A brokered convention, to me, seems more likely. The Establishment did not want Romney initially, and what we have seen explains why.

Bill Kristol, et al still despise Romney. The Weekly Standard is one of the few ABR strongholds in Conservative media. I believe, secretly, that they are salivating at the prospect of a convention fight.

I still think Daniels, followed by Christie, would be the Powerbroker's ideal candidate.

I think the Colorado loss finally woke everyone up like an ice cold shower.
Romney just has a likeability issue.

Does anyone have any predictions what is going to happen with interest rates over the next 20 to 30 years?
The Treasury yield rates have been on a slow steady decline for 30 years, and that seems to have been the reason for the stock market run of 30 years.
The yield cannot follow the same line for too long, as it is approaching zero.
If they raise rates, it could crash the stock market and 401k's. And if they don't raise rates, retirees can't live on fixed interest or convert to annuities.
Next, the AMT tax has not been patched for 2012 yet, the payroll tax extension expires in a few weeks, and the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.
The patching cannot continue year to year. The whole tax system is sure to be overhauled over the next decade.
Lastly, the baby boomers are retiring, and if even a small portion of high tax state boomers decide to move to cheaper Southern states, it will devastate the housing markets in the high tax states. Younger adults are just not making large enough salaries to handle the taxes and upkeep in these high tax states, and buy the boomers houses.
How is all this going to unfold in the next 20 years?
This really sounds bad for the Northeast to me, and maybe California. But could start some major booms again in the rest of the country.

is Mitt Romney the real life incarnation of socially awkward penguin?

Without a doubt. I'm not name calling here by agreeing with you. This election is too important and should be about substance, and who is going to save this country. But he does seems uncomfortable connecting with the common folks. There was one particular clip I saw where he was mingling with regular folks during the 2008 campaign, and he just said all the wrong things. But everyone that seems to know him well and talks to him one on one, says that he is really not like that. I guess it's not easy just making small talk with people you don't know, and make it look natural. That's the art of politics.
I don't think that is an important skill to actually be a great President, but it is an important skill to be elected President. So it is going to be very important if the GOP is going to go through with this and make him the 2012 nominee.

A moderate. Scott Brown, Jon Huntsman, or Mitch Daniels.

If he wants to lose, but pick someone close to his values, I would pick my Congressman, Allen West.

I thought of Allen West also, I see him on FOX news a lot but do not know much about him.
Santorum was a contributor on FOX news for the last few years. So I wouldn't be surprised if it would be someone who is also on FOX news often. (Maybe Ann Coulter.....HA HA HA).

I think Rick Perry would be a good choice. Santorum may need help in the South, and Perry could help with organization and money. And he will help with Hispanic voters.
Susana Martinez might be a good pick, but she would have to be well vetted first.

Perry is an embarrassing gaffe machine who will never get out of Texas again, and whose epic fail of a presidential campaign was so bad that it put his day job in jeopardy. Also, the last thing Santorum (or Romney for that matter) needs is a VP who reminds people of Dubya or Palin, and Perry combines the worst characteristics of both.

Really, I'm not trying to be wise with this remark, but aren't most VPs gaffe machines?
And maybe that is by design to make the guy at the top of the ticket look good?
Look at either the VPs that were actually in office, or were just on a ticket in the last 40 years.
Quite a bunch of controversial characters.

Why does everyone think that Santorum would perform well in Ohio?  If anything, he'll do worse than McCain.

How do you figure McCain had or has  more appeal to Ohio voters?
Santorum is more socially conservative and held office in a rust belt state.
Any appeal McCain had to them, Santorum has plus more.

Marco Rubio would be my 1st choice for anyone who gets the GOP nomination.
But the more I see interviews with him, the more I suspect he would rather stay a Senator while he waits his turn to run for President.
I think Rick Perry would be a good choice. Santorum may need help in the South, and Perry could help with organization and money. And he will help with Hispanic voters.
Susana Martinez might be a good pick, but she would have to be well vetted first.
It could be another repeat of the whole Sarah Palin thing, but then again, that could be a plus.
There may be a backlash once and for all against the opposing party bashing a women, seemingly just because she is a woman.
Huntsman? He is the poster child for China taking our jobs away. I don't know what all this talk is about Huntsman. He was not popular as a candidate, how will he help Santorum? No way!!

