Share This Article with a Friend!


CHQ 2016 GOP Presidential Straw Poll: Week 1

UPDATE: This poll is now CLOSED. Vote in our NEW weekly presidential poll HERE. Congratulations to Gov. Sarah Palin who won the first week's poll with 30% of the votes.


It's never too early to start thinking about the 2016 presidential election. While you may change your mind later, tell us who you'd like to see as the GOP nominee this week. 
ConservativeHQ.com's Weekly GOP Presidential Straw Poll is available exclusively to registered CHQ members. To register, click here. If you are already a member, please log-in by clicking here. You may vote once a week.
 

Straw Poll Nominees Week 1 MY CHOICE FOR THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
THIS WEEK IS:
Sarah Palin
30% (187 votes)
Ted Cruz
23% (142 votes)
Rand Paul
20% (125 votes)
Jeb Bush
7% (43 votes)
Rick Santorum
4% (24 votes)
Scott Walker
3% (16 votes)
Jim DeMint
2% (13 votes)
Paul Ryan
1% (7 votes)
Rick Perry
1% (7 votes)
Dr. Ben Carson (write-in)
1% (6 votes)
Chris Christie
1% (6 votes)
Mike Pence
1% (5 votes)
Allen West (write-in)
1% (4 votes)
Nikki Haley
1% (4 votes)
Michele Bachmann (write-in)
0% (3 votes)
Marco Rubio
0% (3 votes)
jesse ventura (write-in)
0% (2 votes)
John Kasich
0% (2 votes)
Sen. Greg Ball N.Y. (write-in)
0% (2 votes)
Jon Huntsman (write-in)
0% (2 votes)
Sam Brownback (write-in)
0% (2 votes)
Bobby Jindal
0% (1 vote)
Bob McDonnell
0% (1 vote)
John Thune
0% (1 vote)
Condoleeza Rice (write-in)
0% (0 votes)
Total voters: 615

Acceptable & unacceptable GOP candidates for prez & vp.

Acceptable candidates in order:  Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Jim Demint.

So-so candidates next in line:  Sarah Palin, Paul Broun (R, GA), Jack Kingston (R, GA) and Nikki Haley who I know nothing about.

Absolutely unacceptable candidates:  Jeb Bush (or anyone in the Bush clan), John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Orin Hatch, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Jonny Isakson, Saxby Chambliss, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan.

Run of the mill candidates going nowhere.. except to be puffed up by the likes of Sean Hannity and Faux News:  Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Bob McDonnell, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, John Thune and Scott Walker.

Jim DeMint

He's a perfect candidate. He's a good campaigner. He's not part of the Karl Rove herd of sheep. He has well thought out positions and he articulates them well. He has more experience in Washington than the others. What's not to like?
Why are Christie and Jeb Bush in this list? They're certainly not conservatives.

Pragmatic conservative governance

It's time that all of us recognize that by focusing on Candidates who will accept the will of America's citizens, rather than polling results, as the guidance in our governance, we advance the interests of the Conservative majority of this nations voters. Candidates who will commit to pragmatic constitutional conservative governance would by definition respect and honor the will of America's citizens, and we can avoid most of the unnecessary rhetoric on social issues that undermines the primary objective of electing Candidates who will listen to us, and work to achieve our objectives with no compromises. Far too often there are self serving publicity hogs who adopt a social issue, demanding such be the litmus test for Republican candidates. This mentality has been allowed to infest the Republican party and to some extent the entire conservative movement because politically self serving Liberals, Moderates and RINO's recognize the expedience of these social issues as tools they can use to drive a wedge between prospective voters and their increasingly shrill true conservative opponents. All of this is unnecessary, and drives off many common sense voters who might tend to vote conservative, were it not for the shrillness of the political bear baiters flogging these social issues.

