Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Republican Candidates' Chances Vs. Obama

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 11:42:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Evaluating Each Major Republican Candidates' Chances VS. Barack Obama In 2012

Though they aren't the most likely to be nominated, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Gary Johnson would all destroy Obama in a general election. Guaranteed. This is because they have certain policies that appeal to independents and Democrats. Paul for example is almost notorious for "converting" former Obama supporters and even apolitical people to becoming his most fervent supporters.

Because those three would all have a large majority of the Republican vote, because they have cross-over appeal and don't come across as those bible-thumping neocons that have almost become synonymous with Republicans, AND combined with Obama's extremely sh!tty job as President, they would all wipe the floor with him in 2012.

Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain would all probably lose to Obama in 2012. First of all, they're all very prone to gaffes. They would all be easily portrayed as those crazy bible thumping Republicans who hate gay people and want a theocracy. Heck, I'm a libertarian and if absolutely forced to choose, I might vote for Obama over any of them. Additionally about Cain he would be portrayed as someone with no experience whatsoever who's only in the race to promote a book and get a TV show. That won't be especially hard for Obama since it's 100% true and each day more and more people are starting to realize it.

I'm on the fence about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. With Romney it could really go either way - on the one hand he's a smooth talker, he's good looking, he's got money, he represents the establishment, and he's up against a President with a horrible track record and abysmal approval ratings. On the other hand, he's a notorious flip-flopper, he can't seem to get over that "Romneycare" problem, and he might just not be conservative enough to get the Evangelical and Tea Party support. Without that, the election would really be a toss-up.

When it comes to Gingrich I'm also not as sure, but for different reasons. Gingrich is clearly a smart guy. He's very well read and intellectual. While he isn't really a bible thumper, he does think that America is a Christian nation at its core, and anyone who values separation of church and state would be turned off by him. He's conservative enough to get the votes that Romney couldn't, and he's well-read and intelligent enough to get the moderate Republicans and maybe even some independents. And again, he's up against a President who has an awful record on just about everything. However, he wouldn't get many Democrats, and the independents could go either way.

I'd say with both Romney and Gingrich the election is in their favor, but it would be tough and it would be close.

Needless to say, Rick Santorum is so insane that he'd lose the libertarian Republicans, he wouldn't necessarily have all the moderate Republicans, he wouldn't gain any independents and certainly wouldn't detract from Obama's support system.

So my conclusion is:
Paul, Huntsman, Johnson would easily win.
Romney and Gingrich would have the election in their favor but it would be tough and close.
Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Santorum would lose.

So the way I see it, Ron Paul is the Republican Party's best shot to beat Obama, more so than Huntsman and Johnson just because he's got a more dedicated support base and he's higher up in the polls.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:58:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So the way I see it, Ron Paul is the Republican Party's best shot to beat Obama, more so than Huntsman and Johnson just because he's got a more dedicated support base and he's higher up in the polls.


Paul support is a very very vocal minority, he would never win an election against Obama let alone a primary.

Romney is the only candidate capable of getting moderate and religious voters. If Paul runs as a third candidate in the general Obama will win for sure. One can only hope Paul doesn't Nader the election and steal votes from Romney.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:15:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:58:55 AM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
So the way I see it, Ron Paul is the Republican Party's best shot to beat Obama, more so than Huntsman and Johnson just because he's got a more dedicated support base and he's higher up in the polls.


Paul support is a very very vocal minority, he would never win an election against Obama let alone a primary.


Ron Paul seems to have a lot of support from the left...for some reason, even though he is probably as right as you can get in terms of economic policy. He denounces corportism and US foreign policy, which is what a lot from the left are against.

Romney is the only candidate capable of getting moderate and religious voters.

What about the other candidates. Besides Ron Paul, they can all get the appeal of the moderate vote. Also, let's not forget that Romney is a mormon.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:21:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:58:55 AM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
So the way I see it, Ron Paul is the Republican Party's best shot to beat Obama, more so than Huntsman and Johnson just because he's got a more dedicated support base and he's higher up in the polls.


