CNN Poll: Republicans want winner over ideology in 2012

ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

7,632 posts
1. Why does it seem odd? Of course Republicans would want to win the White House. It also shows R's have moderates, which the party should really play into.
2. It is still 2011, early. Doesn't have any barring to 2012 yet.
Feb 8, 2011 7:24pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

27,879 posts
Honestly, anything to get Barack Obama out of the house. I'll take freakin' John Kerry over this CLOWN.
Feb 8, 2011 7:26pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

6,115 posts
sleeper;670715 wrote:Honestly, anything to get Barack Obama out of the house. I'll take freakin' John Kerry over this CLOWN.
Zell Miller disagrees.
Feb 8, 2011 7:27pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

4,745 posts
What's so surprising here? Republicans want to get Obama out of the White House and restore some sanity to the country. To do that, they're saying (for polling purposes at least) that they'd be willing to vote for someone who isn't an ideological perfect match for their beliefs.

If you polled Democrats on the same issue, I would bet you'd bet the same response.

You can't effect change if you don't have the seat of power to do it.
Feb 8, 2011 8:30pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

2,798 posts
So what your saying writer....

Is that you would vote for a "liberal" Republican like Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe even if you disagree on alot of issues with them...just to have someone else in the White House

Good Lord.....That's like me saying I would have voted for Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson just to get W out of the office
Feb 8, 2011 9:41pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

6,115 posts
No, now think about it. How many times have we voted for the lesser of the two evils? I know that I've done it. And if I live long enough, I'll probably do it again.

Isn't that what you're asking, Gibby?
Feb 8, 2011 10:29pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

2,798 posts
Kinda....the poll results just seem odd to me
Feb 8, 2011 10:32pm
S

stlouiedipalma

1,797 posts
This just validates what I've been saying lately, that if the GOP nominates a member of the "good ole' boys club" they will go down to defeat. They need to start grooming someone new and fresh who can win. None of the leaders in that poll are capable of beating BHO in 2012. Given that Christie already said he isn't running, I'd say that Thune is the man they should be prepping.
Feb 8, 2011 11:00pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

4,745 posts
Ty Webb;670909 wrote:So what your saying writer....

Is that you would vote for a "liberal" Republican like Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe even if you disagree on alot of issues with them...just to have someone else in the White House

Good Lord.....That's like me saying I would have voted for Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson just to get W out of the office

Considering those folks are LIGHT YEARS more in line with my personal philosophies than Obama...you bet your ass I'd vote for them. Why wouldn't I? It gets the faux President out of the White House and puts someone in who will at least come close to doing the things I want.

I know for certain I'll not get what I believe in if Obama stays put.

Don't know why you'd be surprised by that. I'd bet a majority of Americans end up voting that way every election. It's exceedingly rare when a candidate is a 100 percent match to your personal beliefs.
Feb 9, 2011 12:20pm
S

stlouiedipalma

1,797 posts
McGovern, Ford, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain...

The list of first-time Presidential candidates since 1972 who couldn't win. Will we see yet another in 2012? Stay tuned...
Feb 9, 2011 6:30pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

7,632 posts
stlouiedipalma;672177 wrote:McGovern, Ford, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain...

The list of first-time Presidential candidates since 1972 who couldn't win. Will we see yet another in 2012? Stay tuned...

Ok, yet Carter, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama are examples of first-time Presidential candidates that did win.
Feb 9, 2011 6:35pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

2,173 posts
We have a new name in the mix.... The Donald. He gave a rousing speech to CPAC - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49268.html

I'm not sure what to think about him as a President. He certainly says the right things. And he knows 1,000-fold more about business than our current economic fool. Thoughts?
Feb 11, 2011 10:54am
fish82's avatar

fish82

4,111 posts
BGFalcons82;674154 wrote:We have a new name in the mix.... The Donald. He gave a rousing speech to CPAC - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49268.html

I'm not sure what to think about him as a President. He certainly says the right things. And he knows 1,000-fold more about business than our current economic fool. Thoughts?
I'll pass. He doesn't light my fire much.
Feb 11, 2011 10:59am
S

stlouiedipalma

1,797 posts
Trump would at least make for some good hair jokes.
Feb 11, 2011 11:38am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

14,994 posts
Writer pegged it.

