December 17, 2009

Mark McKinnon’s 2012 GOP Rankings

Mark McKinnon, a columnist at The Daily Beast, gave this as his current rankings of the possible 2012 GOP hopefuls:

  1. Mitt Romney: He’s next in line.
  2. Sarah Palin: Conservatives love her. Huckabee’s implosion leaves her in second place.
  3. Tim Pawlenty: Doing everything right.
  4. John Thune: The Bob McDonnell of the 2012 GOP field.
  5. Mike Huckabee: The Clemmons affair really hurt him in the law-and-order GOP.
  6. Joe Scarborough: Morning Joe is young, articulate, and telegenic. He has core republican bona fides—but is also enough centrist ideas to appeal to moderates and young voters.
  7. Haley Barbour: Smart enough to outfox Obama
  8. Newt Gingrich: Generates talk but not likely to run.
  9. Mitch Daniels: An extraordinarily successful and effective governor in Indiana, a state that has been recently more blue than red.
  10. Rick Perry: He’s already the longest-serving governor in Texas history and has the best conservative record of any contender.

Honorable Mentions:

  • Rick Santorum
  • Mike Pence
  • Ron Paul
  • Eric Cantor
  • Jeb Bush
  • Jim DeMint

Note: These are my summations of McKinnon’s comments. They do not necessarily represent my thoughts.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2009/12/17/mark-mckinnons-2012-gop-rankings/trackback/

127 Responses to “Mark McKinnon’s 2012 GOP Rankings”

  1. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    The Scarborough thing is downright silly. Other than that, not bad ranking.

  2. bob Says:

    Mitch Daniels has already announced he is not running in 2012.

  3. Chip Says:

    Joe Scarborough. Really?

  4. bob Says:

    And I think Rick Perry has said the same thing about not running in 2012.

  5. Alex Knepper Says:

    Next in line is a myth.

  6. Thunder Says:

    I know she as a following now, but as Huckabee showed, When you depend mostly on Evangelical voters, you have a ceiling of 30% (with some deviation).

    By the beginning of 2011, Sarah’s book tour will be over, and voters will actually look seriously at her record (or lack thereof).

    As voters get more serious, Pawlenty will move up, as a Romney alternative. Besides not being the next in line, Pawlenty has a problem with name recognition.

    John Thune moves to third based on the intelligence level and Record. Also, has problem with name recognition.

    Dotted line after Sarah indicates unlikely there is room for no others.

    Solid line after Huckabee means no one else is likely to move into contention. Huckabee is out, but may not be that out. Huckabee has had a habit of snaking out of bad situations. His followers are also loyal, but are not enough to push him into the top 4.

    1 Mitt Romney: He’s next in line.
    2 Tim Pawlenty: Doing everything right.
    3 John Thune: The Bob McDonnell of the 2012 GOP field.
    4 Sarah Palin: Conservatives love her. Huckabee’s implosion leaves her in second place.
    ——————————————————————
    5 Mike Huckabee: The Clemmons affair really hurt him in the law-and-order GOP.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

  7. Thunder Says:

    # Alex Knepper Says:
    December 17th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Next in line is a myth.

    Really, then how do explain all the nominations since before Nixon. Name me one who was not next in line.

  8. Alex Knepper Says:

    6 – Palin does not rely “mostly on Evangelical voters.” That’s one of the biggest myths about Palin. She’s also, for some reason, the darling of the Tea Party crowd, which is libertarian-leaning, if anything. I think it’s because of the anti-Washington sentiment she generates.

  9. RomneyCare For ALL Says:

    The Daily Beast pushin’ Romney.

    Interesting. Very interesting… ;)

  10. Alex Knepper Says:

    7 – George W. Bush is the most obvious example.

    Bob Dole. Pat Buchanan came in 2nd last time (’92), not Bob Dole. And Buchanan did win New Hampshire. He was not some fringe candidate. And if we’re only counting non-incumbency years, why count Reagan in ’80 as being an example?

    George H.W. Bush got the nomination because he was Reagan’s VP, not because he came in 2nd in the ’80 primaries.

  11. WSU Says:

    “Next in line is a myth.”

    proof?

  12. Not the bad Anonymous Says:

    I’ve been living in a box recently- can someone please tell me what the Huckabee implosion is/was

  13. WSU Says:

    “7 – George W. Bush is the most obvious example.”

