Ace asked who we thought, not who we wanted, would win the nomination.

I said Romney, but I gave a shitty reason. Here's a better reason: Guiliani and Thompson are both like Howard Dean in '04. They both have a lot of appeal for different reason and both bring energy to the base. Voters will bail on Guiliani and Thompson for the same reason the moonbats bailed on Howard Dean. They are not electable in the general election.

Romney is this election's John Kerry: He's perceived to be nationally electable.

Romney is this election's John Kerry: He's perceived to be nationally electable.

Mr. Rasmussen would like a word with you.

Romney is percieved to be the least electable, and head to head polls vs Hillary support that- he fares the worst compared to Fred, Rudy or McCain.

The Kerry comparison is accurate in that "he was for it before he was against it".  Whether due to bias against Mormonism, his too-slick style or his position reversals, Romney is bordering on second-tier status right now; only his bought and paid for lead in IA and NH keeps him in contender status. 

>>Any hint that Giuliani is not the best candidate to win in November could doom his campaign. Any serious challenge to Thompson’s conservative credentials could do the same to him. Anything less than decisive wins in Iowa and New Hampshire could mean the end for Romney’s team.

In a similar vein: Any severe anal itch could cause John Edward to lose his only asset, his so called sauve demeanor. Any outbreak of Albinism could rob Obama of his only asset, his saintly blackness, and with it, his hopes for nomination. Any outbreak of.... ah forget it. Nothing can stop the shameless Hildebeast.

See, even I could do some serious polotical analysis. You can't spell it without anal.

Yeah, it's just like his claim that he wanted to silence political speech around voting time.  He didn't really mean he wanted to do something so outlandish, unconstitutional, and silly as really end free speech with regards to political speech; it was just off the cuff, not literally serious.

Has McCain backed off on it?  When the Supreme Court ruled against a recent McCain-Feingold provision relating to restricting issue ads, McCain criticized the decision.  Fred also supported McCain-Feingold, but supported the decision and has come out against the issue ad ban.  Would've been nice if he opposed it before voting for it, but he seems to be on the right side of it now.

P.S. I'm still on team Fred!

Me too, though I'm as much anti-RudyMcRomney as I am pro-Fred.  The Federalism thing is up very high on my priority list, and Fred seems very good on that front.  Given his recent numbers- both amonst likely primary voters and the general public- I think he'd have a good shot taking down Hillary once more people become familiar with him.

HP - you are correct in your appraisal of Rudy, but as you are obviously aware ... a vote for a third party candidate would be a vote for Hillary (or whatever asshat dim is nominated). Can't do it, dude - can't do it.

Yes, I can.  A third party vote isn't a vote for Hillary, it's a vote for "none of the above".  I certainly don't like the short term implications of what Hillary might do to the country, but I also don't like the implications of moving the Republican party even further to the left.

If Rudy wins the general election and proves me wrong by governing like a conservative, I'll vote for him in 2012.  However in 2008 I'm not going to support someone with a vote that I don't support- not this time, not after watching Bush fuck up so many times in the past 8 years.

Hollowpoint, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked someone: If Fred sucks ass in his 1st debate, will you finally give up the Fred support?

Fred should be able to give a stellar debate performance -- he's an experienced politician and has lots of experience in front of the camera. If he's a dud, it's over. O-V-A, over.

Hollowpoint, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked someone: If Fred sucks ass in his 1st debate, will you finally give up the Fred support?

If he has a poor performance in just the first debate?  No, I'd not give up on just one bad showing- Rudy screwed the pooch in the first debate on the Roe v Wade question, and Romney looked weak on the question about the surge in the last one, yet neither were abandoned for it. 

If Fred flubs the first and subsequent debates?  I'll probably resign myself to supporting someone I know won't win; maybe Hunter or a Newt write-in.  I'm pretty sure that Fred will at the very least hold his own though.

No matter how he does, I'm also pretty sure that Fred's detractors will say he sucked, and his die-hard supporters will say he did great.  I'd like to think myself at least a little more objective than that though- for instance I thought the Leno interview was mediocre.

Remember the girlfriend that screwed you over? Oh, how you hated her!! But we all know how it ends when she lovingly asks forgiveness, tells you what you want to hear, Gives you that sweet love.

We will all get what we want in the end.

And you know what I'm talking about.

We will all get what we want in the end.

And you know what I'm talking about.

Just because we'll make peace long enough for a drunken booty call doesn't mean we'll marry her after we caught her screwing the entire midget convention.

If Fred sucks it up in his first debate, he's probably a goner.

The only question is, is he ever actually going to be in a debate?? He's skipped 2 now since he's declared. That one on the same day, plus the next one!

You could forgive 1 bad debate performance...IF he hadn't waited till the last debate before performing. At this point he's been NOT debating so long, there's no excuse for him not to at least be prepared for one. It's way too late for him to come in....and then slouch about looking to build up steam slowly.

This is gonna be really hard, but I'm with ace, in that I guess I will have to vote for whomever wins the R, even Rudy or McCain or Romney.  Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=28684

Huh?  What poll is he reading?  The Gallup poll he refers to has McCain 7 points behind Thompson amongst all Republicans and independant "leaners", and 14 points behind Fred amongst those "extremely likely" to vote in the primaries.  They also show 45% with no opinion regarding Thompson's favorability.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen has it Fred 28%, Rudy 19%, McCain 14%, Romney 12% among likely primary voters.

