Who do you want as the Republican nominee?

Let's face it we have an embarrassment of riches on the Rupublican side.  Guiliani in drag with 3 marriages under his belt.  Romney the Mormon with a pro-choice past.  Gingrich, who is well known and hated.  McCain who is trying on new politics and still saying he is a man of integrity.  

I believe that any of the Democrats could beat the Republicans.  But, the question is who would we most like to go up against.  Who would be the easiest to beat?  Who would do the most long term damage to the Republicans?  Who would hurt the Republicans most down ticket?  And who would be the most fun to kick around?

Right now I'm for Giuliani.  He will alienate the Republican base with his past support of gays and abortion rights.  In addition, he will alienate everyone else with his nastiness.  And he is bound to be very entertaining.

•  It doesn't matter.

  Any Democratic candidate can beat any candidate of theirs.

  by rserven on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:42:04 AM PDT

  •  Think so?

    Rudy scares me a little.

    We'll beat anyone else pretty badly.

    by brownsox on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:42:52 AM PDT

    •  Republicans will stay home in droves...

      ...if Rudy is their candidate.

      by rserven on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:44:20 AM PDT

      •  On the other hand...

        ...if Rudy is the candidate, some reliably blue states might be in jeopardy.  New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York... How does a Democrat win without those?  

        by Bill W on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:49:06 AM PDT

        •  I live in Jersey.

          Not a chance is my analysis.  He is not well-liked here.

          by rserven on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:17 AM PDT

          •  New York too,

            I've read. Although that assumes Hillary will be the nominee, I think.

            by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:53:22 AM PDT

          •  The most recent poll I've seen....

            ...showed Giuliani beating Clinton and Obama, by nine and eleven points, respectively.  

            See this poll

            Up here in Northern NJ, with a lot of voters who work in NYC and were directly effected by 9/11, Giluiani is pretty popular, even among Democrats.

            by Bill W on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:03:08 AM PDT

            •  The polls said Kean was going to beat Menendez.

              Didn't happen.

              by rserven on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:08:44 AM PDT

              •  Actually...

                ...nearly all of the polls showed Menendez beating Kean, albeit by less than the ultimate margin.  

                But your point about how flaky New Jersey polling numbers are is well-taken.  

                by Bill W on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:15:00 AM PDT

        •  New Yorkers

          will not vote for Rudy.

          We know him.

          There was a saying about him, back when he was mayor

          "If you like him, you don't know him well enough"

          by plf515 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:58:45 AM PDT

          •  I'd feel a lot more confident...

            ...in your statement that New Yorkers won't vote for him if he hadn't been elected mayor of NYC twice.  

            by Bill W on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:08:34 AM PDT

            •  Trust me

              He'll be creamed here.

              by brownsox on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:17:17 AM PDT

            •  Giuliani didn't become "Saint Rudy" until 9/11.

              Prior to that it wasn't clear that he could even have been re elected mayor were he able to run for another term.  Since then, as his profile has gone  up nationally it has sunk locally.  

              Also recall that he lost his first bid for mayor and won his second by a slim margin.  No Rethug is gonna take NY no matter who our nominee is.  The projected Rudy/HRC race has already taken place in NY;  the numbers were so dismal for him that he withdrew, citing health reasons.    

              by MajorFlaw on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:05:22 AM PDT

        •  When the campaign starts in earnest...

          ...Rudy will implode for all of the obvious reasons: marriages, guns, gays, etc.

          But more than that, it will be driven home that he was just a mayor, that his record was controversial, that his police engaged in torture, and, most of all, that he screwed up the response to 9/11 (read Grand Illusion).

          That's why I hope he gets the nomination. He's a paper tiger.
          .

          by KingOneEye on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:03:59 AM PDT

      •  You think?

        They can be more-than-motivated enough if they perceive (right or wrong) that the alternative is even more socially liberal, along with "pro-cut-and-run/slow-bleed," "pro-terrorist," "tax-and-spend," etc.

        Also, so many of the lost votes would be in guaranteed Republican states anyway; while polls don't mean much now, this analysis is interesting:

        http://www.usnews.com/...
        

        by BlueEngineerInOhio on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:29:26 AM PDT

    •  yeah Rudy knows

      that he just needs to move to the right enough to fool the base into voting for him in the primaries. I think he has the best chance in the general, and a Dem would have a harder time beating him than say McCain.

      by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:47:41 AM PDT

      •  Much of the right...

