The Republican candidates

[Sibboleth]

Let's be honest about this. And as fair as possible. And so on. And so forth. But...

They all suck, don't they? A dismal array of frauds, failures, nutters, creeps, hacks, idiots, swivel-eyed fanatics and the sort of people that you would not let within five feet of small children. And all of the above, obviously.

[Liberté]

The only primary season I can think of comparable to this one is possibly the 1972 Democratic primary season. If Paul is McGovern and Romney is Muskie, does that make Herman Cain Shirley Chisholm? And where's ibogaine when you need it?

[Paul Kemp]

It certainly is the weakest field in recent memory. The only way Obama loses re-election is if he defeats himself.

[angus]

Let's be honest about this. And as fair as possible. And so on. And so forth. But...

They all suck, don't they? A dismal array of frauds, failures, nutters, creeps, hacks, idiots, swivel-eyed fanatics and the sort of people that you would not let within five feet of small children. And all of the above, obviously.

But tell us what you really think.  Don't hold back, trying to be subtle or diplomatic.

[NHI]

This battle cry is tiring fast. This is not a weak field, sure there are some losers (Gingrich, Santorum) Pres. Obama has nothing to run on and as Bachmann stated, "Pres. Obama will be a one term President."

[Paul Kemp]

This battle cry is tiring fast. This is not a weak field, sure there are some losers (Gingrich, Santorum) Pres. Obama has nothing to run on and as Bachmann stated, "Pres. Obama will be a one term President."

Well then who are the winners? The one term governor from Massachusetts that has had more positions on one issue than Michele Bachmann has kids?

[anvi]

I wouldn't put it like that, but yeah, it's not the strongest field I've seen by far.

But hey, Sibboleth, I too often let my eyes pass over quotes in signatures, so this is the first time I read the Bloch quote in yours, and I like it a lot.

[Liberté]

This battle cry is tiring fast. This is not a weak field, sure there are some losers (Gingrich, Santorum) Pres. Obama has nothing to run on and as Bachmann stated, "Pres. Obama will be a one term President."

Well then who are the winners? The one term governor from Massachusetts that has had more positions on one issue than Antonio Cromartie has kids?

I'm convinced now that of the two candidates who could actually beat Obama with even odds, one isn't running and the other won't be nominated.

[King]

Romney is the only formidable opponent but, like John Kerry before him, can be ripped apart simply by a well done negative campaign.  The rest are so lame that all Obama has to do to beat them is do what Romney did last night: not say anything inflammatory.

[Mehmentum]

A weak national Bench from loosing two elections in a row and the subsequent polarization of the GOP and this is what you get: a bunch of people who are either
a) Radical right wingers
b) been out of office for years (or never have held an office in the first place)
c) had to flip flop on a number of issues to conform to the base
or d) any number of the above

[Zarn]

Paul's sane, but the primary voters aren't. See Rombots.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Let's be honest about this. And as fair as possible. And so on. And so forth. But...

They all suck, don't they? A dismal array of frauds, failures, nutters, creeps, hacks, idiots, swivel-eyed fanatics and the sort of people that you would not let within five feet of small children. And all of the above, obviously.

You are obviously not including Romney in the above.

Romney is a stellar candidate, fully capable of serving as a competent and effective President.

As well, Romney has the capacity to defeat Obama.

Unemployment is, ah, let's see..........oh yes, 9%.  The recovery has fallen flat.  People are still losing their homes.  And, oh yes, this economic disaster is now known as, uh, let me think for a moment..........oh yes, I remember now, it is now known as The Obama Recession.

Do you honestly believe that Romney would not be able to use his business and economic expertise and acumen to take this case to the electorate and convince them that he could do a better job?

When Romney promises to restore jobs, and he has the credibility to do it, the electorate is going to care less about so called flip flops.

IT'S     THE     ECONOMY

And that is where Obama is vulnerable.    

Your post is trolling by the way.  I know trolling when I see it.  After all, the moderators have deleted a couple of my threads for what they deemed to be trolling.  I disagreed, but that didn't matter.  But I digress.

[NHI]

Romney and Bachmann were the clear winners last night. I could see the two being a formable ticket.

[NHI]

Let's be honest about this. And as fair as possible. And so on. And so forth. But...

They all suck, don't they? A dismal array of frauds, failures, nutters, creeps, hacks, idiots, swivel-eyed fanatics and the sort of people that you would not let within five feet of small children. And all of the above, obviously.