    You mean the only example. Buchanan didn’t even make a serious run in 2000 as a GOPer, he bolted.

    “Bob Dole”

    Bob Dole was second in the 1988 primaries, and then got the nomination in 1996. Bush won every state in the 1992 primaries. period.

    The reason we talk about 1976/1980 is because Ford was a special circumstance, never having been nominated by the party in the first place.

  14. Alex Knepper Says:

    Also, McCain did not win because he was “next in line.” No one fell in line behind John McCain. He barely won the nomination. A few thousand votes shifting either way in New Hampshire or South Carolina and he’d have been denied the nomination. His victory was by no means inevitable.

    McCain = Barely won, not inevitable
    George W. Bush = Not next in line
    Dole = Not next in line (Or if he was, then Reagan in ’80 wasn’t)
    Reagan = Next in line (but then that means Dole wasn’t)

  15. Thunder Says:

    # Alex Knepper Says:
    December 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    7 – George W. Bush is the most obvious example.

    Bob Dole. Pat Buchanan came in 2nd last time (’92), not Bob Dole. And Buchanan did win New Hampshire. He was not some fringe candidate. And if we’re only counting non-incumbency years, why count Reagan in ‘80 as being an example?

    George H.W. Bush got the nomination because he was Reagan’s VP, not because he came in 2nd in the ‘80 primaries.

    George W. Bush was next in line because of his father, it was redemption from the Clinton years.
    Bob Dole was consider next in line at the time, (don’t ask me how they figured it, but the path was cleared for him) He was a long time senator.

    Pat Buchanan went 3rd party and killed his chance. He also went out into left field. It would be the same as nominating Ron Paul.

    Reagan come in second to Ford, he was next in line.

    Next in line is also a VP (not candidates) Also, George H was not only the VP, but came in second to Reagan.

    So, try again!

  16. Alex Knepper Says:

    You mean the only example. Buchanan didn’t even make a serious run in 2000 as a GOPer, he bolted.

    Oh, so you think that Buchanan would have been our nominee in 2000, had he ran?

    If the next-in-line myth is true, then Buchanan would have been able to win in 2000.

    You people are lucky he didn’t run so that you can hold onto your precious myth!

  17. mac Says:

    McKinnon:

    “I think Huckabee made the right and humane call”

    IMO that would be the call of most of the voting public in the general election against President Obama. At this point, Mike’s problem is getting the GOP nomination which, I’ll admit, I’m not terribly optimistic about at this point.

  18. WSU Says:

    “I’ve been living in a box recently- can someone please tell me what the Huckabee implosion is/was”

    Couldn’t have been living in that small of a box, considering the fact that you know who the other Anonymous is.

  19. RomneyCare For ALL Says:

    Been there … done that …
    Mark switched to Obama …
    REMINDER who Mark McKinnon is:

    A former policy advisor and media consultant to President George W. Bush and Republican Senator and presidential candidate John McCain, McKinnon created much of the television campaign for then-Governor Bush’s bid for president in 2000, and reprised that role in 2004. He was working in the same capacity for Senator McCain, but left the campaign on May 21, 2008, stating that he preferred NOT to campaign against Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president “because Obama’s election “would send a great message to the country and the world.”. Vanity Fair reported that he returned to the McCain campaign to prep Sarah Palin for the 2008 vice presidential debate.

    LOL

  20. marK Says:

    Alex:“Next in line is a myth.”

    You know, Alex. If you keep repeating that enough times, you might actually come to believe it. :-)

    I will never claim it to be a hard and fast rule. However, the Republicans do seem to like their tried and tested second place winners far more than the Democrats do. Other than Al Gore, have they ever nominated their “next in line” any time in the past century? I can’t think of any. Can you?

    The cute thing about 2012 is there are no less than three candidates with a valid claim to being “next in line”.

  21. Alex Knepper Says:

    George W. Bush was next in line because of his father

    That is the most extreme example of working backwards in logic that I’ve seen in a while. You first accept the truth of the myth, then work all day to find any way that you can to square the circle. George W. Bush had never made a run before. He was not “next in line.”

    Pat Buchanan went 3rd party and killed his chance.

    But he would have won the nomination in 2000?

  22. WSU Says:

    “You people are lucky he didn’t run so that you can hold onto your precious myth!”

    Be that as it may…you can write off one event as an anomaly (spl), two events as a coincidence, but when it happens four times, and is well positioned to happen again, its time to stop trying to disprove it.

