Which Republican Presidential Candidate Has the Best Chance to Defeat President Obama?

by SodaHead Politics Posted 2012/02/07 19:54:15

Related Topics: 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Obama, Election, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Republican, President Obama, Presidential Candidate, Presidential, Candidate, President, Polls, Poll

Read More

898 votes
Read all 694 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Rick Santorum	202 votes	22%
	Newt Gingrich	91 votes	10%
	Ron Paul	337 votes	38%
	Mitt Romney	268 votes	30%

We know you want to make your opinion count -- especially during the time of a serious election. So, every week, SodaHead will host a handful of up-to-date polls having to do with the upcoming 2012 election.

Vote on this week's election questions below and make sure to come back every Tuesday to see how everyone voted -- and to receive a new batch of questions worth pondering. It's a great time to have an opinion. So, dive right in to our 2012 Election poll.

+28

Add a comment above

Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/02/08 23:32:59

Ron Paul

+29
Ron Paul commands the most votes from those who are not republican establishment, and those are the votes needed to defeat Obama. All the other candidates are establishment choices, who will most probably not garner ANY crossover votes, causing Obama to obtain a second term.

Sorry if you people don't like those facts, but they are the reality of the situation.
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Politics

Kiara 2012/03/06 01:26:23

Mitt Romney

+2
I am an Independent and really wish we could get rid of the Republicans and the Democrats! I can't see where either of them have done a good job of running (maybe
it should be ruining) our Country.

reply
Aahz_OneAndOnly 2012/02/20 10:32:20

Ron Paul

+3
'nuff said

reply
sobersouljah 2012/02/18 21:52:37

Ron Paul

+4
I feel like, hhhmmm, as an example / comparison - you and I are at a table playing poker. We have had a hard time getting ahead, when all of the sudden I get a quick glimpse of a player who draws a bad card, a 5th ace - I ask if you saw that. You say "no" I now know there has been cheating going on at the table, but you do not. The question for me becomes who all is involved?

Then up walks an older gentleman who tells us, " don't play with these guys, they are all cheating, even the dealer is in on it! They are all in collusion with each other. They will all take your money, then split it up amongst themselves. You cannot win playing at this table."

You are sort of a gambling junkie who doesn't want to believe it, but you still ask a few questions. The guys at the table start telling lies and disinformation about the older gentleman in an attempt to discredit him. You choose to continue playing, but me, I take what I have left and I'm done.