        ...doesn't need to be fooled by Rudy. They seem perfectly willing to look the other way on many issues. He just has to leave some small hint of doubt about his real position. Of course I agree with your conclusion.

        by factbased on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:22:08 AM PDT

    •  Here's my reasoning for voting Rudy in the poll

      The Republican party has one platform: fear.

      That fear has to take multiple forms to reach all of their voters.

      By choosing Rudy as their nominee they are giving up the Gun,Gay and God part of their fear manta and stoking fear solely on the bad brown guys.

      I don't think they can pull that off.  They need the Guns, Gays and God crowd.  They are only half a party without them.

      by bawbie on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

      •  But Rudy may not need the base

        in the general election. I think he would be threat because he is not as well known as some and is not as polarizing a figure as say  H. Clinton. so he may be able to ditch the base in the general and pick up enough moderates and swing voter to carry it.

        by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

      •  Rudy could be the guy...

        ... to divide the Republic voting base into its two major parts -- the pro-business crowd and the keen-on-Jesus crowd. If the Christians are able to bite their tongues and vote for the man sure to be called "the lesser of two evils," then he might have a chance, but remember that the other side has plenty of purity trolls, too. Maybe more than us!

        by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:55:17 AM PDT

        •  Im less worried

          about the jesus crowd and more worried about the business crowd. I worried about Rudy taking the "moderates" in the general election.

          I'm from California and I can definatlet see Rudy taking a hard right line in the primaries and then pulling a "Schwartzenegger" in the General and moving to a more moderate position. I seems like it would work BUT IT DOES. I have seen it and thats what I'm worried about.

          by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:59:09 AM PDT

          •  That's what got me worried about him...

            ... in the first place.

            There are fewer Jesus voters than they'd like you to think that there are, and besides that they're starting to feel a little manipulated (it's about time!) by the far right. I see them becoming less political in the immediate future.

            But the biz crowd and the moderates... that could be a winning campaign.

            by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:04:05 AM PDT

            •  Yeah

              I think that some Dems are only looking at the votes he WON'T get as opposed to the votes he would PICK UP that any "normal" GOP'er would not usually get.

              by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:07:55 AM PDT

  •  Forget the polls - still a 50/50 Country

    We can't wait for them to lose. We need to win.

    by smartinez on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:43:43 AM PDT

  •  When I Look At...

    ...the Republican line-up, all I can think of is the Lieber and Stoller song "Your Cash Ain't Nothin' But Trash" (recorded by many, many people) with the line:

    This ain't no circus and I don't need a clown.

    by AaronBa on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:45:37 AM PDT

  •  And any hare

    can beat any tortoise?

    Beware of overconfidence . . . .

    by jmart on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:48:21 AM PDT

    •  I didn't say *will* beat...

      I said can beat.  There is always the possibility of people screwing up.  One can't control for every possible user error.  There is no end to stupider users.

      by rserven on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:57:53 AM PDT

•  I'm waiting for someone to ask Rudy whether

  he's willing to pledge that, if elected, he will stay married to the same women throughout his term in office.

  by zashvil on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:42:06 AM PDT

  •  If he were a Dem,

    rest assured that a Fox News "reporter" would ask just that.

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:56:33 AM PDT

•  Me thinks they'll go Hagel

  Maverick Republican will lead party in new direction - blah, blah, blah - distance from White House, indie cred - this is the nightmare scenario for Dems.

  by smartinez on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:42:12 AM PDT

  •  But, what makes him strong in the general weakens

    him in the primary.  I think this is the fundamental problem for the Republicans.  What appeals to their base (slavish support of Bush and religious fundamentalism) is anathema to the swing voters.

    by jct on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:44:50 AM PDT

  •  Maverick, my ass.

    Hagel is the designated mouth-off piece.

    Hagel runs his lip and gives out some choice little tidbits, but when the time to vote comes, he lines up with the incompetent liar Bush every time.

    Who do I want to see on the Republican ticket?  No one.  Since I am not going to voter for any Republicans this cycle due to the war and the financial irresponsibility, I don't give a damn who gets the nomination from that squalid mass.