If these 'social issues' are truly intrinsic, instinctual parts of the conservative psyche, then identifying and supporting true conservative candidates is the best way to advance these social issues. So long as we allow these social issue litmus tests (pro-life. Gay marriage, etc,,,) to run off voters that we otherwise might persuade to vote alonside true conservative voters, we'll continue to see the decline of core conservative values in every aspect of our lives. Sure these social issues are important, moreso with certain groups and individuals. However, these are not the Core conservative values that need the broadest support possible support imaginable to confront Liberal Interests. If we focus our energy and our activism on electing candidates who share the majority of our core conservative beliefs (i.e. smaller government, lower spending, secure borders, putting America's citizens first, etc,,,), we can begin to build on a foundation that already has an established working conservative footprint in future elections. If we continue to run off potential voters because of these social issues and the increasingly shrill demands for social issue litmus tests, then it's clear why Senate Republicans are working with their Democratic Counterparts to dilute or supplant the voting strength of the conservative majority with their dangerously misguided Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (S. 744)! Once this dangerous Immigration bill is passed, we will quickly become a 1 party political system and Liberal Democrats will run roughshod over the views, values and intersts of all conservatives!!!

Well defined viewpoint...spot on!

A very good essay regarding what we should be about...and why we just can't seem to get there, at least as far as being elected members of the actual government. I agree with you...it's just a steady waddle to the left into responsibility without Conservative leadership.

Sarah Palin doesn't use pollsters

Again, with a whole lot of words.

But I'll just address your first sentence insisting that elected officials should stop governing by polls. Sarah Palin does not use private pollsters. I believe she even turned down a donor who was willing to put up the big $$ for an internal poll when she was running for governor.

Still think we can do better than Sarah Palin?

I think you need to do some research about her career and SOP. Because you'll more than likely find that all of your words actually add up to "there's no one closer than Sarah Palin who embodies all the things I believe the President should be and do."

We've got to do better than Sarah Palin

True Conservative voters will need to think outside the box in upcoming Primary and General elections, and we should make the selection of new, fresh blood candidates a priority. Sarah Palin has had her shot at political fame, just as McCain, and Romney had. Running the same 'Party" Candidates time-after-time, particularly a Candidate who willingly abdicated her only political power as Governor of a state, is not the way forward. RNC and GOP Leaders completely misunderstood, and then projected the wrong message regarding what happened in the last Presidential race.

As events continue to unfold, we now begin to see the extraordinary efforts that were expended to undermine and devalue Tea Party and Conservative Grassroots organizations, and true conservative voters. Many GOP Leaders, rather than regret or apologize for Republicans lackluster performance, tried, incorrectly, to assign blame for their own political myopia at the feet of the conservative movement. It's regrettable that the GOP Leadership still feels that they should choose who we the voters can elect, and it's tragically dysfunctional that they continue to run with Candidates who have little to recommend themselves other than they've run, and lost before, or that they've created some bi-partisan symmetry while in the House and Senate. We, yes thats you and me, have got to stop funding the RNC/GOP and the PAC's who will not, cannot accept the will of America's Citizens as the guidance in governance. Voters have never intentionally elected anyone to go to the Capital and go back on their campaign promises or undermine our interests, yet by funding these 'professional Candidate picking organization' that is all we ever get. Likewise, so long as we continue to pick Candidates who apparently are incapable of prioritizing (i.e. stabilize the economy, cut spending, secure the borders, free up capital, create a budget that recognizes that citizens of a democracy should be self reliant if the democracy is to be truly free and sustainable. We need to identify and encourage Candidates who will see that state sovereignty is not a threat to the union, and allow states, as well as counties, cities, etc,,, to succeed or fail as their voters, and as the skill sets of those they elect dictate. Crisis handled well by local politicians improves the breed and the community they serve. We as voters must likewise commit to change if conservative values are to survive. We must accept the fact that at times, more often than not, we will be called upon to decide between the lesser of two evils in an election. In the past, far too many of us allowed our anger or hurt feelings (bacause our preferred candidate didn't win the nomination) to color our judgement. Most often we allowed our emotions to dictate that we cast a 'protest vote', or worse, just kept us away from the polls because our guy didn't win. This is a very dangerous mindset for any voter to maintain, and these voters will justify their selfish petulance by saying 'voting the lesser eveil, is still a vote for evil'. However, there really is no justification for allowing full blown, socialist, politically self serving evil to win. Going forward, conservative voters will have to recognize that voting the lesser evil, even though it galls you to do so, has the greatest probability of preventing another Obama administration. Rather than the 'voting the lesser evil, is still a vote for evil' mentality of the past, conservative voters need to rethink there instinct to cast a protest vote, or send a message with their vote. Trust me, the numbers who cast protest or message votes, are never considered by anyone because this sort of emotional voter who places their own petty desire for revenge or to send a message before pragmatism, is insignificant and unreliable at best, and the leadership of either party doesn't give a damn about protest votes until the level of such votes equates to a 'voter backlash'. Even then, it will be up to the media and the paid political analyists to call it a backlash, and we all know these people will say or do anything that pays their rent. The more pragmatic voter should look at 'voting the lesser evil' not simply as a 'another vote for evil', but rather as a vote totally in keeping with the objective of a reduction of evil overall. Factually speaking, until and unless we find a way to hold elected officials criminally and financially liable for their campaign lies and compromises, this incremental effort to reduce evil by voting the lesser evil, at every opportunity, is the only satisfactory mechanism we have to eliminate, or at least grid-lock a self serving political system that refuses to accept the will of the Conservative majority of America's citizens as the guidance in our governance.

