Michael Barone has a new piece over at the American titled “The GOP’s Real Problems for 2012″. He writes:
Nonetheless I still think Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a strong presidential nominee in 2012, as I reflect on their difficulty in doing so in 2008. For as I look back on that Republican nominating contest, it seems to me that none of the Republican candidates had a good strategy for winning the nomination. And if a candidate does not win the nomination, it does not really matter how strong he (or she) would be in the general election.
Sensible enough huh? He then lays out 5 implications for 2012, based on each of the major candidates’ 2008 runs.
1. (From McCain): you can’t hope to win by waiting for every other candidate’s strategy to fail unless you have an in with Lady Luck.
2. (From Rudy): You cannot wait too long to compete. If you bypass New Hampshire, you must compete in Iowa, or vice versa, or very soon thereafter.
3. (From teh Fred): Either compete strongly and early enough in Iowa to make a good showing in the straw poll or stay out of Iowa altogether (as John McCain did, to not significant detriment, in 2000 and effectively did, to no significant detriment, in 2008).
4. (From Huckabee): Huckabee or a candidate with a similar profile can corner the votes of evangelical and born-again Christians and, starting with Iowa, can round up a significant number of delegates…But otherwise he is in the position of Jesse Jackson in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic contests, able to run a significant second or third thanks to strong support from one of the party’s core constituencies but unable to run first.
5. (From Romney): Run as yourself. Emphasize your strengths and avoid contests that are not suited to them. This will not guarantee victory, but it will make a victory in the battle for the nomination worth more in the general election, since you will not have to visibly pirouette from appealing to a relatively narrow primary electorate to the much broader (and potentially expandable) electorate you will face in the fall.
This is all pretty good advice, but I worry about the underlying argument; that Republican possibilities are likely to be weak general election candidates because they ran poor primary campaigns. In the first place, I’m not sure Barone is right about his individual criticisms (and read the whole article to see exactly what he has to say). It’s obvious, of course, that Rudy shouldn’t have held everything til Flordia. It’s more obvious in retrospect, but it wasn’t exactly hard to figure out even then. Plenty of folks who wished Rudy no ill (myself included) pointed out the strategic flaw months before everything broke down. Still. His strategy was, in large part, dictated by his circumstances. When you’re a gun-control supporting, pro-choice, city-dwelling, hawk, you’re bound to struggle in Christian Iowa or dovish, libertarian New Hampshire.
Clearly Romney’s attempt to position himself as THE conservative floundered, and left him wearing two scarlett F’s on his neatly tailored suit. Still. When you’re a Massachusetts Mormon in a party dominated by Southern Christians, playing the moderate isn’t exactly a great long-term strategy.
Undoubtedly Mike Huckabee was hurt by the narrowness of the pastor tag. Still. He was a pastor. Even when he dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff, and adopted the Friendly Neighbor Looking Out for the Little Guy schtick, he was still seen as Pastor Mike.
A lot of these criticisms are not examples of flawed campaigns, but rather of flawed candidates. No matter how you rolled the Massachusetts Mormon dice, in 2008, in the Republican Party, you just weren’t likely to hit a 7 or 11. While candidates aren’t slaves to their environment, they can’t simply re-write their careers and lives to fit a new situation.
So in one sense Barone is right enough: we simply don’t have many potential candidates who are in a good position to naturally do the sort of things necessary to both win over the current Republican electorate, and put together a campaign strategy which gels with the moment. Retreads like Huckabee and Romney and Palin may be slightly better fits in 2012, but it ought to be clear by now that they won’t be perfect fits. Heading into 2012, we need to look for a candidate who’s already, more or less, where he needs to be to meet the moment. Our success, or lack thereof, on that front will dictate both our campaign strategy and our “problems”.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Miller,
I think you are determining the candidate who meet the moment completely is going to be impossible…because it’s almost impossible.
In a sense, Obama didn’t meet the moment as well as Hillary Clinton did and yet, he was able to win fairly easily.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Romney is “where he needs to be to meet the moment” more than any of the others, at this point. If someone can tell my why not, I’d like to hear it.
