For my friends on the Left: Who do you feel is Obama's most formidable opponent among

[diamond]

For my friends on the Left: Who do you feel is Obama's most formidable opponent among the current Republican contenders?

I mean who of the contenders likes below makes you think, 'oh sh*t if President Obama runs against that candidate we're doomed'?


Please be a registered voter and avowed Obama supporter to answer.
You are also encouraged to attach your reason(s) forthwith.

Here are your choices:

Rick Perry
Newt Gingrich
Michelle Bachman
Mitt Romney
Herman Cain
Ron Paul
Rick Santorium
Jon Huntsbreath

Thank you

<>

 

[BVS]

Are we basing this on issues or emotion?

 

[diamond]

No.
Did you not understand the question, BVS?


<>

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Why do you have to be an "avowed Obama supporter" to answer?
I'd probably vote for Huntsman over Obama but nobody else. Does that count?

The most formidable opponent would likely be one of the Right conservatives. Because of the stark contrast. Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, and Bachman. And since most of them are either easily painted as 'crazypants' or inarticulate or unelectable by some stretch, the only person here to fear is a guy that will NEVER get the nomination. And I think that is Newt Gingrich. Because he could slap Obama around in debates. Outside of that, Obama's most formidable opponent might very well be his Sec of State.

But anyway, Romney can't beat Obama head to head, for any number of reasons.
Most of which goes to the principle of the man, not his religion or his health policy in MA.

 

[BVS]

Did you not understand mine?

If based on issues: none of them, even if I was a conservative I would feel this way. They're either lost, hypocrite or both each and every one of them.

Based on emotion, in other words, this socialist has to be removed, then Romney or Perry; although I think both will be a reluctant vote for conservatives.

 

[kramwest1]

Purely from my gut and removing the party crap that may or may not allow the person to get through the primary system, and not factoring VP choices,
Ron Paul is the person I'd LEAST like to see on the ballot against Obama.

I think Paul (allowed to be Paul but with his party machine behind him) could get enough independents to win in 2012.

 

[2861U2]

If based on issues: none of them

But Obama can win on issues and his record? That's quite a sell...

I don't meet the criteria to answer the question, but if you look at the electoral map, I'd say it has to be Romney. He'd have a very good shot of winning NH (at least judging by the few head-to-head polls coming out of there), and in a close election, that could prove crucial. As would a number of states that Romney at least has a shot in that probably no other Republican does.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Romney has little chance to beat Obama.
His political leverage would be reduced to the anti-Obama crowd that is going to vote for the Republican no matter what. He can't hold the same 'middle' he covets. Most of the more liberal among that crowd will go to Obama when he drags out the same ol' tired Republican dogma...and the rest don't think the man is genuine...probably because he is anything but.

He has stood on both sides of almost all pertinent issues. And just because Rick Perry can't articulate this argument doesn't mean that President Obama can't. There is no real contrast there.

Look at what the Bushies did to John Kerry. They drew, as hideous as it was, a stark contrast with Kerry on several fronts. Including a single issue which they labeled Kerry a flip-flopper because he opposed a bill that had a late poison-pill amendment attached to it. And it likely worked, to some extent or another.

By default, Romney doesn't carry the same conservative gravitas as a Bush. Look at what happened to the moderate McCain when he tried to sell himself as a 'real' conservative. Maybe he wins in 2008 if the economy doesn't collapse...it's hard to say but maybe it's beside the point. But ultimately my point is, McCain lost the middle because they saw the McCain they loved (the lovable moderate who hosts SNL) turn into some form of 'classic DC politician'.

Resistance to Romney isn't isolated to religious bigots and fervent Tea Party anti-Obamacare folk. If you believe that, you're probably just listening to the same detached 'pundits' who fail to 'predict' the obvious. Otherwise, with Romney's brilliant political knack for nuanced, yet simple argumentation and a fantastic acumen for being slippery, he'd have already wiped the floor with this sad Republican field.

But he can't. Why? I'm telling you why.
But if you choose to believe those other explanations, which include the caricatures and stereotypes about the Republican base, and many of you do, then you'll continue to be confused. Suit yourself.

 

[BVS]

But Obama can win on issues and his record? That's quite a sell...

I should clarify a little. If the electorate understood the issues a little more than the answer would be yes to your question.

 

[Irvine511]

But Obama can win on issues and his record? That's quite a sell...

I don't meet the criteria to answer the question, but if you look at the electoral map, I'd say it has to be Romney. He'd have a very good shot of winning NH (at least judging by the few head-to-head polls coming out of there), and in a close election, that could prove crucial. As would a number of states that Romney at least has a shot in that probably no other Republican does.

generally agree.

though i think Obama is in a better position now than a month ago.

the issue is the unemployment rate. the voters will decide how much of that is his fault.

i think Obama will win by a greater margin than in 2008 if he's up against anyone but Romney.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The issue is 100 % the unemployment rate and the economy. Obama is doomed by those two things, not by any of those candidates. I'm a registered voter but not an avowed Obama supporter.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Jon Huntsbreath

What's your problem with him?

