Who do liberals hope wins the GOP nomination?

[Jim in CT]

I'm curious to know whether the Obama supporters here would rather see Romney or Gingrich win the GOP nod.

I'm torn. I like Gingrich better than Romney. But on the one hand, I feel that Romney has a better image, and therefore a better chance to beat Obama in the general election. On the other hand, no one would eviscerate Obama in a debate like Gingrich would, but I don't know if many people are persuadable by debates.

I guess my gut tells me that Gingrich is my guy until he bows out. I'm very curious to know what the Democrats here think.

[UserRemoved]

Don't like either but would take grinch over Romney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

*sigh* Back to the ignore bin with you.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

*sigh* Back to the ignore bin with you.

Why would you even comment if you don't have anything of substance to add? Seems that Jim asked a pretty reasonable question which you decided to read. What part of his post upset you so much that you had to respond with such a childish remark?

For the record, I'm curious as to who the libs would rather see go against Obama in the election, too.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Why would you even comment if you don't have anything of substance to add? Seems that Jim asked a pretty reasonable question which you decided to read. What part of his post upset you so much that you had to respond with such a childish remark?

For the record, I'm curious as to who the libs would rather see go against Obama in the election, too.

I'm not upset by anything. It's the rabid increase of his broad stroke labeling of anyone who isn't assimilated to his political view is a liberal. Disagree with a Republican, you're a liberal. Support any action that Obama, his wife or any other Democrat makes and you're a liberal.

This thread was initiated as nothing more than an antagonistic act so that he can hop onto his high horse and criticize someone's opinion with replies have absolutely nothing to do at all with the post of the person he is replying to.

Ask Jim why the sky is blue and he'd reply "well, if the liberals had it their way, the sky would be red with the blood of a thousand murdered babies."

[fishbones]

Wow, you really read a lot into that first post.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Rick Perry, Bachman or Cain.

in all seriousness, between Newt and Romney I'll take Newt.
I think Huntsman would be a tough debate. he seems to have the most consistent record of the three...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This thread was initiated as nothing more than an antagonistic act so that he can hop onto his high horse and criticize someone's opinion with replies have absolutely nothing to do at all with the post of the person he is replying to.

Isn't that what this entire forum is for?

Ask Jim why the sky is blue and he'd reply "well, if the liberals had it their way, the sky would be red with the blood of a thousand murdered babies."

Not true, he's gone many posts this weekend without mentioning murdered babies a single time.

Dems would much rather have Gingrich to run against. He'll do fine in the debates but he's not going to kill Obama.

More importantly, Gingrich will be the easiest person ever to run ads against...just mention the government shut down, ethics charges, $300K fine, 1.6M from Freddie, etc...

People will get sick just thinking about it.

Romney has a lot of flip flops but is easily running the best campaign.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'm not upset by anything. It's the rabid increase of his broad stroke labeling of anyone who isn't assimilated to his political view is a liberal. Disagree with a Republican, you're a liberal. Support any action that Obama, his wife or any other Democrat makes and you're a liberal.

This thread was initiated as nothing more than an antagonistic act so that he can hop onto his high horse and criticize someone's opinion with replies have absolutely nothing to do at all with the post of the person he is replying to.

Ask Jim why the sky is blue and he'd reply "well, if the liberals had it their way, the sky would be red with the blood of a thousand murdered babies."

Johnny, calm down. I hate to ask you to read my post before you claim that's it's some deranged rant, but perhaps you should give it a try. I am genuinely curious to know who the "Obama supporters" (read my post, that's what I wrote) want to win. Later in my post I used the term "liberals" as synonymous with "Obama supporters".

Johnny, there's much we disagree on. However, if you object to my assumption that "Obama supporters" are likely to be "liberal", then you might do well to ignore me. I'll try to find a way to soldier on without you.

"Ask Jim why the sky is blue and he'd reply "well, if the liberals had it their way, the sky would be red with the blood of a thousand murdered babies."

If you want to paint me as irrational, maybe you could post ONE thing I have ever written here that has no logic behind it.

I was just asking a fairly benign question. If that caused you to snap, I guess I really got inside your head...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Isn't that what this entire forum is for?


Not true, he's gone many posts this weekend without mentioning murdered babies a single time.