Argue about the need for term limits all you want, we've always had the ability to voluntarily 'term limit' Incumbents by identifying alternative candidates to oppose them in primary elections, or simply refusing to vote for those incumbents who've failed us. Republican and GOP Leaders no longer feel compelled to support the conservative agenda because they assume that conservative voters, fearing the nightmare of full on Democratic Control in Washington, will continue to vote, perhaps grudgingly, Republican Incumbents, Well, their wrong!

Things are starting to change, and now that some Republican Leaders now realize that the Tea Party didn't cost them the elections they lost. These same so-called Leaders now fear that by running their mouths, they may have disenfranchised many conservative voters who, for fear of the alternative, always voted Republican reliably. We're starting to see Republican Incumbents doing the 'worm dance', trying to rekindle their relationship with Tea Party and Conservative voters, but little warmth can be expected from those citizens they essentially threw under the bus. Even worse for the Republican old school, in the wake of the IRS scandal Tea Party and Grassroots organizations (the real groups, not those 'national' groups who insist that 'they are the voice of the Tea Party) seem to have been vindicated, and the Republican talking heads, i.e. Karl ("I'll burn any damn bridge I want too, because by God I'm ) Rove who suggested that Tea Party Candidates should be targeted by Republican Incumbents and GOP resources, are now worried that there will be Primary challenges and a paucity of campaign contributors that will rock their secure, money making little political world. I daresay, they're right! Republicans for the most part proved themselves to be little better than their Democratic Counterparts on most of the important issues confronting America's citizens. National Republican Leadership, armed with flawed analysis of the Presidential race, convinced Republican House and Senate members, as well as their counterparts in the State Legislatures that the future of the party was dependent on compromise and outreach to moderate and liberal voters. Here in Texas, the reddest of red states, this is exactly what happened, as our 'ostensibly conservative Republican majority Legislature, elected on promises to reduce the size, scope and costs of state government, abandoned the entire conservative agenda they pledged to support, and increased state spending by 22 Billion dollars (a 26% increase!!!) and it is this misguidance of Republican Incumbents at the state level this is the real disaster that awaits the RNC and GOP Leadership in the upcoming Primary election season.

I can't suggest who anyone could vote for, but I do recognize that their are only two professions where compromise, longevity, experience and seniority should not recommend anyone as qualifications for the job, Prostitution and Politics!

Chill out...await the next RINO shuffle before supporting Palin.

Oh boy...we're still stuck on stupid. We've all just got to chill out...await the next RINO shuffle before really even considering supporting Palin or Rand Paul. Yeah...let's very publicly humiliate a fourth of the party again by making them sit at the back of the bus, not counting or even acknowledging their delegates on the convention floor...AGAIN. Sure...let's stay stuck on RINO STUPID...it's bound to work...eventually...right? There's bound to be a new guy with a perfected leftward waddle that's a can't miss formula! Who has the best string of cow patties...Christy? Cruz? Maybe some tallish busboy? It's the first ever dead end groove.

