I lean Republican

In the Republican primary I would (and did) vote for Thompson.

In the Democrat primary I would vote for Biden.

Democrat

In the Democrat primary I voted for Obama

In the Republican primary I would vote for McCain.

P.S Bunyan - Biden has withdrawn from the race.

I am a Republican

In the Republican primary I would (and also did) vote for Thompson.

I'd vote Hillary for the Dems, as I believe she is more beatable than Obama... If you meant which Dem we could live with as President, I honestly cannot pick one.

Duh JFO. I'd still vote for him. He was by far the best of the communists running.

I am a Republican.

In the Republican primary I would vote for Thompson.

I would not vote for any of the Democrats. That's why it's a secret ballot, so no one can hold a gun to my head and force me to vote for my country's destruction.

Thompson.

The only way I would even contemplate voting for a Democrat in 2008 is if Huckabee gets the GOP nomination.

I'm a registered Republican.

On the Repub side, I vote Thompson.

On the Dem side, I'd write in Lieberman. If I can't do that, then put me down for Obama.

*gark*

I think i just threw up a little in my mouth.

Republican

Rep: Fred Thompson
Dem: Joe Lieberman (write-in)

Republican: John McCain

Democrat: geez, I don't know, Richardson, or if there were another name on the ballot I didn't recognize, I'd check that box.

Thompson.

Dem vote...McCain

I lean very much conservative, so I guess republican.
Rep: Romney
Dem: Bill Richardson. (never mind JFO, I know he withdrew, but I liked what he said) ww

Oh, using Son of the Godfather's reasoning, I would pick Obama, too.

I wasn't thinking along those lines when I posted #1 (and I don't think Frazetta or McGehee were either), but I think SOTG's reasoning is along the lines of what DJ was trying to show here.

I think the failure in DJ's reasoning is that you're not gonna see a lot of calculating and conniving here on the Right. This little experiment would work better on KOS, DU, or Huff Po, where that kind of thinking is common.

At least JFO helps make your point (as he ususally does).

I do think open primaries (like the one here in Michigan) are wrong because they do facilitate that kind of thing.

I think the failure in DJ's reasoning is that you're not gonna see a lot of calculating and conniving here on the Right.

There's the funniest thing I'll see all day.

Anyway, I lean left, obviously.

Republican Primary: Thompson
Democratic Primary: Obama

(Those would not be my first choices in either party, but I'm sticking with people that are actually in the race)

Gee Bunyan I did make my point. I attempted to take the post seriously and give an honest answer. You, on the other hand continue to demonstrate what an asshole you are.

"There's the funniest thing I'll see all day."

I remember hearing in my Psyc 101 class about how babies think everyone thinks and feels exactly as they do. For instance if they're happy they think everyone around them is happy and if they're sad they think everyone around them is sad. As they grow older, they begin to realize that that is not the case. The ones that never come to that realization become leftists like mantis.

Most people do not think like you leftists do, mantis. Now I'm not saying that no one on the right is calculating and conniving, I was just pointing out that it's less common on the right while very common on the left.

Of course those looking at the world through communist lenses will deny that.

Repub.

McCain

Kucinich (because, you know, schadenfreude)
(No? OK, Lieberman write-in)

Lean National Socialist
Dems: Obama
Reps: Paul

Well, since it seems everyone on this thread has expressed the candidates they would like to see elected from each party, except for SOTG and, following his lead, you, it's pretty retarded that you see that as proof that the right is not "calculating and conniving" but the left is.

JFO said he would vote for McCain were he voting in a Republican primary, I said I would support Thompson. Both, it seems to me, are based on our opinions of who would be the best candidate in that party. You and SOTG, on the other hand, see this as an opportunity to tell us who you think would be the worst, or least electable, from the other party. Sounds calculating and conniving to me, especially since there are no real votes here.

I get frustrated with a lot of Democratic candidates and find myself voting Republican quite often, when I think that the Republican is the better candidate given my choices. I'm such a die-hard leftist/communist that I've probably voted for Republicans as much as I have for Democrats.