  23. Alex Knepper Says:

    The cute thing about 2012 is there are no less than three candidates with a valid claim to being “next in line”.

    Gosh, so no matter who wins, the myth goes on!

  24. WSU Says:

    “But he would have won the nomination in 2000?”

    Beats me, you’re still running on 1/5 as your “proof”

  25. Thunder Says:

    # Alex Knepper Says:
    December 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    You mean the only example. Buchanan didn’t even make a serious run in 2000 as a GOPer, he bolted.

    Oh, so you think that Buchanan would have been our nominee in 2000, had he ran?

    If the next-in-line myth is true, then Buchanan would have been able to win in 2000.

    You people are lucky he didn’t run so that you can hold onto your precious myth!

    Next in line does not necessarily extend from the next election. Next in line is ofter a whisper campaign. The real argument would be is Romney really the next in line. Everyone is talking about it, but lets see what happens after the 2010 elections.

  26. Alex Knepper Says:

    Be that as it may…you can write off one event as an anomaly (spl), two events as a coincidence, but when it happens four times, and is well positioned to happen again, its time to stop trying to disprove it.

    But it didn’t happen four times.

    McCain’s barely happened. He didn’t even win more than 33% of the vote anywhere leading up to Super Tuesday. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain.

    George W. Bush was not the next in line, and pretending he was is utterly farcical. Also, given that any honest person would admit that Pat Buchanan would not have won the nomination in 2000, we know for a fact that the next-in-line myth is not true.

    Dole was arguably “next-in-line,” but I would say that being a known commodity and Senate Majority Leader in an extremely weak field also helped him quite a bit. He’d run before, yes, and he’d also been on a presidential ticket. The guy was just experienced as hell. He didn’t win the nomination because of his ’88 run!

    George H.W. Bush was not “next in line” from the ’80 primaries — he was next-in-line as Reagan’s vice-president! If Reagan had picked another VP instead, that guy would have been the nominee.

    Reagan was arguably next-in-line, yes.

    So, next-in-line means: coming in 2nd last time (whoever that was), being a VP, being the son of a former president, being on a losing ticket — what doesn’t it mean? Anyone can claim to be next-in-line in hindsight!

  27. AKReport Says:

    new rankings out tonight.

  28. Alex Knepper Says:

    Beats me, you’re still running on 1/5 as your “proof”

    Beats you? You think Buchanan might have won the nomination in 2000? LOL.

  29. mac Says:

    BTW, I received yet another Huck for Marco letter today. Obviously, Marco is a very attractive candidate but Mike has done a great job of raising Marco’s name ID.

  30. Alex Knepper Says:

    I won’t deny that the GOP is more comfortable than Democrats with known commodities and is less likely to nominate a neophyte.

    But that in no way invalidates my argument that the GOP does not simply nominate the guy who came in 2nd last time (whatever that means).

  31. BuckeyeBullmoose Says:

    Romney/Scarborough 2012. :)jk

  32. Not the bad Anonymous Says:

    Okay- seriously, what was the Huckabee implosion that makes everyone now write him off as a credible candidate for 2012?

  33. marK Says:

    Alex,

    You will never hear me say that the GOP “simply” nominates the next in line. I will say that we end up choosing the next in line more times than we do not.

  34. marK Says:

    Not the bad Anonymous.

    Google “Maurice Clemmons” and make your own determination. Me, myself, I think the word “implosion” is an exaggeration. However, there is no question that it is now more problematical for Mike Huckabee to realize any Presidential ambitions he might still be having.

  35. Kevin Says:

    Scarborough? Really?

    As for the next in line thing, it’s not true, but it is true that the GOP usually nominates someone who was quite well known even several years before the primary season even began.

    Nixon in 1968 (Two term VP, failed nominee for President in 1960, failed nominee for Governor of California in 1962)
    Nixon in 1972 (incumbent president)
    Ford in 1976 (incumbent president)
    Reagan in 1980 (Well known public figure, came extremely close to winning the 1976 nomination)
    Reagan in 1984 (incumbent president)
    Bush 41 in 1988 (ran in 1980, two term vice president)
    Bush 41 in 1992 (incumbent president)
    Dole in 1996 (VP nominee in 1976, ran in 1980 and 1988, Senate Majority leader in parts of the 80s and 90s)
    Bush 43 in 2000 (son of an prior president…probably the worst fit here)
    Bush 43 in 2004 (incumbent president)
    McCain in 2008 (high profile Senator, ran in 2000)

    With the exception of Bush 43, kind of, the GOP has never really nominated an unknown in the past 40 years.

