Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Slog Straw Poll! | But Can She Sing? »

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Republican Straw Poll!

posted by on January 30 at 8:44 AM

[Originally posted on Monday]

Last Thursday we started our first-ever Slog straw poll. The question: Which Democratic candidate do you favor, at this point, to be the nominee for president? That poll closes today, and we’re currently at 2,000 votes.

But why stop with the Democrats?

I doubt we have many Republicans among our regular Slog readers, but I know that a lot of our readers have a preference for whom they’d like to see as the Republican nominee. I’m guessing it’s someone likely to make it through the Republican primaries but someone… beatable. Who do you think that is?

This Republican straw poll closes, along with our Democratic straw poll, today at noon.

UPDATE: Voting is now closed. Here are the final results:


RSS icon Comments


you forgot Lieberman!

Posted by cushiou | January 29, 2007 12:31 PM

I voted for George Pataki, because he has the two most important qualities for a GOP nominee:

1. He's not a total right-wing nutcase. On the off chance he wins, he won't do as much damage to the country. This criterion eliminates most of the field, who are mostly raving right-wing lunatics.
2. He's eminently beatable. Most of the hard-right candidates--pretty much most of the field--have some kind of folsky charm or personal appeal that might win out over the Democratic nominee. Chuck Hagel, who's a hard-right candidate on everything but the war, would have a good chance of winning. Giuliani, who's not hard-right, could also beat the Democratic candidate. The only other easily beatable non-lunatic is Tommy Thompson. Between the two, Pataki's the weaker candidate.

In terms of talent and suitability for the job, Hagel's the guy, and I think Huckabee would also do well. But the last thing we need is another hard-right president, even if the next one was competent for a change.

Posted by Cascadian | January 29, 2007 12:44 PM

i think Newt is the ideologically most pure and therefore could weather a primary both on issues and "electability". Unless he is able to seriously convince the average American, though, he won't be able to take the general.

Posted by torrentprime | January 29, 2007 12:44 PM

How about none of the above?

Posted by jeff | January 29, 2007 12:52 PM

Seattle98104, as the republican contingent of slog, who do you want to see?

Posted by jamier | January 29, 2007 1:06 PM

I voted for Ron Paul, because I would just love to see the Religious Right and other assorted Neader-patriots get their panties in a twist over an actual wide-eyed anti-war, pro-legalization Libertarian winning it. Besides, it might actually end up with a debate over, ya know, the role of government.
Otherwise, I hope that Brownback wins so that on election day I can do the biggest, most complex and exhausting Schadenfreude dance in the history of Schadenfreude dances. And it would be nice to see that paritcular nail in the Religious Right's coffin.
Then again, if he were to win, it would only trigger the apocalypse...

Posted by Spence | January 29, 2007 1:15 PM

i'm going brownback. dude's crazy. and, hopefully, people are tired of that shit.

Posted by konstantconsumer | January 29, 2007 1:18 PM

I based my vote on who I could live with if the Rs took the general. That would be Rudy. He is at least reasonable on gay rights & is pro-choice (that is, until he has to sell his soul to win the primaries).

Pataki is a close second for me. The rest of them can fuck right off.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 29, 2007 1:24 PM

@ konstantconsumer: you have a lot more faith in people than I do.

Posted by Mike in MO | January 29, 2007 1:25 PM

So how come I only see the names (and results) from the Democratic Straw Poll?

Posted by Greg Barnes | January 29, 2007 1:34 PM

@10 Because it thinks you've already voted. Might someone have already voted from your computer?

Posted by Eli Sanders | January 29, 2007 1:38 PM

They all make me want to gag. Even Giuliani, who started a war on artists and the poor as mayor of NYC.

I'd eat glass before I voted for any one of these jackasses.

I'm predicting a Brownback/Huckabee ticket, and also the most openly hateful, racist, homophobic political campaign in the nation's modern history.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 29, 2007 1:43 PM

@10: most likely a caching problem. the poll uses an iframe, and they sometimes act strangely on some browsers. try clearing your cache and/or quitting and restarting your browser.

Posted by Anthony Hecht | January 29, 2007 1:44 PM

Mike in MO, I'm with you. No predicting who is "beatable" anymore in the era of FOX News. What I want is a GOP candidate who wouldn't turn my stomach as President. That would be Guiliani.

Posted by fribster | January 29, 2007 1:45 PM

That looks like some sort of list an evil doctor in a horror movie hands to the kidnapped victim and says "I am going to kill you. Here is a list of germs which will either kill you fast or kill you slow. You pick and 'none-of-the-above' isn't an option"

Posted by Phenics | January 29, 2007 1:57 PM

Giuliani is so gonna be the GOP nominee in 2008. Great public rep, good charisma, seems down to Earth, the exact opposite of Dubya... it's the easiest pick in the world.

Posted by Gomez | January 29, 2007 2:24 PM

Hey, thanks for posting a Republican poll too. I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm always open to voting for a decent Republican (rare as such a thing may be these days).