The only thing Huck has going for him is his position in these early polls. If you judge him strictly by his last campaign, he has less of a shot than Palin or Romney. He didn’t beat Romney even after he stayed in 6 weeks longer, and his behavior after the campaign didn’t win much respect.
Even Palin’s supporters admit she has a ways to go before she becomes credible. Romney is already there.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Tommy Boy,
Do you think Romney plays the role of Hillary, and Palin the role of Obama? Palin is indeed the least qualified, and the least experienced, and she is the rock star persona, as Obama is. Do you think it will work for her?
I don’t, because repubs are a little smarter than your average dem.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
BTW – I apologize for comparing Romney to Hillary. She wasn’t much more qualified to be POTUS than Obama. Hillary and Romney are nothing alike.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Martha,
Hillary was probably the most dangerous candidate we could have ever faced. Someone who could win the rich, middle-class, and lower-class…just dangerous. We would have lost Kentucky, West virgnia, arkansas, and possibly Tennessee as well in my opinion (polls are polls).
I agree….she’s nothing like Rommney.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Tommy Boy,
I disagree. It was always going to be strange to say “yes, well you don’t like the current guy (Bush) so why don’t you elect the wife of the guy who’s failings caused you to elect the current guy”. The restoration stuff was cute, but it was never as powerful as “throw all the bums out and go with this totally new and different cat”. And, you know, demographically “Hillary” states didn’t come up until later in the process; Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t unusually blue-collar or hugely dominated by unions, and South Carolina…well, South Carolina was a lock for Obama once he became a serious candidate.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
This is where the young guns like Cantor and Pence and Ryan could shine. Their key selling point – each one being a ficon hawk – may be strong enough (in a sagging economy) to overcome any of the detrimental factors Barone applies to the big guys. Though if the economy is still in the tank by 2011 I think this may also negate Romney’s negative issues among conservatives. In such circumstances, a Romney/Cantor ticket, for example, may be exactly what the GOP would need to win.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
No one outside of Romney supporters on race buys the Palin-Obama comparison. The chattering class and probably most non-political types don’t see any similarities culturally, substantively, or stylistically between the two.
The only comparison between the two that I have seen others pick up on is nature of their ardent supporters.
I asked this question to MWS the other day: if you had toaask some random person on the street which of the four between Palin, Mitt, Huck, and Pawlenty were most different from Obama, how do you think the random person will respond.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Obama did not succeed in the Dem primaries so much as Hillary failed. We should pray to God that the people who ran her campaign run every Democratic campaign from now on. Hillary made 3 critical mistakes that got us stuck with Obama as President
1.) She tried to compete in Iowa- very stupid move. Bill had no organization in Iowa. (when he ran in 92, Tom Harkin won his home state fairly easily)Edwards did from his 04 run, and Obama was from neighboring Illinois
2.) She had no plan post Super Tuesday- with the idiotic way Democrats force every primary to be proportional, the odds of knocking out her main rival on Super Tuesday were low. She should have had a plan in case it went to all the primaries, which it did
3.) She failed to organize in caucuses- this is sort of like mistake #1. We always hear about the vaunted Clinton machine; where was it during the caucuses? She won only the Nevada caucuses and lost to Obama in every other one. If she had won 2 or 3 other caucus states, she would have been the nominee.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Nice article Matthew. Nice to see an informative article about the election rather than the usual r42012 ‘prop-up my guy/tear-down yours’, followed by, “if he’s the nominee, I won’t vote…” blah, blah, blah.
That said, I remember seeing this same argument used in reverse about the Democrats in past elections, particularly 2004. Their candidates had to move way left to get the nomination and therefore spend a great deal of time during the general trying to look like a moderate. Now, he says that no republican is set up to win the nomination and still appear electable in the general. Eh, maybe.
while these are depressing times, what with government taking over businesses and a thug-supporting president who makes Bush’s crazy spending seem like the very definition of frugality, I hold out hope that one of our young guns will turn out to be the real deal and give Obama a good run.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
It was a good article Matthew. But why didn’t you do analysis of Pawlenty and his likely shortcomings in 2012?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Miller,
I agree with your take all the way until the Ohio/Texas primary. It was there that Hillary discovered her theme: culturally moderate, stylistic populist patriotic war-hawk that will fight for the middle class.