    I hope it's Brownback so the real face of Republican/Authoritarianism gets a full spotlight showing.

    by boilerman10 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:58 AM PDT

    •  Maverick, Shmaverick!

      I second that emotion. But I think that the Repugs are so adept at auto-delusion and PR they'll put up this "Rebel Conservative".

      by smartinez on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:06:17 AM PDT

  •  No way

    Hagel is something like their Lieberman as far as they are concerned: widely regarded as someone who just can't wait to side with the enemy.  There is zero enthusiasm for Hagel in the ranks.  

    Now maybe if the trend was not away from paperless electronic voting...

    by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:55:51 AM PDT

    •  That may be true

      but hagel says he votes with bush more than any other republican!
      Hagel scares me because he comes off as COMPETANT.
      But agreeing with other comments, Hagel has the same chance of getting the R nomination as Lieberman does getting the D nomination. And JL says he's not running this time.

      by sd4david on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:01:15 AM PDT

      •  Well

        If looking competent was the decisive criterium in Republican politics, how'd we get Bush?  IMO, centuries of American anti-intellectualism and distrust of elites has led us to the point where it pays for educated scions of wealth and privelege to act like Gomer Pyle in order to get elected.    

        by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:11:52 AM PDT

        •  that' s not what this diary/thread is about

          It asked who we wanted to be the Republican nominee. This means who we are least afraid of in a general election. Converesly, many of us chose to list who we are MOST afraid of in a general election, and WHY we are afraid of them. It does not mean we think they will get the nomination. One of the things Democrats SHOULD run on in 2008 is COMPETANCY, and that would not be as effective against Hagel as other nominees.
          George Bush ran on TWO things 1) Not getting a bj in the white house. 2tax cuts. And he delivered.
          Candidates run of the faults or perceived faults of their opponents and/or predecessor.
          It's kind of like every time I look for a new job, I make sure it doesn't have the same negatives as the old job.

          by sd4david on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:44:39 AM PDT

•  Jeb Bush running for President

  I shudder at the thought. Although, I do believe he will be encouraged, by the Repugs, to run in a couple more Presidential cycles.

  by Mr SeeMore on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:42:17 AM PDT

  •  jeb is a fantastic choice

    he's as crooked as a dog's hind leg and his name is bush...please nominate a third fucking bush!

    by memofromturner on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:49:26 AM PDT

•  Micheal Savage

  Please please please

  by jimraff on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:43:14 AM PDT

  •  Vote

    here

    by calipygian on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:45:55 AM PDT

  •  I was just about

    to say that.

    by dhonig on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:58:53 AM PDT

    •  Vote Early

      Vote Often

      by jimraff on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:00:59 AM PDT

•  Definitely Brownback

  It is the GOP's identification with the intolerant, backward, theocratic American Taliban that is the biggest long-term anchor holding them down -- even more than the war, although the war is the big short-term issue.

  A lot of people were willing to overlook that theocracy when they thought the Repugs were (a) keeping them safe from terra; and (b) managing the national checkbook with some semblance of responsibility.

  Now that those two fig leaves are being torn away by reality, theocracy is all the GOP really has to stand for. And thankfully, the majority of Americans find it repellent.

  Sam is the standard bearer for theocracy. With him as the nominee, the party will be branded with that theme for at least a decade.

  by jmart on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:44:08 AM PDT

  •  Amen to that!

    He's by far the most shockingly wacky candidate.  He'd seal a victory by any reasonable Democratic candidate.  I'm all for Brownback getting the national stage to spew his nonsense to the public.

    by ssmt on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:55:17 AM PDT

  •  I voted Brownback as well

    The creationists would come out in droves, but the middle would absolutely cave and many would vote Dem.

    I agree that Giuliani is the biggest threat.  On a conservative talk show last night, a man in his 30s called in and said he had voted for Bush twice and would vote for Giuliani because the terror threat was "the only thing that mattered".  Many, many callers agreed with him.

    Do not underestimate the power of the boogeyman.

    As for Gingrich, in my experience women despise him.

    by raydavies on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:59:33 AM PDT

  •  matter of your goal, really

    As much I think they have NO shot at winning in 2008, there are a few ways to go with this question.