You are obviously not including Romney in the above.

Romney is a stellar candidate, fully capable of serving as a competent and effective President.

As well, Romney has the capacity to defeat Obama.

Unemployment is, ah, let's see..........oh yes, 9%.  The recovery has fallen flat.  People are still losing their homes.  And, oh yes, this economic disaster is now known as, uh, let me think for a moment..........oh yes, I remember now, it is now known as The Obama Recession.

Do you honestly believe that Romney would not be able to use his business and economic expertise and acumen to take this case to the electorate and convince them that he could do a better job?

When Romney promises to restore jobs, and he has the credibility to do it, the electorate is going to care less about so called flip flops.

IT'S     THE     ECONOMY

And that is where Obama is vulnerable.    

Your post is trolling by the way.  I know trolling when I see it.  After all, the moderators have deleted a couple of my threads for what they deemed to be trolling.  I disagreed, but that didn't matter.  But I digress.

Well said.

[Governor NVGonzalez]

This field reminds me so much of the Dem 88 field... Romney has a shot but he reminds me so much of a combination of Dukakis and Kerry, funny enough all of em from MA. Everyone else would get stomped by Obama.

[Paul Kemp]

This field reminds me so much of the Dem 88 field... Romney has a shot but he reminds me so much of a combination of Dukakis and Kerry, funny enough all of em from MA. Everyone else would get stomped by Obama.

Just what I was thinking.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

This battle cry is tiring fast. This is not a weak field, sure there are some losers (Gingrich, Santorum) Pres. Obama has nothing to run on and as Bachmann stated, "Pres. Obama will be a one term President."

Well then who are the winners? The one term governor from Massachusetts that has had more positions on one issue than Antonio Cromartie has kids?

I'm convinced now that of the two candidates who could actually beat Obama with even odds, one isn't running and the other won't be nominated.

Would two of  those be between Daniels, Palin and Paul?

[Badger]

I actually find myself in agreement with Winfield and NHI. Though the majority of current candidates are simply unelectable under almost any circumstances, there are a couple who, although obviously flawed and uninspiring, could win if nominated while unemployment remains high and steady.

If the economy sucks next Fall people may not vote for such lackluster GOP nominees, but will vote against Obama and choose any reasonably acceptably alternative in the bargain.

[stegosaurus]

That depends entirely on your definition of "weak". I wouldn't say it's as weak as it is abundant with crazy; which tends to overshadow the fact that the front runner (Romney) is a fairly sensible candidate with arguable credentials to run on. Like minded voters who can't stomach Romney do have a store-brand alternative in Pawlenty, and potentially Huntsman. So long as the nominee is not named Bachmann, Palin, or Gingrich; Obama's reelection campaign will not be a cakewalk.

[angus]

Let's be honest about this. And as fair as possible. And so on. And so forth. But...

They all suck, don't they? A dismal array of frauds, failures, nutters, creeps, hacks, idiots, swivel-eyed fanatics and the sort of people that you would not let within five feet of small children. And all of the above, obviously.

Nostalgia for Bush?  You're not alone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-gop-debate-feeling-nostalgic-for-george-w-bush/2011/06/15/AGgbrWWH_story.html?hpid=z2

[King]

I would probably let Romney within 5 feet of a child though a fraud and failure he is.

Most children would be afraid of Ron Paul's Federal Reserve rhetoric.

[Sibboleth]

People, people. Those comments (all of which are objectively correct) are not predictions. Unless the slump somehow ends, then an upset will always be at least possible. Plenty of laughably bad candidates have gone on to win elections.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

People, people. Those comments (all of which are objectively correct) are not predictions. Unless the slump somehow ends, then an upset will always be at least possible. Plenty of laughably bad candidates have gone on to win elections.

Not U.S. Presidential Elections.

[Sibboleth]

People, people. Those comments (all of which are objectively correct) are not predictions. Unless the slump somehow ends, then an upset will always be at least possible. Plenty of laughably bad candidates have gone on to win elections.

Not U.S. Presidential Elections.

So not impossible. Though seemingly unlikely.

[Mr.Phips]

People, people. Those comments (all of which are objectively correct) are not predictions. Unless the slump somehow ends, then an upset will always be at least possible. Plenty of laughably bad candidates have gone on to win elections.

Not U.S. Presidential Elections.

Jimmy Carter was considered a pretty bad candidate and he won.  So was Bill Clinton in early 1992.