Wow ...

That's a whole lot of words having nothing to do with Sarah Palin ... only to come to the very end where you put no one else's name up there.

I think this classifies as Epic Fail.

But lots of words "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28.

Who's better than Sarah Palin?

1. Who has 10+ years of public sector executive experience?

2. Who has stood up against crony capitalism or government-sponsored socialism, or whatever you want to call it, at every level, from Mayor to Oil and Gas Commissioner to Governor to private citizen with the platform of former Vice Presidential candidate?

3. Who has survived the most violent and prolonged assault from the Left in the Dems, media, and GOP and only grows in effectiveness at messaging and endorsing?

4. Who has been the most effective in in the last 2 election cycles at getting people elected to office (including Jason Smith of MO just this past Tuesday)?

5. Who has had more than 35,000 governing emails publicized and pored over by the Left and come up clean as a rose? Not to mention the 2008 hacking of her private email account, which again, revealed no smoking guns?

I could go on, but I'll stop there and reask the question:

Who is better than Sarah Palin?

next Republican nominee

Why is almost everyone still voting for lifetime politicians?  Haven't you learned anything?  If you don't know who Ben Carson is, make the effort to find out.  Please.  Career politicians have screwed up our country for long enough.  At least open yourself up to other possibilities.  If Carson goes unheard, we are doing ourselves a great injustice.

Because the public sector is different from the private sector

1. It is the height of naivety to think that someone with NO public sector experience can assume the HIGHEST public sector office in the land.

2. The public and private sectors are very different. Should the public sector have more accountability like the private sector? Sure. But they are different environments and require different skillsets.

3. Dr. Carson is not an across-the-board conservative. Check out his comments on gun control, for one.

4. Sarah Palin is not a lifelong politician. But she does have 10 years of public sector EXECUTIVE experience as mayor and governor. She understands how it works. The good and the bad. And she also has a record of standing up against the bad. With the scars to show for it.

5. Dr. Carson would make a good U.S. Surgeon General. Or Secretary of Health and Human Services. Or head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Rand Paul

I like Ted Cruz, wish he were qualified Constitutionally. But he is not. In all other respects he would be wonderful as President. However, we cannot abandon our Constitution in order to accommodate our immediate desire. I think Ted Cruz could be made Speaker of the House (there's no rule that says a Senator cannot be elected Speaker). He has so much to offer. But we cannot avoid the facts. Rubio is not only not qualified, he is also very weak with regard to the matter of principle and reason, as displayed in his complicity in the immmigration bill. He has consciously thrown in with the sell-outs. There are many fine candidates but the strongest is Rand Paul. While none is perfect, and I would wish for him to show some real anger (like what the voters and taxpayers actually feel every day), he has the right principles and the right ideas. He is a Constitutionalist, unwilling to bend that document to his immediate needs. I would hope that Cruz would stand by principle and take himself out of the running and endorse the candidate he honestly feels would be the strongest and work for that person. We must not only pick our favorite, but we must pick the person who will bring out the vote of the people (our citizens, not Mexico's) and will adhere to principles, regardless of their "inconvenience" and is fully qualified. The obvious choice is Rand Paul. He is all of those things. I would love to see Scott Walker as his Vice President. I do not believe in "balancing" tickets.

Marco Rubio

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975. Marco Rubio not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP. Thus Marco’s father passed Cuban citizenship at birth to Marco Rubio under Cuban law, U.S. law, natural law, and international law.  Being a dual citizen at birth, Marco Rubio is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States”.

Is Ted Cruz a "natural born citizen" of the U.S.?

That is the same sort of situation Ted Cruz is in. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen and a father who was a citizen of Cuba.

