You don't give Romney enough credit. The man would make a fantastic president and has got more brains than any of the other candidates. People just arent realizing it yet. He would beat Obama or Hillary, and I believe easily. The people who think Romney is the easiest to beat because just haven't gotten the chance to know him

I'm just going by the polls, of course. The numbers could all change.

But until today, I had given no thought to a Romney versus Obama race, and I don't think a lot of other people have either.

I agree, this IS the cancer that is killing /b/.

Polls in this situation tend to be very inaccurate. That is because people often lie about their prejudices. I suspect that there are a lot of people who won't vote for Obama because he black or Romney because he is a Mormon, but won't tell that to pollsters. There is a lot of historical evidence that people lie to pollsters, even in anonymous polls, about their prejudices.

Obama is quite close the The Nation of Islam. Fortunately there are no racist in that bunch.

I guess the easiest way to repudiate white racism is to elect a covert supporter of black racism.

BTW do you consider wrecking the economy and losing Iraq sufficient pennance for America's racist past?

And why do I have to pay that price? One of my best friends in high school was a black guy. We were drinking buddies. Often just me and him. Why do I have to pay because you feel guilty? Aren't you just socializing your guilt? I think I have heard you rail against that sort of thing before.

On the main topic at hand - I'm a Thompson guy myself. I could live with Guiliani. The rest of the field not so much. Romney is way too Plastic for me.

So my druthers? Hill over Hussein.

Don't read me wrong. I've posted about this repudiation issue before. It's not my opinion, nor is it logical, but I think it has strong emotional appeal.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/04/offset_for_raci.html

Of course, if the goal is a race race, the last time I looked, Condi was still a Republican.

Why does every presidential primary seem to only bring out the corruptly ignorant party's worst against the ignorantly corrupt party's worst. This will be my tenth time watching the farce go down, and each time it looks more like an election of evil clowns, all fronting for their sponsors, all determined to speak of America's Greatness while selling out the non-elites of the country to the highest bidder in a global marketplace.
Oh well, it was a great country while it lasted. Just hope private industry can make the leap to space in time for Classical Values and Culture to survive.

Primaries bring out the clowns because they are the warm-up acts, silly. But you KNEW that, you sly devil!

Problem I have with this post, is that you are giving political handlers an extra snack, and lord knows, they are already portly.

There is one other poll that also explains this... the one where a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican?

The field, outside of HRC is almost, by definition, 'generic' right now to the people of the US. That changes by SEP 2008, but right now there is only one polarizing figure and she is a negative not only turning people off to her but *against* her as time goes on. Once you remove that spotlight you are left with 'generic' candidates by definition.

Obama is an empty suit from the Illinois Democratic machine and has ties to local organized crime, particularly on land deals. HRC can't bring those up as she *needs* the Illinois machine - she could but then even if she got the nomination, Illinois goes against her and there is zero she can threaten those criminal connections with as she has too many of them, herself.

On the Republican side... Huckabee? Remember that Hope is a town in Arkansas, not a plan. Romney? Governor of Taxechussettes. Giuliani? A NY 'conservative' is anyone else's 'moderate' at best and for all his putting up that he 'hasn't changed his positions' that is getting to bug some folks because he has done so. Thompson? The man folded against the Clintons in the Senate, how is he supposed to have guts enough to face guys like Putin, not to speak of Ahmadinnerjacket without folding. McCain? War hero, anti-free speech, incumbant protector, pro-illegal immigration... and has problems realizing that he does not even begin to understand how internal treaties with Native Americans work or why it is a good idea to let engineers have a bit say on engineering problems in USACE... plus I still remember the Keating 5 and I bet a few other folks do, too.

You can read anything you want into an empty suit, and Obama speaks great on platitudes, short on actually having a conception of what the US can do in the world, save for apologize all the time for existing. Plus his land deals which, to the locals in Chi-town, apparently go back quite a ways involving legislation passed while he was a State Senator. Obama remains generic because HRC can't bring that up nor anyone on the Democratic side that wants Illinois in the D column. That would wait until the general election and he would have to get that out way ahead of time, like before the Democratic Nomination and actually way before mid-FEB so that Democrats don't look at him slant-wise about those connections.

Forecasting now, for the general, can't be done without internal party dynamics taken into account.

I would like a *real* field of candidates out there, and not this strange brew of Big Government types who talk a great game, but have some problems backing it up by action. I am an ABC voter: Anyone But Clinton.

If the D party does not nominate her, all bets are off as I find the rest of the field on both sides problematical and the old write-in for Cthulhu looks really, really good... if you are going to hell, then experienced leadership is key.

aj,

Brilliant as usual.