Time for a 2008 Hypothetical Matchup Presidential Poll

I'd write in a name.

 

Mitt doesn't have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. You may think differently, but among the conservative, religious right Republicans here in Tennessee, the fact that he is Mormon is the disqualifying factor, though I have also heard that if he's liberal enough to get elected governor of Massachusetts, he's too liberal for Southern Republicans.

I'm leaning very strongly toward a third party nominee, perhaps the Constitution Party or the American Independents. I don't see a Republican or Democrat on the list right now that I'd vote for, with the exception of John Edwards and I'm not sure his chances are all that good to win his party's nomination. The Democrats in the race are lining up for VP and cabinet positions in a Clinton presidency, which is the most likely outcome.

 

As of right now, this would be my vote also. I don't know much about Mitt, so that could change.

In the end, it isn't going to matter because Hillary is gonna be president, and Barak will be VP.

Joseph Botwinick

 

This is one time I hope you are correct!

BTW, I voted for Hillary Clinton.

 

No one I liked was up there. MCain or Obama would be good. Trust has become an issue for me.

 

Will someone please tell me why they would want Obama for president besides the fact that he is young, black and articulate. What are his credentials? Name some legislation. What has he done?

 

In Oklahoma such an action is the moral equivalent of trashing
the ballot.

 

The problem with the poll is assuming the nominees of each party. It is 90% sure Mitt Romney will not be the republican nominee, and Hillary could be beaten for the democratic nomination. No one in the news media now for either major party is worthy of the office.

 

Read my post again. Hillary is not a shoe in, as you put it. On the other side, Mitt Romney is unelectable. He has already flip flopped on major moral issues of the day, and it more than 2 years until the next president takes office. That is just what this country does not need. To say a position "evolved", what a bunch of baloney. How does a position evolve from murder to life?

 

Back to trust.


SURE peoples positions evolve. Some of mine have over the years.

However when a polititions positions evolve 90 degrees, on several issues, right before they decide to run for president, bringing them in line with the base of their party. You can not blame people for wondering if they are being truthful.

 

Your friend has nothing to do with a politician or this situation. Since I have never met him, how could one possibly comment. Sounds like a silly question to me.

As far as the term liar goes that you use in a work place, that seems to be limited to management.

 

Mitt's a Mormon, and until he has a Christian conversion experience, and denies his Mormon faith, his support among the evangelical right wing of the Republican party will be as close to non-existent as it can get. Frankly, I'd vote for a liberal Democrat before I'd vote for a Mormon, knowing what I know about Mormonism.

Aside from that, you can't be the governor of one of the most liberal states in the country without making political compromises that the right wing of the Republican party will never accept. I don't care how much public pronouncement Mitt makes about his "position," the fact of the matter is that in the next two years, the state legislature in Massachusetts will make absolutely certain that he either has to compromise some more, or loses his effectiveness and either of those scenarios is a death sentence to his faint presidential aspirations.