I'm just saying that these polls help to strengthen that argument. In no poll is a candidate beating Obama...

 

Don't you find it a little telling that a "generic Republican" is leading Obama but no actual Republican candidate is beating him?

 

The way many Romney supporters make it, you'd think he was destined to beat Obama if only the GOP will nominate him. If nothing else, that seems to be the only reason I've heard for voting for him.

 

He's the only one with a realistic chance. That's not me overhyping anything, it's simply a fact. Anyone else wins the Republican nomination and Obama wins by a record margin IMO.

 

As I've said on here before, the election will come down to a group of 8-10 states (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, PA, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, & North Carolina). Romney is the best equipped to winning the states from that group that will be necessary to defeat Obama.

 

I do agree that if the economy and unemployment improve between now and election time, it won't matter.

He's the only one with a realistic chance. That's not me overhyping anything, it's simply a fact. Anyone else wins the Republican nomination and Obama wins by a record margin IMO.

 

As I've said on here before, the election will come down to a group of 8-10 states (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, PA, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, & North Carolina). Romney is the best equipped to winning the states from that group that will be necessary to defeat Obama.

 

I do agree that if the economy and unemployment improve between now and election time, it won't matter.

I have a question specifically for you. What's better in your mind?

 

1. Romney wins and goes on for a second term, thus getting 8 years of a president that by your spoken beliefs on here isn't that close to them.

 

OR

 

2. Obama wins this year, but with no incumbent to face in 2016 the GOP field is quite strong and you get 4 years of Obama + 4 years of a candidate who is much closer to how you believe.

He's the only one with a realistic chance. That's not me overhyping anything, it's simply a fact. Anyone else wins the Republican nomination and Obama wins by a record margin IMO.

 

As I've said on here before, the election will come down to a group of 8-10 states (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, PA, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, & North Carolina). Romney is the best equipped to winning the states from that group that will be necessary to defeat Obama.

 

I do agree that if the economy and unemployment improve between now and election time, it won't matter.

..and I'm still left with this question, how is he that much different, if any from Obama? I see no compelling reason as a person with strong libertarian beliefs to vote for him. I'd rather deal with the devil I know now and have a clean slate come 2016, instead of possibly having to endure 8 years of Romney.

He's the only one with a realistic chance. That's not me overhyping anything, it's simply a fact. Anyone else wins the Republican nomination and Obama wins by a record margin IMO.

 

As I've said on here before, the election will come down to a group of 8-10 states (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, PA, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, & North Carolina). Romney is the best equipped to winning the states from that group that will be necessary to defeat Obama.

 

I do agree that if the economy and unemployment improve between now and election time, it won't matter.

I do agree on your state assessments. It always comes down to battleground states. That's a product of the American voting system.

I have a question specifically for you. What's better in your mind?

 

1. Romney wins and goes on for a second term, thus getting 8 years of a president that by your spoken beliefs on here isn't that close to them.

 

OR

 

2. Obama wins this year, but with no incumbent to face in 2016 the GOP field is quite strong and you get 4 years of Obama + 4 years of a candidate who is much closer to how you believe.

 

Option 1. No doubt in my mind. I disagree that the 2016 field is "quite strong", and also feel that Hilary is going to be in the mix then.

I'm just saying that these polls help to strengthen that argument. In no poll is a candidate beating Obama...

 

Don't you find it a little telling that a "generic Republican" is leading Obama but no actual Republican candidate is beating him?

 

The way many Romney supporters make it, you'd think he was destined to beat Obama if only the GOP will nominate him. If nothing else, that seems to be the only reason I've heard for voting for him.

 

I just don't think Romney is as strong of a candidate as people think he is. I like to think he is essentially the Republican version of John Kerry '04. He's a bland, uncharismatic guy who has taken two or more sides on just about every issue.

..and I'm still left with this question, how is he that much different, if any from Obama? I see no compelling reason as a person with strong libertarian beliefs to vote for him. I'd rather deal with the devil I know now and have a clean slate come 2016, instead of possibly having to endure 8 years of Romney.

 

I've already went over this. Romney is much much much much more better equipped to handle the economic situation than Obama. Obama has shown he has no clue what he's doing.

I just don't think Romney is as strong of a candidate as people think he is. I like to think he is essentially the Republican version of John Kerry '04. He's a bland, uncharismatic guy who has taken two or more sides on just about every issue.

I would agree with this and I'm not ready to discount the Mormon factor either.

I've already went over this. Romney is much much much much more better equipped to handle the economic situation than Obama. Obama has shown he has no clue what he's doing.

What specifically did Romney do as Governor of MA to show he was?

I would agree with this and I'm not ready to discount the Mormon factor either.

 

And that's why this debate is pointless. You can't get past his religious beliefs.

Option 1. No doubt in my mind. I disagree that the 2016 field is "quite strong", and also feel that Hilary is going to be in the mix then.

Fair enough, I would HIGHLY disagree though. I'd much rather have a chance in 2016 that a GOP candidate with beliefs closer to mine emerges then concede 8 more years of this...

And that's why this debate is pointless. You can't get past his religious beliefs.

That's how I feel. Not how I'm saying everyone will feel. But to dismiss it entirely is shoving your head in the sand.

 

There are about a 1000 reasons why I personally won't be voting for Romney. As for the general public, I think his religion is one people DON'T want to say, but it will no doubt be a factor. Come to a Baptist church around my hometown and see how Mormons are perceived.

Fair enough, I would HIGHLY disagree though. I'd much rather have a chance in 2016 that a GOP candidate with beliefs closer to mine emerges then concede 8 more years of this...

 

I don't care who the Rep. candidate is in 2016, if Hillary is running, there's no point in having an election.

That's how I feel. Not how I'm saying everyone will feel. But to dismiss it entirely is shoving your head in the sand.

 

Not really. I don't feel any candidates religous beliefs should be a factor. I guess that's just my personal opinion, and I'm quite sure there's a large % of registered voters that share your same concerns.

I don't care who the Rep. candidate is in 2016, if Hillary is running, there's no point in having an election.

Since she won the last time she ran...