Just got a release from Jon Huntsman that says he’s going to be in SC Saturday — in Goose Creek and Florence. But what grabbed me was this part of what he had to say:
By the way, we just heard some good news from New Hampshire this week. A new poll shows our campaign is on the move. Just in the past few weeks we have risen from the bottom of the field to a virtual tie for third place.
This election is a lot like a NASCAR race. The drivers who lead the early laps may attract attention. But the lap that really counts is the last one. As we get closer to January, I’m confident our campaign will be the one surging ahead.
But this race is not just about winning the Republican nomination. It’s about electing a new President—a new leader who believes America’s greatest days are yet to come.
To do that, we need a candidate who can attract independents to our Party; a candidate who has experience being number one in job creation; and who has proven that conservative solutions like mandate-free health care are right for America.
Please take a moment to review my record, my vision, and my jobs plan, which has been praised by the Wall Street Journal.
In a world in which Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have followed each other in rapid succession as front-runners, it’s not too late for anyone to climb out of the cellar in this pennant race.
Huntsman is right to be encouraged. Still, as this blog points out, if his national numbers don’t suddenly rise, he’s going to be left out of some key debates.
By the way, in that New Hampshire poll in which Huntsman came in third, Gingrich was first. And who was second? Ron Paul.
I’m beginning to think that if I announced for the GOP nomination, at some point I would rise, briefly, above water in the polls. Republican voters this year are like a kid in a nursery with too many new toys — they rush over and grab one, play with it for 30 seconds, throw it down, and grab another.
Related Posts
Republican voters this year are like a kid in a nursery with too many new toys — they rush over and grab one, play with it for 30 seconds, throw it down, and grab another.
-Brad
How dare you insult kids in a nursery with such an insulting comparison!
This is terrific fun to watch. I can’t imagine what can possibly be going through the minds of the GOP voters right now. Romney clearly has the best, and perhaps only, chance of winning the presidency. Maybe he’s not the perfect conservative but anyone else loses 5 points in the polls and probably any chance at the election.
Romney 2-1
Gingrich 5-2
Perry 10-1
Paul 12-1
Bachmann 15-1
Huntsman 18-1
Cain 20-1
Santorum 20-1
Bachmann 20-1
Oops. Bachmann should be 15-1. I thought about it a bit more and there is a bit more of a path for her than Huntsman, Cain or Santorum. Somehow I find her interesting and an appealing sort for GOP far-right sorts. Not sure why she’s polling so poorly. I predict a very modest comeback for her. Still a long shot.
The perfect GOP candidate is a born again evangelical, pro-life, pro-war, small government, and hostile to the Federal Reserve. This is why there is such promiscuity from the voters as they fornicate with each candidate. Ultimately, it will be Romney because he has great hair.
but Rick Perry also has great hair…as does Michelle Bachmann. Not fair. Must be the liberal Democrats interfering with the campaign again!
And then there are those pesky liberal Republicans who yawn at the entire field. The point of the primary process ought to be to select an ELECTABLE candidate. The party, and especially the SC party among other similar outlyers, just doesn’t seem to get that at this point. A history of choosing the final candidate neither implies a win nor that history can be projected into the future.
The entire field today is unelectable. As with everything over the last few years, the Republicans seem to be the party of squandered opportunity.
Huntsman has climbed out of the cellar onto the bottom step in the basement. He has zero chance of winning anything and his campaign will be over in six weeks or sooner.
Same goes for Bachmann, Santorum.
Perry will be gone if he finishes 4th or worse in Iowa.
Paul will be the last man standing against Romney. He is the only one who will have the resources to stay in it til the end.
Brad – you could show your commitment to Hunstman with a small donation to his campaign. But that would be like throwing money away, right?
Now that’s an interesting question. Since I find it hard to imagine being someone who would contribute money to a campaign — I’ve spent most of my life being outright forbidden ever to do such a thing, and even now it seems ethically suspect to me (force of habit, I guess). So it is that I find it hard to imagine how people who DO give to campaigns think. If I were such a person, would I give to Huntsman?
I don’t know.
But you’re right to identify him as the one I would consider to be worth an investment, if anyone were. I mean, what would be the point of giving to someone who is surging? They don’t need it.