Now I'm not saying that no one on the right is calculating and conniving, I was just pointing out that it's less common on the right while very common on the left.

I suggest a refresher in Psych 101; it might help you in diagnosing yourself. Or you can start here.

National Socialist is not a party- it is a mental illness. That said...

R-Hunter
D-Romney

Leaning Republican

(R)- I give my vote to Fred- his candidacy is a long shot, but it's better than Duncan Hunter's, who seems to be the most in line with my opinions.

(D)- Even in a primary, I don't think I could force myself to vote for any of them. No offence intended, but their positions are so different from mine, that I couldn't do it. If you forced me to vote in the Dem primary, I would reluctantly vote for Hillary, in the hopes that she is the most beatable.

Incidentally, has anyone ever heard of the website ontheissues.org? They have a good listing of candidates and their positions.

Hard Right Leaner

Here in Texas I would vote for:

GOP -- Fred
Dem -- Hillary

I do see your point mantis. But you aren't represtentative of what I see on the left of the blogosphere.

And I could very well be wrong, it's just a personal observation and opinion. Try not to take things so personally. It's not all about you.

Republican-Mike Huckabee
Democrat-no one
I just hope that Huckabee doesn't turn out to be a hypocrite like the rest of them.

As they grow older, they begin to realize that that is not the case. The ones that never come to that realization become leftists like mantis.

Most people do not think like you leftists do, mantis

15. Posted by P. Bunyan | January 18, 2008 11:45 AM

Try not to take things so personally. It's not all about you.

22. Posted by P. Bunyan | January 18, 2008 12:05 PM

What a difference 20 minutes makes.

lean Republican, to the extent that I despise the Democrats (as a party) and am only annoyed by the Republicans (as a party)

R - Thompson (who I actually hope wins the Presidency)
D - um, none of the above? I'd vote uncommitted and hope that enough uncommitted delegates arrive at the convention to pick someone reasonable, like Sam Nunn, Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller or David Boren

Oh Adrian, take this Arkansas girl's word for it. Huckabee is indeed a hypocrite. All he needs is a diamond pinkie ring and a comb over and he could sell you anything.

My choices would be R-Thompson and write-in Lieberman.

lean republican

Republican: McCain
Democrat: Obama

(though I did already vote uncommited in our states primary)

Republican

Republican Primary: Romney
Democratic Primary: Obama

Ticket I'd really like to see: Romney/Lieberman

I don't like Obama's policies (as much as we know), but he doesn't terrify me the way that eight more years of Clintonia does.

O.k., you made your point. Sorry.

I'm independent, but lean more Republican.

Romney & Clinton

Republican

R- Thompson
D- Yeah, I'd have to write-in Lieberman

Republican

Fred Thompson

Republican

R- Fred Thompson (with Mitt Romney a close second)

D- write-in for Leiberman. If I couldn't write-in........ I guess Obama.

Republican

R - Thompson

D - Obama

Lean to the right of Coulter/Ted Nugent

R: Giuliani (has been most supportive of President Bush -- think he'll be our best candidate). I am an evangelical pro-lifer.

D: I am taking this as if I were a liberal how I would vote (not how I would vote in the Dem primary as a conservative): Obama would be an excellent candidate if I were a muslim/socialist

I am a right leaner for the most part.

R- Voted for and support Thompson.

D- Anyone but Hillary, so I guess Osama..(whoops, I mean Obama)

Republican

Rep: Need to know more about Thompsan, but he looks good
Dem: Write in Lieberman looks like the best of bad choices there.

Conservative here.
Romney
gulp*Obama

Republican

R- Fred Thompson (with Romney as 2nd choice)
D- Hillary
* Easier to beat since she is a known corrupt liberal dem. Sometimes she can do sth right for the wrong reasons (eg. vote for Iraq war, vote against partial birth abortion etc...)
* Obama is a liberal extremist in terms of policies (against the Iraq war, against medical care for surviving aborted babies); he seems to be a smooth spinner in the mold of Bill Clinton (shamelessly claim credit for the surge etc...); also he seems to be a racially biased and anti-semistic (given his church affiliation and his weak denunciation)

I am Republican and proud of it. My vote is for Romney - My ideal ticket is Romney/Thompson.
I would shoot myself in the head before I would vote for Obama who will probably get us all killed anyways by pulling our troops out of iraq and giving the middle east back to the terrorists or hillary, who will get us all killed by taking over our health care system and destroying my chance to live to a ripe old age.

lean republican

r-Thompson

d-Obama

Lean R.