Paul support is a very very vocal minority, he would never win an election against Obama let alone a primary.

Romney is the only candidate capable of getting moderate and religious voters. If Paul runs as a third candidate in the general Obama will win for sure. One can only hope Paul doesn't Nader the election and steal votes from Romney.

- I guess you totally ignored my reasons for saying Paul would win in an election against Obama. If you look at Paul's support, you'll notice that a large portion of them either supported Obama, voted for him in 2008, or not long ago considered themselves Democrat. Some still do consider themselves Democrat but will register Republican for Ron Paul. (A group called Blue Republicans was founded by and for Democrats registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul - it already has thousands of members). And that's all with the long established media blackout of Paul. If he was in an election versus Obama, he would necessarily have more recognition, and thus Obama supporters would be almost forced to look into him. He would doubtlessly steal a large amount of Obama supporters, as he already has.

Additionally, Paul would get more of the independent vote than Obama would. As I said, most of Paul's supporters were either independent, Democratic, or not interested in politics, so if he was given the exposure that any Republican nominee would have to receive, even more independents would flock to him.

The guy has broad cross-over appeal and transcends party lines. He can be trusted to actually bring the troops home which Obama did not even though he promised he would. He can be trusted to fight for marijuana legalization like Obama said he would. He can be trusted to restore all the civil liberties that liberals value, or at least not restrict them - meaning, for example, that he would ideally let abortion be a states rights issue, so each state would have its own policy. So he is the only one who would really take away some of Obama's core supporters, while gaining independents, AND most Republicans. There is nobody more perfect than taking down Obama in 2012.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:24:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, JuiceSqueeze, I think you're wrong that Romney is the only candidate capable of getting moderate and religious voters. Assuming by voters you mean Republican voters, then most Republicans really have an "anyone but Obama" mentality. Even Rick Santorum, the most hawkish, neoconservative, anti-Ron Paul Republican you can imagine, said that he'd support Paul though it would give him a little "indigestion."
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:39:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 1:24:49 AM, jat93 wrote:
Also, JuiceSqueeze, I think you're wrong that Romney is the only candidate capable of getting moderate and religious voters. Assuming by voters you mean Republican voters, then most Republicans really have an "anyone but Obama" mentality. Even Rick Santorum, the most hawkish, neoconservative, anti-Ron Paul Republican you can imagine, said that he'd support Paul though it would give him a little "indigestion."


you haven't demonstrated how paul is capable of gathering large demographics of voters. polls show again and again paul would lose in a general election against obama.

this was july:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

romney this week:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

caine:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

ron paul simply can't get along with anyone. and who would be his VP? his son? honestly.

in the end romney will get the nomination because cain is a freaking retard (999999999) and the rest are bush copy-cats.

romney is a politician, he can win. paul cant win sh1t.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 1:49:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 1:39:46 AM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
At 10/26/2011 1:24:49 AM, jat93 wrote:
Also, JuiceSqueeze, I think you're wrong that Romney is the only candidate capable of getting moderate and religious voters. Assuming by voters you mean Republican voters, then most Republicans really have an "anyone but Obama" mentality. Even Rick Santorum, the most hawkish, neoconservative, anti-Ron Paul Republican you can imagine, said that he'd support Paul though it would give him a little "indigestion."


you haven't demonstrated how paul is capable of gathering large demographics of voters.

Of course I have. I've showed how he, more than anyone else, could gain support from most Republicans, a large amount of independents, and even steal some of Obama's core support base. Anyone who just gets the traditional Republican vote and hasn't proven to be able to win many independents or detract from Obama's supporters is obviously an inferior candidate to one who has proven to do that. And again, that is all with minimal media coverage, debate time, etc. Hardly any Paul supporters who find his record of consistency so appealing came to that conclusion because it was related by the media. They tend to stumble upon him somehow. Imagine if he gained the amount of coverage that the Republican nominee necessarily does - Obama would be so screwed.

You haven't proven why someone who attracts as diverse supporters as Paul, and who transcends party lines as much as Paul, would not totally kick Obama's @$$ in 2012. That's what one would logically assume would happen.