Newt got a short bump in South Carolina thanks to ABC news.
South Carolinians voted against the press thanks to the very unethical interview with his ex-wife, and opening up with that question at the debate. Also because of the way he handled Juan Williams questions which I thought were off base because they were leading questions.
Beyond that, he has not won any other states and hasn't fared even close behind.
He has zero chance of getting enough women and minority votes to win in the general election. The GOP power brokers have to know that. He can't just win by sweeping the South in the general election, not even saying that he could do that.
If he really hates Romney the way he says he does, and really just wants a conservative to be on the ticket, he should drop out now before Romney gains any steam and starts taking winner take all states.

True true.
Even if it was his home turf, not his dad's, it doesn't guarantee anything.
Gore couldn't even carry Tennessee in 2000.

I don't know why all of you think Santorum would win Romney's home state.

I don't think Massachusetts votes in February.

Thanks.
It would be nice to get a true percentage if the moderators could provide it, but that gives a good idea.
I think this site has a younger sample of people then the actual general electorate, so I think the numbers on the pie chart seem to be around what I suspect from a younger sample.
I actually thought maybe there would be more Democrats, and a few less Independents.

Is there a way to see the breakdown summary of the party affiliation of registered users on this site as a percentage of the total? (I mean of course, the way they registered on this site. Not actually how they are registered to vote).

Of course it is almost somewhat true in all politics. But since 1984 in the Presidential contests it seems more so. Kerry and Dole had golden opportunities to win.
If you look at the last few before 1984, it didn't seem so clear cut to me.
Reagan-Carter? Close, just about a tossup, but arguably Carter may have had the niceness edge there.
Carter-Ford? Another close one. Both seemingly very bland, but nice.
Nixon-McGovern? McGovern.
Nixon-Humphrey? Humphrey.
So maybe in 3 out of the last 4 elections before 1984, the congeniality contest, might not have been the case so much.
Those elections were probably more about the mood of the country at the time, and what policies the voters wanted.

Now?  Now!?  This has been the case since at least  the dawn of the broadcast TV era, if not earlier.  Those who listened to the first Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio thought Nixon had won it, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy had.  Dewey likely lost votes for looking like the little man atop a wedding cake as TR's daughter Alice put it.

Generous?
Who here actually thinks Obama would beat Santorum in Ohio?
No way, no how.
It's Santorum's back yard, and loaded with Christian conservatives.

Being very generous to Santorum:



Republicans are absolutely bonkers

I voted in the poll that I think only one has a chance, but I have to qualify that.
I think if the economy stays the way it is, pretty bad, but not a depression, that Romney, Gingrich, or Paul would probably not beat Obama.
But if the economy gets worse, or there is some other huge crisis that people don't think Obama handles correctly, I think Romney has a slight chance.
But I think Santorum is the only one that has the correct combination of qualities that appeal to conservatives and independents, without the personality baggage of Romney or Gingrich, or libertarian policies of Ron Paul that this country is just not ready for at this point in time.
Gingrich is the one that really baffles me. Doesn't everyone who is over 35 years old or so, remember that Gingrich was the shadowy figure in the back of so many Democratic negative ads at all levels of Government? He was like GOP kryptonite!!
How can he possibly win a general election? That's why it baffles me that he has received so much support from prominent GOP personalities. I couldn't believe he was actually running, and my first thought was, he is gonna screw up this golden opportunity for the GOP.

