Conquer Club

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... poll_N.htm

Now I can understand you libertarian yahoos a bit more.

Simon Viavant wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... poll_N.htm

Now I can understand you libertarian yahoos a bit more.

A republican! On the internet! Impossible.

oooo....i'm not so sure about that....i've been called a republican but I've been told I'm actually a libertarian...but I don't' either way I don't think I support her.....

The poll Monday of 1,000 adults — including 321 Democrats, 323 independents and 316 Republicans — has a margin of error of +/–3 percentage points for the full sample and 6 points for the partisan subsamples.

What is this bullshit?

I calculate only 960 people... not 1000... were the other 40 aliens?

The 40 are the same people who didn't respond, nevertheless, this is great news ---- for the democrats.

Be careful what you wish for mpjh.

The question of whether or not a Republican, and it doesn't really matter which Republican, has a shot against Obama lies with his performance more than any other factor. If Palin got the nomination, and people were dissatisfied with the performance of BO, Palin could beat him.

It all comes down to the level of public satisfaction with Obama.

Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

Personally I like Mike Huckabee.

Chuck Norris endorsed him.

Great team for the republicans Huckabee/Palin. Please and thank you.

mpjh wrote:Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

I really do agree with this, as regards Palin specifically. GabonX's point holds water when speaking of other potential Democratic candidates though.

I think Palin will be a great person for speaking events and fund raising, but my pick this far out would be for Newt Gingrich.

He's impressive, I'll hand it to him.

I never really saw what people liked about Romney. His financial experience is a great asset I guess.

He is a white male, so in a room full of republicans, he doesn't stand out.

Do you think we need to choose a black man to be competitive?

Perhaps a Mexican..

captain.crazy wrote:

The poll Monday of 1,000 adults — including 321 Democrats, 323 independents and 316 Republicans — has a margin of error of +/–3 percentage points for the full sample and 6 points for the partisan subsamples.

What is this bullshit?

I calculate only 960 people... not 1000... were the other 40 aliens?

40 trolls perhaps?

Woodruff wrote:

mpjh wrote:Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

I really do agree with this, as regards Palin specifically. GabonX's point holds water when speaking of other potential Democratic candidates though.

That assertion is debatable, but regardless is quite irrelevant. Nobody serious EVER challenges incumbents in the primary. Barack may end up being CC's worst wet dream (an actual liberal??) but the thought that he will be alive in 2012 and not be the Democratic nominee for president is absurd in our political system.

I hope not. I hate palin. All i can hope for is that she doesn't get a new seat in politics where people can see ehr and she just fades into nothingness.

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

mpjh wrote:Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

I really do agree with this, as regards Palin specifically. GabonX's point holds water when speaking of other potential Democratic candidates though.

That assertion is debatable, but regardless is quite irrelevant. Nobody serious EVER challenges incumbents in the primary. Barack may end up being CC's worst wet dream (an actual liberal??) but the thought that he will be alive in 2012 and not be the Democratic nominee for president is absurd in our political system.

It seems like sometimes Woodruff types one word when he means the other.

I think he may have actually meant "Republican candidates."

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

mpjh wrote:Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

I really do agree with this, as regards Palin specifically. GabonX's point holds water when speaking of other potential Democratic candidates though.

That assertion is debatable, but regardless is quite irrelevant. Nobody serious EVER challenges incumbents in the primary. Barack may end up being CC's worst wet dream (an actual liberal??) but the thought that he will be alive in 2012 and not be the Democratic nominee for president is absurd in our political system.

Well, unless he decides not to run himself, which is highly unlikely.

I want to say it's happened before and more than just once but I can't think of when.

strike wolf wrote:I want to say it's happened before and more than just once but I can't think of when.

Sure, plenty of times. LBJ I know for sure did that. But I don't see Obama deciding not to run; it doesn't seem like him.

InkL0sed wrote:

strike wolf wrote:I want to say it's happened before and more than just once but I can't think of when.

Sure, plenty of times. LBJ I know for sure did that. But I don't see Obama deciding not to run; it doesn't seem like him.

No I meant something else about the incumbent not getting picked in his primary...

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

mpjh wrote:Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

I really do agree with this, as regards Palin specifically. GabonX's point holds water when speaking of other potential Democratic candidates though.

That assertion is debatable, but regardless is quite irrelevant. Nobody serious EVER challenges incumbents in the primary. Barack may end up being CC's worst wet dream (an actual liberal??) but the thought that he will be alive in 2012 and not be the Democratic nominee for president is absurd in our political system.

I actually meant "other potential REPUBLICAN candidates"...sorry about that. The success of candidates OTHER than Palin would largely lie with Obama's satisfaction level. I agree with everything you've said here.

GabonX wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

mpjh wrote:Keep on thinking that way. Even at his worst, Obama will calmly trounce her. What is shameful is that the Republicans could do better if they could free themselves from the death grip of the fundamentalists.

I really do agree with this, as regards Palin specifically. GabonX's point holds water when speaking of other potential Democratic candidates though.

That assertion is debatable, but regardless is quite irrelevant. Nobody serious EVER challenges incumbents in the primary. Barack may end up being CC's worst wet dream (an actual liberal??) but the thought that he will be alive in 2012 and not be the Democratic nominee for president is absurd in our political system.

It seems like sometimes Woodruff types one word when he means the other.

Hopefully not very often. <laughing>

GabonX wrote:I think he may have actually meant "Republican candidates."

You are correct.

I actually like Sarah Palin on a basic level... she is assertive and ambitious to a fault,
but I don't see her as the right person for a higher nationally prominent position...
beyond representing the interests of Alaska.

Obama should be back if he wants it, but let's not speculate too much as this first term still
has a long ways to go. The actions of George Bush and his administration pretty much handed
the oval office to the Democrats. Once the grumblings of a very odd election quieted down
in 2000 he was off to basically popular beginnings only to become a huge disappointment.
I don't see any Republicans challenging Obama in 2012 if things just go reasonably well.

Two things:

(1) I don't see President Obama doing anything that much different than President Bush (apart from the business casual atmosphere in the White House and closing Gitmo). Everything else seems to be business as usual. Not sure how the Republicans can attack President Obama for that in 2012 (3 years from now by the way).

(2) Sarah Palin is an example of the reasons I left the Republican Party. When the biggest concerns to the American people, by and large, do not involve abortion, school prayer, or the Pledge of Allegiance, it's hard for a non-fundamentalist to get behind someone whose entire platform is based on fundamentalism. If she runs, I won't be voting for her.

HOWEVER, based on the attacks levied against Mrs. Palin in the last presidential election and in recent months, I continue to believe that Democrats are extremely scared of her. The last thing they want is a good looking, Republican, woman challenge President Obama in a presidential election, especially when said Republican woman has had 3 years to prepare and surround herself with intelligent people.