Who will take on Obama in 2012?

Good to see rufnek is still alive.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Republicans have such a pitiful group of non-winners - perfect time for someone with balls to stand up...

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Like who?

This is a pathetic bunch of candidates.

My point

It is looking more and more like a Republican brokered convention could be in the future and someone else instead of these characters.

Might be Christie after all.

I have changed my mind about Romney. I thought he could beat Obama. No, he can't, not even if the economy slides back again nor can the other three.

But it is quite possible Republicans take back the Senate barely and hold on to the House narrowly.

What a circus that will be.

I've told you, they're all lining up to lose to Obama. It's not that Obama's great or anything, it's just that there's no one there to challenge him.

Hi,

Ditto

It is sad that no one is really standing out for the GOP. This will be another year that I will abstain on voting for President and fill the rest of the ballot out.

I know they say VOTE. I have friends in politics and have talked with many politicians. IMO the first thing we need to do with are voting system is Vote the electoral college out.

Then we might have a fare and real election and more of a reason to vote.

Sami

No matter who wins, and it looks like it will be Romney, the Republicans will form a united front and trounce Obama.

I'll take that bet.

Romney is a wounded animal for the general election with the revelations about the extent of his wealth and his clueless comments about not caring about the poor. If the unemployment rate gets down below eight percent, which now seems a real possibility, Obama is in real good shape. The Republicans best hope is a brokered convention with Christie as their white knight. He is no right winger, but the tea partiers will be relieved he isn't Romney and will back him. And of course he won't have to go through the primaries where he could have run into trouble. Christie would be a tough opponent. Romney at this point is a sitting duck.

Christie is not even running. Did he not reiterate that on two seperate occassions. Now, if he did actually run, it would make him a flip-flop like all the others and not to be believed, with the exception of Santorum, who has stuck by his guns fo better or worse.
It's not about who you think should win, it's about who will win.
Let's face it. Who runs this country and who stands to gain the most or lose the most with the next president? For them Romney is a no brainer.
You feel like betting, ok, just let me know how much.

Christie is not running in the primaries. But if the convention comes around and Romney hasn't wrapped it up, then there is a real possibility the delegates pick a different compromise consensus candidate. It hasn't happened in a long time, but can and the odds are greater with so much resistance to Romney. None of the current candidates are a viable alternative. Christie won't be a flip flop in that scenario because he will be drafted by a party desperate for a candidate to credibly challenge Obama.

Who runs the country.

What is on second.

Obama is the favorite, but it's incredibly silly to pretend he's some kind of shoo-in. No political professional or expert thinks that, and neither do Vegas oddsmakers. Nor is it supported by environmental factors like the economy, even if it improves. Nor is it reflected in his approval rating. There's really nothing to support the idea that this is a foregone conclusion.

This is especially true when the primary reason for favoring him heavily is the perceived strength of his eventual opponent. That's a horrendously flawed, subjective measure. For example, Ronald Reagan was thought the riskier choice when he ran in the primaries against Bush Sr. in 1980, a perception which was stupendously wrong.

So sure, I'd bet on Obama. I'd put him at a little over 60% if I had to. But it'd be crazy to give him more than, say, 2-1 odds at the absolute most.

Also, nobody calls it a flip-flop when a candidate decides to run after all. Nobody ever holds that sort of thing against them.

It's a possibility but right now seems unlikely for Christie. Personaly, I like him.
Unless Obama becomes Hudini and turns the economy around before the election, he won't get another chance. Not only has he alienated people from his own party but independents, as well, as they are constantly aware of the rising oil prices.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, Obama is perceived as a week president ( even though he managed to take the credit for the SEAL mission into Pakistan ). Too many reshuffels in his Cabinet. Even Hillary is running away. He's got no clue about Iran, Pakistan, North Korea nor for that matter how to deal with China. He doesn't even understand what's happening in Europe yet still insists on an American copy. His attempt at Obama care and idea of wealth distribution is doomed to fail in America. He is a change waiting to happen. He is done.

Ronald Reagan had star power and because of typical bad judgement by Jimmy Carter only debated Reagan in one debate just before the election. Carter was a terrible debater. He only won in 1976 becuse Gerald Ford was worse. I earlier said Romney had a fair chance of beating Obama. But not the way things have gone in the last month. He looks like a disaster, but not quite as bad as Gingrich or Santorum. Events are fluid, but it is hard for me to see how Romney can manage it anymore. He has glaring flaws that wasn't so apparent a month ago. Romney and Gingrich have been viciously attacking each other. Romney's negative ratings have shot up because of it.

The Republican Party needs someone else or they are doomed.

But they still might hang on to the House and take the Senate.

Obama doesn't have to turn the economy around before the election. Reagan didn't, Roosevelt didn't. It just has to be going in the right direction.

The rest of what you said is Republican Party talking points. Save it for the general election.

Call them what you will, they are the truth. This country has been on a downward spiral ever since Obama took office and you can't still keep on blaming Bush. Obama promised change and yes we got it but only for the worse. It's sad that all it takes is to be a great orator to win the highest office in the land, even though this orator is just a paper tiger. I saw through him then listening to his prolonged speeches about nothing as I see him soon to fall from grace.

Next to Obama, Carter is the worst president that the US ever had. It's not by coincedence that these two names are often linked together.
We flourished under Regan. Should not even be mentioned in the same breath. Are you a Democrat or are we having this discussion just for the sake of discussion?

This is beside the point. Either a) people didn't realize Reagan was such a good debater and Carter such a bad one, or b) people didn't realize how important the debates might end up being. Either way, the lesson is the same: people's opinions in the primary as to which candidates are strong or weak are simply not reliable.

Aye, you did say he had a fair chance, and as you might recall I insisted from the beginning that he had significant weaknesses. And I still think he does. But Obama has lots of flaws, too, and they're just as serious.

The underlying dynamics of the race haven't really changed. It was obvious (or should have been, at least) from the beginning that Romney wasn't going to excite conservatives, so it's a major overreaction to downgrade him from coin flip to long-shot based on the last month, when several nothing-to-lose candidates have every reason in the world to start taking shots at him. Obama and Hillary tore each other to shreds, but every eventual nominee has months to patch things up and unite the party, and things never end up being as bad or fractured as they seem to be in the last throes of competition in the primaries. He can pick Rubio and focus on economic issues where he can actually speak with some authority. It's short-sighted to let one's opinions of the race fluctuate wildly based on whatever the last couple dozen news cycles have been.

Still looking bad for Romney and Republicans this week.

Santorum leads in the national polls and he is still ahead in Michigan where Romney's father was governor. Republicans desperately want someone other than Romney, but the alternatives are pretty unattractive. Santorum and Gingrich have now been the flavor of the month twice and it is not impossible Ron Paul will get his turn.

Romney with all his money to go negative against a very vulnerable candidate like Santorum should win Michigan in the end, but he shouldn't be having this much trouble in a state that ought to be a no-brainer for him.

And Republicans in Congress finally faced reality and caved on the payroll tax extension. But by resisting it for so long they tarnished their reputation as tax cutters as it looked like their top priority was cutting taxes for the rich and not the middle class by insisting until this week the payroll tax be paid for with spending cuts, a requirement they never made before, and were even willing to increase debt rather than to even minimally increase tax on the highest wage earners to help offset the cost.