R- Thompson - and have contributed more to his campaign than any other race in my life, several times over in fact.

D- hoped Richardson would get some traction, but writing in for Lieberman seems the best of the proposed solutions.

Republican

Republican primary

Rudy
Democrat primary

write in Rudy

Republican (straight ticket!)

Fred Thompson is my man.

Hiliary Clinton if I had to put up with a Democrat

Obama would be an excellent candidate if I were a muslim/socialist

But you're not--you're either an ignorant twit or a racist. What is it about Obama other than his name and skin color that makes you think he would pander to Muslims more than any other Democratic candidate? In fact, what makes you think any of them would pander to Muslims? And why would Obama be a better choice for "socialists" than Edwards?

I don't know why I'm bothering to address you--you're an evangelical pro-lifer who's hot for Rudy, a secular pro-choice candidate of questionable moral character by anybody's standards (especially your own). You seem to have no comprehension of the candidates' positions, or even your own for that matter.

I lean left and would vote for Obama and McCain, respectively.

I lean Republican.

In the Republican primary I would vote for Rudy. (I voted for him in the Iowa caucus.) Second choice would be either Mitt or Fred, because McCain's record and/or position is dismal on immigration, campaign finance/free speech, tax cuts, and "global warming," and Huckabee is a religious zealot Schmuckabee.

In the Democrat primary I would vote for Hillary. I think she'll be easier to defeat in November and, if she wins anyway, will be better on foreign policy than Sen. Obama. (Both are equally socialistic/liberal on domestic policy.) Edwards is an angry anti-capitalist rabble rousing jerk.

Republican

Fred Thompson is my man.

Can't even imagine being a democrat, so can't imagine who I'd vote for. I'm just too sane and love my country.

So a clear majority of Americans are demonstrably insane and do not love their country, Jo? You should teach political science, or psychology. You clearly have a very good understanding of both.

mantis,

I read your link to the Hofstadter article. I appreciate your calmer tone that I've been seeing, but you must acknowledge his background and bias. The following is from Wikipedia:

After graduation, Hofstadter entered the graduate program in History at Columbia University. In New York, Hofstadter became more involved in Marxist circles, joining the Communist Party in 1938, though, in his words at the time, "I join without enthusiasm but with a sense of obligation... My fundamental reason for joining is that I don't like capitalism and want to get rid of it. I am tired of talking... The party is making a very profound contribution to the radicalization of the American people.... I prefer to go along with it now."

matthew,

Pastors often say that to be able to tell genuine from the counterfeit, you don't study counterfeits, you study the real thing very well. I am not just some ideology -- I am a person that is voting for a person -- there are a lot of factors involved (so I might agree more with Thompson -- actually, his conservatism is much too moderate for my tastes, but am backing Giuliani). That's why many may not understand the Tom Coburn endorsement of (fellow Senator) McCain, but I understand and it does not lead me to think any lesser of him.

As far as the genuine from counterfeit, Obama is not a Christian. Just like Jesse Jackson is not a Christian. I'm not like others where I run anytime some lib asswipe accuses me of racism. So don't try to understand me -- you do not have the capacity.

Decline to state, but lean Republican

R) Thompson
D) Richardson (or Lieberman as a write-in)

* I'm in California. As a "decline to state" voter, I can vote in the primary as a Democrat or as an American Independent. A question to the group, which Democrat should I vote for to maximize the "mischief" factor?

Matthew is a big hypocrite here. He claimed that Romney 's association with the Mormon church disqualifies him to be a president for his poor judgement. So Obama 's association with Pastor Wright 's church doesn't deter Matthew from voting from him. I guess Obama 's extremism on "killing babies, not terrorists" is more important to Matthew.