As I understand it, that would make Ted Cruz a dual citizen as a Canadian-American (Canadian by birth, American by virtue of his mother's U.S. citizenship), but the fact that his father did not become a naturalized American citizen until after Ted's birth, would mean that he would not meet the qualifications as a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. It is my understanding that a "natural born citizen" is one who was an American citizen at birth, plus BOTH his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth.

For these reasons, I question whether or not Ted Cruz is constitutionally qualified to be POTUS by virtue of the citizenship criteria.

Bush? Not on your life!

If you are thinking about your children, then think Palin. If you are thinking about your elderly parents, then think Palin. If you are thinking about your right to succeed and the right to fail and bounce back again, then think Palin. If you are thinking about a family member in the military, then think Palin. Of any on this list of contenders, think of who the GOP and the Libs are most afraid of. Think of who would stand first for Americans rather than campaign contributors. Think Palin.

Palin is a NEOCON

Palin supports preemptive wars which are unconstitutional....she also supports TARP or so she said during the campaign.  Does she support the Patriot Act and NDAA...you betcha!  wink wink


Palin is not smart....but worse than that she's UNCONSTITUTIONAL


I could never vote for her.

Ignore this commenter on anything Palin

He/She knows nothing about Palin's positions.

And he/she throws around neocon with such abandon that "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Nevertheless Palin has steadily and consistently been stepping away from McCain's foreign policy positions since 2008.

Palin is not a neocon. She is a common sense constitutional conservative with clearly stated guidelines for when and if to commit US blood and treasure in military conflicts.

See here for Palin's commentaries on national security matters:

http://hrh40.wordpress.com/palin-policy/national-security/

Santorum 2016

Senator Santorum is the only one I would vote for in this pack! Many do not have enough experience & Christie is NOT a Conservative! Sen. Santorum would go after Clinton or whoever else the Democrats send our way! When she wrote It Take a Village he wrote the rebuttal book It Takes a Family. He is not afraid to take her on! He is my pick for 2016!

Santorum 2016 for sure!

I concur.

Governor Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is by far the best chief executive and a true outsider . Sarah Palin would crush Hillary Clinton . Palin2016

Dont count out Scott

Dont count out Scott Walker...
Sadly, our Congress made the "both parents of the candidate must be American citizens" agruement non-existent. Their inaction with Obama took care of any issues of defining "natural born"...
There are some great possible candidates out there. Two Texans, Governor Perry or Senator Cruz would be wonderful, IMO. Senator Rand Paul or Governor Scott Walker would be excellent, too.
I love Sarah Palin, but at this point, she is too polarizing to run at the head of a ticket. She isn't going to draw any disenchanted Democrats across the line.

No more neocons

I can't believe Jeb Bush or Chris Christie are even on the list. Total Neocons, although I absolutely guarantee they are eventually pushed down our throats as "the only one who can win" and "the front-runner" like that sure loser Romney.
I think we need someone to make a definitive statement on whether Ted Cruz is eligible or not, because we can't afford to waste one bit of momentum on someone who isn't eligible. I'm 100% for Rand Paul, and I think the only other true conservative who could take steam away from him is Ted Cruz, so I hope we know if Ted is actually eligible early. I would gladly vote for either of them, but we need to all get behind one true conservative early and push them ahead of whatever neocon the establishment puts up.
We also need some professional strategist to tell us whether Palin gives us enough of the woman vote to beat the Dems, or if we should go for a minority VP - it's key to figure out a way to pull some minority, woman, and independent votes from the left in order to win, because at this point we are flat-out outnumbered!
I can picture Rand Paul campaigning on one coast while his father pulls huge rally's somewhere else - it would be awesome!
The other thing is, we need to make sure the primary voting isn't manipulated this time - there is video proof of the Romney campaign cheating, and this time we need to prevent them from skewing the vote - by force if necessary.

conservative with libertarian leanings is the winner

#1. Rand Paul is a libertarian with conservative leanings.

#2. Palin has presidential credentials because of her career path, and it has nothing to do with gender.

#3. You sound like a highly paid loser of a campaign strategist with your divide-us-all-up into demographics folderol. For example, there is no such thing as the women's vote.