And I continue to believe that, as Mark puts it, the Republicans are perversely determined this year not to nominate anyone who would have a chance in the general election.
Gingrich — really? Or the candidate that most of the GOP itself doesn’t want, Romney? Either way, you’re counting on some major, major foulup by Obama to win the election, because your candidate can’t do it on their own.
The partisans can never get it into their heads (and Mark’s right that the SC GOP these days seems particularly hardheaded in this regard) that THEY are not the ones who choose the president in November. It’s people like me, who might go either way. The people who have to be persuaded.
With Huntsman, you’d have a chance with independents. Otherwise, not. Especially not if the economy gets better — if the latest unemployment decline is a harbinger, for instance.
With Huntsman, independents could identify. They could say, here’s a guy who worked for Obama. He gave him a chance, just as we did (a point of view the GOP partisans can’t imagine), but he decided that the president needed to be replaced, and is running against him. He has real experience, as a governor and as our nation’s representative in the country that could prove to be most important to understand going forward, economically and strategically. Maybe he’s the guy.
They’re not going to think that about Romney, most likely, and almost certainly won’t want to go back to the future with Gingrich.
What I find amusing is that so many anti-Republicans think that Obama is an easy winner against Romney or whoever ends up on the other side. It’s going to come down to a couple states – mostly in the Rust Belt plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado. Pennsylvania is already lost to Obama – the current governor chose not to appear with Obama last week because he didn’t want to be associated with him next year.
Romney + Rubio would be an interesting matchup for Obama/Biden.
And when Obama starts going negative on Romney on his supposed flip-flopping, I’ll be interested to see how the Romney campaign responds with all of Obama’s campaign promises from 2008 and what he actually did. It’s going to be a tough record to run on.
Doug,
Why would you say a state is “lost” to one side or another in a Presidential election because a governor choose not to appear – for whatever reason – with them in a campaign appearance?
One, the politics of this is all just gamesmanship and, two, it’s the preponderance of the electorate that will most likely be the deciding factor.
Here at home, it wouldn’t be totally inplausible to say that Romney might not carry SC, depending on his running mate I guess, or certainly that Gingrich might not carry SC at all in a Presidential general election.
This “anti-Republican” has done the electoral math and definitely does NOT think Obama is an easy winner against Romney, and especially Romney-Rubio. But as for “whoever ends up on the other side”…well, if it is not Huntsman or Romney, then I would say that Obama is a relatively “easy” winner. Maybe Perry could give him a bit of a run. I also think it’s an exaggeration to say that PA is “lost to Obama.” It’s gone blue 5 straight elections, and while Obama certainly COULD lose it (IF Romney is the nominee), there’s nothing to indicate it won’t be a tightly contested state.
@Mark
According to what I read, Obama has a 56% disapproval rating in Pennsylvania. In 2008, Obama won the state by a 54-44 margin. That is why the current Democrat governor candidate (Bob Casey) probably stayed away. Obama was even visiting Casey’s hometown of Scranton.
So Obama isn’t losing Pennsylvania because the Governor is staying away, the Governor is staying away from Obama because he doesn’t want to be dragged down by Obama’s negatives.
Doug,
Well there you go: Scranton. That would explain that.
I’m not sure why Obamam would go there as a campaign stop, however.
Seems like he would do a lot better in the (new) Pittsburgh and never changing Philadelphia markets. As in SC, the blue collar mill towns have all decided that social conservatism is the way forward for them.
@Phillip
Here’s my take – how many people who voted for Obama in 2008 might either stay away from the polls in 2012 or switch? How many who didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 will switch over to him?
I think Obama will have a tough time generating the “Change We Can Believe In” fervor he captured the first time around. And there are plenty of people who voted for him in 2008 who are sitting here in 2011 asking “Am I better off than I was three years ago”? Compare that to the anti-Obama forces that will equal the pro-Obama energy of 2008 and I think we’re going to see a big shift.
Both sides will use scare tactics… both sides will stoop to new lows in attack ads… both sides will promise the world and deliver little.
All it takes is a couple states to swing in the next 11 months.
That said – I think Obama versus Gingrich is an easy win for Obama. But I don’t think it will be Gingrich.
I’d love to see Paul run as an independent. He’d get 10% nationally.