Comments about ‘Predicting the presidential election, one year out’

I think this column misses the mark in deciding to focus on who will win instead of who should win. We'll know who wins when all the votes are counted, but for now, we should be discussing the merits of each candidate and their proposals.

You don't even mention the factor that Ron Paul could be in the race, while claiming that Rick Santorum will receive some attention. Ron Paul, according to many polls, is second in Iowa and New Hampshire. The media told us his ceiling was five percent, then ten percent, but he's now nearing 20 percent in several states.

CNN put out a headline today that said "Gingrich first in Iowa, Romney in third". Who was second? He-who-must-not-be-named, Ron Paul.

It's a sad state of affairs when the one man that has made devotion to the Constitution a priority is considered a "niche" candidate, with "unconventional" views. When did the Constitution become "unconventional"?

I hope people do not believe anything will change for the better if the republicans win. Our votes do not count either way. Money can buy anything.

I'm surprised that the writers believe that Huntsman could actually win. An "accusation" that is thrown at Romney is that he's a flip-flopper ... yet Huntsman couldn't dump the governor-ship fast enough to serve the Obama administration as an Ambassador and is happy to deny too very much involvement in the LDS church. He was unwilling to finish his 4 year commitment to Utah ... and I don't care what church any candidate goes to but I would like to know that a candidate is not a "flip-flopper" on values and commitment whether it's to the state he is the governor of or his religion.

I must agree with David King (first post in this thread).

Ron Paul is news; he does completely support the Constitution. He supports spending cuts enough to quickly balance the budget and, in the foreseeable future, the elimination of the National Debt.

He does not seek to do this by "tough decisions" (political euphemism for "tough for you, but easy for us") like increasing taxes or what he calls "picking on old people", but by eliminating whole federal bureaucracies by attrition and by bringing the troops home and ending the military ubiquity (troops in 900 military outposts and 130 nations).

The example of the CNN headline noted by Mr King ("Gingrich first in Iowa Romney third" ) is hilarious. It's an obvious conspiracy of silence in most of the mainstream media and not the first time that I've noticed such blatant snubbing of Paul in the press.

Prognostications at this stage are nothing more than entertainment. There is a lot of ground to cover before the election, but the pundits think it is today. I guess snake oil is still in vogue.

Everyone has already had their turn other than Santorum to get the anti-Mitt position; I don't see Gingrich losing it. He should be able to take Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida. Having three of the first five (Romney gets New Hampshire and Nevada) it'll come down to states like Ohio and Pennsylvania that Romney absolutely needs to get but Gingrich currently polls ahead by double digits in. I think Gingrich will win this, as the field consolidates it only helps him since Romney is not a popular second choice or popular among the other candidates when it comes to the endorsements of those who drop out.

Assuming Gingrich wins the primary, Obama will win the general election. As for Democrats, they will do quite well because if there's one thing voters hate more than congressional Democrats... it's congressional Republicans. They don't like what the House has been doing and unlike 2010 the Republicans will have to own it since they control the House. Democrats have some vulnerable senate seats such as those in Montana and Nebraska but will probably pick up Massachusetts and Maine if Republicans primary Snowe/Collins (whichever is up) out of their seat.

@franc
"I'm surprised that the writers believe that Huntsman could actually win."

Huntsman had 80% approval in this state when he won re-election. He could very easily snag a ton of independent votes. Personally I think he's the strongest challenger to Obama. He actually polls fourth best (behind Romney Gingrich and Paul) in a head-to-head against Obama which is extremely good for a candidate who only has 3% in primary polls.

"An "accusation" that is thrown at Romney is that he's a flip-flopper ... yet Huntsman couldn't dump the governor-ship fast enough to serve the Obama administration as an Ambassador"

That's not a flip-flop.

"and is happy to deny too very much involvement in the LDS church. "

He's raising his adoptive daughters with the teachings of their birthplace's faiths... he's quite clearly a more... oh I don't want to use this word because it won't come across the way I mean it... open-minded* LDS member. (*I mean it in the sense that he's someone who doesn't seem like he'd be disappointed if a child doesn't marry in the temple for example).

Republicans:

*'Gingrich Says He Cheated on His Wife' - AP - Published by NY Times - 03/09/07

*'GOP contenders argue on Iran' - By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/12/11

"If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," vowed the former Massachusetts governor.'

*Mitt Romney: Corporations are people...my friend - By Phillip Elliot - AP - Published by DSNews 08/11/11

In Iraq:
*'U.S. Military deaths in Iraq war at 4,485 - AP - Published by the DSNews - 11/22/2011

Obama:

*'Osama bin Laden Killed: 'Justice Is Done,' President Says' - By DEAN SCHABNER - ABC News - 05/01/2011

*'We have been waiting for this moment': Libya confirms Gadhafi is dead' - MSNBC - 10/20/2011

In Iraq:

*'Obama announces total Iraq troop withdrawal' - By Ben Feller - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/21/2011

Predicting the Presidental election?

Obama.

Easy.