#4. Your only mention of Palin in conjunction with this mythical women's vote is insulting and insufferably chauvinistic.

#5. Palin has infintely more executive experience than your beloved Rand Paul. And she's a conservative with libertarian tendencies ... which, incidentally, is much more where the country is than libertarian with conservative tendencies.

TED CRUZ , MARCO RUBIO AND

TED CRUZ , MARCO RUBIO AND BOBBY JINDHAL ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT ~ JUST AS badral ' insane ' obummer IS NOT .

Ted Cruz / Bobby Jindal / Marco Rubio / Rick Santorum

Cruz, Rubio, Santorum and Jindal should not be on the list - they are not natural born citizens, hence not eligible.They are all good conservatives and inspiring politicians. They are just not constitutionally eligible for the  office of president of vice-president. Cruz was not "born in the country". Rubio, Santorum, and Jindal were born of "parents who are citizens".

You have not interpreted that

You have not interpreted that correctly. Going by your thoughts President Jefferson shouldn't have been President either. His Mother was born in the UK. No. The correct interpretation is that one parent must be a natural born citizen & the other must be a citizen when said candidate is born. Senator Santorum meets those requirements, so you can take him off your list. His Mother is a natural born American & his Father was a citizen (one who fought for us in WWII) when Senator Santorum was born!

Thank Goodnes !!!

I was afraid Donald Trump would be on the list.  I am glad to see that he was not.  Some of my friends would vote for him, but I believe he would be a disaster.  Just my opinion.  I prefer Ted Cruz, but I would definitely accept either Sarah Palin or Rand Paul.  We need someone in the Presidential office that is accountable to the Citizens of the U.S.A. and follows the Constitution.

This poll

 

Why do you have a bunch of wimps and losers in this poll? Who needs Christie, Bush, etc. Jindal and Rubio are not eligible in the first place, the same as Oh Bummer. It is starting to look like the RepubliCANTs want to do the same thing by putting those names forward, as did the Democraps, people whose birth criteria do not meet Constitutional standards.

By doing that, you are admitting that the Kenyan really was not born in Hawaii, so, we can put up ineligible people, same as the opposition. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? Three ineligibles: Rubio, Jindal, Oh Bummer. More Janus-lovers from the "right".

Palin is a neocon that

Palin is a neocon that supports the Bush doctrine which has been an economic and diplomatic disaster. 


 It's either Rand Paul or Cruz for me because this time I want a CONSTITUTIONALIST....not another RINO

No more she said he said

What doctrine is that and hard evidnce that she supported it

Palin is not a neocon

Do some homework. She let her McCain advisors go a few years ago.

She has very strict guidelines before we devote our "blood and treasure" in overseas activities.

Particularly check out her speech from May 5, 2011 as well as her other statements at this site:

http://hrh40.wordpress.com/palin-policy/national-security/

Palin is a constitutional common sense conservative with more than 10 years of public sector executive experience ... unlike Paul or Cruz.

Understand that legislating, which involves speechmaking and bill writing, is VERY different from actually executing and administrating those laws.

Senators rarely make good presidents. Look to governors. Mike Pence, Bobby Jindal both left the House to be  governors and get the appropriate experience.

you must be a neocon

First of all during the 2008 campaign Palin didn't have a clue what the Bush Doctrine was and once the reporter explained it she was all for it.  No more preemptive wars and that means no Palin


She even had the audacity to say we should attack Russia,....she's an idiot


I've read much about her term as governor and she was a bad one.

neocon, neocon, neocon, neener, neener, neener

Really, you need to get out of your bunker and off the neocon nonstop express. For the record, Palin is not a neocon, she hasn't backed McCain in his current nonsense for years, but then again, you stopped paying attention in 2008, so you don't know that.

To reiterate, since you obviously have still not done ANY homework that you can detail about her policies or record, Palin has very strict guidelines for when to commit America's blood and treasure in military conflicts.

At least I know not to bother with your comments whenever you type anything about Palin, of whom you know NOTHING.

