The fascinating thing about this poll is the dearth of Ron Paul votes.

How did you keep the Paul-bots away? Is there some repellent we should know about, like the urine of sane people or something?

Dear Fellow Wizbanger Republicans: Wow. Really? Bachmann? When it comes to Bachmann's chances vs. The World's Smartest Man in the Room®, there's a phrase that has something to do with a snowball's existence in hell.

Elections are won and lost in the middle, kids. Better wake the heck up and figure that one out if the goal is to get The World's Smartest Man in the Room® out of the White House. That's my goal.

In simple football terms, I'm giving the ball (aka: my vote) to the player that gives us the best chance to win the game. And I don't care if we have slight ideological differences off the field; we're playing a game here and the goal is to win. Giving the ball to Bachmann is like giving the ball to the punter.

Let the hating commence in 5...4...3....

Pawlenty seriously damaged his campaign by backing off criticism of Romney. By not defending his earlier words regarding Obamneycare he ended up looking cowardly. No one wants a President who cannot stand by his words. Heck, we've already got one of those thank you.

Jim: "urine of sane people"

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, no Jim, that's kind of backward. People who use urine of any kind as a fragrance or body accoutrement are usually of a similar mindset to the Paulbots.

The sane ones use things like soap and shampoo.

Countdown to going through Michelle's emails in 3..2..1

Looks like Barry's got some splaining to do.

Yeah Pete. That worked soooo well with McCain in 2008 didn't it? What's going to save this country is a sound fiscal conservative. Electing some big government pseudo conservative like Romney isn't going to do the trick.

The GOP has consistently fallen into the trap of the MSM, which hammers away on their idea of electability, defined as being the most liberal person the party can nominate.

The American public is quickly moving toward the position that more government is not the answer, but less government and polls are showing unprecedented levels of support for cutting spending, even on entitlements.

@jim m.

Nobody, and I mean maybe not even a reincarnated Reagan, could have beaten an Obama or a Hillary Clinton ticket in '08. given that the country was addled with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Couple that with the economic collapse of Sept/Oct '08 and it was over before it started for McCain. (His lackluster, kid-gloves campaign didn't help, of course, but he played well to independents.)

Peter F, I disagree. The fact that McCain stayed close until late in the race tells me the election was winnable. The key, like in 2004, was turnout. Too many republicans simply did not vote in 2010.

If they vote, the GOP wins, but McCain was not acceptable to enough mainstream republicans. The primaries were not reflective of the true republican mood.

The best conservative wins. If the GOP does not nominate a conservative, then the Left wins, pretty much by default.

We need to make sure everyone understands that lesson this time around. Indies will support a real conservative, we just have not had one in a while worth talking about.

She's conservative and has a financial background, what's not to like.

No squishes or RINO's allowed.

Granted, it would have been tough to beat obama in 08 given the whole "we're making history" meme and the abundant cover provided by the MSM.

But a lot has changed since then. People have grown tired of the most transparently opaque Presidency in history. People are outright scared about the economy. The MSM might say every round of bad news is "Unexpected" but the public doesn't find it so.

Most importantly, more and more people have abandoned the MSM as their primary source for news and information and the MSM has lost their imprimatur of objectivity. The MSM is increasingly unable to direct the political conversation. In years past Anthony Weiner would have survived his scandal thanks to the MSM. No longer is that the case.

Also in the past the economic straights weren't quite so dire. People have been unemployed for a long time. There is spreading concern about inflation and people can see how much the government is spending and how little is being accomplished. Information spreads faster than ever before. It is changing the political environment. For the dems, who have banked heavily on the MSM control of the message (I recall in 08 the head of NBC news saying that the MSM would guarantee obama a 5-10% advantage at the ballot box), are going to find themselves on the short end of the stick. Nothing is guaranteed, but it weighs heavily in favor of those who are wanting smaller government.

The best conservative wins. If the GOP does not nominate a conservative, then the Left wins, pretty much by default.

I have to agree. Reagan was a genuine conservative and he crushed the dems twice. Bush 41 broke his pledge on taxes, alienated a lot of conservatives, and lost. Dole was another lack luster big government republican who was nominated for the lone reason of being next in line. Same with McCain.

Nominate a real conservative (please a fiscal conservative) and the GOP will win soundly.

2. Posted by Peter F. | June 24, 2011 5:14 PM

It was a poll asking who won the debate, not who is most electable.

Pete needs to go back under his bridge. Our choice in '08 was Dem vs. Dem-lite. No amount of spin can make McCain a conservative. I will not even vote this time around if a Romney or Huntsman or Pawlenty are nominated, the first time since 1974 that I will not have done so. I want someone with clear conservative positions, a backbone and the guts to stick to his/her guns. This time around, the cojones are on the distaff side. I will be happy with Palin, Bachmann or West should he decide to accept a draft. Christie's a bit moderate for me on some things, but damn I like his style. The rest of them are retreads or warhorses whose destination should be the glue factory, not the battlefield.

The electorate has seen what 75 years of liberalism has done to this country, its mores, its morals and economy. The first cracks came at the executive branch when Nixon was elected despite the media's best efforts to help Humphrey, and Reagan widened the opening when his geniality put the lie to 15 years' worth of the media portraying him as a madman. By 1994, when the 40-year monopoly enjoyed by House Democrats had ended, conservatism was the dominant national slant. I can tell by the near-hysteric reaction on the Left that they are clueless about their new status as marginal players.