I am Republican.

In my Washington state primary, I plan to vote for Mitt Romney. (Rudy G. is my first choice; Fred my second. However, I'm almost certain both will be close to if not completely out the race by Feb. 19, so I'd rather not "waste" my vote--a vote I certainly don't want going toward that backstabbing, sellout and psuedo-Republican McCain.)

If I were a Democrat (and I just might be if McCain gets the GOP nomination), I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. I have ZERO confidence in Barack Obama and his understanding of the GWOT and in fighting Islamofacism. Plus his speeches are filled with cheap, meaningless platitudes. (Seriously, WTF kind of platform is "Hope and Change" to run on? Does anybody know what that means? Anybody? Beyond vapid.) So I'd vote for Hillary as much as I'd think she'd financially ruin the country if her health care plan ever went into action. I have a fair amount of confidence that when pressed to make key foreign policy and military decisions, she'd do the right thing. (Though I'm sure I'm fooling myself....)

Lean Republican

Republican: Guiliani
Democrat: Clinton

but you must acknowledge his background and bias. The following is from Wikipedia:

I don't really want to derail the thread further, but you forget the next sentence:

By 1939, however, he had become disenchanted with the party and his participation began a steady decline; by the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact in September, he was thoroughly and permanently disillusioned with the Communist Party, the Soviet Union, and Marxism itself.

Wow, a whole year (in his early 20s) as a communist. Way to dismiss the ideas of an important 20th century American historian with extraordinarily narrow and ignorant ad hominem.

LAI,

Let's ignore matthew for just a bit. I want to ask a serious question to you. I know you probably prefer Thompson's ideology as the most preferable of what's available, but do you think he's our best candidate? This would mean all the factors that go into how people vote (most are not very partisan): looks, likability, being perceived as less extreme, etc.? The other is loyalty to the President. Huck has been dissing the President in order to score points, but Giuliani as been as consistent a supporter of the President that we have. He's said that he would appoint justices similar to Roberts/Alito, has formulated a plan for meaningful tax cuts, and should be pretty good on national security. The other big issue, immigration -- this has got to the point where most Republican candidates seem to at least want to try to limit illegal immigration -- so hopefully not too bad. What are your thoughts?

Peter F.---my thoughts replicate yours to the T.

Matthew,

Obama is an empty suit, so get over yourself. Hillary is the Dem choice since she's probably more beatable and would be a less bad President.

For the GoP, I'd write in Jeb Bush -just to see the Donks' heads explode.

so you consider this marxist someone serious? I don't take him any more seriously than I do David Duke. You should have quoted the whole paragraph:

By 1939, however, he had become disenchanted with the party and his participation began a steady decline; by the time of the Nazi-Soviet pact in September, he was thoroughly and permanently disillusioned with the Communist Party, the Soviet Union, and Marxism itself. He did not, however, change his views on capitalism: "I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it

Let me repeat: " . . . He did not, however, change his views on capitalism: "I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it"

Since we are a capitalist country, he hates us. So this asswipe commie is an important historian to you?

Since we are a capitalist country, he hates us. So this asswipe commie is an important historian to you?

Too stupid to respond to further. Waste of time.

mantis?

I have a serious question. Why did you not quote the whole paragraph? I know you read that next sentence.

Neh,
I think Fred is likable and can win in the general election. Given the current crop, my best scenario is Fred/Mitt or Mitt/Fred. I heard some talk about J.C. Watts as the VP. That 's probably OK too.
In terms of loyalty to the president, I think Fred has been pretty good on that front. He has disagreed with the pres on spending and immigration. We shouldn't count that against him though.
I can live with Rudy and think he is definitely better than McCain or Huckable. But the life issue and his personal life is a big negative for social conservatives. So I think Fred is the guy with the best chance to unite the 3 legs of conservatism (save babies, kill terrorists, small gov).

yeah, mantis, after countless accusations of conservatives not answering qns and shifting topics, now you want to stop with "too stupid to continue"

I think the readers here know you too well. You've been caught selectively quoting to mislead (anyone can go to Wikipedia and search Richard Hofstadter and read the section under Marxism to see what you did).

solidly republican

republican: Fred!
democrat: hillary (write in would be Lieberman if that were possible)

I have a serious question. Why did you not quote the whole paragraph? I know you read that next sentence.

