Poll
Question:
If you were an Iowa Caucus voter which GOP guy would you vote for
Option 1: Mitt Romney
votes: 8
Option 2: Ron Paul
votes: 10
Option 3: Newt Gingrich
votes: 3
Option 4: Michelle Bachmann
votes: 2
Option 5: Rick Santorum
votes: 0
Option 6: John Huntsman
votes: 12
Option 7: Rick Perry
votes: 2
Simple. Clean cut. Let's hear it for the caucus process. Whazzup!
Huntsman - he seems to be the most moderate
Huntsman, the only guy who's neither an idiot nor pretends to be one to appeal to Republicans. I would've voted for Ron Paul four years ago, due to him holding a couple of views that are actually good, but almost universally not considered (like pot legalization). However, he's no longer a good protest vote, as his insanity is getting to be dangerously close to mainstream.
In Iowa, Paul.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 05:05:19 PM
In Iowa, Paul.
Would you vote for someone else elsewhere?
Quote from: sbr on December 30, 2011, 05:08:42 PMWould you vote for someone else elsewhere?
Yeah. I'd vote Huntsman in New Hampshire.
I don't think that any of them are worthy of a vote. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are retarded, Huntsman is a non-entity, Gingrich is running because he can't think of anything helpful to do, Romney is an empty suit and Paul only wants to damage America as much as he possibly can.
I really don't know. Paul has some perks, it would be like 1964 all over again. Still the guy is batshit insane. More so then Goldwater ever was. With Paul it's far to easy to find stuff in his past to make him look bad.
Bachman, because you didn't specify that I should vote for the candidate that I would like the best were I Republican, rather vote for the one most likely to lose in a general election.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Bachman, because you didn't specify that I should vote for the candidate that I would like the best were I Republican, rather vote for the one most likely to lose in a general election.
I think Bachmann might stand a good chance to beat Obama, just because he's terrible.
If Bachmann did win, it would still almost be like a victory for the Democrats. She'd be amazingly, horrifically terrible. No one who survived would ever considered voting GOP again in their lifetimes.
There's a word for this strategy, I think it's Leninist, but I can't remember the name. -_-
Anyway, I find it pretty unlikely that she would win. Also, if she did, I am not well-positioned to weather the apocalypse, so let's hope that never happens.
Do you have to pick off a list at the caucus or can you support anyone? If the latter, it would be fun to get a group to support Obama.
I would've put a gun in my mouth over living in Iowa, long before the caucus came up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2011, 10:28:32 PM
I would've put a gun in my mouth over living in Iowa, long before the caucus came up.
:therethere:
But I agree.
The only non-insane Rebublican candidate this year is Mitt Romney AFAIK. Even if he has to sound like he can't dress himself unaided like the other candidates to get the nomination.
The rest should be taken out back and shot. And to be never spoken of again in polite company.
Romney. Why pick someone who has no chance of winning? Huntsman might be moderate but is basically unknown by republican voters, so what would be the point? I guess Ron Paul would be a good choice if one wants America to collapse.
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2011, 02:07:19 AM
Romney. Why pick someone who has no chance of winning? Huntsman might be moderate but is basically unknown by republican voters, so what would be the point? I guess Ron Paul would be a good choice if one wants America to collapse.
It would be an interesting experiment. What actually happens when you put the lunatics in charge of the asylum.
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2011, 02:07:19 AM
Romney. Why pick someone who has no chance of winning? Huntsman might be moderate but is basically unknown by republican voters, so what would be the point? I guess Ron Paul would be a good choice if one wants America to collapse.
Same here.
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
I don't think that any of them are worthy of a vote. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are retarded, Huntsman is a non-entity, Gingrich is running because he can't think of anything helpful to do, Romney is an empty suit and Paul only wants to damage America as much as he possibly can.
+1
Quote from: 11B4V on December 31, 2011, 11:38:56 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 30, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
I don't think that any of them are worthy of a vote. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are retarded, Huntsman is a non-entity, Gingrich is running because he can't think of anything helpful to do, Romney is an empty suit and Paul only wants to damage America as much as he possibly can.
+1
+2 Vorpal
America sucks.
I'd go with Romney now. I did have some misgivings before, and still do as there's no perfect candidate. But I think he's pretty well grounded, thoughtful and seems to have intelligent ideas and direction. Before I might have considered Gingrich or Huntsman, but Gingrich seems to me too much a policy wonk and not a leader, and Huntsman just isn't known that well. Ron Paul is a damned joke; I'm just disgusted with him. I've said before he has a few good ideas but most of rest of his notions are just off the wall, crank kind of stuff. I just wish he'd go away now, out of any race or even out of Congress.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Bachman, because you didn't specify that I should vote for the candidate that I would like the best were I Republican, rather vote for the one most likely to lose in a general election.
Paul would be just as likely to lose to Obama and would make a better President than Bachman.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 31, 2011, 12:45:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
Bachman, because you didn't specify that I should vote for the candidate that I would like the best were I Republican, rather vote for the one most likely to lose in a general election.
Paul would be just as likely to lose to Obama and would make a better President than Bachman.
Yeah, but if the GOP did win, I'm out $100, and I want everyone else to suffer as much as possible with me.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 31, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Yeah, but if the GOP did win, I'm out $100, and I want everyone else to suffer as much as possible with me.
Well, tactically, a Paul vote might help him* extend his campaign and weaken the guy who does win. Your Bachman vote doesn't look like it'll have any effect on the race whatsoever. I think Paul is the best spoiler vote at this point.
*not that a single vote will matter even in primary caucuses.
Dzhugashvilli.