Originally Posted By Mr X ***She was "thrust" on the scene...if you will*** Don't be so sure. I know the popular view is that she was just sort of plunked out of obscurity, but the reality is she lobbied for the gig. They all do. She didn't just suddenly get a call one day from McCain headquarters and just humbly answer "well, gosh, I dunno about that, but if my country needs me!". ***No, I think it needs to be old school like Reagan wowing the crowd in '76*** She wowed the crowd. Then we got to know her. But yeah, I know what you mean. Who ever heard of Barack Obama before the 04 convention (aside from Illinois folks and a handful of hardcore politicos, I mean)? Just be careful what you wish for.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think this is the case of the devil you know being better than the devil you don't know.
Originally Posted By ecdc Just saw an MSNBC profile of Mitt Romney and he strikes me as a formidable opponent this time around. He handled the "Mormon" questions deftly and he hits the right notes to appeal to conservative primary voters but then he can morph into a moderate for the general election. His answers on Romneycare are tailor-made for conservatives - talking about how his bill was seven pages and Obama's was nearly 3,000.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He's also at this point by far the best financed candidate, and that does make a difference.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Yeah - money makes a big difference, but the GOP base just doesn't like Romney. And for good reason - he's been emphatically for AND against hot button issues like health care, the individual mandate, cap and trade, climate change, gay marriage, equality, abortion, the assaut weapons ban, minimum wage ... and the republicans know it. He may be able to "deftly handle" the questions - I'd hope so after having three years to prepare - but I don't think it's enough. I see him coming in second, third or worse in most early primaries, with the possible exception of NH - his own back yard. So no - I don't think it's Romney - not this time, not ever. Huntsman? Let's see - he mocked the birthers, has supported individual mandates, served within the Obama administration, believes in climate change and is also Mormon. Good luck with that. As mentioned, Pawlenty seems to be people's second choice, but has cap and trade problems of his own. He's also too dull and milktoasty to excite anybody. Possible nominee based only on his relatively little 'baggage', but I don't think so. Gingrich is a dead man walking - I suspect he'll bow out after the first three primaries. He just doesn't have a base of support anywhere, except maybe Georgia, and even that's iffy. But more important, he's poison to the GOP punditry, they loathe him. Now Bachmann - she actually could gain some traction. She serves up the kind of red meat that the lunatic fringe eats with a spoon. She excites the base, and has a whiff of Palin about her. She has also shown that she can raise big bucks - I don't know how, but she does. I also don't think these conservatives care one whit about "electability" - she's ideologically pure, and that's what they care about. Bless them. The rock bottom remainders are strictly side show - Santorum, Cain, Paul, and the legalize marijuana guy - all parsley on the plate. Likeliest - Pawlenty Possibleist - Bachmann If dollars were voters - Romney Who they really want - Huckabee
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "Just saw an MSNBC profile of Mitt Romney and he strikes me as a formidable opponent this time around. He handled the "Mormon" questions deftly and he hits the right notes to appeal to conservative primary voters but then he can morph into a moderate for the general election. His answers on Romneycare are tailor-made for conservatives - talking about how his bill was seven pages and Obama's was nearly 3,000." I don't really think it matters how well he answers questions. He would be their best choice, and he probably the only one who would be any sort of challenge to Obama, but I sincerely doubt that he gets the nomination. He will probably win New Hampshire, and possibly Iowa, but I think he is going to do really, really poorly in the deep red states and I do not think he will get enough delegates. The GOP primary voters are insanely far right. Last time they went against what they really wanted and nominated McCain because they thought he could win and it did not go well for them. I don't think they will do it again, especially because the whole party has gone even farther to the right in the last couple of years. Huntsman could be a good candidate in the general too but, again, I don't think they will go for anyone who is even the slightest bit "moderate." Huntsman proved he could work well with Democrats and the party base, those who vote in primaries, do not like that one bit. If he can find a way to stop putting people to sleep every time he opens his mouth, I think Pawlenty will get the nomination. I do not think he has any chance of beating Obama in the general though.