    Assuming, erroneously (as most voters will do) that the positions these chumps are taking publicly is what we could expect from them as president, we could conclude certain things about each of the main players:

    a) Guilianni: the bonus is that the hard religious right will be marginalized, which would be a victory for everybody. We could make up ground on social issues that have been held up by the religious fringe. But he could be a loose cannon on foreign policy. After all this guy thinks W will go down as a great president (that quote must get played nonstop if he is the nominee). We have no real idea though. He has no foreign policy experience, which is what drives me nuts with repubs who spite Obama for the same reason. His only hope of winning would be to siphon some blue states, like NY, NJ, or PA. No way he gets NY, although PA could be a concern. But it won't matter. The base will not support him, and he will get exposed as a lightweight during the campaign. As far as long term effects for the repubs, hard to tell, but you would hope it would fracture the religious fringe off to 3rd party status. That would be great.

    b) McCain: again, he will not win. He has staked out a position as the most pro war pro escalation candidate, which the public has become totally fed up with. 2 years from now, it will be even worse. Independents will not like his age (would love to see his before/after 8 years of presidency photo..lol!) and the "base" continues to hate him even though he has pandered to them. Will they turn out in droves to keep the war going? Unlikely. He won't fracture the base as much as Rudy, though. This honorable geezer would have no hope against anyone but Hillary, who he still wouldn't beat.

    c) Romney: tougher to call. We count on the religious fringe to turn up their nose on a Mormon, but is that really going to happen? He will get the flip-flop treatment from them about gay rights, but he seems to have survived a changed image better than McCain. He polls terribly in national polls, so I cannot say I am very worried about him. But I don't see him fracturing the base.

    Among the 3, I would prefer Rudy from the standpoint of moving the country away from the grasp of the religious fringe, which would be a big step forward.  I also give him a small chance to win, barring a huge screw up on our part. Call me naive, but I don't think pure 9-11 can get him elected over any of our candidates, all of which are very strong in their own ways. I can't see Romney getting very far with independents, and McCain is clinging too tighly to losing issues.

    So, about Hagel. If you combine Hagel and Rudy, you might have a decent candidate. But as has been noted, he has turned into their Lieberman, and we all know how much chance he would have to get the nomination. If I were confident that this guy would put his money where his mouth is and get us out of Iraq if he won, that would be nice. As has been noted, I don't. He is the GHWB of this election, except that his party doesn't like him now. He would be a worry in the general, but a charismatic candidate like Obama could take him out. How many more times does this country need to see the failures of conservatism, anyway? Enough is enough.

    by rscottrewak on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:43:45 AM PDT

•  Gingrich could never win in the general election.

  So he is definately my choice.

  by HairyTrueMan on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:44:44 AM PDT

  •  That's right. If Rudy's 3 marriages is a problem,

    recall that Newt had divorce papers served on his first wife while she was in a hospital bed with cancer. And I believe his second wife was also served with divorce papers while Newt waas away. He's too cowardly to do his dirty deeds in person. And for each of his 3 marriges he was dating the next wife before divorcing the prior. And I think the most recent was worked for him in his congressional office when they began their affair.

    Oh the fundies would have a hard time embracing the Newtster. And I don't just mean that they can't fit their arms around him. You think folks are unnecessarily mean about Al Gore's new girth? If Newt's the nominee you'll hear lots of references to Pres. Taft.

    by aggressiveprogressive on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:41:23 AM PDT

•  Newt Gingrich!!!

  The Repugs have ALWAYS overestimated how much the public likes and admires Gingrich.  

  In fact, he's pretty loathed, and completely unappealing to most people.   But the GOP mistakes their own love of nasty little Newt for ther public's.

  Bring that three-times-married, divorced-his-wife-when-she-was-recovering-from-cancer, snotnosed little liar on!

  2nd choice:  Michael Savage.

  by chumley on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:45:39 AM PDT

  •  Vote to let Michael Wiener know how you feel

    here

    by calipygian on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

  •  Unlike the rest of them, Newt could actually

    beat any Dem nominee (especially HRC). Look over the field and tell which one is actually a strong candidate; certainly not Rudy or McCain - they'll neverget the Theocon vote. Likewise, the Theocons are not going to support Romeny, albeit for different reasons (the more disgusting reason of ouright bigotry). While Brownback will be the darling of the religious right, he actually scare away those traditional conservatives that now lament the direction the GOP has gone since 2001.