The Hillary Clinton from Ohio/TX on was the person that predicted the times currectly. Fighter for the middle class became more pertinent and relevant for the times than change you can believe in post Ohio/Texas.
Whether Pawlenty, Palin, romney, or huckabee succeeds in 2012 depends on which one of them will be the one with the best narrative, which are broader themes than just issues.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Someone has to win the nomination, unless you change the rules to let
people vote for none-of-the-above. Will Cheney go for it? I know its
doubtful, but crazier things have happened in American politics. His
health works against him, but not that much.
If Fred Thompson had been out a week earlier, could Huckabee have won
S. Carolina? If the answer is yes, it would have been a different race.
Could he have stopped Obama. Probably not. The debate would have been
very different, however. People resisted fears of his supposed liberalism
on economic issues. That feature might have had many Catholics who voted
for Obama think differently. If he had championed what was essentially a
European Christian Democratic Party platform (anti-abortion, benefits for
families so that they won’t abort) he would have given the Catholic
Hierarchy real ammo to say that an Obama vote was not allowed. McCain
did not really have anything to bring to the party on this.
2012 is far away, as it is not known whether the GOP will be further decimated
in 2010 or begin a comeback. Unless someone excites the electorate in 2012
the way Reagan did, whoever wins the nomination will be the candidate who
is getting a turn to be in the history books, with a place for ever in
the table in the back on who won and who lost. If no resurgence
happens by 2014, people will be singing turn out the lights, the party’s over.
The Democrats are their own worst enemies either way. Either they will
go “too far” and move people back to the GOP or they will win so many
seats from the Republicans “going to far” to hang together effectively, in
which case you may see the Democrats splitting into essentially the Christian
Democrats and the Social Democrats – either before or after 2012 and at least
by 2017.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Wait, Huckabee dropped the Onward Christian Soldier stuff? When did this happen?
I remember going to his tent at the Ames straw poll. The band was on the stage playing Amazing Grace and half the people in the tent were standing with their arms up.
I remember seeing his campaign ads with the titles “Christian Leader” on screen.
I spoke to my co workers who had Huckabee featured at a guest pastor in their church only a week or two before the Iowa caucus.
Huckabee may have added the Homer Stokes “little man” routine to his campaign stump speech, but I’m pretty sure the band still plays a hymn for the crowd when he’s done with it.
Maybe next time around they won’t, who knows?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
#12:
Perception is going to be critical for the candidates. Each of the Big Three is perceived as having a serious flaw that they need to address.
For Romney- Is he authentic? Not just in his conservatism , but can he connect with the average voter? In some ways, his problem is the Bush problem; can a rich guy really understand what is happening to Mr./Mrs. Average American?
For Huckabee – Is he serious? People like Huckabee (generally) they think he is a funny, nice guy, but can he be President? Can you see Presdident Mike Huckabee giving a sober, substantive address about monetary policy or the coup in Honduras?
For Palin- Is she more than the Tina Fey impersonation? Can she hold her own in a debate with other Republicans? Can her spell out her own specific ideas in regards to the economy, trade, the War on Terror?