I see Ron Paul as the older gentleman in my example- as he has been blowing the whistle on the power structure hiding behind the government for a long time now. Some of us have gotten a glimpse of this and know it is there, while others have not. Some of us choose to stop playing THEIR game, while others, although suspecting that something fishy is going on, continue to play THEIR game.

~~~ The System IS a Fraud~~~

reply
DeeB to soberso... 2012/04/07 19:22:37

+1
Excellent post!

reply
kga 2012/02/14 03:39:39

Mitt Romney

Without a doubt, Romney is be most level headed and presentable.

reply
Boblawbla 2012/02/13 14:18:23

Ron Paul

+4
AND HERE HE COMES!!!

reply
Jayne 2012/02/12 14:18:44

Ron Paul

+3
You missed on selection "None of the above". The only one I'd consider voting for is Ron Paul. There is no one in the current Republican field that can beat the President in an election.

reply
Harold Pinkerton 2012/02/12 03:52:03 (edited)

Ron Paul

+2
What a suprise that Ron Paul is in the lead on this soda head poll. The others are just the status quo. If the Doc doesn't get the nomination then I will be swallowing hard and voting for Obama.

reply
Willy 2012/02/11 14:56:03

Newt Gingrich

For the Sake of America, I would hope anyone of them could beat obama.

reply
Bronti 2012/02/11 05:12:12

Mitt Romney

Only because he has CPAC and Citizen's United money backing him and the help of Karl Rove's nasty political ad attack machine.

reply
««Gingey, the Master Debate... 2012/02/10 16:38:26

Ron Paul

+5
Because his foreign policy would cause people from across the aisle to vote for him, including myself, a liberal.

reply
WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB 2012/02/10 16:31:49

Ron Paul

+6
Gotta go with Dr. Ron.

reply
Theresa 2012/02/10 16:14:28

Ron Paul

+7
Ron Paul is the only one opposing the Globalists!

reply
voice_matters 2012/02/10 15:13:10

Newt Gingrich

newt is the only one

reply
Combat Trucker USAF 2012/02/10 14:27:51

Rick Santorum

Where is the none of the above choice. We need a president who is your everyday person. One who has had to make ends meet. One who is concerned for all citizens. One who would nominate a single parent as the Treasurer and Secretary. One who nominates a former enlisted person as Secretary of Defense. Chooses a Vice President who isn't a bumbling fool. Grass root movements to help our communities heal and provide jobs in green energy. Make all homes energy efficient. Bail out our citizens who have lost their homes. Make the banks pay back our country so we can pay our debts. We need to fire all of the politicians and make all Super Political Action Committees and lobbyists illegal. Ensure no politician can spend more than $800,000.00 on a election campaign. In order for politicians to get a raise all register voters of each state must approve or deny based on performance. Do away with the antiquated Electoral College that way each persons vote counts. Repeal the Marijuana tax act of 1938 make it legal for everyone who can vote. If you are an adult at the age of 18 then you should be able to drink at 18 or change the legal adult age of 20.

reply
voice_m... to Combat ... 2012/02/10 15:15:41

libby how can you have none of the above. we have these 3 republicans and one lib running against obama. only these 4 have a chance to beat obama.
sorry to post facts.

reply
Combat ... to voice_m... 2012/02/11 04:13:38

I guess we will see come November. Sorry to post facts on the ignorance of politicians. Don't label me or judge me and I will do the same. That is the problem with politics. Why is this our only choices. Romney doesn't care about the poor, Santorum is a homophobic who believes we shouldn't let women assume combat roles. By the way we had a lot of Airmen and Soldiers who were brothers and sisters that were not a distraction while we convoyed from Kuwait to Mosul. The only thing we knew was we were in the middle of the worst attacks in 2004. We didnt care what religion you were, what sexual orientation you were, or even your gender. Time to put away our capes and let women be recognized for the warriors and heroes they are. Gingrich was fine $300,000.00 while he was speaker of the house for ethics violations. Ron Paul reminds me of a kindergarten teacher I don't know about you but I am an adult and have made an informed decisions. I lived in Alaska while Palin was governor had the opportunity to meet here three times and I was there when she resigned as governor yet I still voted McCain/Palin even though I knew she wasn't the best pick. I have voted republican in most of my adult life. One final thing don't judge a person you have no clue who I am, but wait you do because I don't hide behind a screen name.

reply
voice_m... to Combat ... 2012/02/11 04:19:28 (edited)

libby because they are the only ones still running for the republican nomination. in november only one of the 3 republicans or the lib will be facing obama in the general elction on the gop ticket.