Because disliking capitalism is not synonymous with embracing Marxism/communism. Hell, we don't have a purely capitalist economy (witness the present attempts to manipulate it outside the market for example).

The real question is why, when you clearly saw the next sentence in which Hofstadter's denunciation of communism just one year after joining the party was detailed, did you omit that and try to paint him as some died-in-the-wool communist who should be summarily dismissed? It's ad hominem to begin with and has nothing to do with the essay that I linked, which was written 25 years after he rejected communism, but it's entirely ignorant of the man's work thereafter and the political/idealogical trajectory (a rightward trajectory) that work reveals.

I've treated your question as serious, but in truth you have no serious questions. All you have is bullshit.

watts would be an awesome choice for VP. i hadn't heard that one before. if jindal hadn't just been sworn in as gov of La, i think would be an interesting choice. both for now and to set things up for the future.

LAI,

OK, we'll see how it turns out. Fred or Mitt or combination are acceptable to me.

I don't think we should pick a VP from the current crop involved in the primaries. JC Watts would be great.

By the way (as much as I support the President), respectfully disagreeing with the President on immigration and spending is something of course I think conservatives SHOULD be doing.

Republican

r: Thompson

d: Clinton

I guess Obama 's extremism on "killing babies, not terrorists" is more important to Matthew.

Whose quote is that? Are you quoting your own shitty bumper sticker slogan? You do realize, LAI, that when you use quotation marks, you are implying that someone actually said the words therein. Right?

As for Obama being an empty suit: whatever. Hillary is a moderate, I'm left of center, so I wouldn't vote for her in a primary. And if Obama does win, which is unlikely, he handily beats any Republican in a general election, except maybe McCain.

mantis,

Hofstadter may have left the communist party (probably because he was angry that they were not leftist enough -- he left because the communists were making a pact with the Nazis -- so it's not because he abandoned leftist ideas that he left communism). The article says that he did begin moving right later, but even then he was well left. I think that you would admit that it would not be wrong to call him a leftist. To put it another way, he may have drifted right (from communism), but he was NEVER a conservative.

And you quote a leftist historian without any medical training that writes an article that purports to diagnose being a right-winger as having some type of mental disorder? That's not history, that is psychiatry -- Hofstadter does not have any training or authority in that field. He can write all day about how he thinks history proves that the left is better (which of course I would object), but what qualifies him to write an article that purports to diagnose a medical condition?

P. Bunyon, you beat me to it. Locally I am all over the map, nationally I tend republican but have voted democrat.

R: Thompson
D: Biden (write in maybe Lieberman)

Matthew,
Cannot avoid cheap distraction tactic, right? Why Obama's association with Wright church doesn't deter you from voting for him? If you don't understand Obama's extremism on the liberal agenda of killing babies, not terrorists, then I can explain slowly to you again. Don't need to resort to that cheap tactic. Only the lazy and unserious will fall for such a cheap trick.

BTW, Mantis trademark of ad-hominen and pretention is well known.

A quick search

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGUzZDI4OGZjZGVmOWMyNGI4MGZhMmMwMTJlZDZkNmU=
In the middle of the last century Marxist and quasi-Marxist historians (such as Richard Hofstadter) clothed the Progressive thesis in a more becoming Marxian dress. In his book The American Political Tradition Hofstadter criticized the Founders for failing to develop "a means by which [our] society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles." Madison, poor man, didn't see a way to the dialectical synthesis Hofstadter envisioned, a new science that would abolish private property and usher in the post-capitalist state. Lenin, one is left to suppose, was the more insightful statesman.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-156045339.html
Hofstadter was always a man of the Left, from his early four-month sojourn with the Communist party in the 1930s through the various permutations of his liberalism. Indeed, Goldwater's candidacy in 1964 was enough to convince him that America was "visibly sick," and he later provoked outrage by joking that conservatives should be put into mental hospitals. It may be only natural that his biographer would share the same general inclination.