Whichever candidate conquers these perceptions first will be the front-runner, and quite possibly, the nominee.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I’m not too worried about our chances in 2012, at least not yet. If the economy is still bad, as I suspect it will be, GOP voters of all persuasions – ficons, socons, security hawks, etc – will enthusiastically rally around the one candidate best suited to handle economic matters. That won’t be Palin or Huck but could be Romney or Pawlenty (or, until a few weeks ago, Sanford). It was the same with Reagan in 1980 (all sides within the GOP happily joined forces against the economically inept Carter), with Clinton in 1992 (Dems of all philosophical backgrounds happily rallied behind Clinton against the economically inept Bush), and with Obama in 2008 (all Dems happily rallied behind Obama against the entire inept GOP). When one issue becomes so powerful over all others (like the economy will be in 2012) voters become much more forgiving of a candidate’s less acceptable characteristics.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
#13 Michael. . . Cheney will not run for president in 2012. And stranger things than Cheney running for president in 2012 have NOT happened in American politics.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
DanL,
Oh, I was just pointing out why it’s a little unfair to pin the failed 2008 Republican candidates on their flawed campaigns; a lot of it was behind their control. Since Pawlenty obviously didn’t run in 2008, it didn’t make much sense to mention him. But, I’d say Pawlenty’s biggest problems are difficulty getting into the “top-tier” in the media speculation game, and an inability to find space that isn’t already covered by one of the big three. I don’t think he’d have much trouble winning over the current Republican electorate, but I think he may find that, like Romney in 2008, the only openings are unnatural fits for the type of candidate he is. He probably needs to hope Palin passes (Romney and Huck probably won’t).
Tommy Boy,
Sure, and Hillary fought (and nearly beat) gravity after that. I mean, Obama coasted on sheer inertia. She was the better fitting candidate, at that point, and if there’d have been any mathematical way, she’d have been THE candidate.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
The GOP in 2012 may not control its own fate, which I think is Barone’s
ultimate point. They are like a 9-7 team in Week 17, watching to see
who wins the 4 p.m. game to see if they get a play-off berth. If the
Dems fracture into Christian Democrat and Social Democrat, the GOP will
go to the CDs and the Greens will go to the SDs. The LP will either remain
irrelevant or follow Huck and Dr. Paul to the CDs.
The key question is which way Obama will go. Many assume he is a Social
Democrat – however his coalition is filled with Christian Democrats and
he occassionally makes those noises.
Here’s a radical thought. If 2010 is a really bad year for the GOP and it
goes the way of the Whigs, while Biden becomes such a gaffe machine is out,
what about an Obama-Huckabee Christian Democratic ticket (not with that name)
and a Clinton-Nader ticket for the Social Democrats? If not Hillary, then who
would be a Social Democratic ticket topper? Forget your preconceptions that it
would be Obama (since neither the Catholics nor the Black Church would follow him
down that road) – who else would it be. If you insist that Obama would be the
Social Democrat, who would head the Christian Democrat ticket?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Martha, I think this campaign for the GOP nod could draw more comparisons to the 2004 Democratic Primary a few years out.
The Democratic Party was in a rebuilding phase. Dick Gephardt (Mike Huckabee) barely had the way, way too early lead, but on no real basis, and was disliked by a large sector of the party, and crumbled once the campaign started. Howard Dean (Sarah Palin) played the role of the outsider who moved to the front of the pack because of strong support from the base but couldn’t hold it because he had poor political instincts. The Democrats turned their eyes to John Kerry as a statesmanly voice of experience who could advocate liberal positions using the tone of a moderate, kind of like Mitt Romney. Tim Pawlenty or John Thune could then play the role of John Edwards, the little guy who can’t really gain any traction and only moves up as the top tier falls away. Newt Gingrich as Joe Lieberman, the early frontrunner who never goes anywhere and everyone thinks is a little crazy? Pence/Cantor/Ryan enter unexpectedly and shake up the race a little like Wesley Clark by earning strong support from the base? Could happen.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
19. . . One thing in your “radical though” is likely to occur in my opinion. I don’t see Biden remaining on the ticket for a second Obama term. The need for Biden on the ticket – to boost Obama’s standing among security-concerned voters – disappeared the day Obama was sworn in. Biden seems to serve no purpose as VP and wouldn’t be asked to continue beyond 2012. So I would ask, who would replace Biden as VP when Obama runs for reelection in 2012?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
#21:
I don’t see Biden being dumped off the ticket, no matter how often he opens his mouth to say something stupid. In fact, that is a benefit to Obama; every time he butchers a non-teleprompter address, he can bring out Biden to talk.