i am tired of lib stupidty

reply
Tasine 2012/02/10 14:08:39

Ron Paul

+4
I believe Ron Paul is the one who should win the election - he would never try to take our freedoms away, nor would he give our nation's freedoms to the UN. He has his flaws, but all do. His flaws, in my opinion, are not harmful to the U.S.

reply
Wolfman 2012/02/10 13:49:04

Mitt Romney

+1
Romney has the best chance IMO, but Rasmussen shows that Santorum has the best chance. Gingrich is still in the game. Paul never had a chance and he still doesn't.

reply
Old Salt 2012/02/10 12:43:28

Rick Santorum

+1
There was NOT a choice for multiple selections, so I took Santorum!

This year's election WONT matter except but in five states! Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Indiana! Those five states last election, voted obama! Should the Republicans take them this time, then they WIN! All other states will more or less vote as they did last year!

Texas has picked up FOUR new electoral votes and Pennsylvania is now close to being a "toss up" state!

This week, RASSMUSSEN showed that Santorum is now EVEN in Ohio, while Romney was four points behind. Should he become the nominee and pick Mark Rubio as his Vice President, the Republicans not only secure Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, but they also have a strong chance to pick up Iowa and New Mexico!

As of right now, I'm leaning toward Santorum but will enthusiastically support ANY of the Republican candidates over this ANTI-CATHOLIC, anti Christian obama who is trying to destroy our Christian heritage in our country!

http://www.weeklystandard.com...

reply
JERSEYDUDE 2012/02/10 09:20:29

Ron Paul

+1
Ron Paul has the best chance to win against Obama
Newt Gingrich and Romney next
and
Rick Santorum has the least possible chance to beat Obama
(Rick Santorum is like taking the worst of the republicans and the worst of the democrats and mixing that into 1 person)

reply
Old Salt to JERSEYDUDE 2012/02/10 12:49:54

+1
Did you see the Rassmussen poll yesterday? Santorum is DEAD even with obama in Ohio! The ONLY candidate that is doing that right now! So he might be our best hope!

reply
JERSEYDUDE to Old Salt 2012/02/10 20:02:01
☆The Rock☆ * AFCL* The Sher... 2012/02/10 08:48:45

Ron Paul

+3
I thinks Ron can capture Independent, Conservative and Liberal vote unlike the others

reply
Liberty Blade 2012/02/10 07:43:33

Rick Santorum

+1

reply
moviebuff 2012/02/10 06:05:26 (edited)

Mitt Romney

He has great hair. Kidding, heck I don't know good bone structure? Crap maybe I shouln't have answered this question. I forgot this was still going on. Wait a minute, they haven't chosen a candidate yet? still? good god this is dragging.

reply
Palpatine [Anti-RP2012] 2012/02/10 05:18:02
JERSEYDUDE to Palpati... 2012/02/10 09:33:54

let the main stream media say Mitt Romney is "unelectable" and "will never get the nomination" over and over again 5000 times since 2007 and well see how well he does in the primary/caucuses....if RP was put against Obama the republicans would vote for him even if its just because they hate obama so passionately....facts are facts and the fact is RP has come out very nicely against Obama in many polls many times (even though MSM rarely reports on it if they do at all), he beats Obama among independents, he beats Obama in some of those states Obama won in 2008, he has support from democrats, and he polls higher among non-white voters than any other republican candidate....Mitt Romney is nothing more than the new Mccain and he will lose !

reply
Palpati... to JERSEYDUDE 2012/02/12 14:34:05
☮ Ron ☮ Paul ☮ 2012! ☮ 2012/02/10 05:10:03

Ron Paul

+6
His voting record proves he's the only one RIGHT for the presidency.

reply
baadbug 2012/02/10 01:57:57

Ron Paul

+6
Ron Paul. he the only candidate who has any sence and intelligence of government really works for the people.

reply
voice_m... to baadbug 2012/02/10 15:16:55

too bad he can not win a single primary so how can he beat obama?

reply
Theresa to voice_m... 2012/02/10 16:17:40

+2
Primaries do not mean a thing. It is in the Convention when a nominee is chosen. All a primary does is get people vote for that candidate on the first round. After that the electors are free to vote for whomever.

reply
voice_m... to Theresa 2012/02/10 19:10:02

libby not sure how the lib party works but the gop primaries awared pledged delegates meaning they only go to the person that won them.

now lets go with your theory that the delegates will vote for ron paul. why would they support someone that admits he is not a republican? sorry libby but as the last time your lib ignorance is all you are offering

reply
Theresa to voice_m... 2012/02/10 19:56:25

+1
Read this http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

reply
voice_m... to Theresa 2012/02/10 20:09:55

still with the same boring lib tactics. when you can offer something to the discussion feel free to respond

reply
LisaWay... to voice_m... 2012/04/07 20:23:09 (edited)

+2
