2008 GOP Primary Straw Poll - November 2006

GOPBLOGGERS ^ | November | GOPBLOGGERS

[divine_moment_of_facts]

Welcome to GOP Bloggers' fifth 2008 Straw Poll. Our straw poll last month tallied over 15,000 votes.

Like our last poll, you get to pick which candidates you find acceptable and which ones you don't and you get to choose which candidate is your first choice for the GOP nomination in 2008.

[B Knotts]

I don't think you can judge someone's views based on their personal weaknesses. And, remember, "Jon Carry" (Kerry) very nearly was elected despite his numerous personal issues.

[Maneesh]

"But, I think you underestimate Newt's communicative abilities. He is not "Newt 1996" anymore."

I think Newt is by far the best communicator. I get inspired every time I listen to him and in a debate he would win against anyone. He is the true conservative of the bunch and is a visionary. However there are millions that do not vote on ideology, they have been Oprah-fied and they have to FEEL good about the person. On that issue Newt fails and his personal baggage will be headlines every day in the MSM, enough to kill the 10% required for a republican to win. Romney had to be socially moderate to win in MA and that may actually help in the northern swing states. In personal life his beliefs are very socially conservative and to a lot of people that carries a lot of weight as opposed to saying one thing but doing the opposite in your own life. He is deeply pro-life in person and against gay marriage, that's a pretty good start.

[jalisco555]

I don't think you can judge someone's views based on their personal weaknesses.

True, I suppose. I just mean that the national media would eviscerate Newt the moment he started to talk about family values. I just don't think that would happen with Rudy.

[B Knotts]

I think Romney is a possibility, but he is kind of an unknown quantity. He will need to start doing a lot of national media exposure, and soon, if he wants to have a shot.

And, given Clinton's rapid rise in 1990-91, I think you also have to give some consideration to Sonny Perdue. He seems to have the important ability to bring in the blue dog Democrats.

[JCEccles]

I am not convinced that we need a Newt, as smart as he is.

We need a Reagan: a likeable and charismatic, forward-thinking, optimistic and articulate champion of conservative values that Republicans and Reagan Democrats alike can rally around.

Barack Obama will likely be the Democrats' offering in 2008, and anyone the Republicans put up had better be able to hold his own and then some in the charm department. Obama conveys a powerful sense of easy optimism, and a decisive number of people are drawn to that in a presidential election almost irrespective of the substantive politics behind the smile.

Bill Clinton versus Bob Dole was a good example of that dynamic in operation, as was Bush versus Kerry.

If we put up another Dole-style candidate, we are doomed.

[Maneesh]

"I don't think you can judge someone's views based on their personal weaknesses. And, remember, "Jon Carry" (Kerry) very nearly was elected despite his numerous personal issues"

You get a pass on personal issues only if you are a liberal. If you are a conservative every single action is scrutinized. These are clear double standards and not fair but this is also real world.

For liberals, morality is judged by your views on immigration, abortion, affirmative action and universal health care.

For conservatives, morality is judged by your personal behavior in every area of life.

Those are the rules we have to play by and still win.

[jalisco555]

I think Romney is a possibility, but he is kind of an unknown quantity. He will need to start doing a lot of national media exposure, and soon, if he wants to have a shot.

I agree, although I wish he had run for reelection in MA to better demonstrate his (do I dare use the word) electability.

[Maneesh]

Romney not running was a mistake but in his mind it would have restricted his ability to travel nationwide. On balance I think he should have run again but He knew he wasn't going to win MA, might as well build your support where you have a shot at winning.

[irishlass]

Evangelicals largely already left the battle field. They have felt ignored and have retreated to their churches to do what they do. Their forray into politics has not garnered them much, except IRS tax audits and condemnation for improper meddling and being evil (How ridiculous!).

This attitude toward Evangelicals is a sure recipe for defeat in 2008. Just ask John McCain what happened when he and the McCain Express rolled into VA and blasted Evangelicals. He was soundly thumped the very next primary. Believe me, I studied it and wrote a Thesis paper on it.

[j_k_l]

Here is who I would love to see run...



Can we drag Fred Thompson back into public service?

[jalisco555]

Romney not running was a mistake but in his mind it would have restricted his ability to travel nationwide. On balance I think he should have run again but He knew he wasn't going to win MA, might as well build your support where you have a shot at winning.

Are you saying he couldn't have beaten the awful Deval Patrick? If so, what chance would he have in the Northeast against Hillary?

[Maneesh]

"Are you saying he couldn't have beaten the awful Deval Patrick? If so, what chance would he have in the Northeast against Hillary?"

No, I think he would won against Deval Patrick. However in a presidential election there is no way he would won against Hillary. Any Democrat in MA would win against any Republican in MA. This state is a permanent lost cause for the GOP for national elections. Since Romney was not counting on MA anyways and he already has enough name recognition to win NH he will not spend more time in the midwest and South to appeal to the base so that they can evaluate him. He is a formidable candidate but even he has no chance of getting more than 35% in a presidential elections. MA is the bluest of blue states, more like the Soviet Union politically than the USA.

[ReignOfError]

So I might give Newt a look, at least in the primaries to keep the others honest.

Oh, he would definitely be an interesting primary candidate, in the same mold as Alan Keyes or Steve Forbes or Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich. You gotta have some candidates who don't have a hope of winning the nomination, but who can keep their issues on the table and frame the debate.

[pistolpetestoys]

Hillary has baggage,but those who have'nt been paying attention(most of the country)will never hear a word from the MSM.She will always get a pass.

[jalisco555]

I don't know that much about him politically but I have a hard time seeing Romney winning New York or New Jersey. Or for that matter Wisconsin (maybe Michigan, though, due to his roots there). To win in '08 I really believe we need to take the fight to the blue states and not just defend what we carried in the past two elections.

[Maneesh]

New York and New Jersey are not in the running for 08. The best we can do is force the DNC to spend more money to defend those 2 states. This would be the case no matter who the nominee. In the swing states like PA / OH / MI / WI, Romney would play very well. It is 8-10 states that will decide the election, the others are spoken for and 2008 is too close for that to change.

[RichardW]

Good Grief!! Do we ever learn? I like Newt in many ways but the chances of his winning the president are somewhere between zero and -zero with an emphasis on -zero.

There are only three candidates to choose from. McCain, Romney and Giuliani. Pick your poison. I choose Giuliani because he would win. But the to the "social purists" here many will find him to liberal. This is a huge mistake unless they want to learn to say "President Hillary Clinton." This is like cutting off one's nose to spite their face. Evidently many are willing to do exactly that.

[PerConPat]

There are only three candidates to choose from. McCain, Romney and Giuliani.

At present, I think that this is where it stands. Giuliani has the inside track, and I'm not talking about the Pubs. The majority's, not mine by the way, position was ambivalent with respect to the Clinton sexcapades; and I don't see Rudy's past indiscretions playing out much differently- in a presidential election.

If the social issues that really ignite the public can be addressed in a manner that leaves room for the majority to maneuver- e.g. advocating the return abortion policy to the states- Rudy might win in a landslide, especially if terrorism etc. continues to be a dominant theme.

I don't know Romney well enough yet to comment on his chances at this point. But, to be fair, how many knew anything about Bubba prior to his meteoric rise?

I can't handle McCain. He is too eager to move all over the political landscape for my tastes. I couldn't vote for him in a primary, and I'm not sure that I could hold my nose tightly enough to vote for him in the presidential election.

Newt is a brilliant political thinker who underscores so much of what I believe, but he does not have the charisma that is necessary to draw support from the various factions of the country. And that is a sad commentary on this nation's political well-being.