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think a lot of going to be determined by who decides to run, now that the primaries aren't winner-take-all. One thing that's clear is that at this point there's no prohibitive favorite, as there usually is with the GOP. If both Bachmann and Palin run, for instance, they pretty much compete for the same pool of voters. That could benefit someone like Romney. If only one runs, it benefits the one that does and hurts Romney. Pawlenty has been trying to appeal to both the establishment and the base, and he seems almost as slippery and "fungible" as Romney - so I could see him playing the percentages and playing more to the rabid base if only Bachmann OR Palin runs, trying to get some of them, as opposed to splitting the more moderate voters with Romney and/or Huntsman, and letting Bachmann or Palin have the whole rabid base vote to herself. But if they both run, I think it more likely he'd try to position himself as the more-acceptable-to-the-base-yet-acceptable-enough-to-moderates alternative to Romney. One thing about Romney's money is that it will allow him to stay in the race longer than someone (thinking especially of Pawlenty here) who hasn't raised as much, unless Pawlenty takes Iowa (in which case, money will pour in). Romney certainly OUGHT to win NH, so that's probably out for Pawlenty, and Pawlenty would have a tough fight in SC being a northerner, so I believe the news accounts that say he's pouring everything he's got into Iowa. But Bachmann was born in Iowa, and has a good chance of taking those caucuses, which are dominated by the far right. If Pawlenty does poorly in Iowa (less than second), he may be done. Romney wouldn't be. He'd have NH the next week (a probable win) and money enough to survive a probable bad showing in SC and get to the larger states. That's the major reason I think Romney has a better chance of being the establishment candidate after the first few contests are over, even though if money weren't an issue, I think Pawlenty would have a better chance than Romney (who the base really does not like, as gad said). Of course, if Pawlenty comes in first or second in Iowa and gets a major cash infusion, that scenario could get turned on its head.
Originally Posted By dshyates I don't have a clue as to who is going to be the top of the ticket, but I am putting my money on Marco Rubio as the GOP VP candidate. Actually, I think he would make a strong Pres. Candidate. He would help with both the tea baggers and the Hispanic vote. That said, I loathe Rubio's politics.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Romney wants to be president so bad that he'll do and say just about anything (see John McCain). I know that isn't unique to him, but it's so transparent with him that I think it's what creeped out even Republicans the last time around. I don't think this "lifelong hunter" has much of a chance, though he'll spend a Meg Whitman sized pile of money trying anyway. He's got nothing else to do, so he might as well go for it. Bachmann is just plain looney. I know some on the far right love her antics, but realists also know that the real value of the Palins and Bachmanns is in their ability to drive liberals into a rage on an hourly basis. The chances of them gaining traction nationally outside of the far right is slim to none. Gingrich might be the only one with less of a chance than these two. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if Bachmann and Palin decided to do a bit of political stunt theater and run as a team. They both adore headlines, and that would grab a bunch of headlines, but neither of them would much want to be the VP in that scenario. Pawlenty seems like a rather reasonable guy, but I am sure by this time next year he'll have ratcheted up the phony outrage quotient by a country mile since that's what is needed to win a few primaries. It feels right now anyway like this whole thing remains Obama's to lose. If the economy is still sputtering, it leaves a big opening. But if the wars are indeed winding down, bin Laden remains dead, and Republicans are unable to slaughter healthcare and medicare, only incredibly low voter turnout would doom his chances.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 ***She was "thrust" on the scene...if you will*** That video I saw the lady who played her was doing some "thrusting"
Originally Posted By gadzuux I don't believe Palin's going to run. She's going to pretend to be 'considering' for as long as she possibly can to stay in the media spotlight. She's such a tease ... Romney blew through millions in Iowa in `08, only to place a distant 2nd to Huckabee. Since NH follows IA so quickly, he may just chalk off IA as irrelevant. He may be right too - I think we give these handfuls of prairie loons far too much weight in our electoral process.