  36. Thunder Says:

    In the end, the Party will be looking for someone to solve the current problems (in 2011). If there remains an economic problem, then they will look at economic experience.

    If the issue was national defense, they would look at who has the national defense experience (or perceived). With no McCain, that will likely be a wash.

    Regardless, neither Huckabee or Palin qualify on either account. The only question is will Romney falter. If so, it is likely that Pawlenty will be their to pick up the torch.

  37. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    WSU,

    What “proof” does the “next in line” argument have? It has no definition. Define it for me. If you can’t, then you’re just making the facts fit an already constructed narrative. And any type of definition you come up with is bound to show how ludicrous, on its face, the whole argument is. In math or science, or any type of discipline that demands even the smallest amount of rigor, they’d laugh this whole next in line business out of the room. He would be the laughing stock of the world of theory.

  38. Thunder Says:

    The other thing to keep in mind in 2012, not only will they be running for the Nomination, but they will be trying to make a name for themselves for a future run.

    Also, assuming that Romney does get the nomination, he will need to select a VP that placate the Social Conservatives just like McCain did. Frankly the only reason McCain didn’t select either Huckabee or Romney because he didn’t want to anger either side. Romney on the other hand, will not have that problem.

  39. WSU Says:

    Right…Next in line rule in the GOP primaries:

    Since 1980, The candidate having attained second place in the last open primary season wins the nomination – assuming they run.

    Reagan was second in 1976, and won the nomination in 1980.
    Bush was second in 1980, and won the nomination in 1988.
    Dole was second in 1988, and won the nomination in 1996.
    EXCEPTION: Buchannan was second in 1996, did not run in 2000.
    McCain was second in 2000, and won the nomination in 2008.

  40. marK Says:

    Kevin,

    You neglected a few facts in your list. Let me help you out:

    Nixon in 1968 (Two term VP, failed nominee for President in 1960, failed nominee for Governor of California in 1962)
    Nixon in 1972 (incumbent president)
    Ford in 1976 (incumbent president)
    Reagan in 1980 (Well known public figure, came extremely close to winning the 1976 nomination coming in second)
    Reagan in 1984 (incumbent president)
    Bush 41 in 1988 (ran in 1980 came in second, two term vice president)
    Bush 41 in 1992 (incumbent president)
    Dole in 1996 (VP nominee in 1976, ran in 1980 and 1988 coming in second in 1988, Senate Majority leader in parts of the 80s and 90s)
    Bush 43 in 2000 (son of an prior president…probably the worst fit here)
    Bush 43 in 2004 (incumbent president)
    McCain in 2008 (high profile Senator, ran in 2000 came in second)

  41. Alex Knepper Says:

    But were they nominated BECAUSE THEY CAME IN SECOND? THAT is the question you are neglecting to ask.

    Did George H.W. Bush win in ’88 because he came in 2nd last time? Let’s go through this: let’s say that Reagan made Dole VP in ’80 instead. Had H.W. Bush ran in ’88, could he have beaten VP Dole? Yeah, right. He won because he was Reagan’s VP and for no other reason. Same thing with Dole ’96: did he win then because he came in 2nd in ’88? Did McCain win in ’08 because he came in 2nd last time? I would say no for both cases.

  42. All for Huck! Says:

    The pundits are at IT again. I mean stupidity.

    I hope McKinnon is relevant to the majority of the American people. I think I have the same credentials like him to create a ranking like what he did. The difference perhaps is that my ranking is based on scientific polls:

