CBS Poll: Republicans View Romney as Most Electable

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 11:53:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Just another sign Republicans are all about grandstanding. They don't even care about winning the election. The latest CBS News Poll finds Republicans overwhelmingly believe Mitt Romney is the only one who can beat Obama, but they still would rather see someone who thinks like them get the nomination -- like Cain, who they believe only has a 20% chance of beating Obama. Perry and Gingrich's odds are even less than Cain's in their eyes.

Four out of ten Republicans believe Mitt Romney would be the most likely candidate to beat President Obama in the general election, according to a new CBS News poll....

[Romney] led Herman Cain by a 2-to-1 margin with 40 percent support. Cain trailed in the category with just 20 percent, followed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, each with six percent.

58% said it's more important that their candidate agree with them on issues than beat Obama.

They just want to make noise. No wonder I've tuned them out. [More...]

In its other poll released today finding Republicans prefer Cain for the nomination, 61% said they aren't troubled by the sexual harassment allegations. On the other hand, he's losing support among Republican women. 38% of the woman surveyed said they are concerned.

< Penn State Puts Mike McQueary on Administrative Leave | Saturday College Football Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CBS Poll: Republicans View Romney as Most Electable | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What can I say... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by lentinel on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 02:58:22 AM EST

I too am tired of rooting for somebody to win a nomination based on the fact that they are electable.

I too would rather vote for a candidate who agreed with me on issues than the presumable electable Obama.

If a progressive challenger would present themselves, someone who - for example - would vow to repeal the "patriot act" instead of extolling it - I would vote for that person.

I don't feel that I am "all about grandstanding", but if that is the case, so be it.

Yeah right (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Buckeye on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 03:32:41 AM EST

The latest CBS News Poll finds Republicans overwhelmingly believe Mitt Romney is the only one who can beat Obama, but they still would rather see someone who thinks like them get the nomination

And liberals are not the same way? When we are, are we just "making noise?".

In fact, why shouldn't we be this way? Is that not the only way to guard against electing someone and being greatly disappointed they do not share your principles?

I too wish... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by kdog on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 08:55:28 AM EST

voters focused more on a candidates stance on the issues than their chance of winning. "Electability" being the be all end all is the kind of Machiavellian bullsh*t that continually insures no one who represents the 99% ever has a chance at the presidency.

Sh*t I'd rather lose with a candiate who actually represents what I'm about than win with a candidate whose primary redeeming trait is their "electability".

What is "electability" anyway? As far as I can tell it means the ability to trick more people into thinking you're something you're not than the other guy, and the ability to sell 100 million dollars worth of future favors.

I'll say it first: "candidates stance on (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 09:25:56 AM EST

the issues" is apparently meaningless once they are elected.


Then why is everyone so P.O.d at Obama? (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 10:38:51 AM EST

: Because (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Edger on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 11:08:36 AM EST

his "stance" on the issues is meaningless to him now. It was only empty campaign words.

Obama never approached the masterful response of his party's last President: "Well, I meant it when I said it."

: Cause he was "The One." I know (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by oculus on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 07:29:01 PM EST

better now and should have before he came along.

I think the Republican's (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by KeysDan on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 11:46:13 AM EST

worries about Mitt Romney are needless. Their criterion of wanting "someone who thinks like them" can be met, if they just make it known what they think--and they are neither shy about that, nor incapable of holding his feet to their fire and brimstone. Romney so wants the job he will say, and importantly, do, anything the Republicans want. He is flexible. All his flip flops have already flipped toward them. Of course, there is not much he can do about their concerns for the "christianity" of Mormonism, and therein, lies the real problem for much of the Republican base.

I wish that were true (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by NYShooter on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 08:20:22 PM EST

that

"if the national dems can manage to get their collective acts together,......"

that, presumably, we would get policies that would benefit the middle class better than the other party would.

But, the way they fell into line in support of Obama after his unprecedented betrayal of Democratic values, and especially how they showed their true allegiance after their victory of 2006, winning both Houses, tells me one thing:

Regardless of which Party wins in 2012, we will get the Government the Koch brothers want, not the one we want.

"Winning isn't everything" (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 09:33:27 AM EST

"it's the only thing"?

the left though Kerry was most electable too (none / 0) (#8)
by Lil on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 11:16:17 AM EST

the most disturbing thing about watching the republicans is how they seem to reward ignorance, hatred, insanity, etc. It scares me to think that there are millions of Americans that are that angry, selfish and ignorant, not to mention bigoted. In another time most of these candidates would have been seen as fringe nut cases. I didn't like the presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, etc. but I didn't think they were ignorant and crazy (or at least as much). I actually think for all his egregious faults, Romney is not crazy. I don't like Republican policies but it's their apparent extremism and nutsiness that I'm really worried about...and there are A LOT of them.

i don't think there's as many of them (none / 0) (#10)
by cpinva on Sat Nov 12, 2011 at 06:38:20 PM EST

as you would be led to believe, by the likes of FOX.:

and there are A LOT of them.

to some extent, this is a function of the "squeaky wheel" syndrome: the tea partiers made a lot of noise, relative to their actual numbers, and got a lot of media attention as a result. as well, they already had their very own tv network (FOX) shilling for them, nearly 24/7/365 for a time, adding to the erroneous impression that the entire country was succumbing to "tea party fever", it wasn't.

i think the 2010 elections may actually have hurt them, because there is now a public record of tea party public officials to review, and campaign against. they've been in office nearly a year, and have done, well, nothing. this works for the koch bros., but for the rest of us, not so much.

this past tues. saw a repudiation, in just one year, of the tea party ideology, in multiple states, on multiple levels. if the national dems can manage to get their collective acts together, nov. 2012 could be the death knell for the tea party. yeah, i know, that's a big if, but the OWS movement may force the DNC's hand.

anyhow, i don't see the tea party as a long-term threat, because they're just too loony for most people.