Talk Elections

Out of the eight candidates who have been consistently invited to the debates, which candidates make up the "top half."  The "final four," the section of the field that deserves to be listened to?  Narrow them down to four candidates that truly matter (and discuss ;)).

The first four listed, obviously.

Yes, that.

Perry, Romney and Paul mostly because of the polling and Bachmann over Huntsman because Bachmann has a shot at winning Iowa, which cannot be said about Huntsman - in any early state.

This.

It depends how they're ranked. Expected votes in the primary? Then Paul > Huntsman. Probability of getting nomination? Then Huntsman > Paul. Huntsman has a long shot if both Romney and Perry are seriously weakened. Paul needs every other candidate to implode.

Chances of getting nominated:

1. Romney
2. Perry
3. Huntsman!
4. Bachmann

The rest have an absolutely zero chance.

There is no such thing as the "top four."

There are only the "top two."

Perry, Romney, Paul, and frankly I think Huntsman is one the way up here.  Bachmann is going to fall apart in IA while Huntsman might try to make a theft in New Hampshire.

Paul
Romney
Perry

The fourth spot is still up for grabs.

1.Romney
2.Perry
3.Bachmann
4.TBD

Your fascination with Huntsman and quasi support of him is kind of like your fascination with  and eventual support Obama back in 2008.  Poor judgment all around.  At least the kids get a pass for their idiocy, which unfortunately does not apply.

I'm always happy to admit my mistakes (first and most relevant here - voting for McCain after the way he acted in the financial crisis - I should have just sat home or voted random third party).  Of course, maybe you don't realize them yet, which is a different problem.

Anyway, out of the candidates listed only Romney and Perry can win for now.  But after tonight, I realized yet again, the race is really just starting.

Torie doesn't want to admit that Paul has a shot of winning.

I also hear that it's the height of meth season in Indiana right now too.

Romney & Perry. Everyone else is in the race to increase their national visibility, promote their views, or raise their speaking fees; winning the nomination is not a part of the equation.

And Huntsman trying to set himself up for 2016.  Not sure if Alex P Keatons who will be old enough to vote by then know who Nirvana is though.  Or who Alex P Keaton is.  Or Jon Huntsman.

Jon Huntsman will never be president unless he runs on a democratic ticket.

Huntsman has a shot, but Ron Paul is way ahead. I dont let my views get in the way of reality. The reality is, Ron Paul probaly wont be President, but he still has a shot.

The odds of Ron Paul winning are fairly low. Comparatively, the odds of Bachmann, Cain, and Huntsman are "even lower", "nigh impossible" and "about as likely as the Moon flying out of orbit and crashing into Mars".

:).  I'm over my Huntsman thing.  I didn't mean to suggest Huntsman had a realistic chance, just arguably better than Bachmann's.  Neither as you say are really in the hunt, unless something really weird happens to the top two.

1.  Romney
2.  Perry
3.  Bachman
4.  Palin (which is interesting because she's not running)

His economic program and pro-life position would play great in Democratic primaries. One of the reasons I don't have much respect for Huntsman's campaign is that he's not really a moderate - he's just an identity candidate for people who are culturally uncomfortable with GOP base. It's like Huckabeeism in reverse.

That's your top four, or who you perceive is in the GOP's eyes, or both?