Monday, March 18, AD 2024 9:16pm

2012 TAC GOP Presidential Poll

The American Catholic will be running a periodic poll of the GOP presidential field. We have included candidates that have declared their candidacy as well as other speculative* candidates. As the primaries arrive the field of candidates should narrow down a bit.

* For example even though Chris Christie has denied he is interested in running, he still will be in Iowa for an inexplicable reason. Until then, he will be showing in the poll until we don’t see his name on the actual roll.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
Monday, June 13, AD 2011 12:02am

[…] . .TAC: GOP presidential poll for Catholics. . […]

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, June 13, AD 2011 7:20am

The poll is seriously flawed.

It does not include an button for “ANYBODY but Obama.”

Paul W. Primavera
Monday, June 13, AD 2011 8:24am

Be careful, T. Shaw. Anybody could be Hillary or Pelousy or Andy “I live with my concubine and take Holy Communion from Bishop Hubbard” Cuomo. There are plenty of unacceptable choices and too few acceptable ones.

While I voted for Chris Christie, I would nevertheless be more than happy to vote for Sarah Palin if only because her winning would send the liberals intto a fit of apoplexy. 😉

kylekanos
kylekanos
Monday, June 13, AD 2011 8:46am

Wow, I can’t believe Santorum is the top choice at the moment….

RR
RR
Monday, June 13, AD 2011 12:53pm

So the top 5 are people who either probably aren’t running or have no chance of winning the nomination. #6 is undecided. Newt and Buddy got votes? Must be an error.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Monday, June 13, AD 2011 10:27pm

I chose Tim Pawlenty for the simple reason that I would prefer the next president be un-flashy, and NOT a “rock star,” media figure, or conservative mirror image of Obama with an equally strong cult of personality. We need someone who will simply do the job and has held a major public office long enough to prove he can do the job (which, for me, rules out Palin and Christie).

Pawlenty is in somewhat the same position right now as Jimmy Carter was in mid-1975, or Bill Clinton was in the summer of 1991 — a dark horse candidate who emerged from the field after all the early favorites had imploded for various reasons. I know Santorum is especially good on pro-life issues but I just don’t think he can win — he might end up as a running mate to whomever does win, though.

Paul W. Primavera
Tuesday, June 14, AD 2011 8:21am

Obama meets all three criteria:

(1) Demagogue with a teleprompter
(2) Narcissist
(3) Promiser of a socialist paradise

Yet a majority of the American “peepul” voted for him in 2008.

It’s 1st Samuel chapter 8 all over again.

Tom
Tom
Tuesday, June 14, AD 2011 10:56am

I also support Pawlenty, though I actually prefer him to Santorum outright, not merely because Santorum can’t win (I still don’t understand why social conservatives should trust Santorum now, and I think he’s become far too focused on his very hawkish side). Pawlenty has yet to break out, but among candidates who are in the race and could conceivably win, he seems to me the best candidate out there, and he seems capable of presenting a serious conservative message vs. Obama without appearing angry, which I think will be important (however justified some level of anger may be).

RR
RR
Tuesday, June 14, AD 2011 5:41pm

Of course Santorum would do well among ultra-conservative Catholic Republicans. That’s about the only demographic that he does well among.

Ron Paul does well in any online poll. Paulites sit in their college dorms scanning the internet 24/7 for polls. That wasn’t a joke. That he’s not winning all the online polls suggests that his support has dropped significantly from 2008.

Paul Primavera
Tuesday, June 14, AD 2011 7:43pm

I agree with the comparison Tito made. It’s going to come down to a division exactly as deep as that.

See Michael Voris’ latest video, “The End of America”, here:

RR
RR
Tuesday, June 14, AD 2011 9:55pm

Tito, as opposed to people like Justice Thomas who said he opposes anti-sodomy laws.

Paul W. Primavera
Wednesday, June 15, AD 2011 8:41am

If we became the Christian Constitutional Republic that we were always intendedd to be, then there would be no need for anti-sodomy laws even as there would be no need for anti-adultery laws or anti-fornication laws. But a people which rejects morality is ever in need of more and more laws to regulate its conduct, hence our burgeoning regulatory bureaucracy.

Last week I went through a two hour on-line virtual training course at the new company where I work. Of course such courses are required by the public masters – er, I mean servants – in our federal nuclear regulatory agency. This course was all about business ethics. Things like “don’t use company computers for browsing pornography sites,” “don’t use your knowledge of the company’s business tactics to manipulate stocks,” and “don’t take favors from officials in return for a contract” that seem so obvious to a moral and ethical person were the subject of the training. Hey, what’s up with that? Don’t parents teach Christian morality any longer? The answer is NO. So now we have all kinds of business ethics training courses.

Maybe we do need anti-sodomy laws. And anti-adultery laws, and anti-fornication laws. A perverted culture knows no bounds, but I can’t fault Justice Thomas for assuming that we SHOULD be responsible adults, acknowledging that taking another man’s wife to bed or sticking your reproductive organ in another man’s orifice are both abominations against the Lord God which merit the punishment of the eternal fires of hell. But talk like that is bound to get me reviled, criticized and condemned for being intolerant, divisive, unkind and the worst of all crimes, “not nice.” Hell ain’t nice, either.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top