    Newt, for now anyway, is the only real Repug candidate that can unite the GOP behind him, despite his Rudy-like baggage.

    by Spud1 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:06:47 AM PDT

    •  Not the fundies.

      Newt's foibles are writ large and publicly known. Recall also that he left the speakership under a cloud of ethics scandals with an approval rating below W's current standing.

      by aggressiveprogressive on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:45:57 AM PDT

  •  Hes a damn sociopath!

    And a traitor to the United States, with his damn countra history of a Confederate Victory.

    The CSA lives, it's just called the Republican Party.

    by UndercoverRxer on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:59:34 AM PDT

•  Giuliani?

  are you kidding me?  he will be the toughest to beat.  That alienated base you are talking about will still vote GOP, and independents support him in a head to head matchup against all of the dem nominees.

  People realize his 'nastiness' and that is appealing.  He's seen as a tough new yorker.  People know exactly who he is and they like him.  Check the favorable-unfavorable ratings from all the polls.  He was Time Magazine Man of the Year, Mr. 9/11 hero, remember?

  I do not understand why people are itching for a Giuliani contest.

  What we hope for is a long and nasty GOP race where McCain pulls out all the stops and dirty tricks against Giuliani, in desperation to try and get this nom.  

  by duha on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:46:57 AM PDT

  •  No, they won't

    I deal with theocrats every day here in Kansas. They are dyed in the wool true believers -- Christian Conservatives first, Republicans second. Remember, they booed Rudy for invoking Lincoln, for cryin' out loud.

    These people will sit on their hands before they will vote for Rudy G. for president. His refusal to embrace the anti-gay, anti-choice agenda is all they need to know.  

    by jmart on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:31 AM PDT

    •  yes they will

      I am an evangelical Christian in NC.  I am a news editor for a Christian publication, and have been in contact with over a thousand Christian organizations in the last year alone, talking about news and political issues.

      And the polls so far among social conservatives bear this out, with Giuliani having a big lead.

      by duha on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:58:58 AM PDT

      •  OK, then

        Your findings surprise me, but I certainly can't argue with your sourcing.

        by jmart on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:08:03 AM PDT

        •  to placate values voters

          all he has to do is run right of the Dem nominee.

          This GOP field is really bad for the Religious Right, and Giuliani will benefit from that.  You don't really have any nominee with any weight able to hit him hard from a Religous Right perspective.  McCain can't hit him hard, McCain is trying desperately just to get back in the good graces of the Right.  He can't hit Giuliani hard from that perspective at all.  And Romney is a Mormon.  Huckabee is polling at about 1%.  Brownback is polling about 2%.  What people I've talked to have consistently said, is that they don't want a Dem president picking judges and justices.  The luster has already sort of worn off the idea that the GOP is God's own party, partly because there were no huge victories with the GOP having the presidency and Congress.  Now its seen more as 'our friends are with the GOP, everyone on the other side wants to destroy us.'  'The other side is aligned with Hollywood, people who hate God', etc.  I think that a Giuliani nod won't excite the base like Bush in '04 or '00, but it won't cause the Religious Right to leave the GOP or stay home.  He'll be seen as more of a general you may not like everything about, but you send in to battle because he's a winner.

          by duha on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

  •  The thing is

    He is such a nasty POS in reality that he just won't be able to conceal the obvious.  He was almost purely a product of racially divisive NYC politics in the early nineties who got lucky with 9/11 and then transferred his us-against-them act to Muslims.  I don't think vague, underinformed admiration is really going to translate into votes in his case.  My two cents.  

    by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:04:18 AM PDT

    •  but he got raves

      even before 9/11, and still gets them, for being the tough guy that 'actually cleaned up NYC'.  And doing it by pissing off minorities doesn't really matter in many GOP or independent voters' eyes.  You go to NYC, its nicer than when people went to NYC in 1990.  And that is why he has a huge favorable rating in general and among independents.

      Now he may have a freaking meltdown and not be able to take the heat of a national election spotlight.

      by duha on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:18:40 AM PDT

      •  The meltdown was the gist of my comment

        It really is inevitable, I think.  He'll snap, be spiteful and vindictive towards somebody he shouldn't, and that will be it.  He's constitutionally incapable of apologizing ever, and there's just too many random campaign events that will require him to create a reasonable facsimile of a human being.  He just won't make it in the long haul.    