Even Nixon, who hated Spiro T. Agnew and Eisenhower (who disliked Nixon), decided to keep them as running mates. Ford dumped Rockefeller in 76 to win the nomination against Reagan.
Biden will be on the ticket again in 2012 with Obama.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Robbie,
I don’t think the 2004 Democrat primary is applicable to this case.
Why not? The political figures now that we are talking about are pretty much larger-than-life figures in their own party and nationally. None of the guys in 2004 measure up in terms of stature to the 2012 folks (not even Pawlenty).
Politics is just covered completely differently now than it was in 2004.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
21. I’m not sure. If Obama drops Biden, I think the new VP would probably be someone with no real presidential ambitions. Most likely a DINO/Conservadem to help win over moderates.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
22. Eisenhower kept Nixon on the ticket in 1956 because Ike’s reelection was never in doubt. Nixon still appealed to the anti-Communist wing of the party, pretty significant at the time, and there was no need to replace Nixon no matter how Ike felt about him. Similarly, Nixon kept Agnew in ‘72 because there was no question as to his reelection. More significantly, Nixon’s opponent, George McGovern, had already dumped his own VP choice from the ticket, an episode with no positive outcome for the Dems.
I’m not saying Obama definitely will dump Biden. I’m just saying that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he did, especially if the economy is still in the tank, and even “more especially” if the GOP has a good economic team on our own ticket.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
24,
But doesn’t that seem like a waste? Obama’s agenda is nothing if not ambitious and “busy”. if moderates are frustrated with Obama buy 2012 I don’t see how putting one on the ticket is going to win them over.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
24. . . I’d go the other way. If Obama drops Biden the new VP would almost have to be a potential 2016 player. The GOP in 2008 is a good example of what happens when a party has a VP with no desire to run after his boss’s two terms end. Obama’s new VP would need to be someone with a good chance of continuing the Dem’s (and Obama’s) hold on power beyond Obama’s 2nd term.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
27. The reason I say that is I think Hillary is very interested in the presidency still. A war between Hillary and the new VP could be very damaging to the party.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
John Sununu will not run for Judd Gregg’s open Senate seat in NH. Will there be any new faces from the NHGOP to step up?
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=14df5280-881d-4699-81c2-95f64d8e6171&headline=AP%3a+Sununu+won%27t+run+for+Gregg%27s+seat
July 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Kevin. . .I definitely agree that Hillary still wants to be president, and I could even see Obama adding her to the ticket in 2012 if he drops Biden.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Ray. . . Charlie Bass, though not a new face, has been showing up in guest editorial columns and a lot of NH speeches lately. Perhaps he’s thinking about it?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
30. I don’t know. That would seem terribly pointless for him to put her on the ticket in 2012. If he was open to that, why wouldn’t he have just done it in 2008, when there were (potential) serious party unity issues?
July 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Jake- I think you are right about Bass. Stephen Merrill wouldn’t surprise me either. Look for Ovide Lamontaigne and Jennifer Horn, as well. Ms. Horn is really the only “new” face out of that list.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Ray. . .I like Charlie Bass but admittedly I know little else about local/state politics in NH. Hey, Romney has a house there right? He can run!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Kevin. . . It’s all just speculation really. But if the economy is as bad or worse in 2011-12 than it is today, which is a good possibility, then party unity won’t be the issue in 2012. Reelection will be the issue. And if reelection hinges on economic ideas and successes, Hillary may be shifted over from State to VP to help Obama shore up the ecomomy. Sort of harkening back to the economic successes of the 90’s.
Though I suspect there are better choices than Hillary to help the economy within the Dem party. I just can’t think of anyone!
