Whom would you most like to see as the Republican nominee? And why?

[JackRiddler]

Okay, we're all against all of them. None of us are voting for any of them in November. This is a game. You don't have to have a preference! You don't have to play.

Nevertheless, one of them is going to be the nominee of the Republican Party and therefore one of only two persons who could win the election (barring an unforeseeable political earthquake of global proportions). Whom do you prefer? Can you make a case that any one of them is better than the rest? Why?

[Angry Dragon]

1. Ronald Reagan ........... he seems the most popular

[hallowell]

2. Newt

Just for the debates.

[glowing]

3. Romney.. because he's the walking example of the 1% that the laws need to be changed for...

He's the example of how America has been sold out.

[JackRiddler]

4. Ron Paul would be guaranteed to lose.

And his presence will raise important issues.

I'd rather see Obama debating Paul about the need for empire, than Obama debating Romney about the "need" to aggressively confront Iran. (I'd also rather see Paul lose by a large margin than Romney make things uncomfortably close. Wouldn't you?)

Furthermore, I submit that only committed ideologues seriously think that anything bad you can say about Paul does not also apply to Romney. And as for Gingrich, it's true he didn't sign his name to racist newsletters 20 years ago, he's merely been writing racist books ever since!

The selective hatred for Paul as opposed to the other Republicans is curious. Paul enrages liberals mainly because he's touching (for better or worse) the life or death issues they have abandoned under Obama. They who were so opposed to the PATRIOT Act or the Afghanistan war or the practice of preventive detention or the drug war under Bush, but who feel they have to rationalize these barbarisms now that Obama is in support of them. It's infuriating to have a right-wing throwback with highly regressive politics nevertheless present more progressive positions on such all-essential questions of war, peace, empire and fundamental rights.

[ProSense]

7. Interesting:

I'd rather see Obama debating Paul about the need for empire, than Obama debating Romney about the "need" to aggressively confront Iran. (I'd also rather see Paul lose by a large margin than Romney make things uncomfortably close. Wouldn't you?) ...The selective hatred for Paul as opposed to the other Republicans is curious. Paul enrages liberals mainly because he's touching (for better or worse) the life or death issues they have abandoned under Obama.

Rooting for Paul to become the GOP nominee in anticipation of the debates.

Here's what to expect:

GOP Audience Demands Ron Paul Get To Answer Abortion Question
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192450

Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002177891

Ron Paul's hypocritical vision of health care: charity or death, "that's what freedom is all about"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100288476

What was that about "life or death" issues?

[JackRiddler]

12. So, are you going to answer the OP question?

[ProSense]

14. Sure

whichever one will lose big. In fact, I'm hoping they all drop out by June.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

5. I'm torn between Mitt and Newt...

...because both of them are "this close" to LOSING it, and the result is going to be GREAT television (and four more years with a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office).

I used to think George W. Bush was a petulant little shit (well, actually, I still do).

[JI7]

6. Ron Paul

[RainDog]

8. the one most likely to lose by a large margin

who would also take down as many republicans in the legislature as possible.

[NC_Nurse]

9. Ron Paul. It would rock the Repub world and the media's world too.

[Raine]

10. Ron Paul ... him having the nomination would drive the GOP off the cliff.

[JackRiddler]

11. Right?

The GOP would almost certainly split as a result.

He'd also cause an upheaval across the spectrum due to his mix of positions.

But wait, according to what some people imagine should be DU doctrine, we're supposed to hate him more than the "moderate" Romney or, based on the volume of outraged posts, even Santorum (who promises he would start World War III immediately).

[graywarrior]

13. I bet their anuses are tightening over the thought of Newt as their candidate

I can't imagine their reaction to Ron Paul.

[RichGirl]

15. Romney

Because Newt is a sleazy, hypocritical POS...and Rick Sanwhatshisname...well don't need to even address that!

One thing could make me be okay with a Romney win. IF when he makes his acceptance speech he brings out his 6 wives and 75 kids. The fundies would go nuts!!

[valerief]

16. Stephen Colbert, of course. nt

[JackRiddler]

17. Uh oh.

In that case, I'd have to vote for him.

[valerief]

18. Me, too. Would that be so bad if he were president? Think of him as a smart, liberal Reagan. nt

[sufrommich]

19. Definitely Romney. He's already cracking

under the pressure of having to keep a stiff upper lip while the lesser people ask him questions like they're his equals or something. I love the look of sneering resignation on his face lately.

[Kingofalldems]

20. Big time Newty--his wife brushes his hair every day

[underpants]

21. It doesn't matter - who isn't in the race is telling

Obama not only has this in the bag aside from his campaign (ME) getting into full swing consider who isn't in the race.

Thune
Mitch Daniels
Christie (first term he really can't be in it)
Rubio
Paul Ryan


Some of them have nicely said NO and some of them have said - NO NEVER STOP ASKING

They know that Obama is going to swamp them with money (always #1) and charisma and the bully pulpit. Poll numbers are inflated by the massive free exposure the Republicans have gotten from the free debates (by-product: non-campaigns of Cain and Newt). Obama stole all their pop culture thunder in one week with the Betty White video and the Rev. Al Green singing.

The only reason Romney is above water is that they know that they have to hold on to Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts to have any hope of taking the Senate. It will be close. McDonnell taking on Allen in Virginia could take away one they were counting on - GO TIME KAINE!!!- and that is two that they can't recover from.

[A Simple Game]

22. Of course I don't want any of them to win the Republican nomination, but one probably will.

At least we hope for one of them to come out of the convention a winner, the alternative is likely a stronger Republican candidate.

I will go against the grain of this thread and hope for the best candidate to win, just in case. I remember back in 2000 thinking Gore had the Presidency in the bag because Bush was too stupid to chew gum and walk at the same time. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled again. But I was in 2004!

The only thing that needs to happen for the Republican to win against President Obama is for him to fall flat on his face. Seeing as how he has stubbed his toes several times, it is a distinct possibility. It's a long time till November.

That said I would want Romney or Paul to win the nomination. I think Romney would drift back to the center if he won, and we could probably stop most damage from Paul's domestic policies and benefit from his cutting of defense. Newt and Santorum completely scare me.

[s-cubed]

23. Not Newt - he scares me. He has too much

of the demagogue, is too unstable, has too much ego, too much grandiosity. He's the kind of person who can seduce a whole society, like Hitler did.
Note: I am not calling him a Nazi, just that he has similar personality traits to Hitler.