Originally Posted By hopemax I still think it will be Romney. The establishment GOP is growing very tired of the Tea Party nonsense because it is leading to a crumbling of their power bases. Like McCain, as much as they disliked the choice, they went with him anyway, and so will it be with Romney. They will partner him with a more conservative VP like Palin, but not quite so polarizing and can answer questions about what magazines they read. Romney's got name recognition, unlike Pawlenty and some of the others. Plus, by throwing their weight behind Romney in 2012, when they would probably would lose anyway, they can move on to a more appealing candidate for 2016 without "passing him over." And if by miracle he wins, the establishment GOP would probably think Romney would listen to them over the crazies and get more of their agenda front and center.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***bin Laden remains dead*** That could be a problem, actually. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3dft6h3" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/3dft6h3</a>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones In all premature, pre-election polling, Romney appears to do the best against Obama. If the election were held today, Palin and Gingrich would lose by a landslide.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "It wouldn't entirely surprise me if Bachmann and Palin decided to do a bit of political stunt theater and run as a team. They both adore headlines, and that would grab a bunch of headlines, but neither of them would much want to be the VP in that scenario." Actually, I have seen a couple of people who have said that Palin does not like Bachmann because she thinks Bachmann is stealing her base. With Palin's past history of "it's all about me" attitudes, I could easily believe it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Last night some pundit said something that I think rings true - that Bachmann's ideologically "pure", whereas Palin is "situational" - meaning that Bachmann probably believes what she says and Palin says anything that will further her agenda, which ultimately is herself. Teabaggers aren't usually too discerning, so they might not see this as readily as 'outsiders'. Still, it's an important difference, and one that means Bachmann is more capable of speaking extemporaneously to the issues, where Palin needs to be told which way the wind is blowing before taking a position on anything.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Pawlenty seems to be everyone's second choice (he's assiduously courting both the far-right "base" AND the establishment money types) and looks to be hoping that he becomes the least objectionable "oh, all right" candidate for the voters ---------------- just one moderate to conservatives opinion-- I believe the above statement to be fairly accurate-- unfortunately that leaves people like me ( who lean towards the right of center in voting but vote cross party) - without a candidate and why I believe Obama is locked again. He will get less vote from conservatives than last time, and may even get less support from the far left unless he comes thru for them on some long standing issues..but he will win because the GOP is in disarray. It's the same here in Illinois and why we truly have a one party system here, of drunken sailor spending, ego maniac - corruptness beyond belief. Not because their deomocrats per se ( but they are) -but because a one party system leads to that type of behavior- regardless of whose driving the bus so to speak. The tea party does nothing for people like me ( and there are plenty of us) - and neither does the religious right or the ultra rich ( which exist in both parties btw) - for middle america- conservatism means something quite different than what any of these groups present. Bill CLinton was far closer to my model than any of these goofs- but who does that leave us with ? Answer no one - which is why vote will be down for us also. 2012 turnout will be lower than 2008 -- but split may actually be larger. fwiw - Mitch Daniels was likely closest to what I was looking for - fiscally conservative and not hung up on social issues...as much as I knew about him, but just as I started getting interested he decided not to run anyway. Not sure he could have won because he was not exactly personality plus -- as for the rest of the field - every single GOP candidate is too flawed for me to vote for- Romney being the least offensive but also really does little for me.
Originally Posted By markymouse I would not want to discount Sarah Palin's ego. There's an old saying, that every Senator who looks in the mirror sees a President. Two questions will cross her mind: Would it be awesome to be President Sarah Palin? and What real Americans would choose Barack Hussein Obama over Sarah Palin? And then she will run. I could be wrong. Won't be surprised if I am. But ego is a big, big thing.
Originally Posted By markymouse Besides, we're only talking about the people who want to probably lose to Obama in 2012 rather than wait to possibly win in 2016. Who would want to do that? Mr. Mondale? Mr. Dole? Those elections draw a completely different crowd. They are also a good training ground. So a case can be made that the most important Republican candidates will be the ones who don't come in first or even second but make some kind of an impression. That person could be the next Ronald Reagan. Or the next Gary Hart. You never know.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Traditionally, with the republicans, losing a run for the nomination puts you next in line for the following campaign. That's what happened with Romney, argueably with Huckabee - if he had run, McCain, Dole, and Reagan. So for wannabes like Pawlenty and Santorum, and maybe Giuliani - losing in 2012 means you're well positioned in 2016 - assuming Obama wins this one. As for Palin, the rules of engagement don't apply. With her, a small window of opportunity is about to close - not to run for president, but to garner attention as a "potential". She can only work this for about another month or so before the ship will leave the dock, and she won't be on it.