Wow. Like I said, too stupid (and ignorant) to respond to. Waste of time.

"In fact, what makes you think any of them would pander to Muslims?"

Every democrat running for President has the official position that they will end the war. Not win the war, but end it (in a loss for the United State). It is an anathema to even use the term "win" with regard to Iraq at a democrat debate. Maybe that's not pandering to all Muslims, but it is clearly panedering to Al Qaeda and all Islamofascists.

Since I'm dealing with people who have no interest in the validity or strength of ideas, I will forgo any such discussion and adopt their tactics:

A quick search:

National Review, October 1, 1963

"Let us gently say the fiend who set off the bomb does not have the sympathy of the white population in the South; in fact, he set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically as to raise the question whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur -- of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro.

And let it be said that the convulsions that go on, and are bound to continue, have resulted from revolutionary assaults on the status quo, and a contempt for the law, which are traceable to the Supreme Court's manifest contempt for the settled traditions of Constitutional practice. Certainly it now appears that Birmingham's Negroes will never be content so long as the white population is free to be free."

National Review, August 24, 1957:

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes -- the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists

Also 1957:

As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro's voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.

I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.

June 2, 1964:

But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named 'civil rights movement' -- that is, the Negro revolt.

August 28, 1957

The State of Arkansas and Orval Faubus are wholly in the right; they have acted lawfully; they are entitled to those great presumptions of the law which underlie the whole of our judicial tradition . . . Conceding, for the sake of discussion, that the Negro pupil has these new rights, what of the white community? Has it none?

Please continue to quote from the National Review, and I will continue to ignore any arguments or ideas and dismiss it out of hand. Thank you for the tactic, by the way. It takes very little effort and no thought whatsoever. Quite handy.

Lean Republican even though I'm Libertarian.

R-Thompson (Is there even a question why this man should be the next President?)

D-Obama (I think that he would be the one to screw up the Exc Branch the least.)

I finally had a chance to read the article you liked to manits. Thanks for the great Friday afternoon laugh. That ranked right up there with the works of the great liberal democrat Micheal Moore or the "Loose Change" guys.

And I take back what I said earlier. Independent/liberal/ lefitst/democrat/socialist/communist/marxist-- choose whatever lable you like you are what you are reagardless of what you want to call yourself.

It takes very little effort and no thought whatsoever.
-------------------------------------
Thanks for admitting that and try to change the discussion instead of answering the args and the actions of Hofstadter. He was a Marxist who came to distrust the mass in the end. Even in 1964, he still thought that conservatives should be put in mental hospitals (a tactic commonly used in the Soviet Union) at the same time he decried McCarthyism. Anyway, it is a know pretention and tactic of ad-hominen and distraction.

Rep: Thompson

Dem: Obama

We know all the crap about Clinton and Edwards, but somethings are still unknown about Obama - so perhaps there's some goodness under that liberal suit.

I lean somewhere to the right of Sun Tzu...

In the Republican primary: Thompson, because face it, all the others are either closet liberals/transvestites or flaming socialists.

In the Democrat primary: That bitch (because even her own party dislikes her)

"The State is he great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Frederic Bastiat 1848

OK, through the first 80 comments:

In "Open" contests:

Republicans
THOMPSON * 63%
ROMNEY * 13%
McCAIN * 10%
GIULIANI * 8%
PAUL/HUNTER/HUCKABEE * 2%

Democrats (on-ticket)
OBAMA * 59%
CLINTON * 41%
EDWARDS * 0%

Democrat Write-ins
LIEBERMAN * 50%
RICHARDSON * 25%
BIDEN * 13%
McCAIN/ROMNEY * 6%

"Closed" contests:

Republicans
THOMPSON * 66%
ROMNEY * 14%
GIULIANI * 9%
McCAIN * 7%
HUNTER/HUCKABEE * 2%

Democrats
OBAMA * 100%
CLINTON * 0%
EDWARDS * 0%

The other Limbaugh (David) can write about Fred better than I can here

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59755

BTW, Hitchens can see through the bigotry of the dem party

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016678.php
Today he rightly sets his sights on identity politics and exposes it as a trade for one bigotry over another (via Real Clear Politics):
...
I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice.