 

[deep]

he spent time in a santorium

the election only comes down to 5-8 states

and as 2861U2 has stated, Romney is best situated to win in those states.

Ron Paul would lose big, yes he appeals to libertarians, young people and some independents. He is one of those candidates that does alienate a good portion of the base. If Kucinich ever got the Democratic nomination he would lose big, also.

Checking the polls, Cain seems to be doing better than Perry. I keep writing Cain off, I could be wrong.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Ron Paul sympathizes with the unemployed and says people shouldn't blame the victims. I thought some people in the audience might start booing him for that last night. So yeah, I think that for starters might be alienating to some of the base.

 

[Steved1998]

Huntsman. He sounds like the most reasonable of the bunch and comes across as running against Obama instead of the other 7 wack jobs.

 

[2861U2]

Romney has little chance to beat Obama.

I just disagree.

You can make the assertion that polls mean nothing now, but just about every poll shows Romney winning independents over Obama. McCain never had the independents in the general. Obama's approval is upside-down in every swing state, so he'll have quite a task to fix that. A year out, however, Romney looks just fine in state matchups. Maybe the White House can successfully paint him as a flip-flopper. Who knows. If the election can be framed on Obama's stewardship, as I think it will be, Romney can win.

If you want to make the Kerry comparison, that's fine, but don't forget- he was awful close to winning. About 100,000 votes in Ohio. I also refute the comparisons to McCain. McCain was a horrible candidate, and (for me, anyway) it had nothing to do with the issues. He was not passionate. He was too old. He wouldn't attack Obama. He didn't act like he really wanted to be president. I don't think you can say any of those things about Romney.

As far as Romney's apparent ceiling, I think it's normal. In an 8-way race with a quarter saying they're still undecided, I think 25% is fairly good. It was the same way in late 2003.

I don't think you can make a call one way or the other. But the signs have to be troubling for Democrats, whether it's the enthusiasm gap, the fear of African-Americans and students staying home, or any number of things. As it is now, if it's Romney vs Obama, it's a coin-flip. Going up against a historic, billion-dollar incumbent, those might be the GOP's best odds.

 

[deep]

Huntsman. He sounds like the most reasonable of the bunch and comes across as running against Obama instead of the other 7 wack jobs.

Lieberman. He sounds like the most reasonable of the bunch and comes across as running against Bush instead of the other 7 wack jobs.


(if the other side chose the candidates)

 

[Steved1998]

Lieberman. He sounds like the most reasonable of the bunch and comes across as running against Bush instead of the other 7 wack jobs.


(if the other side chose the candidates)

Lieberman will pick whatever side gives him the most attention.


Fun fact: McCain wanted him to be his VP.

 

[deep]

he polled more than 1 % in the primaries

can you say the same for your pick, Huntsman?

 

[Steved1998]

he polled more than 1 % in the primaries

can you say the same for your pick, Huntsman?

He's not my pick. I don't like any of them. I just think he'd be the most formidable opponent based on what he has said and how he's acted.

 

[deep]

interesting conclusion,
I am pretty certain he would be completely blown out.

I think he is the one most likely to attract the typical Obama supporter.


Just like Lieberman was the Dem that had the most appeal to Bush supporters, back in 2004.

 

[kramwest1]

interesting conclusion,
I am pretty certain he would be completely blown out.

I think he is the one most likely to attract the typical Obama supporter.


Just like Lieberman was the Dem that had the most appeal to Bush supporters, back in 2004.

This is why I added my "*" of Ron Paul having the full backing of his party. He won't of course, so it's not going to happen.

I think Huntsman does appeal to the middle a la Obama 2008, but he doesn't offer enough conviction and difference as a Paul does.

 

[PhilsFan]

Gary Johnson

 

[Diemen]

None of the above, really. Mitt is the strongest contender simply because he's the most polished and can raise a lot of money, but seeing as how the base so far has tried to create support around anyone-but-Mitt, I see him having real issues getting the kind of support needed to win an election. Not to mention his lack of a strong position on... well, anything.

 

[PhilsFan]

They all have the same position: For The Bible Wall Street Tells Me So.

 

[deep]

Most of that could have been said about McCain in 2008.
The base was not with him. He was not a true conservative.

That being said, he was the best candidate. No GOP could have won in Nov 2008.

I also think the Dems/Obama will have a problem in Nov 2012, because of the economy. Not as bad as the big meltdown in Nov 2008. But enough to get people to vote 'for change'.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Rick Perry
Theoretically-strong campaign took a giant shit. Still has tons of donation money to drag out the nomination fight.

Newt Gingrich
Is incapable of communicating his intellectual ideas to humans via speech or word.