        My reason for bringing up his history of barely concealed racism was not to suggest that it would be a liability these days, but rather to explain how he came to be mayor without being a "good" campaigner, per se.  

        Another thing, check out the Ruth Marcus column in the Post today; she paints a portrait of Rudy that really doesn't even have a reason to be President, or at least one he can articulate.  Weirdly, he just doesn't seem to be putting forth much effort, despite his stated intentions.  

        by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

        •  I'll check it out

          and I agree that I don't think he's putting forth much effort.  It's probably because he knows he has some huge skeletons in this closet, and is not sure he wants to take the risk of ending up a big disgrace when something comes out and his campaign is deep sixed because of it.  He doesn't have the family power and machinery behind him like W had when he ran in 2000.  

          He can be a 9/11 hero and top rank GOP fundraiser and do the speaking tours for the rest of his life, and not have to worry about that intense national spotlight that he most likely can't handle.

          by duha on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:36:13 AM PDT

•  A guy has to have dreams

  Nobody: They have their convention and can't come to any agreement other than they all suck. They regroup for making a hard push in 2016.

  by Ex Con on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:47:25 AM PDT

•  Harcord Fin-bin

  I would like to see Harcord Fin-Bin Win Bin Icky Icky Phtang Phtang Ole Biscuit-Barrel of the Silly Party.

  But thats me.

  by Perdurabo on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:48:49 AM PDT

  •  Vote the Silly party 2008

    or if your really t out there the VERY silly party

    by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like a party...

    ... from a country with a VERY open primary. Have you ever seen an Australian ballot? Anyone can run for office. Anyone!

    A professor of mine showed me an Aussie ballot he'd collected and it folded out like a road atlas. There were novelty candidates from strange parties that sounded like the end result of a pub bet.

    My favorite was the PPP, or the Party Party Party.

    by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:59:11 AM PDT

•  Al Gore.

  by JeffLieber on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:51:39 AM PDT

•  Anybody But Hagel

  Chuck Hagel is the Republican's Al Gore.

  I'm toying with the idea of registering as a Republican just so I can vote a primary choice wingnuttier than Chuck.

  by episty on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

•  I don't know anymore

  I used to say Rudy, but it appears some voters are willing to overlook a lot of the stuff I used to think would make him unelectable. As I see it now, he's the biggest challenge. He's still highly beatable, but I can see it getting pretty close.

  It won't happen, but I'd like to see McCain's political career go down in flames as he loses to our nominee, finding out too late where his daily Bush reach-arounds have gotten him.

  by droogie6655321 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:52:47 AM PDT

•  McCain.

  Really, he's looking tired and feeble, and a little defeated already.

  by Inland on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:54:35 AM PDT

•  McCain

  I can't stand Guliani.  Romney might be the strongest they have to put up.  The rest are non-factors.

  by Paleo on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:56:13 AM PDT

•  definitely not Huckabee

  He scares me more than any of the others. He may be a blip on the radar screen today, but wait. He comes across as a moderate, nice guy, and is so positive and upbeat that he talks about not littering and saying "please." On top of all that, the religious right LOVES his Baptist minister creds.

  by turn Virginia blue on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Yes- he scares me too

    Give him a decent running mate and watch out.

    Most worrisome-- in a ARK-TN Clinton/Gore way-

    The two clergy:

    Huckabee/Danforth...Arkansas/Missouri.

    Plucks two swing states electorally, shores up the conservative base, no character issues there.  Scary.

    by jgkojak on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:03:20 AM PDT

•  Judge Roy Moore

  accelerate the split between the Corporatists and the Fundiecrats.

  by dhonig on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:59:33 AM PDT

•  Shorten your poll

  I really wish you had done a real poll instead of including Lieberman and Tancredo, etc.

  This is actually an important discussion.

  Guiliani worries me- despite his divorces.  Never discount McCain.

  Who I DON'T want to run against:

  1.  Huckabee

  2.  Guiliani

  3.  McCain

  Yes- I fear the Huckser- no blood on his hands for Iraq, smooth talker, enthusiastic wingnut/xian support.

