Top Republican candidate in polls:

[IllustriousPotentate]

None of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

Is this a good thing for Republicans? Or will it end up like the 2004 Democratic primaries?

[JakeHero]

Republicans will be in trouble if they can't back on candidate, but I have faith in the end things will work out. It is bad for the republicans because such squabbling among themselves will decrease the momentum for a singular candidate.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/17/07 07:35 PM, JakeHero wrote: Republicans will be in trouble if they can't back on candidate, but I have faith in the end things will work out. It is bad for the republicans because such squabbling among themselves will decrease the momentum for a singular candidate.

True, but in all honesty, primaries are still half a year away. There's plenty of time to weed out the losers and notta-chances. The situation reminds me of the 2004 Democratic primaries, where there was no real clear front-runner either, and the Dems nearly won the 2004 presidential election.

[JakeHero]

At 7/17/07 07:43 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: True, but in all honesty, primaries are still half a year away.

Until then we can only watch, I s'pose.

There's plenty of time to weed out the losers and notta-chances.

I'm a bit worried about the fact Rudy could get the nomination. Not to step on the toes of those who support him, but he strikes me as pseudo-republican-conservative. I guess libertarians and people that sit in the middle would like him, but I can't agree with him on gun control.

The situation reminds me of the 2004 Democratic primaries, where there was no real clear front-runner either, and the Dems nearly won the 2004 presidential election.

I wouldn't say it was exactly the same, but it did get a bit confusing. Everyone was sure Howard Dean would gain the nomination, but staggered due to his outburst. As a result, the Kerry/Edward Ticket got the nomination. The one problem with that whole election was it wsn't a democrat election, it was an election to dethrone Bush.

[SirXVII]

Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Say it with me!

[Bolo]

If the election were held today, Republicans would lose hands down, against any of the top three Democratic contenders (Barack, Hilary, Edwards).

A year from the now, perhaps the situation will have changed, but as it stands, currently, and barring serious political missteps, Democrats have the political advantage.

[JakeHero]

At 7/17/07 09:32 PM, Bolo wrote: If the election were held today, Republicans would lose hands down, against any of the top three Democratic contenders (Barack, Hilary, Edwards).

That will be the case, unless another terrorist attack happens and americans remember they're people tha wish to see them dead.

[Memorize]

At 7/17/07 09:32 PM, Bolo wrote:

A year from the now, perhaps the situation will have changed, but as it stands, currently, and barring serious political missteps, Democrats have the political advantage.

That certainly explains the way they handle congress...

[Imperator]

At 7/17/07 11:02 PM, Memorize wrote:
That certainly explains the way they handle congress...

Eh....That's actually what I thought at first too, but it fits in with their plan. They're trying to deaden the affect of the WH, basically creating a stalemate situation. What they should be doing is running the country....

What I don't get is why the Dems would want to block Bush? Most of Bush's stuff has not been popular in the least, he seems to shoot himself in the foot quite often. The way I see it, the dems are basically doing him a favor by taking away the gun....

[YHWH]

At 7/17/07 09:16 PM, SirXVII wrote: Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Say it with me!

Ron Paul FTW! Already contributed 200 dollars so far. Those bastards at FOX News don't give him near as much credit as he should for winning the debates by vote.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/17/07 09:32 PM, Bolo wrote: If the election were held today, Republicans would lose hands down, against any of the top three Democratic contenders (Barack, Hilary, Edwards).

Hillary and Edwards are conniving political scum. At least Obama seems like a decent man even if I do think his ideas are wrong.

Honestly, if I could press a button to have both Hillary and Edwards die of a massive stroke tonight Id do it. I hope you are reading this whoever is up there.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/17/07 10:58 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/17/07 09:32 PM, Bolo wrote: If the election were held today, Republicans would lose hands down, against any of the top three Democratic contenders (Barack, Hilary, Edwards).

That will be the case, unless another terrorist attack happens and americans remember they're people tha wish to see them dead.

As opposed to wanting to give them a hug? lets hope there's not another 9/11 conspiracy.

"the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls"

That has rascism painted all over it!!!!

________________________________________
_____________________________

It's been 2 1/2 years and people have still been raving over candidates for such a far off election.

I'm getting a vibe of irony that very little will truely be done upon the election of a new candidates; republican or democrat it will mean little; as the less you do in office the less you can be critizied about. So it seems.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/19/07 07:38 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm getting a vibe of irony that very little will truely be done upon the election of a new candidates; republican or democrat it will mean little; as the less you do in office the less you can be critizied about. So it seems.

If Hillary wins, then the same two families will have been running the country for a quarter century.
What is it about today's political climate that people just don't want to change the sheets?

[Elfer]

At 7/17/07 09:16 PM, SirXVII wrote: Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Say it with me!

No no no, you can't have a real president. They need some sort of monkey they can dress up and push around.

[tony4moroney]

So who's the top Republican candidate?

Is it the sadistic mormon flip-flopper?

Is it the opportunistic, inbred, failure of a mayor that can't read critical reports?

Is it Nixon's mole and pro-abortion lobbyist?

Is the serial flip-flopper who contradicts himself between sentences, attacks his own party members and can't even manage his own campaign?

Who are the Fox-Tards supporting..

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/19/07 07:54 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/19/07 07:38 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm getting a vibe of irony that very little will truely be done upon the election of a new candidates; republican or democrat it will mean little; as the less you do in office the less you can be critizied about. So it seems.

If Hillary wins, then the same two families will have been running the country for a quarter century.
What is it about today's political climate that people just don't want to change the sheets?

I understand how you feel but you could say the same about GWB sr. and jr.

i supose there's an element of fidelity in familiar faces.

[alanoink]

Sadly, we're getting a Democrat in 2008.

But I'm rooting for Sam Brownback.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/22/07 08:05 PM, alanoink wrote: Sadly, we're getting a Democrat in 2008.

But I'm rooting for Sam Brownback.

A Democrat beats a Nazi

[Bolo]

At 7/22/07 08:05 PM, alanoink wrote: Sadly, we're getting a Democrat in 2008.

But I'm rooting for Sam Brownback.

Think long and hard about this: Do you really want evangelical preachers controlling America?

Wait, don't answer. I don't want to know.

[alanoink]

At 7/22/07 08:14 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/22/07 08:05 PM, alanoink wrote: Sadly, we're getting a Democrat in 2008.

But I'm rooting for Sam Brownback.

A Democrat beats a Nazi

Yes, yes it does.

At 7/22/07 08:20 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/22/07 08:05 PM, alanoink wrote: Sadly, we're getting a Democrat in 2008.

But I'm rooting for Sam Brownback.

Think long and hard about this: Do you really want evangelical preachers controlling America?

Wait, don't answer. I don't want to know.

No. But that didn't happen with Bush. What I don't want is being unable to pray in public, or even being able to own a Bible, which will happen soon the way this country is going.

[WeOwnTheNight]

Im not a huge fan of the mormons, but im going to cast my lot in with Mitt.