July 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’m pretty certain Romney has much larger plans and winning that seat and then running for POTUS would all but guarantee his NH primary loss come early 2012. But, yes, the NH house is one of the few he is keeping (I think the new CA house was the other). His NH house is gorgeous, by the way. Stephen Merrill is a former governor and Lamontagne was a former gubernatorial candidate and Education Secretary (I think). Manchester mayor, Guinta, is in the running for the 1st CD and Bradley will probably be running for Governor.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
35. I don’t know, I don’t see a scenario where Obama picks Hillary as VP.
Anyway, who would be a good a DINO for Obama, in my scenario? Ben Nelson? Perhaps Joe Lieberman if Obama really wants to go off the wall?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Thanks for the recap of NH. I kind of remember Merrill coming into office just as I was leaving Boston. If I remember right he began his tenure during some kind of economic crisis. I assume he handled it pretty well if the voters kept him in office four years later.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
NH has 2 yr governor terms not 4. I think he was re-elected once then last to Shaheen. He was twice selected as the “Most Physical Governor in America” by the WSJ/Cato Institute (the only governor to ever be selected twice for the award).
July 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Kevin. . . haha You don’t see a Hillary scenario but you do see a Lieberman one???
I just don’t see the need to appeal to moderates in 2012 when/if replacing Biden. Only a crisis would bring about replacing a VP, and that would be either an economic one or a security/War one. Either way, Hillary could fit that need. Again, though, I’m sure there are others who would be better choices. But they’d absolutely need some economic credibility. Perhaps there’s a successful Democratic governor out there, or maybe someone in the corporate world (who hasn’t been tainted by the Wall Street fiasco).
July 1st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Ray. . . The Most Physical Governor? What does that mean? I would thing Schwartzenegger would run away with that prize.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Wait, do you mean “Fiscal” because that makes more sense!
July 1st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Mitt just got endorsed by the Far Left Huffington Post. Try to make the argument now that Romney is a true conservative. Birds of a feather flock together.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Thanks Alaska- yeah, i did mean Fiscal. DUH!!!
July 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
That’s ok Ray. I’d also add that my governor isn’t too bad either, physically-speaking.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
bob,
What the hell does that even mean or have to do with anything?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Alaska,
Your governer is great. Physically speaking.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
40. Yeah, I’m a little nutty. Heh. Most likely people for Obama to replace Biden with, IMO:
Brian Schweitzer (Moderate-ish Democrat, would set up well for 2016)
Tim Kaine (See above)
Wesley Clark (War hero, could help if FP is an issue, and probably wouldn’t run in 2016, clearing the way for Hillary)
Evan Bayh (Conservative Democrat to appeal to moderates, but would possibly want to run in 2016 and could create quite a problem, as he is far too conservative for most of the party)
Also, how about Warren Buffett? Economic smarts, says he agrees with the Democrats more than the Republicans, and could help finance the campaign. Haha, would never happen, but it’s fun to think about.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Obama is a guy who was superstitious enough to play basketball the day of every primary and then on Election Day. If Biden is still healthy, Obama isn’t gonna fiddle with his winning ticket.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Mitt Romney is not true conservative. He won’t get the nominee in 2012. So as Huckabee won’ get the nominee. Don’t know about Gov. Sarah Palin. She might or not run for President in 2012. I have to say it is just too early to tell. It is the liberal mainstream news media. We have a long way to go. Hope the Republican have the control of both US House and US Senate in 2010.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
The Romney advice is completely wrong. I expect better from Barone.
Romney’s mistake wasn’t in competing in too many early primaries. In fact the one big tactical gaffe of the campaign was in NOT contesting South Carolina at the last minute, handing the state to McCain.
Campaigning in Iowa wasn’t a mistake. He was so dominant there by 9/07 that he’d run off his two main competitors and was poised to take that state, New Hampshire and then try to run the table. And it would have worked if not for Huckabee unexpectedly taking off after Ames.