    1. Mike Huckabee
    2. Mitt Romney
    3. Sarah Palin

    Mckinnon lies, numbers don’t

  43. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    WSU,

    Why 1980? Political history makes nothing of the year 1980. There were no major shakeups in the way media was transmitted, the primary process stayed relatively consistent, etc. 1960 is always noted as the real beginning of the “modern election” and rather unfortunately for you, going back that far makes your theory fail spectacularly. Number 2 in 1960? Nelson Rockefeller. Ran in 1964; lost. Second in 1964? Nelson Rockefeller. Ran in 1968; lost. Number 2 in 1968? Nelson Rockefeller. Well…at least he got the Veep spot 5 years later. Or would you prefer to amend your silly rule to exclude Nelson Rockefeller? How bout this “The candidate who attained second place in the last open primary season, wins the nomination, assuming they run, and their initials aren’t NR”. Ok. But, you’ve rigged the game already, anyway. Why open primaries? Well, because if you included all primaries, you’d have 1996 as exception too, since Buchanan won over 3 million votes in 92′, a significant number by any margin and, under any rational definition, enough to make him the “next in line”. But, he can’t be next-in-line, because if he were, and if you included 2000, when Bush inexplicably beat out all kinds of people who had finished strong in 1996- why, by the way, doesn’t the third in line get the same treatment, assuming the second in line doesn’t run- and if you ran back to at least 1960′, you’re batting below .500…and that won’t do. Because even people who want to massage facts to fit their theory no than below .400 might be a good baseball batting average, but it won’t do in statistics.

  44. WSU Says:

    “But were they nominated BECAUSE THEY CAME IN SECOND? THAT is the question you are neglecting to ask.”

    Indirectly, I would argue, yes. Was it specifically because they were in second place? no – probably not. But being in second place gave them advantages that they would not otherwise have had.

    Reagan had name recognition from his 1976 run, etc.
    Bush became VP, in large part, because he came in second in 1980
    Dole enjoyed similar name recognition and support from the past.
    And McCain was able to rely on organization from his previous run that was still loyal – particularly in NH.

  45. Possum Says:

    Mark McKinnons pick is the kisss of death!! That man seems to be wrong on everything. Based on his last pick, DeMint is looking good :).

  46. McQueen Says:

    Romney has the progressive vote secured hahaha, he’ll do a better job in passing or expanding Obamacare then Obama.

    If he makes it out of the primaries. Very very slim chance of that however.

  47. All for Huck! Says:

    “He is tanned. He’s rested. He’s rich…” -Mckinnon’s opinion of Romney.

    I hope that Americans think of that positively. And another thing, Romney is pro-TARP and pro-ObamaCare. Americans still remember that, he’s the guy “who laid them off” in order to accrue his multi-millions. He gave the jobs the Chinese for cheaper manpower and thus millions for his Bain Capital.

    So far, he kept on hiding. Not giving clear answers about his positions on TARP and ObamaCare. Does that make him “rested”? Oh no, that makes him, a coward.

    Americans see leadership in Huckabee. He faces issues hours after they break out.

    Our team is expanding. This ranking is a paid joke to us.

  48. marK Says:

    Alex,

    You are making men out of straw. Looking over this thread, I do not see a single person arguing that xxxx was nominated only because they came in second in the previous election. If someone did say that, I missed it.

    What I do see is plenty of people saying the GOP tends to nominate people who came in second the previous election. That is a historical fact. I see nobody saying we nominate people because they came in second.

  49. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    I see the biggest game changer this time as being when Huckabee asked the inevitable ‘Lucifer’ question about Sarah Palin’s Third Wave religious beleifs? Hmmm, wonder how he will phrase it? If he throws that out there will be a war within the party, and Romney will not be in the middle of this one.

  50. ItalJoeFL Says:

    No mention of Rudy? Anti-New York or something, Mark? Open up your mind.

  51. AKReport Says:

    New 2012 Projections: http://republicanrankings.blogspot.com/

  52. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    Rudy who? Didn’t he play for Notre Dame or something? ;)

  53. McQueen Says:

    Lol, some people are great supporters, unfortunately they are living in a parallel universe.

  54. McQueen Says:

    49. Didn’t make a difference, not a blip in 2008. Or with supporters. You must be reading forum posts by braindead liberals.

    Romney brings in something new, something that EVERY candidate will hit him with, the stench of Romneycare in 2007, fanned by the odour of Obamacare.

    LOL. Switch to Pawlenty maybe?

  55. WSU Says:

    might I ask, #51 – exactly what are these projections being based off of?

    your calls seem to change every few days, yet I can’t think of one poll or major news story that would make that map change so regularly.

  56. McQueen Says:

    Having read some other articles by McKinnon, I think there is a joke here in the title, Romney Rises again. Dead man walking, waiting to get buried?

  57. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    #54 – Pawlenty who?

  58. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    #54 – Nobody asked the Lucifer question in 2008….Huckabee won’t be able to resist, either himself or a surgate.

    Obama wasn’t exactly in a positin to do so….and most of her current supporters don’t even know about it.

