[paul718]

Cain

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Has anyone else noticed Pawlentys willingness too savagely attack Joe Biden, yet not go after Obama as much?

[Hotblack Desiato]

Cain

Why? Cain has at least some genuinely conservative views as opposed to people like Mitt Romney, or ThinkProgress's favorite Republican John Huntsman.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Ron Paul

[Kinaro]

Ol' Willard, of course. How many times has that fundie changed his position?

[ZuWo]

Bachmann or Cain. They seem least qualified for President.

[anvi]

I voted on the basis of assuming each of the choices would be elected, and then considering which one would be the worst president.  Bachmann would be the worst president.

[pbrower2a]

Herman Cain has no political experience.

Sarah Palin is a pathological liar.

Michelle Bachmann is lunatic fringe.

Freakish situations remain possible in 2012, and the well-heeled heels will support anyone who stands for a political order that fosters lower wages, captive markets, wars for profit, and a lax regulatory environment irrespective of human cost against someone more humane who sees more to the economy than the enrichment of elites.

But even more, I may be an Obama supporter, but I do not want an Obama landslide against a weak opponent.  The last three Presidents who won re-election in landslides had major scandals in their second terms:

Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra, a scandal which may have contributed to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait

Richard Nixon had the Watergate scandal, originally a minor scandal, explode upon him

LBJ had the escalation of the Vietnam War.

It is essential that the Republican nominee force the President to make clear statements of why the President's agenda is good for America so that Americans can be convinced of the merits of his agenda instead of that the Republican nominee is a disaster in the making.  Sure, I want the Democrats to win back the House and hold onto the Senate (yes, I qualify as a partisan hack), but I don't want the Republicans to counter the President with "Sure, but the last  election was Justin Verlander pitching against some one-armed, blindfolded batter in a wheelchair".   

I want the Republicans to make their case as clearly as possible. They need to explain to us that a huge increase in workplace deaths, higher profits and lower wages, superstition and bigotry as substitutes for rational thought, a giveaway of the public sector to crony capitalists, and escalation of the depletion of scarce resources is the only way in which to create a better America. If they can't explain that well, then that should be because they have either renounced the bad policies that got America into the economic mess that it was in in 2006 or that the GOP has no defensible agenda.

 

     

[Rollback]

I would not accept Huntsman or Romney enough to give them my vote, but of the two, Huntsman is obviously worse.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Ol' Willard, of course. How many times has that fundie changed his position?

Don't worry. If you wait long enough, Romney will eventually come up with a set of political positions that you'll like and hold those views for all of three minutes.

[Brandon H]

Romney, and a third of the voters so far agree.

[Lincoln Republican]

Ol' Willard, of course. How many times has that fundie changed his position?

Don't worry. If you wait long enough, Romney will eventually come up with a set of political positions that you'll like and hold those views for all of three minutes.

Hey, that's totally unfair.  

He's good for at least five minutes.  

And welcome to the forum.

[Cincinnatus]

Of those listed, it would be Cain.  He can only say so many foolish statements before he moves to the bottom of my list.  I'm actually rather surprised that he's gotten the least amount of votes, but I guess that's because most people who voted would leave to see a debate between Obama and Cain.  I admit, that would be quite amusing.

[TheGlobalizer]

Winfield, look at Romney's record in his state. He's governed as a squishy moderate at best and even instituted the prototype for Obama's healthcare plan. Yes, Romney has the best chance to pull off a few democrats or moderate-leaning indies but at the cost of alienating the base. This wouldn't mean high third party turnout, but it'd mean less republicans come out to vote for the house, the senate and most importantly the presidency.

I'd rather have Romney as Obama's second term than Obama as Obama's second term.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Ol' Willard, of course. How many times has that fundie changed his position?

Don't worry. If you wait long enough, Romney will eventually come up with a set of political positions that you'll like and hold those views for all of three minutes.

Hey, that's totally unfair. 

He's good for at least five minutes. 

And welcome to the forum.

Five minutes? So he isn't as much of a flipflopper anymore after all these days.

Also, thanks.

[Zarn]

Romney

I don't think libertarians (including me) or most of the fake tea partiers (Bachmann types) will ever vote for him. I think he stands less chance of bringing in the libertarian vote than Bachmann. I cannot stress how poor that is.

At least Paul keeps most of the 'base,' while luring in a lot of indies and possibly some "Bring the troops home" Dems.

[TheGlobalizer]

I'm changing my vote to McCotter.

[Kinaro]

Ol' Willard, of course. How many times has that fundie changed his position?

Don't worry. If you wait long enough, Romney will eventually come up with a set of political positions that you'll like and hold those views for all of three minutes.

Hey, that's totally unfair.  

He's good for at least five minutes.  

And welcome to the forum.

Thanks.