Republican Primary: Thompson
Democratic Primary: I'd write in Lieberman

Razorgirl was on the money with that write-in thing. If Thompson doesn't make it, then I'll think of something else, I guess.

I lean Republican.

In the primary I would (will) vote for Thompson.

In the Dem primary I would write in Leiberman.

Libertarian

1.Thompson
2.McCain
3.Romney

1.Obama
2.Lieberman (write-in)

Being a citizen of Indiana and therefore disenfranchised every four years by the primary schedule, this is the only primary where my vote may count so:

Fiscal conservative, social moderate-libertarian so I guess Repblican.

R-Thompson
D-Clinton although this would have been Obama until his recent throughly naive and misguided foreign policy pronouncements. Obama would make the better peace time president, but we are at war so Clinton would be my pick. Excuse me I need to shower now.

Republican

R: Thompson

D: Richardson (write in)

Lean Republican.

Thompson. And Biden on the other side.

I lean Republican

Thompson

If I had to vote for a democrat I suppose it would have to be bin Laden. Whenever he "speaks" he really pushes for the democrats to win.

a glimpse of lefty propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM

lean republican

Thompson

Hillary! (more beatable than Obama, I think)

I'll post my GOP decision tonight. If I had to choose a Democrat, I'd vote for Hillary. I think she would do the least damage.

For one thing, she would likely avoid picking hugely divisive fights or highly controversial decisions in order to play for reelection.

In fact, that would be a decent slogan for her: "Hillary Clinton: Ready on Day One to Begin the 2012 Campaign!"

Republican

D - Obama

R - Romney

Matthew, I stand by what I said. And there is no clear majority for your side, but nice try.

Obama would not beat any republican handily. No way in hell. Are you going by polls? Because according to polls Obama beat Hillary by double digits in New Hampshire.

Oh wait, that never happened. lol. Schmuck.

Republicans
THOMPSON * 66%
ROMNEY * 14%
GIULIANI * 9%
McCAIN * 7%
HUNTER/HUCKABEE * 2%

Congratulations. You've demonstrated just how severely out of sync Wizbangers are with the American public in general, and Republicans specifically.

Brian, is there a single thread where you DON'T prove yourself to be an asshole?

J.

Republican

R - Thompson
D - Obama

*Strong Republican*

Republican- Fred Thompson

Democrat- Shillary

Very Republican

R - Anyone who could beat a Democrat in a national elections, so McCain or Giuliani. Probably McCain first.

D- Clinton (holds nose). Only because in spite of how socialist her ideas are, she probably wouldn't screw up the country like Obama or Edwards would.

My objective is to keep the White House. If that wasn't #1 on my list, I'd go with Thompson.

Strong Conservative
Republican- Fred Thompson
Democrat - Obama

Republican

R - Fred Thompson

D - Obama

Don't know a lot about Obama, but Hillary is so nasty, racist, vindictive, and evil that almost anybody is bound to be better.

Conservative:

Republican: Thompson

Democrat: Hillary (because she is simply unelectable against Fred, Mitt or Rudy). She would crush McCain or McHuck. Also what COgirl said.

Libertarian - registered GOP (cant vote in my states primary otherwise)

Romney
Clinton

Leaning toward the far right fringe of Republicanism:

Republican primary: Fred Thompson

Democrat primary: Mrs. Clinton. Congress might be able to restrain her more easily than a President Barry bin-Obama.

Brian, no that just shows how much more informed wizbangers are. And how conservative. But thanks for your wrong (as usual) analysis.

Next.

I lean Republican (more like conservative)

Republicans: Fred Thompson
Democrats: I can't say I'd vote for any of them.

Thompson!

