Romney Romps Over GOP Rivals: New Zogby Analytics Poll

Forbes ^ | August 19, 2014 | John Zogby

[Zakeet]

It turns out that there are some good reasons why the former Governor and GOP Presidential nominee is allowing his name to be circulated as a potential candidate in 2016. Some of those good reasons can be found in a new poll by Zogby Analytics showing him outpolling his nearest rivals for the nomination by about two to one. The poll of 315 likely Republican primary voters was conducted online on August 13-15 and has a margin of sampling error of +/-5.6 percentage points.

Romney places first in the 2016 race for the nomination with 20%, followed by New jersey Governor Chris Christie 12%, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 11%, Texas Senator Ted Cruz 9%, former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 8%, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 6%, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker 4%, Florida Senator Marco Rubio 4%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 3%, New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez 1%, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley 1%, Ohio Governor John Kasich .3%, and Ohio Senator Rob Portman at 0. Three percent selected the “Other Candidate” category and 17% were not sure.

[SoConPubbie]

& probably value Mitt Romney for his intelligence, ability to accomplish and his moral values

And which Moral values would those be???

Would that be his unending support for the murder of unborn babies (A.K.A. Abortion)?

Or would it be for his unending support for the Abomination that is Homosexuality, to the extent that he single-handedly, without the Legislature of MA, enacted Gay marriage in Massachusetts, in addition, he supports Gay Adoption, Gays in the Military, and Gays in the Boy Scouts.

Couple that with his constant lying, and bearing false witness against his Republican POTUS competitors, and I'm not really sure what you are talking about.

[Pining_4_TX]

No, you’re probably stuck with me. Other countries won’t take old coots.

[Finny]

If Romney won the general election as a Democrat (where his political views actually place him), I would say that he won't be as bad as the typical Democrat President but...

That's a fascinating proposition. Or consider how you would perceive Romney if all along, he was indeed a Democrat and the Republican party was still ... well, the kind of party Romney would consider opposition. *sigh*

If he was a Democrat, we'd fear him and perceive how dangerous he is in terms of that faux "businessman's efficiency" regarding making government more "streamlined," better at suppressing and controlling and managing you and your employer and your food sources and certainly your relationships with doctors ...

And that's really the nut of it. How big is this tent? As far as I'm concerned, if a guy who upholds the same ideas and has the same track record as Romney in philosophy of how government works, the concepts of state-run medicine, gays in the military, abortion, gun control, environmentalism, and forced accommodation of same-sex romance including "legal marriage" or else face discrimination punishment from the government ....

.... If that kind of guy belongs in this tent, then this is the wrong tent. Then the Republican Party is the wrong party. Facts is facts.

We need another party because guys like Romney are in the Republican party and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.

[CommerceComet]

.... If that kind of guy belongs in this tent, then this is the wrong tent. Then the Republican Party is the wrong party. Facts is facts. We need another party because guys like Romney are in the Republican party and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.

I've been moving toward that position as well but haven't quite come to that point yet. A second Romney nomination will probably push me out of the party, realizing as Ronald Reagan did earlier with the Democrat Party that I didn't leave the party but that the party has left me. Particularly, if a Palin or Cruz would agree to run on a third-party ticket - they could count on my support.

[Finny]

It's beyond absurd at this point to say there was no difference between Romney and Obama and the country and the world wouldn't have been in better different shape if Romney had been elected.

There. Fixed it for you.

One difference being that a whole lotta people would be marching along under the lash of government tyranny they voted for, and they'd be moaning and wailing and shivering and cowering, "Bbb... bbbut ... I didn't vote for this!"

But they did. And they know it. They hate themselves for it.

Nobody really voted for what's going on right now -- Obama is there because of fraud, just like a whole helluva lot of malignant leftists. Most Americans think Obama stinks. If you don't know or see or believe that, you ain't really payin' attention. But it's true, and why? Most people didn't vote for Obama! They didn't vote for this!

The difference if Romney won would be that most people would think he really stinks, but they voted for him and rewarded the entire concept of the Republican party moving left.

Better than Obama? Nope. Just DIFFERENT kind of very bad bad.

[Finny]

The GOP had majority power in the House and Senate, and occupied the White House, 10 years ago. What did all that power do to move the agenda of liberty forward? Answer: nothing.

A GOP that cannot even sell liberty, limited governments and free markets to the American people is worse than useless. It is a party of tyranny enablers, and I will have none of it.

Bump.