Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[Gups]

At the moment Romney, but if Perry manages to survive the primary campaign my guess is that he'd have a decent chance in the general. For all the recurrent talk about GOP fundamentalism, they generally choose the guy most likely to win.

[Martinus]

Speaking of Rick Perry, garbo, if you are reading this, have you donated to Stephen Colbert's "Rick PArry superpack"? I thought I saw your name scroll on the screen.

Edit: And to preempt your snarkiness, yes I am aware there may be more people named like you in the US, hence the question.

[Ed Anger]

Colbert isn't funny.

[Tamas]

What the flying fuck if Timmay makes a half as bad grammatic error as the thread title, Marty is the first to stomp on him.

"with" Obama?

English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

[grumbler]

What the flying fuck if Timmay makes a half as bad grammatic error as the thread title, Marty is the first to stomp on him.

"with" Obama?

English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

  Agree.  It is always funny to see the 'tards jump on someone else for doing what they themselves do all the time, and Marti is 'Tard #1 in this regard.

[Sheilbh]

What's up with so many fags being fascinated with people who would put them in jail or in a death camp. You know that Perry was against Lawrence v. Texas?

And for that reason I wouldn't vote for him.  However I do actually think Perry's an interesting guy ideologically, I love his idea of ultra-federalism, including on gay issues.  I suppose I'd rather a guy who may dislike the gays but will be honest about it (and doesn't care what you do in New York) than a guy who will feign dislike/like of the gays depending on what he thinks the audience wants to hear. 

Romney's entire campaign is based on saying things as right-wing as most of the other candidates but winking at the DC elite and the press while he's doing it. 

[MadImmortalMan]

Romney's entire campaign is based on saying things as right-wing as most of the other candidates but winking at the DC elite and the press while he's doing it.

That's how you win.


Although the GOP has had some success in the past running away from the middle and charging up their base where the Dems generally can't do that except in the safest districts.

[Sheilbh]

That's how you win.

Maybe.  But I think the definition of right-wing right now is significantly more insane than it was in, say, 2008 or 2000 and the Republican base are more angry and active than before.  It's like watching Scoop Jackson try to compete with McGovern on McGovern's terms - or perhaps George Romney feigning to be Goldwater.  Something on that scale is less a campaign strategy than an enormous character flaw.

[derspiess]

Safe money is obviously on Romney at this point, but I don't honestly know how Perry would be viewed by swing voters in a general election.  So far it doesn't seem like he's done anything to significantly poison himself yet (despite the hopes of many Dems and pundits) and no character assassination attempts have 'stuck'.  We may have to see whether anyone on SNL can play him convincingly

On the flip side, I'm okay with him personally but I don't see anything particularly positive about him yet that will resonate with swing voters.

[DontSayBanana]

Romney, populist reasons.  Honestly, the "silent majority" tends to dislike the caricature of an American that Perry represents- similar to why Palin lost it for McCain even among people who had little to no intellectual or emotional investment in the issues she posted opinions on.

[derspiess]

But I think the definition of right-wing right now is significantly more insane than it was in, say, 2008 or 2000 and the Republican base are more angry and active than before. 

What is the definition now & how does it differ from 2000 or 2008?

[Sheilbh]

What is the definition now & how does it differ from 2000 or 2008?

You think the party's more or less the same as it was?

I'd argue the big shift could be that a large part of the Republican party's suporters seem to hate all that they associate with the 'establishment' (I think the Tea Party are like a right-wing 60s anti-war/radical movement).  This is after all the second very open Republican primary.  My understanding of the Republicans is that they tend to have those less than the Democrats and the party establishment historically coalesced around a candidate pretty quickly.

But to give a couple of specifics Romney was boasting about Romneycare as an example of his governing experience and a solution to the healthcare problem, indeed all candidates treated healthcare as a major issue and thought there was a problem that needed a solution, so they all had a policy.  In 2000 the primary was won by a compassionate conservative (especially on immigration) with a signature education policy promising a humble foreign policy.

[alfred russel]

Unless the Republicans nominate someone crazy, which is possible and could be Perry, the election will be a referendum on Obama. I think that if we get into 2012 and Perry hasn't done something stupid or started to be caricatured as extreme, his chances won't be much different than Romney's.

[Habsburg]

Perry is a complete douchebag. 

[Martinus]

What the flying fuck if Timmay makes a half as bad grammatic error as the thread title, Marty is the first to stomp on him.

"with" Obama?

English motherfucker, do you speak it?!

Unlike Timmay I am not a native speaker. He is free to comment on my bad usage of Polish.