You can't change anything if you aren't in the position to do it.

The Republicans are in a position where they'd rather have a moderate ... probably anything to the right of a RINO ... in office, so that at least they can lay some groundwork to direct the the way they want it to go.

I personally vote ideologically, which is why the candidate I vote for probably won't ever win (I don't have enough faith in the rest of America to break the two-party lock), but I don't blame people for settling for less than what they want in office. A jaded population will do that.
Feb 11, 2011 11:39am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

7,632 posts
BGFalcons82;674154 wrote:We have a new name in the mix.... The Donald. He gave a rousing speech to CPAC - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49268.html

I'm not sure what to think about him as a President. He certainly says the right things. And he knows 1,000-fold more about business than our current economic fool. Thoughts?

Not a good choice for President, too much baggage and foreign policy views are largely unknown.
I'd rather see him as Secretary of the Treasury if I had to choose a position for him.
Feb 11, 2011 11:39am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

14,994 posts
BGFalcons82;674154 wrote:We have a new name in the mix.... The Donald. He gave a rousing speech to CPAC - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49268.html

I'm not sure what to think about him as a President. He certainly says the right things. And he knows 1,000-fold more about business than our current economic fool. Thoughts?

Initially, I liked this. It scares me, though.

He knows enough to either be good at fiscal responsibility or good at hiding his own agenda. Most don't.
Feb 11, 2011 11:40am
S

stlouiedipalma

1,797 posts
Once again, perhaps it's too early. Right now there's nobody out there who can win.
Feb 11, 2011 11:42am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

7,632 posts
stlouiedipalma;674213 wrote:Once again, perhaps it's too early. Right now there's nobody out there who can win.

It is too early. It is February, 2011.
We have no idea what will happen that could turn the tide toward the election. I refuse to even think about the 2012 election until at the very least January, 2012. Then, we can examine who has a shot.
Feb 11, 2011 11:51am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

2,173 posts
stlouiedipalma;674213 wrote:Once again, perhaps it's too early. Right now there's nobody out there who can win.

There is one who can win...and convincingly I believe. All he has to do is declare himself for the job. He has made a commitment to be governor of his state that he wants to keep, but America needs him, not just New Jersey.
Feb 11, 2011 11:52am
fish82's avatar

fish82

4,111 posts
stlouiedipalma;674213 wrote:Once again, perhaps it's too early. Right now there's nobody out there who can win.
As ptown said...no one knows the landscape until 1/2012 at the earliest. Any number of things could happen in that time span that could lead to any of the current GOP crop winning the election. On the flip side, Bam could end up winning over Christie in a landslide...there's just no real way to tell right now.

I will say that if unemployment is still over 9% this time next year, he's gonna have his hands full with whoever the GOP nominates.
Feb 11, 2011 12:02pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

2,173 posts
fish82;674243 wrote:I will say that if unemployment is still over 9% this time next year, he's gonna have his hands full with whoever the GOP nominates.

I agree, and that's one reason why the manipulating and outright tomfoolery going on with reporting the unemployment numbers has me concerned. The old saying goes...figures don't lie, but liars figure. For all we know, they'll be reporting 7% unemployment and you'll have to hunt through the report, about page 32, to find those that have quit looking for work is 10%+.
Feb 11, 2011 12:14pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

2,798 posts
Well...considering that pretty much every indicator and analyast has said unemployment will be around 8 % this time next year,I highly doubt he will have to worry about that


Also, 10% unemployment didn't hurt Reagan's re-election campaign did it?
Feb 11, 2011 3:56pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

7,632 posts
Ty Webb;674564 wrote:Well...considering that pretty much every indicator and analyast has said unemployment will be around 8 % this time next year,I highly doubt he will have to worry about that


Also, 10% unemployment didn't hurt Reagan's re-election campaign did it?
I support the President, but so far, he is no Reagan. Not yet anyways, who knows he could be.
Different times and different political climates.
Feb 11, 2011 4:02pm