Probably the best of the remaining conservatives, and more electable than the alternatives.

Romney - Obama Lite. Far too liberal, a flipflopper and a liar to boot. Little if any conservative support other than what he paid for. Has the most money and the best organization. Religion may be an issue for some. Could beat Obama, if conservatives supported strongly, but no real sign of that thus far.

Gingrich - Smart, well-spoken, and a deal maker, but totally unelectable due to personal issues and tendency to speak too candidly in public. Limited resources and not always well spent. Definite huge loser to Obama.

Paul - Probably what we need to shock the system. Unfortunately, has far out positions and opinions and is not afraid to share them and is thus unelectable. Second best organization. Probably a landslide loser to Obama.

Santorum - Smart, sharp, and usually on message. Motivates conservatives without being a firebrand like Newt or alienating Independents and moderates. Needs money and organization, but that should come as he wins states. Could beat Obama.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Santorum is not going to get much moderate or independent support IMO. His views on social issues like birth control will drive lots and lots of voters away. I see him getting slaughtered in a general election. I think we are all screwed.

Have a nice weekend everyone!

I put him right up there with Backman and all the other religious zealots. Wearing his religion on his sleeve. Always thinking they know whats best for us. What a joke.

Not withstanding my, ah, skepticism of Representative Paul's political views and policy preferences, he does not demonstrate the skill set of an effective parliamentarian.

Of the last forty eight bills he's sponsored, only four had ten or more co-sponsors (10, 10, 33, and 210), while thirty-one had zero co-sponsors. None of these bills have made it out of committee.

The country needs a president who can get things done, not just talk about what should be done. Mr. Paul, much like the current president, has focused on the latter at the expense of demonstrating he can do the former.

As a guy who runs local races, I had totally forgotten about electoral votes. Every other race in the U.S. just counts votes---he with the most wins. The electoral/popular vote is a very important distinction in this race. Come hell or high water, certain states such as California are going to go democratic. The opposite is true in conservative states, think Texas and the south. So, the guy who gets the nomination has to be able to win swing states, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. Specifically, independents in those states.

afchic,

I am not a fan of Mr. Santorum because his principles and values do not reflect my own.

I do realize how blue PA was in '06, but I also realize that that has changed, hence my using the term "purple."

If Mr. Romney would stop flip-flopping, I would be more amenable to voting for him. Unfortunately, he has not, and in the process is alienating lots of independents.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I agree with this assessment. For me, it is this simple:

Nominate Santorum - (Re)Elect Obama.

Due to his radical religious views, he'd be lucky to get over 30% of the female vote, and could probably not even carry a state like Arizona. He is NOT conservative. He cannot see the inconsistency of favoring a federal law banning abortion, yet allowing the states to ban or allow contraception. (Contraception?!?! Where are we, 1940??? And they talked about JFK being "controlled" by the Pope!)

Ron Paul? Are you serious? He places earmarks in bills that are bound to pass, and then votes against them when they come to the floor. He thinks that by removing the US from world affairs, everyone will "love" us and respect us for that - totally ignoring the fact that there are those in this world that are dedicated to our destructilon JUST BECAUSE. His foreign policy would be the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and making the "la la" sound when shit happens. Elect him... and it will.

Newt. DOA!

Romney. Flawed. Not conservative enough. BUT, the only one of the current crew who had a chance of beating Obama. (That was before this "primary" bloodfest, which has almost assuredly resulted in Obama's re-election - unless someone "rides to the rescue" at the Republican National Convention.)

Few will care about social issues unless the economy has miraculous growth in the next 6 months.
If the election is made about the current office holder, we'll have a new one.

Expect all media attention to be directed at the republican nominee.
Anything to distract from the incompetence displayed for the last 4 years.

So by get things done you mean pressuring same party members to vote a certain way, and allowing the other party members to ear mark legislation so that they will vote for it, increasing wasteful spending, blah blah blah.....because that is how the rest of them "get things done". In the end both parties appeal to their support base on emphasized issues of the time, and can criticize the opposition...but hey, at least the bill was passed...

Rep. Paul doesn't sing the party lines like a mindless fool like the rest, he also doesn't play their game, he sticks to his principles, unlike the rest. I don't want a guy that will sacrifice his principles to "get things done". That is the exact opposite of what our country needs right now.

Great 5 minute video here:
http://youtu.be/AZ9WOqJG-2s
love this youtube website, great information.

Agreed. Typical Republican banter: little government intervention economically, big government intervention socially. Very unattractive to a lot of people. The election will depend on what independents and moderates believe is more important, economic freedom or social freedom.

Possible brokered convention?
 

Here's an interesting article on Reuters this morning. If Romney performs poorly in Michigan (as recent polls suggest he might), chaos could ensue. It would be interesting to see if someone else throws their hat into the race, either before Super Tuesday or at the Republican National Convention in August.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...81H04520120218

It is very possible for Romney to lose in MI -- we have an open primary. In other words, you can vote on the Republican ballot in the primary even if you're not Republican (and vice-versa in Democratic primaries).

Give the people what they want
 

FWIW, I agree that the distance between the two parties is not as great as many would like to believe. However, I do not see this dynamic as the result of a 'power elite' seeking to distract and disenfranchise the rank and file through marketing and rhetoric.

Instead, I think voters are largely responsible for the state of political life in America today. Through our voting patterns, our (anti-) intellectual habits and our rhetoric, we send a clear message to elected officials that we prefer gridlock in Washington and that we want echo chambers when it comes to debate over policy options. Moreover, by contributing to the game of "gotcha," we help to drive out of politics those who don't want every aspect of their private lives placed under unrelenting scrutiny.

My $0.02.

I've never really agreed with the idea of open primaries as voting from a pool candidates who all are of the same party should naturally be reserved for voters affiliated with that party. Despite his recent poor showings, I am still of the belief that Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama, and a win in Michigan is absolutely vital for him. If somebody else decides to jump in, Governor Mitch Daniels would probably be the best choice, at least judging from his record in the Hoosier State.

When Democrats are in power, man represses man. When Republicans are in power, it's the other way around.


Vote Libertarian to get the Democrats out of your wallet and the Republicans out of your bedroom. How much freedom can you tolerate?