If you look back at the last 7 Presidential contests, it seems to indicate that the winning President is a winner of a congeniality contest. That does not appear to be the case for a number of elections before 1984. I don't want to get into why this is the case in this post, (it probably has to due with the rise of cable TV and the internet), but why it is critical for the GOP to pick the correct candidate.
I think there are a set number of people that vote on policy or party of the candidates.
That is probably around 85% of people who vote. (I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air just to illustrate the point I am making. The exact numbers do not matter, just the outcome). Out of these, lets say around 37.5% each never change which party they vote for, which leaves the other maybe 10% who are open minded on policy and will vote for the opposing party based on policy. I do not think these 10% decide the election.
I think it is the 15% that are left that just vote by who they "like". I am not saying these people are ignorant, or don't understand the politics involved. I just think when it comes down to it, those 15% vote subjectively, not objectively.
So now I will cut to the chase.
I think this election will follow this current pattern. The GOP needs someone who is more likeable DIRECTLY compared to Obama. Not compared to someone one else, or not within a multiple group, or not based on a poll just on how likeable they are independently. Just think of it as a simple 2 sided balance weight scale that tips one way or another. You combine likeability, trustworthiness, if they have a mean streak, a weird personal affect, or even how they look in person or on TV, and put that in one big lump. Then you take each lump (candidate), and put that on that simple balance scale and see which way it tips. I contend that the heavier lump,(heaviness being favorable), won in the last 7 elections. George H.W. Bush was a perfect case because he both won and lost. He weighed better then Dukakis, but not better against the big loveable Bubba.
And as hated (by some) as Clinton and Bush were during their reelection campaigns, they ran against candidates that everyone said had personality flaws, Dole and Kerry.
Their parties were sure personality did not matter, and that the utter disdain for the current President would guarantee a win.
Does this sound familiar this year?
Here's my opinion on how the scales would tip this year.
(And I'm not basing this on who I like or dislike. I'm basing this on who I think the whole of the electorate would like or dislike).
Obama weighs better then Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Christie.
Obama weighs worse then Daniels, Santorum, Perry, Jeb Bush, Cain.
This is subjective on my part, so you can argue all you want on my scale picks.
And like I said, I am not basing this on policy or who is Presidential material or who can best serve the country. Just the congeniality contest.
Bottom line, the GOP is in big big big trouble if the things are not tremendously worse in October then they are today, and they go with Romney, when it is now painfully obvious he has the Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, McCain, Gore personality issues.

All these answers are way too deep.
It's because we really have a 1 party system.
Proof: the tax compromise just gives away more and more money to both "sides".
There was no reason for the Dems to tackle this earlier. They got the most bang for the buck by waiting and the GOP got what they wanted too.
The debt just becomes more and more ridiculous and it's like dealing with poker chips in a casino at 4am in the morning when you are drunk, tired and delirious.

Joe Lieberman is the person that made Obamacare happen.
He easily could have voted no after being screwed by the Democrats. How can he be moderate after being the deciding vote for Obamacare?

5) California:  Brown will make a bad situation worse by raising taxes and driving out more businesses.

Winners:
Rubio:  will become the face of the GOP Senate

I'll confine my comments to these two fantasies.  

First, the supply-side fantasy:  CA's future will be to ride the waves of the economic cycle, and taxation levels are extremely periferal to this.  In the depression, no amount of tax reduction will help, and in the boom (if there ever is one), a few percent more tax won't matter at all.

Secondly, the Latino Republican fantasy:  I know you have a tumescence for these swarthy faux-latinos in the GOP, but seriously man, everyone sees through the token.

I don't think Rubio is considered a token to Cuban Americans.
It remains to be seen if he will pick up any support for the GOP on the West Coast.
But he is hardly a token Latino as if he was just appointed to a Cabinet position or as a Presidential Czar.

Losers:
Obama(who now has a more difficult road to 2012 because the GOP didn't take back the Senate. He can only somewhat play the GOP race & wealth cards for the next 2 years).
Other big losers, Nancy Pelosi and taxpayers in New York and California.

Winners: Romney (who now has a better chance to win because it won't be 2 years of poor defenseless Obama vs a majority GOP Congress and Supreme Court). Also, because of the Tea Party blunders in Delaware,Nevada and Alaska, people who support Palin will be more wary of choosing her at the top of the ticket.
Other winners, unions in New York, California and Nevada.
Rubio is perhaps the biggest winner of all because the Latino vote is essential to any survival of the GOP party as it is. If he doesn't screw up politically or have a major personal scandal, he is assured of being on a Presidential ticket at the top or VP within the next decade.