After that, it was Romney’s competing strongly for every major contest (and most of the minor ones) except S. Carolina that kept him in the competition up until 2/5.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Kevin,
I’ve always thought one factor which recommended Biden to Obama (besides balancing the ticket with experience) is that Obama realized Biden was probably too old to run in 2016, a fact which would reduce a conflict of interest for the Clintons to campaign hard for him. If he picks Evan Bayh and they win with Clinton help, Hillary would have to run against an incumbent or former VP, 9 years her junior in a 2016 primary or not at all. Personally, I don’t think Obama cares to influence who the Democratic nominee in 2016.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Ummm tommy. You might be right on the Obama/Palin comparison. For starts, the Obama’s are better at the parenting thing than the Palins. Secondly, he has brain cells rattling around. Albiet, left leaning brain cells. but he can chew gum and jog at the same time and not lie about the ’secret service keeping the secret’ of falling, when it was all over the news she fell and cut her hand.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Hilary will be almost 70 in 2016 (24 years after Bill won his first term). I’m far from convinced she’ll run.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Bob, my guess is they did that to tick folks like you off, and want you to vote in their gal pal, Palin. They want her, and want her bad. How grand it would be to kill two birds with one stone for the DNC? A landslide victory, and sending Palin back to AK with tail tucked in. I really do feel that’s their plan. They loved McCain, until he got the nom, then turned on him like a pack of wolves! They’ll do exactly the same thing with Palin, who will guarentee a landslide for Obama.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Palin won’t run for President. She really doesn’t have anything to offer as a Candidate. She hasn’t done anything to prepare herself in the area of Foreign Affairs, Economic, or Domestic affairs credibility. Time is running short for her to learn. It’s not gonna happen.
There is too much stuff on video out there that would kill her nomination. I still can’t forget her giving an interview in front of that poor turkey being put out of his misery. I kind of liked her before that, it showed that she had no judgment. And then there’s those interviews with the Media…..She has to know she doesn’t have a chance. Besides, I only hear her talking about Alaska.
I have an idea she has other motives than to become President, but not sure what that could be.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Latest Palin Controvery Just a Subset of War Over Direction of GOP
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/01/controvery_over_palin_just_a_s.html?hpid=news-col-blog
July 1st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
#43.bob,
Is this what you are referring to?
So you consider that an endorsement?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Isn’t there anybody who supports Palin that is wondering why she hasn’t done her homework on National and Domestic issues. She has to know she isn’t ready to be President. And if she does feels that she’s not ready, why is she still encouraging her supporters. I mean all the press she gets in negative.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
57. Palin is dividing the GOP, and I doubt she really cares.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
But why is she putting herself through all this? It’s too weird unless she has a motive.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Martha, Mrs. Palin is not dividing the GOP anymore than any other candidate.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
#19… Huckabee WILL NEVER join Barack Obama on a ticket. Huckabee will run for the GOP ticket. Youre right, a radical thought and an impossible one at that. Geez its pretty sad that that thought wasnt criticized here.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Palin gets her first serious Dem opponent for governor:
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/850543.html
July 1st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Tommy doesn’t take long to get on his “Hillary would have been worse” hobby horse. So I’ll get on mine, which just happens to match the article.
Tommy, get the point of the article. The way a canddiate executes their campaign strategy is important. The person with the best campaign in 2008 is now President, and has continued to campaign ever since (Hillary at State, Huntsman to China, Gregg attempt to Commerce – all savvy political moves)
The campaign strategy’s of the GOP line-up were poor, with McCain winning as least worst. And then he unsurprisingly ran a poor campaign in the General. So who’s been a good campaigner in state politics so far?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Anchorage’s new fiscal conservative mayor sworn in today:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/anchorage/story/850621.html
Before being sworn in he was already talking about what he’ll be cutting from the outrageously high spending plans of past administrations, and is even offering to sell off the city’s Health Department building located on prime downtown real estate in order to bring in much needed revenue. This is a welcome change from the Begich years.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
AJ, is Begich going to be a one term Senator? You’d think 2014 would be a horrible time to run for re-election in a red state (Obama’s 6th year, probs) – and a candidate like Palin (if she was happy to wait until 2016) would make mincemeat of him.