Rudy's much better than Romney.  I could vote for Rudy....and am grudgingly admitting that I could maybe, maybe vote McCain.  Romney's just another stealth liberal northeasterner who "wants the power to change the US tax code" to enact nationalized health care.  No gracias, senior.

McCain doesn't tell people what they want to hear nearly as much as Romney either.  McCain will tell people what he thinks....unfortunately sometimes followed by a profane response if someone gets in his face about it.  Shrug.  I'm married to a military man, it's part of the prototype.  I'm more profane than my husband and have scandalized my kids a few times......

McCain at least has passion; Romney would (like Hillary!) wait for the poll results before making any move against someone who attacked us.  McCain also seems to understand the military (duh) and suffer much less than others from magical thinking about what the military can and cannot reasonable do.

I'm waiting for Fred! but will have to slide over to Rudy (yeah, immigration and guns BAD) if Fred! doesn't make it.

Hollowpoint, what if Rudy picked Duncan Hunter (my favorite guy, but has no chance) for his VPOTUS?  And publicly announced that Hunter would  be his domestic guy as he has the most experience there?

I'm hoping for a Fred!/Hunter ticket, with Rudy up for Attorney General (just for the confirmation hearings!), but like I said, I'm much more comfortable with Rudy than GW.

OH, and I like Duncan Hunter in spite of his social conservatism, not because of it. 

Funny that a Fred supporter claims another candidate would hesitate before making a decision.  I guess it was the tough Senate voting consequences that gave Fred his sharp quick decision making abilities.  The other candidates who were Governors or Mayors probably never had to consider the consequences of their decisions as they were not nearly as crucial as those Senate votes.  

If a woman screws you over once, she'll screw you over twice.

Which is why she may be drunk sex material - anything is drunk sex material so long as it doesn't have an STD or a penis - she's no marraige material. No way.

And so it is with Mr. Mcfuckingamnestyfreespeachstealingmediawhore. The man wants to pimp the war, fine. He want's to be president? Not even if his wife blows me.

Even if you put aside the fact that he's a douchebag, the dude reminds me of Lyndon Johnson holding the dog. In otherwords, he's a pompous mean douchebag is what I'm trying to say here. That would be the jist of it.

Hollowpoint, what if Rudy picked Duncan Hunter (my favorite guy, but has no chance) for his VPOTUS?  And publicly announced that Hunter would  be his domestic guy as he has the most experience there?

VP = Window dressing.  I'm not terribly interested in who picks what VP unless they pick someone overly objectionable or controversial.

The game is all about the races in the early primary states. It's always been this way and this year is no different.

Tell that to John McCain, circa 2000.  He won NH (which was then the first state), but ended up losing.

This year is significantly different than previous years because the early states are moving even earlier, with significant time to offset any bump one candidate might get from winning in IA or NH.  Plus there's apparently more states going pre-Super Tuesday.  Furthermore, it's not like most years in which there are two clear frontrunners.

Even if Romney's lead in IA and NH hold, it's unlikely he'd get the 15 point jump he'd need just to stay competitive.  Also, he's unlikely to win SC or FL, which are now also going to be early states- losing there would largely if not completely offset any gain he'd get from wins in IA or NH.

Pretty funny statement for you since you have been saying for months that the race didn't even begin until Labor Day but once it came and Fred got in, there would be only one front runner.

I've never said anything remotely close to that.  However I'd bet that Romney would kill to trade places with Fred right about now.

How's that working out for you? But there still are two leaders according to virtually every political analyst, Rudy and Romney.

Funny, every one I've read says there are three, and Romney's only considered one because of an early lead in small, early voting states.  Every poll shows he has the lowest favorability ratings and fares the worst in theoretical matchups against Hillary.  This after 8 months of campaigning and what has to be close to $40 million spent by now.

Interesting analysis. Pure speculation and unsupported by any analysis by any political operative I've seen but we'll see.

Print it out and post it on your fridge for posterity.  My analysis in 2004 was significantly better than a lot of the "political operatives", and I'm just a telcom geek.

A few months to go but Rudy and Romney have been through a half dozen debates and months of campaigning. They both have huge amounts of money and extensive ground teams in both the early states and the follow on states.

Last I heard Romney's campaign was in debt to himself, and fundraising has dropped off sharply lately.  He'll have to self-fund just to operate- he's already pumped $9 million of his own money in as of last reporting date; how much more he'll "loan" a lagging campaign is something even a guru like myself can not predict.

Fred has little money, a small team and has yet to face a debate or any real scrutiny. The pressure is on him to live up to the hype and tongue baths he has been getting from the media. So far, not so impressive.

Neither of us will know how much money he has until the Oct 15 reporting date- funny, even with being "not so impressive" he's kicking Romney's ass both in nomination polls and general election matchups.  And no real scrutiny?  You must be joking- Dick Morris, George Will, Dean Barnett- to name a few- have each written multiple hit pieces apiece, not to mention the many MSM pieces on his "trophy wife" and lobbying career.

Romney can barely be considered first tier at this point- it'll take at least another $10 million of his own money to keep his campaign remotely alive.