  Of the LIKELY nominees- Romney is probably the one I'd want- he brings nothing electorally (Utah and Mass. aren't impacted by his running) and there IS some dirt (remember the Olympic bribary scandals?)

  by jgkojak on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:00:10 AM PDT

•  Cant we not have ANY of them? a blank slate phaps

  by LibertyGuard on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:00:31 AM PDT

•  Of those listed

  Tancredo or Brownback would, I think, hurt the Repubs the most

  by plf515 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

•  Mike Savage not in the poll?? n/t

  by Spud1 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:02:20 AM PDT

•  Brownback=Bush, sorta at least

  But I agree these bitches are beatable.

  by Romaniac on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:03:47 AM PDT

•  I hearing alot

  of people saying "the base wont accept Guliani" but the fact is that they do what they are told. And if the party says VOTE for Rudy, they will.

  by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

•  Alan Keyes!

  What a man!  What a Republican!  What a proven winner!  And he'd split the black vote against Obama!

  (You think the GOP will buy this argument?)

  by kismet on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:07:47 AM PDT

•  I do not agree...

  that any Democrat can defeat any Republican. The reason is that Hillary Clinton can not beat whoever is the strongest Republican. I still maintain that her strength in the polls is illusory. My assertion is that many nominal Hillary supporters will vote differently when they are actually in the voting booth. I believe that the Evangelicals will vote monolithically against her. If there is anyone who can unite the Republican constituencies better than Hillary, I haven't seen that person.

  In fact, if the Democrats want to lose the 2008 election, the best way to do it will be to put Hillary at the top of the ticket.

  by jayatRI on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:09:21 AM PDT

•  I voted Hagel...

  ...because I want Hagel to be our next president.

  However if neither Hagel nor Ron Paul get the nomination, I hope it's Tom Tancredo because the Democrats will crush him.

  by Idioteque on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:09:39 AM PDT

•  I'm the only vote for Huckabee !?

  LOL...guess I was thinking more about who I'd like to lose it to if the Dems blow another EZ election, rather than who I think we can beat.

  Getting stuck with "a Huckabee" is 150% better than getting stuck with another Bush heir, by blood or by donation :(

  by catchawave on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:10:09 AM PDT

•  I Want The Reanimated Corpse

  of Adolf Hitler to be their nominee.

  by Chgo Jim on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:12:07 AM PDT

  •  Great Idea

    they could have a Hitler/Nixon zombie ticket in 2008. Take THAT Dems ha ha ha!

    by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:14:05 AM PDT

  •  He can't run for a third term -- sorry

    by jmart on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:15:40 AM PDT

    •  Constitutionally...

      he was never Prsident here. And his "rebirth" as a zombie leading the legions of brain dead republicanist nazis would qualify him as "native born".

      by Chgo Jim on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:18:05 AM PDT

      •  My question is

        How do you court the "zombie vote"?

        by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

        •  Tell them Jesus Sez vote for.....

          by UndercoverRxer on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:00:51 AM PDT

    •  Damn you are right

      How about a Hitler/ Strom Thurmond ticket then?

      by Sicboy185 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:18:48 AM PDT

      •  Well,

        ...only if Mussolini's corpse is busy. Hitler/Capone may help with the corporate vote.

        by Chgo Jim on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:22:30 AM PDT

•  We must always assume that the GOP candidate

  could be the president. Maybe another SCOTUS gift or something. So NEVER wish a dolt on the other side. We might have to live with it.

  I'm voting for Chuck Hagel, GOP 2008.

  Heck, I'd even settle for Bob Dole.

  by pucklady on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:15:55 AM PDT

•  I chose Romney, just in the event

  a rethug could win.  If he has a Democratic Congress, I think he will go along to get along, much as he did in MA.  Sure, he is a flip-flopper about gay rights and pro-choice, but I think in his heart (I'm presuming he has one), he is for them, even if the Mormons despise gays.  He just is not a hard-boiled conservative and not at all a neo-con.  In other words, I think he really is a pragmatist and not an ideologue or doctrinaire.  After all, living in MA all those years has to wear off on one.

  by oibme on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:46:24 AM PDT

•  Do you think we could get Ann Coulter to run? nt

  by davewill on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:46:27 AM PDT

  •  Good idea although

    I'd prefer a female candidate.

    by raydavies on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:45:42 AM PDT