Little of both: Sarah Palin. She didn't start the Tea Party, but she certainly was the energy behind it. So she has to get the most credit out of any single individual (in a positive sense), for the huge pickups by the GOP.
On the negative side, as I mentioned above, her chances as being on the top of the GOP ticket in 2012 went down dramatically as she will just be tagged with the 3 big Senate failures above, and too risky to potentially blow such as great opportunity to take back the White House.

No, because there won't be a Tea Party.  Party was fun while it lasted, too bad it didn't last through election day.

What do you base this off of? There's no reason to believe that the Tea Party is finished.

It's just wishful thinking. People who don't want the Tea Party around, figure if they say it enough, it will come true.
For the Tea Party to "go away" at this point, all the Tea Party candidates that just won would have to stop talking about the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin would just have to stop being on the news all the time. It may be a fad, and go away years from now, but it will definitely be a factor for 2012.

I like Giuliani as a politician, but I don't think he is popular enough with women voters, so I don't think any Tea Party support from him will rejuvenate his chances to be on the 2012 ticket.
Maybe he'll be in line for a cabinet position as a reward for all his GOP campaigning, but that's about it. He didn't have very good results in 2008 and I don't see what would change that in 2012.

Before they mess around with the tax brackets, the first order of business would be to eliminate the cap on Social Security payroll tax.
How can you even have a discussion of brackets when people are paying different percentages of payroll taxes before they ever get to paying Federal, State or property tax?
I realize why they have caps, so I am not going to get into that debate, but Social Security and Medicare have morphed into something different from what they were created for.
So those payroll taxes are just that, taxes. Not individual "personal investments in your own future" as I think they were first envisioned as, and why the cap on Social Security tax was first put in place.
The only problem with this is I don't think that employers should have to match the payroll tax beyond a certain amount if the personal cap is eliminated.

I live in this district and the primary concern on voters minds is their standard of living.
This is a middle class district in the shadows of some very wealthy districts in the suburbs of NY. Many households would be considered rich in most parts of the country, but many, not all, are just struggling to make ends meet here.
We threw Sue Kelly out because she was a rubber stamp for Bush. She was oblivious and stunned when she was defeated. We are going to throw John Hall out because he is a rubber stamp for Obama. He is going to feel the same way. It just shows how out of touch members of Congress get when they go to Washington. They put out their stupid newsletters, but I wonder how much of their grassroots e-mails ever reaches them. You have to blame their staffs if they really don't know how their constituents feel.
In both cases, we felt that we were unrepresented by Washington. The Bush and Obama eras so far just left us losing ground every year while they took care of their political cronies.
This election is the classic case where if the incumbent can't break 50% before the election, they won't be able to break it on election day.
So with Hayworth winning, this will be the one lone bright spot for me in this pathetic state with Democrats kicking butt here tomorrow.
The private sector workers will have to start looking for houses down in North Carolina and Florida again as we haven't learned any lessons from California.

Two interesting answers so far and not what I expected.
I was thinking of states like Nebraska and Missouri.
I always thought of New Hampshire right off the bat as a GOP state, but not anymore.
The whole northeast has moved very left in the last 8 years or so. So New Hampshire as an answer is definitely a possibility.
Minnesota is real interesting also with Bachmann, Pawlenty and Franken. Kind of reminds me of New York state 10 years ago. But with them voting for Franken as a Senator and always being a tease for the GOP in the Presidential race, they still lean Democratic as far as I am concerned.

I'm curious to see what people think is the most non-red or non-blue state in the country.
If you mention a state, most people can say off the top of their head if it's a GOP or Democratic state.
I'm not talking about Presidential bellweather states.
I mean states that have the biggest mix of politicians at a Federal, State and Local level that there would be debate if it is a red or blue state.
I just bring that up because it would be interesting to follow their election results in this current divided state of the electorate.

A 3rd party in this country could only survive if it was considered not to be liberal or conservative.
I think the wedge issue of abortion makes this impossible. There is no way to explain that you are neutral on the issue. You could say you want to leave it to the states, or you are against it but don't want to impose your views on others, but either way, that party would fall into one of 2 categories, pro-abortion or pro-life.
So I think it's going to be impossible to sustain a 3rd party. A new one may push a current one out, but I don't think more than 2 major parties will ever be in place for a long period of time.