Michelle Bachman
Batshit crazy bitch. Makes Hillary look like an intelligent, lovable, huggable ball of pure joy and kittens.

Mitt Romney
Slick, polished, and plays the long-run game. He is Right-Wing Obama. I guess that makes the incumbent Center-Right Obama.

Herman Cain
Black people don't like being told to pull up their boots by other black people. Just ask Bill Cosby. Nexxxxt.

Ron Paul
Too fringe (old n' studdery), media doesn't take him seriously despite many good ideas.

Rick Santorium
Too anally retentive, also idiot.

Jon Huntsbreath
Too fringe (centrist and reasonable) to satiate the crazy-ass Republican base.





Dangerous Liberal Match-Up 2012 That Worries Obama Supporters

Obummer vs. Mittens

 

[Inner El Guapo]

I just disagree.

You can make the assertion that polls mean nothing now, but just about every poll shows Romney winning independents over Obama. McCain never had the independents in the general. Obama's approval is upside-down in every swing state, so he'll have quite a task to fix that. A year out, however, Romney looks just fine in state matchups. Maybe the White House can successfully paint him as a flip-flopper. Who knows. If the election can be framed on Obama's stewardship, as I think it will be, Romney can win.

If you want to make the Kerry comparison, that's fine, but don't forget- he was awful close to winning. About 100,000 votes in Ohio. I also refute the comparisons to McCain. McCain was a horrible candidate, and (for me, anyway) it had nothing to do with the issues. He was not passionate. He was too old. He wouldn't attack Obama. He didn't act like he really wanted to be president. I don't think you can say any of those things about Romney.

As far as Romney's apparent ceiling, I think it's normal. In an 8-way race with a quarter saying they're still undecided, I think 25% is fairly good. It was the same way in late 2003.

I don't think you can make a call one way or the other. But the signs have to be troubling for Democrats, whether it's the enthusiasm gap, the fear of African-Americans and students staying home, or any number of things. As it is now, if it's Romney vs Obama, it's a coin-flip. Going up against a historic, billion-dollar incumbent, those might be the GOP's best odds.

I am not just talking Independents. I am talking moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats, anyone with an inclination to vote against Obama. Included in this group in the middle 20% (if you will) are some of the most intelligent voters.

I wouldn't say polls mean "nothing" but they don't mean a whole lot right now.
I think they can shed light later in the game but it's pretty early.
But more pointedly, you can find a poll to justify a lot of different arguments.

And yeah, we can definitely say that Romney wants to be President.
He'd probably do just about anything. God knows, he'd say anything.

I won't disagree that McCain was a pretty bad candidate (i.e. picking Palin) My point with McCain was that he lost the seeming 'moderate' tag that he had always had when he contorted himself to appeal to (and turn out) the base. I believe that cost him a lot of his basic attraction to the middle. Would it have ultimately made a difference? Maybe, maybe not.

The only point about Kerry, really, was that he was assailed as some flip-flopper by Republicans and it seem to have some effect. And yeah, he did almost win. That and the homophobic folks in Ohio probably all contributed their share to that unfortunate election (I'm pretty moderate but W was a total nightmare). I wasn't trying to paint it as a the sole cause or even a large cause in that instance, just that this shit matters to a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents.

Romney hasn't hit a ceiling. Nobody has. And if we're drawing comparisons to 2007 (you said 2003, I am assuming you meant 2007) then let's look at the frontrunners in October of 2003. Fred Thompson, Rudy, hell maybe even Mitt himself. And they fell back to McCain. 1996 was also kind of a strange year. I would analogize this year to the Dems in 2004. Dean and Edwards were out front, Wes Clark jumped in as the darling of the moment and everyone turned on him when he couldn't debate. Lots of things can happen.

What we'd both agree on is that whatever the two-man race becomes by January or February, Mitt will be a finalist. Hell, I'm not even saying he can't win the nomination. He is certainly looking strong at the moment.

But he can't beat Obama because there is no real contrast.

Answer that one for me. What is the basic argument (that Romney would make) for contrast in imploring a voter to exchange Obama for Romney, - something that will appeal to moderates and Independents, who decide all of these national elections? His argument now is for Republicans, while he's trying to be slippery and retain his 'middle'. I'm saying those voters aren't that stupid. He's got archives of himself in the media taking every position.

 

[deep]

Dangerous Liberal Moderate Match-Up 2012 That Worries Obama Supporters

Obummer vs. Mittens

fixed

 

[PhilsFan]

Mitt Romney
Slick, polished, and plays the long-run game. He is Right-Wing Obama. I guess that makes the incumbent Center-Right Obama.

Considering Obama is center-right, I'm not sure what a Center-Right Obama means.

And let us be clear about the fact that Barack Obama is a center-right politician. His economic policies in office, favoring financial institutions, are to the right of center.