But, hey, free speech and all that allows you to display your ignorance for all to see.

So go ahead and show the world that you stopped paying attention to Governor Palin with the 2008 election.

BTW: For which candidate are you bashing Palin as a preemptive strike? Can't he stand on his own?

Trifecta!

Palin, Paul, Cruz.

Not in that order

Rand Paul is the number one constitutionalist - proven by his actions. I could vote for Palin if she were second on the ticket (Paul / Palin) and then she can prove something. She had a chance to do that in the last election, and IMHO, blew it!

Wasilla Warrior

This will be a battle of epic proportions and there is no other Leader more fearless than Sarah Palin. The other candidates may resonate on some of the issues but she is the only one that hits on all 8 cylinders and has the power to outrun the competition. I'll wager my money on the Wasilla Warrior for this race!

Here We Go Again

2016 is never too early. It is actually on our face with three outrageous scandals that just about render this president crippled to govern. We should be thinking and planning ahead like few months to a year? I appreciate your efforts Mr. Viguerie but why a straw poll? To have such a line-up could only fragment the conservative base once again.

Shouldn't all of us rally behind a leader who is already vetted? To go through the vetting process for each contender is fodder for the hungry media to turn it all into a circus. Let the people, not the RNC nor GOPe, choose our frontrunner in 2016 and your straw poll can serve to accomplish just that. The people have spoken thus far. It's not surprising to see their choice in Gov Palin. She is not for sale and will be undeterred to do what is right for the people and this country. To restore America back to its greatness, is it too much to ask others to step back, get out of the way for the true commonsense conservative to lead?

Country First! We the people for Palin 2016.

Palin 2016

We must unite to support one candidate. We were split in so many directions in 2012. We were powerless. Thank God for Gov Palin who helped bring in some great conservatives,

She's simply the best........better than all the rest!

The reason for Palin

Gov. Palin appeals to a wide spectrum of voters not by drifting to the left or by flip-flopping and pandering to the latest political whims, but by her commonsense ideas, clear political leadership and above all, her unflinching stand on conservative principles.  She is a person of conviction that will be able to clean up the mess left by President Obama and the spineless leadership of the Republican party.

The reason for Palin

Well stated; you beat me to it.  Gov. Palin has been my unwavering choice from the beginning.  Thank you friend.

I agree

I voted for Rand Paul, but I think either Sarah, Rand, or Ted Cruz would be the only ones that will actually do the things that need to be done to at least start fixing this mess. Whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" could be a major issue.

Are you kiddin' me

How in the world did Jeb Bush sneak into this list?  I had about all I can stand of Bush's and Clinton's.  For the sake of the nation lets not shoot ourselves in the foot again with another lame nominee.  My 1st choices are Paul, Cruz and Palin

If Hillary decided to run,

If Hillary decided to run, she will win 'cause like Obama the Republican is going up against History as the first woman to run for President and she is an ultimate leftwing Icon for the leftwing women. The Republican will have to nominate a Woman to deflate that issue. The only person that can stop her is Ms Palin. She is unafraid, aggressive and can go toe-to-toe with Hillary records, such as her (Hillary) accomplishment, past and present. Men can't be aggressive to Hillary or they will be accuse of attacking a woman, but Ms Palin can and she can be very aggressive to her. Ms Palin is not known to be timid, so my guess is, she will be aggressive to Hillary. How else can you explain why the left-wings are attacking Sarah on a daily base and why the GOP RINOs don't want her as their top nominee for 2016. "FEAR" They don't want her..... 

Jeb???

R u all nuts Jeb Bush??? We can not handily another Bush....

The establishment

Me thinks that Jeb will be sold to us as the only one who can win. This is what is known as B.S.

Bush???????

I cannot believe Bush is even in the mix!

J. Bush?

Jeb Bush and Conserative are not compatable.  Wake up people.  Time for some Bush-B-Gone.

Bush

As much as I like Bush, he has about as much of a chance as Romney did (no chance at all) The only person we have to win the next election is Rick Santorum and the sooner we all rally around him, the better chance we will have in winning the next election.