Opposite Party Presidential Candidates You'd Consider Voting For

[publicunofficial]

I might vote for Jon Huntsman if the Democrats decide to nominate, say, Jim Traficant.

[Orser67]

Based on this poll, maybe Huntsman should consider changing parties.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

[SWE]

Based on this poll, maybe Huntsman should consider changing parties.

Oh god no. The last thing we need is for the Democratic party to match even further right

[MurrayBannerman]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

Foreign policy? :confusedshrug:

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

Foreign policy? :confusedshrug:

Isn't Huntsman a Neoconservative?  Most moderate Republicans are very hawkish.

[TJ in Oregon]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

They are quite different from each other and only in the same category if that category is their appeal to me. My issues with either are completely different. With Rand Paul, I would be extremely hesitant to vote for him because he could support legalized drugs and/or prostitution. His economic views are also too extreme.

Huntsman I can't stand because he's been on what seems like a tirade against conservatives for the last couple years. Huntsman comes across as rude, condescending, and the type of person I cannot possibly vote for if I disagree with him on a single issue. Also the whole post-partisan schtick is obnoxious (though that might just be because everyone I know in real life who considers themselves "post-partisan" are so "post-partisan" they check all the boxes with the D's next to them).

Foreign policy isn't much of a consideration on my part, although Paul kind of scares me. I'd be concerned that if elected president he'd do something incredibly unpragmatic in the global arena and make a mess.

[Mordecai]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

Foreign policy? :confusedshrug:

Isn't Huntsman a Neoconservative?  Most moderate Republicans are very hawkish.

Quite the opposite actually, he basically mimicked Ron Paul on foreign policy. He's not a moderate either (he believes in the flat tax!), just a non-fundamentalist, non-neoconservative Republican who believes in climate change. That's not a moderate.

[Cobbler]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

Foreign policy? :confusedshrug:

Isn't Huntsman a Neoconservative?  Most moderate Republicans are very hawkish.

Quite the opposite actually, he basically mimicked Ron Paul on foreign policy. He's not a moderate either (he believes in the flat tax!), just a non-fundamentalist, non-neoconservative Republican who believes in climate change. That's not a moderate.

I wouldn't say he mimicked Ron Paul (who touted a borderline isolationist policy) but rather a more Obama-like foreign policy relative to the rest of the crowd, which was predominately neoconservative.

He's conservative on economic issues such as taxes (obviously, as he's a Republican, not a Democrat), but he's not only a believer in climate change, but also in gay marriage, supports medical marijuana, supported the Dream act, supports infrastructure spending, supported the stimulus. To me, sounds pretty moderate.

[Marnetmar]

Huntsman for being sane.

[whanztastic]

None, it's the party that's the problem.

[RR1997]

Brian Schweitzer, Andrew Cuomo, and Mark Warner.

[Maistre]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

They are quite different from each other and only in the same category if that category is their appeal to me. My issues with either are completely different. With Rand Paul, I would be extremely hesitant to vote for him because he could support legalized drugs and/or prostitution. His economic views are also too extreme.

Huntsman I can't stand because he's been on what seems like a tirade against conservatives for the last couple years. Huntsman comes across as rude, condescending, and the type of person I cannot possibly vote for if I disagree with him on a single issue. Also the whole post-partisan schtick is obnoxious (though that might just be because everyone I know in real life who considers themselves "post-partisan" are so "post-partisan" they check all the boxes with the D's next to them).

Foreign policy isn't much of a consideration on my part, although Paul kind of scares me. I'd be concerned that if elected president he'd do something incredibly unpragmatic in the global arena and make a mess.

Hunstman is a weird one, because his record before the 2012 campaign was actually a pretty good one. He would have definitely beat Romney if he actually tried running in a Republican primary (as opposed to the MSNBC primary). I think his distaste for actual Republican voters is what did him in.

[H. Ross Peron]

None

[Bojack Horseman]

Jon Huntsman is the only one I'd even begin to consider voting for.

[The Dowager Mod]

Huntsman.

[Potatoe]

None since everyone sucks except Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. If my boy Dennis runs though.

Let me ask a question. If you are ready to support both Dennis Kucinich and Rand Paul, both quite libertarian, why would you support Ted Cruz?

[Mordecai]

If the Democrats somehow nominated Dan Lipinski, Bart Stupak, or someone of the sort and the Republicans nominated a nut, Rand Paul, or John Huntsman, I'd probably vote for the Dem.

Why are Rand Paul and John Huntsman in the same category?

Foreign policy? :confusedshrug:

Isn't Huntsman a Neoconservative?  Most moderate Republicans are very hawkish.

Quite the opposite actually, he basically mimicked Ron Paul on foreign policy. He's not a moderate either (he believes in the flat tax!), just a non-fundamentalist, non-neoconservative Republican who believes in climate change. That's not a moderate.

I wouldn't say he mimicked Ron Paul (who touted a borderline isolationist policy) but rather a more Obama-like foreign policy relative to the rest of the crowd, which was predominately neoconservative.

He's conservative on economic issues such as taxes (obviously, as he's a Republican, not a Democrat), but he's not only a believer in climate change, but also in gay marriage, supports medical marijuana, supported the Dream act, supports infrastructure spending, supported the stimulus. To me, sounds pretty moderate.

Ok I didn't know about his views on medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. With that considered, I would say he's a moderate.

[Liberalrocks]

Jon Huntsman, I've never had to question the mans sanity and respect him.

[nolesfan2011]

Paul and Huntsman only, depending on the circumstances and such, I'd vote for Rand over HRC in things that might actually happen (though 3rd party still probably first)