I cast my vote for Chuck Hagel. I hardly know anything about the guy, and goodness knows, if I did go to the trouble of learning about him, I might cringe at my vote. But I gotta say, he's been making the most sense of anyone -- on either side of the aisle -- speaking about Iraq. There was one Sunday talk show where both Hagel and Lieberman were on talking about the war, and Hagel made Lieberman look like even more of a weenie than he usually does.

Actually, I wonder if anyone here knows anything more about Hagel... Oh, BTW, the simple fact that this guy makes so much sense is the surest sign that there's no way in hell he's running for president. (See: Al Gore.)

Posted by cressona | January 29, 2007 2:27 PM

Giuliani is such a sleazy piece of crap, heroic 9/11 performance nonwithstanding.

I voted for McCain only because the mental case fundies have disavowed him, so he wouldn't feel any pressure to ever give a crap what they want or demand from him if he ever became president, which of course he won't.

It would take a truly Machiavellian feat of cheating or a Swiftboating for the ages for a GOP President to win in 2008.

Posted by Peter | January 29, 2007 3:35 PM

I cast my vote for Romney as I think the combo Mitt/Condi would be unbeatable

Posted by steady | January 29, 2007 3:41 PM

I gotta go with Rudy G just because in the horrendous event that the R's take the WH again he is the only one i could stomach. All the other's would send on a collision course with re-hab of some sort. He would be a huge burr in the side of the far right, not completely unlike Lieberman winning the D nomination.

Posted by longball | January 29, 2007 6:07 PM

In terms of who I'd like to give the Democrats a better chance-- Sam Brownback, for sheer psycho quotient, which would hopefully drive all the semi-intelligent Republicans to our side.

In terms of who I'd like as a decent alternative, Giuliani. I don't agree with all his ideas, but he's pragmatic and does as much of a panderer to the far right as McCain and Romney are/are becoming.

Or Tommy Thompson, so everyone can go "Who?"

Posted by Megan | January 29, 2007 7:55 PM

Don't know if anyone heard, but John McCain will be in Seattle soon for a luncheon that will be open to the public. Not a fundraiser but still kinda swanky at $75/person at the Westin. has more.

Posted by Gabe Global | January 29, 2007 11:48 PM

I think John McCain will have Joe Lieberman as his VP. Two right for the country, too far right for the nation.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 30, 2007 12:28 AM

I voted for Brownback, because he is a nutjob and has absolutely zero chance of beating a reasonable democratic candidate. I don't really think Romney has a shot either.

Realistically, I'd probably take Giuliani if I was forced to pick for one. He already had his blowjob scandal! Pataki is a reasonable consideration as well. Everyone else I view as either racist (particularly Brownback and Tancredo) or homophobic, or willing to undermine minorities or homosexuals even if they have no true racist or homophobic feelings to win votes.

Posted by Jesse | January 30, 2007 6:18 AM

I didn't vote for any of them as I HOPE TO GOD none of 'em win.

But I'll bet it's gonna end up as a Guiliani/Romney ticket. People love Guiliani for 9/11, but he was DICTATOR of New York before that. Yes, the city is safer, but god forbid you're a black man reaching for his wallet. And then there's the censorship thing with the Brooklyn museam, which shows his true leanings. And the whole Kerik thing. People see what they want to.

Romney snowed Massachusetts. He won by insisting his opponent would raise taxes, which he'd never do, but raised fees on EVERYTHING (i.e. car registration, license renewals, etc.). He still acts like he didn't raise taxes. And he's trying to push through a ballot inititive to make gay marriage illegal because God forbid Mass should be the liberal, rights-for-everyone state.

I really, really hope people vote this time around.....

Posted by Dianna | January 30, 2007 8:59 AM

Brownback, if only to ponder the possibilities of a Brownback/Santorum ticket.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 30, 2007 9:01 AM

Frankly, I don't see any of them defeating either Clinton or Obama with even less of a chance if it's some combination of a Clinton and Obama ticket. None of them has the charisma or the style to pull it off.

McCain has tied himself too closely with Bush. What seemed a shrewd move 4 years ago is now proving to be a major liability. Bush is no Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton with coat tails to pull the next candidate to be a winner (Gore did win the popular vote and probably the Florida vote).

Guiliani's post 9/11 behavior will be re-examined. What we'll find is a city in disarray and scrambling. We'll find a city ill prepared. Thus far, he's been able to to use that to his benefit for sympathy. Whether or not that continues will be part of the question. He'll also be attacked from within the party for being too liberal on topics such as abortion. So, he'll have to survive that in the nomination process. Then, he'll have to contend with how he was running the city before 9/11 and he's truly vulnerable there as well.

Brownback? Nut. Religious nut. He would be the Ellen Craswell for President candidate with about the same results.

Chuck Hagel and the rest don't register on the national scene. The only reason Brownback does is his fanatical ties.

Posted by B.D. | January 30, 2007 9:35 AM

It would take a truly Machiavellian feat of cheating or a Swiftboating for the ages for a GOP President to win in 2008.

Uh, that's exactly what they have in mind. See: 2000 & 2004 elections

Posted by Mike in MO | January 30, 2007 6:18 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).