The pendulum has swung back past the middle. If Johnson-vs.- Goldwater were to be replayed today, Goldwater would win. I'm glad he lived long enough to see the trend start his way.

Peter F, I disagree. The fact that McCain stayed close until late in the race tells me the election was winnable.

DJ, I'm not sure what you mean by "late", but I disagree with your assessment. McCain's campaign officially went tits up around 9/23/08, almost to the minute the economy went tits up, as well. On average, and save for a 1 or 2 weeks in very early Sept., he was typically 4%+ behind (a big underdog, really). RCP polling data history metes this out:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

If, as you say, McCain didn't win because he didn't appeal to mainstream GOPers, then that means those voters stayed home based on ideological differences with McCain. Which is completely screwy and loser logic on the part of the voters, IMO. In other words, they'd rather have Obama in the WH, someone with whom they completely disagree with ideologically, versus McCain. I'm all for sticking to one's principles, but that kind of logic is just wrought with self-defeat. And, frankly, stupidity.

I agree with you, though, that there have been no Reagan-esque or fiscal conservatives put up for POTUS elections since maybe Bush I. But I'll guarantee you this: Like it or not, Bachmann, Palin, Paul, etc. have been labeled as fringe elements of the party by the MSM and independents influenced by the left. They are absolutely, 100% unelectable. Period. It's fine to vote for them in the primaries, if one chooses, but when they bow out, if those "mainstream" GOPers stay home again for ideological reasons (ex: "Romeny's not a "real" conservative"), then brother, they get another 4 years of The World's Smartest Man in the Room®.

I don't know who I'm throwing my vote to right now; I haven't done enough reading or research on some of these guys. But as a 20+-year advertising man who knows something about perceptions and image, Bachmann, Palin and Paul are toast before the even get in the toaster.

*I wish Paul Ryan were running. But he needs more grooming and a little distance from the current budget battle. I hope to God he runs in '16.

It was a poll asking who won the debate, not who is most electable.

True, but it does show who the audience is leaning toward. And that's disturbing to me.

Peter,

I think you are completely off base. It isn't moving into the center that makes someone electable. It is convincing the center that your platform is what the country needs most.

obama ran on empty promises of hope and change. It meant nothing and the MSM dutifully made sure that everyone could define that to mean whatever they liked.

People want candidates to stand for something. Part of why obama is struggling is because hope and change now have 2+ years of action defining what that looks like and people don't like it.

In finding a candidate to oppose obama simply being not him is not going to be good enough. People don't want a centrist candidate who won't rock the boat. They want someone who is going to shake up this government and get it off the backs of the people, reduce spending and get the economy going again.

Polls show that people want spending cuts, they want a smaller government and they are willing to make sacrifices in government services to get that. Most people are capable of seeing that we are spending way more than we did in 2008 and it's getting us nothing and some of them are able to ask the question, "Why can't we reduce spending to 08 levels without shutting down the government?"

It's a valid question. obama can't and won't answer it. The dem whining about spending cuts is not getting much traction.

Running to the center as someone who won't cut spending and who will raise taxes is the recipe for defeat.

"Polls show that people want spending cuts, they want a smaller government and they are willing to make sacrifices in government services to get that. "

Polls also show that americans are in favor of letting the Bush Tax cuts for the rich expire -- and they are against the Republican plan to gut Medicare.

"Running to the center as someone who won't cut spending and who will raise taxes is the recipe for defeat."

I dont think you'll see any candidates campaigning on a "let's spend more" platform. But you will see Dems pushing for higher taxes for the wealthy so we don't have to cut spending as much, and the Medicare issues is huge.

Republicans will lose the election if they maintain the current course of discourse - promoting tax cuts for the wealthy and destroying programs for not so wealthy like Medicare.

Jim: "urine of sane people"

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, no Jim, that's kind of backward. People who use urine of any kind as a fragrance or body accoutrement are usually of a similar mindset to the Paulbots.

The sane ones use things like soap and shampoo.

4. Posted by DJ Drummond | June 24, 2011 5:17 PM

It is just this attitude which makes it even harder for the entrepreneurs in the sane urine industry to get a foothold in the Obama economy.

You don't use it as cologne, you sprinkle it around the area you want to keep free of Ron Paul supporters. On the ground or around trees or on the post with an internet poll. One whiff and they move on, figuring none of their own kind are around.

But it's okay, my friend. They laughed at Galileo and Columbus, they laughed at Edison and Einstein, they laughed at Alfred Matthew Yankovic. Who is laughing NOW?

Well, not the first four, being dead and all, but you get the idea.

***** I dont think you'll see any candidates campaigning on a "let's spend more" platform. ***** 17. Posted by Art W | June 24, 2011 8:25 PM

Hmmm. Obama's budget includes 10% increases for State, Energy, Labor, and EPA, and healthy increases in other departments, too. But we probably have differing ideas on the definition of "more" . . .

Um...who are you people? Why are you rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? We are talking about who should lead the nation for 4 years - during a time when many factors are converging on a catastrophic situation. We have the US in several wars - all illegal, we have the dollar in default and an economy that has been deliberately destroyed by the international banksters. And all you can talk about is petty politics? Shame on all of you. Ron Paul 2012.