Presidential Preference Primaries do not award delegates. In caucus states, (which are more this cycle due to GOP rule changing), delegates are awarded at the caucus, and caucuses all have different rules and formulas, many of which are subject to change. This cycle is just too different and too convoluted and too unpredictable to be using recently derived methodological premises for guessing or extrapolation; it is dubious at best, therefore, to rely upon validity of guesstimated projected delegates if such guesstimating is based on today's Pref. Primaries.

Obama, as a challenger, also took advantage of the caucus system, winning despite great losses in many states where Clinton won popular vote in the primaries. But we really have to look all the way back to the 70's, or Carter election, e.g., for a more accurate picture of the process the GOP is embracing right now. Bottom line is, today's mainstream media reporting on delegate assignment is greatly misleading, especially where NO delegates are assigned! Repeat: No delegates are assigned from primaries in states that have a caucus system.

reply
voice_m... to LisaWay... 2012/04/08 02:07:05 (edited)
LisaWay... to voice_m... 2012/04/08 04:52:45 (edited)

+2
I have no idea what you're talking about. I am simply stating facts of the caucus system, which is how the delegates are assigned in caucus states. "Presidential Preference Primaries" are just an elaborate poll and have NOTHING to do with delegate assignment in a caucus state like Missouri or Illinois, just to name two. More states are using a caucus system this cycle than have done in a while-- the RNC/GOP decided on these rules after the 2010 elections. (The rules are such that the numbers of seats the party gets every Congressional election term effects their numbers and positions for the next cycle-- so they determine their strategy based on given the rules and outcomes at hand-- choosing dates and rules of distribution process they think will most benefit them. e.g., sometimes they think it's better to get elections done early, in which case they may have to sacrifice half their delegates, so they just have to weigh the risks. That's the way it's always done.)

Is "libby" supposed to be a derogatory word for liberal? or libertarian? It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion either, but I don't see why you need to name call-- and that is a display of your partisanship, not mine...But anyway, not talking about anything that has to do with parties or party loy...

I have no idea what you're talking about. I am simply stating facts of the caucus system, which is how the delegates are assigned in caucus states. "Presidential Preference Primaries" are just an elaborate poll and have NOTHING to do with delegate assignment in a caucus state like Missouri or Illinois, just to name two. More states are using a caucus system this cycle than have done in a while-- the RNC/GOP decided on these rules after the 2010 elections. (The rules are such that the numbers of seats the party gets every Congressional election term effects their numbers and positions for the next cycle-- so they determine their strategy based on given the rules and outcomes at hand-- choosing dates and rules of distribution process they think will most benefit them. e.g., sometimes they think it's better to get elections done early, in which case they may have to sacrifice half their delegates, so they just have to weigh the risks. That's the way it's always done.)

Is "libby" supposed to be a derogatory word for liberal? or libertarian? It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion either, but I don't see why you need to name call-- and that is a display of your partisanship, not mine...But anyway, not talking about anything that has to do with parties or party loyalty here, just explaining the election process here in the USA. In caucus states, delegates are awarded at caucus. There are at least 12 different formulas/processes by which states may choose to determine and distribute delegates. Some states have multiple levels of caucuses, like Missouri, the biggest caucus state, which started in March and is not over until July. (The Feb. 7 Primary in Missouri was more MEANINGLESS than a phone poll, since no delegates are assigned by that and so not many ppl showed up; same thing with Illinois, to name another-- that primary is not related to delegate assignments.) These are just facts about the delegate assignment process. The news reporting as if delegates are assigned in these cases is just wrong.

Partisanship does not effect the facts or the caucus rules....You can look up your state's rules at your local election board and lots of other places, (but apparently Fox News and the like does not report on such things). Within the caucus events, they go by "Roberts Rules"-- rules of parliamentary procedure. You should go check it out-- participate in the caucus process if you can. It's inspiring to literally stand up and be counted.
(more)

reply