Dems would much rather have Gingrich to run against. He'll do fine in the debates but he's not going to kill Obama.

More importantly, Gingrich will be the easiest person ever to run ads against...just mention the government shut down, ethics charges, $300K fine, 1.6M from Freddie, etc...

People will get sick just thinking about it.

Romney has a lot of flip flops but is easily running the best campaign.

-spence

I'm guessing most Obama supporters would agree with you. I think you're very wrong on what would happen if Obama debated Newt, and I'm trying to figure out how much, if at all, that makes liberals nervous. That's precisely why I asked the quastion, so thanks for answering directly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by fishbones

For the record, I'm curious as to who the libs would rather see go against Obama in the election, too.

Careful. Apparently, if you are genuinely curious as to the answer to that question, you are some deranged, right-wing hatemonger.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Careful. Apparently, if you are genuinely curious as to the answer to that question, you are some deranged, right-wing hatemonger.

I don't mind if anyone calls me that. I've already been called worse things than that on 3 separate occasions today.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm guessing most Obama supporters would agree with you. I think you're very wrong on what would happen if Obama debated Newt, and I'm trying to figure out how much, if at all, that makes liberals nervous. That's precisely why I asked the quastion, so thanks for answering directly.

The question though was between Romney and Gingrich. I'd think Huntsman could easily beat Obama in the general election.

-spence

[Swimmer]

My concern is how many times can either run for pres. until it just doesn't mean anything to any of us. They both have run numerous times. I would consider Hillary......I wouldn't want her pissed at me with her hand on the button.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

My concern is how many times can either run for pres. until it just doesn't mean anything to any of us. They both have run numerous times. I would consider Hillary......I wouldn't want her pissed at me with her hand on the button.

While I don't think there's a good chance she'd do it, picking Hillary up as VP would scare the hell out of the GOP.

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

The question though was between Romney and Gingrich. I'd think Huntsman could easily beat Obama in the general election.

-spence

If only the press would pay attention to him

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

If only the press would pay attention to him

He's no fun as he's not playing the "I can out extreme you" game the GOP seems to favor over substance.

Wait until Newt really gets his knickers in a twist. The media won't be able to dump him fast enough...people hate that kind of negativity.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

My concern is how many times can either run for pres. until it just doesn't mean anything to any of us. They both have run numerous times. I would consider Hillary......I wouldn't want her pissed at me with her hand on the button.

I think this is Gingrich's first time, and Romney's second?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

While I don't think there's a good chance she'd do it, picking Hillary up as VP would scare the hell out of the GOP.

-spence

That's a great obesrvation, I've been wondering for awhile if Obama shuold dump Biden and add Hilary. Biden literally adds nothing to the ticket, Hilary would make the ticket much more formidable. If I was advising Obama, I'd tell him to do it. I just don't see that Biden brings anything to the table.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a great obesrvation, I've been wondering for awhile if Obama shuold dump Biden and add Hilary. Biden literally adds nothing to the ticket, Hilary would make the ticket much more formidable. If I was advising Obama, I'd tell him to do it. I just don't see that Biden brings anything to the table.

I'd think that you need to configure your defense for the offense that's on the field. It's not that Biden adds nothing, but that he's likely not the best compliment to Obama this time around. In 2008 he added some valuable experience to the ticket.

I'll be astonished if Biden is the VP pick next year, but they won't make the move until the opposition is better defined.

-spence

[striperman36]

Biden brought in the votes in the electoral college, all I can think of why he had him on the ballot.
I do not think they would change the ticket for reelection.

Has there been a precedence post-WWII where this happened?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think that you need to configure your defense for the offense that's on the field. It's not that Biden adds nothing, but that he's likely not the best compliment to Obama this time around. In 2008 he added some valuable experience to the ticket.

I'll be astonished if Biden is the VP pick next year, but they won't make the move until the opposition is better defined.

-spence

"It's not that Biden adds nothing, "

So what does he add? Obama wins Deleware with or without BIden on the ticket. How does Biden's presence on the ticket help Obama with the electoral math?

You're dead-on, in 2008, Biden was needed to give the appearance of experience to the ticket, because Obama was a newbie. Obama doesn't need that anymore. From where I sit, "Plugs" adds zilch.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think this is Gingrich's first time, and Romney's second?

Correct
Newt talked about it in '08, but never filed