Conservative Republican

Thompson

Obama

If I had to vote for a democrat I suppose it would have to be bin Laden. 90. Posted by Capitalist Infidel | January 18, 2008 5:04 PM |

This is so far the line of the year for me. My wife and I had the best laugh in a long time. Thank you.

COgirl -- how'd you get so smart! The only thing I would change from what you said is that I would put Giuliani at the top, but still, you have really good insight -- our side needs more like you.

Republican: Thompson, on principle.
Democrat: Huckabee (OK... kidding). I'd place it strategically in whatever way would seem to keep their racing going on the longest.

Conservative

Republican: Huckabee
Democrats: Clinton (easier opponent)

Looks like I've pretty much doubled Huckabee's numbers in this poll.

Republican, Fred Thompson.

If i had to vote Dhimmi, i'd vote uncommitted =P

Brian,
Being in sync wasn't exactly the goal here with wizbang was it? Obviously the key to success for anything is to carve out a niche. Wizbang has carved many niches. Very good site. If you don't like it i would suggest you pop back over to DailyKOS with the rest of the 3rd graders.

I'm conservative, so the Republicans tend to lean my way.

Republican: Fred Thompson. He seems the most consistently conservative, and has political experience without a whole lot of political baggage.

Democrats: The Hilldebeast. I would probably give up on America if she actually got elected, but I think her nomination would inspire a lot of Republicans who might otherwise decide they could live with Obama and stay home on election day.

"Republicans
THOMPSON * 66%
ROMNEY * 14%
GIULIANI * 9%
McCAIN * 7%
HUNTER/HUCKABEE * 2%

Congratulations. You've demonstrated just how severely out of sync Wizbangers are with the American public in general, and Republicans specifically."
--- Brian

"Brian, is there a single thread where you DON'T prove yourself to be an asshole?" --- Jay Tea

Are you kidding, Jay Tea? F.T. stands to finish no better than fourth in tomorrow's GOP primary in S.C. He is off the radar, but honestly, he never really got onto it in the first place once people actually started voting. Brian is spot on, but I guess you bizzaro-world residents can't comprehend that. I mean, there was a post I read earlier about how great a president Dubya would be remembered as. Good Christ. But back to the issue.

Utah democrat. (slightly more conservative than my NY and CA counterparts)

D primary: Obama

R primary: McCain

A common theme that has seemed to come forth on this thread from Republicans is that Hillary would be an easier opponent for the Republican nominee to beat. I don't know what FauxNews and Rushannity have been telling you, but that is dead wrong. You guys should be praying for an Obama or Edwards victory. Hill's money, organization, connections, campaign savviness, (you think those tears in New Hampshire weren't planned?! The polls were right, Obama was going to win) It should be noted that most of the Republicans on this thread that actually ventured a Dem vote instead of snarking off picked Hillary, with comments like, "I guess if I had to, I would pick her." If she wins the nom, she will be our next president.

Republican - Thompson

Democrat - Obama (anything to not to have to listen to Hillary's voice for the next 10 months).

Lean republican:

R: Thompson [Just voted in SC primary]
D: Zell Miller [Write-in]

Lean Republican
Thompson

The only way I would vote for a Dim is if the Republicans nominate McAmnesty or The Huckster.

Obama

I lean Republican

for Repubs I'd go with Romney
for Demos I'd go with Edwards (just so the rest of the world sees what a complete and utter buffoon he is)

"It should be noted that most of the repubs on this thread that actually ventured a Dem vote instead of snarking off picked Hillary,"

Because they know She'd be toast come NOV.

"You think those tears in New Hampshire were'nt planned?!"

No, they were planned just as much as the attempt to silence the voters in Nevada was planned....anad failed.

" Hill's money, (Norman Shu) organization,( media matter's)connections (Charlie Tree, George Soros, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez just to name a few) campaign savviness ( silencing various bimbo eruptions by calling victims of Her predator Husband "Trailer Trash"...

Have to agree with You on that one..!!

OK, we've reached Saturday 11:59 PM, so I will close this poll and reveal the unsurprising results Sunday.