But if Palin decides to focus on national ambitions, who else is there that could take him. I can’t see Young leaving the House.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Young just submitted paperwork yesterday to run for his 20th term. He won’t be leaving the House until his time on Earth expires. My own thoughts on Palin is that she will not run for president (though she may make a token run to boost her name and campaign funds). Instead, she’ll run for reelection in 2010, win very handily, and then run against Begich in 2014.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
AJ, that would make the most sense. She then has a job for life as Alaska’s Senator, while other people can run for President.
If only Huck had done the same thing. One of the two Arkansas Senators would be GOP…
July 1st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Another great article from Mr. Barone, one of the best political scientists in the country.
What he said about Romney is exactly why I cannot stand Romney – he chose what (he believed) was politically expedient. It wasn’t just with his lurch right on social issues but he did it again in Michigan when he promised a $20,000,000,000 federal handout to the auto industry. Slick Willard’s problem is that he tries to be everything to everybody. And 2008 is not the first time he did this; remember in his failed Senatorial campaign when he claimed to be more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy?
If Romney ever wants to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, he has to run as himself. Whoever that is, given his political career I don’t think anyone really knows who the real Romney is. It’s going to take a lot of convincing to get me to vote for him but I will give him a chance given the other potential 2012 candidates.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
70. No, he said he would be more pro-gay rights than Kennedy.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 am
Romney stays unscathed
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/romney_stays_un.html
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
#70: Here is the complete quote from Romney’s speech to the Detroit Economic Club:
“If we’re going to be the world’s greatest economic power, we also have to invest in the future. It’s time for us to be bold. I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion to $20 billion – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. Let’s invest in our future.”
He also explicitly said in the same speech — “I am not open to a bail out, but I am open to a work out.” — Which is inline with his preferred solution to the Detroit crisis… a managed bankruptcy.
Full text: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/romney_to_the_detroit_economic.html
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
#73 – It sure is good to have people like you keep it accurate and honest…thanks!
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
America are so hungry now, America need food now, America need cash to pay their bill now, no company ever hire inexperience employee, but America elected the inexperience to run the country, so why America are so straggle and will go bankruptcy soon.enough is more than enough, no more repeat our mistake please! we have our real leader but we don’t see and don’t respect,we respect the fake(inexperience3)leader that is Happy attacking America around the world, but America still enjoy and laughing with him, so where is America value? wake-up America! stand-up America! Mitt is America real leader, he love America, he represent America value, he protect America, his leadership and experience will lead America to prosperity and will lead the world.if the leader(fake leader)attack his own people so how the world will respect America?(America are not the free world leader now, we are follower(Obama too weak, look Iran and Honduras critics).
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Some of you Rombots are unbelievable. I simply articulated the legitimate concerns many GOPers have on Jesus reincarnate and you guys jump on me. Regardless of your level of support for Slick Willard, you have to admit he does have his fair share of political short-comings. If you people, and more importantly the former-Governor himself, fail to recognize this you will suffer your second straight GOP Presidential Primary defeat. Romney has a good chance at securing the nomination this year, but until he shows us who he really is, he likely will not only fail to secure the nomination but he will have no chance against Obama in the general.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Colorado,
One of the beauties of a neutral political site such as Race4 is that assertions without any facts behind them are usually promptly challenged by knowledgeable, informed individuals who do not agree with you. It can be rather disconcerting for someone not used to that. That happens especially when someone spends much time in the nice, safe environments of single-issue and/or single-candidate echo-chamber sites. When surrounded by people thinking and talking alike, assertions are seldom challenged, especially if the assertions involves dirt on the opposing side.
I visit a number of pro-Romney sites. I have learned to never post anything here that I read over there unless I had researched it independently and felt confident I could defend it. Otherwise such astute and knowledgeable Romney skeptics as Kris, MWS, Adam Graham, Metro, Alex, and others will pounce like chickens on a june bug, and I will be left with egg all over my face.
So if you don’t really like the embarrassment of having your assertions flung back in your face, I suggest you make certain you can defend what you write.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
77 – Well said.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Colorado Guy.
While the 2nd half of your post was almost fair, the first half wasn’t even close to fair or even-handed. Don’t whine about having to take your foot out of your mouth when you put it there yourself.