  59. narciso Says:

    Who cares, your faith is your faith, we have bigger issues to deal with,

  60. Molly Says:

    I have one for you if he wins his senate race: Rand Paul.

  61. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    I’m not talking about my faith….was talking about Palin’s.

  62. ParamusParis Says:

    As I have said in as many places as possible. I want Romney to run, and I want him to pick Palin for VP. The dynamics of Romney-Palin 2012 would be incredible, just incredible. And along the road to winning, this ticket, more than any other, would force the American Left to commit political suicide, possibly bring down the MSM once and for all, and just slay so many bad forces. Romney’s weakness, perceived and real, are compensated for by Palin’s strengths, and vice versa. And being an active VP, as well as, perhaps Sec. of Energy, gets Palin on deck to be President.

    Please, PLEASE consider, and repeat this meme–America needs it!

  63. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    Paramus, only one problem with that at this point…when is Palin going to do her home work and prepare to be President? If she waits until she is VP, it could hurt us during the general.

  64. ParamusParis Says:

    #63, Uh…where have you been? Assuming you can accept her resignation from Gov. as not being politically mortal (I don’t), she is all over the place, including on Facebook, addressing key issues, taunting the Dems, etc. Palin needs to continue the tear she has been since stepping down. She has great timing; she is making the right people (er, the Left people!) angry. I disagree with your premise, largely, except that, yes, she does have somewhat of the thin resume, which is why the VP slot is her ticket to the Presidency. The VP slot is, to an extent, the way she auditions for the Presidency. Email me (website link) if you want additional thoughts (that don’t develop here).

    By the way, FWIW, my perspective is that of someone deep in Dem land (Brooklyn, NY), who used to be a Dem…

  65. MouseWife Says:

    Why is Scarborough less qualified than Palin? They’ve spent roughly the same amount of time in office. And if you listen to them speak, he certainly seems to have a better grasp of foreign and economic policy. Yes, conservatives love her, but that’s not enough to win the general election. Joe has a solid conservative voting record and is a federalist on social issues. Considering the heavy emphasis on the economy and jobs and the growing “get the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom” sentiment, Joe seems perfect for the job.

  66. ParamusParis Says:

    #65 “Yes, conservatives love her, but that’s not enough to win the general election.”

    Which is why she should run with Romney. The band of votes Romney-Palin gets goes from conservative over to moderate (fairly or unfairly).

    Scarborough? The former Congressman with the radio and/or tv shows? Uh…what are you smoking?

  67. WSU Says:

    I don’t think Palin is what Romney needs. He needs a southerner, Demint or Jindal.

  68. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    I really like DeMint, and I was impressed with McDonell.. seemed like a good campaigner to me, but could be a little early for him. I usually like Jindal also, just the one speech was pretty weak.

  69. Jonathan Says:

    #67:

    Romney would need a Southerner or a Midwesterner. A Romney-Jindal ticket could be potent, but so could a Romney-Daniels ticket. With Mitch Daniels on the ticket, you get a double-down on fiscal conservatism and it shows a nominee who was innovative in the private sector (Romney) and one who was innovative, yet frugal with the public’s money (Daniels).

  70. Tommy Boy Says:

    Is this Paramus from Ace of Spades?

  71. ParamusParis Says:

    #70 Guilty–do you think someone else is going to use that moniker? ;-)

  72. Tommy Boy Says:

    Heh heh, good point on the moniker.

    However, I think that’s a pretty bad team that you are proposing.

  73. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    Actually tommy Boy, if Palin would do her homework and prepare, it would be a powerful team, very powerful.

  74. Tommy Boy Says:

    Illinois,

    It’s a horrible team even if both of them were playing at their full potential. You know I’m into the “narrative” stuff and I just don’t see either of them fits within the other’s narrative even if they both were on fire.

  75. Jonathan Says:

    #74:

    Romney-Palin: the technocrat and the hockey mom. They go together about as well as catfish and ice cream.

  76. ParamusParis Says:

    #73, What is Palin not doing that she should? Write papers for some institute? Seriously, what?

    #67, take Palin out of the mix, and maybe that conventional wisdom works, maybe. But Jindal? Fairly or not, I don’t think he would be much of an asset to any nominee. On the other hand, the Senators who have been speaking up, and, at least so far, somehow keeping MADICARE/Obamacare from advancing, they impress me. Sen. Kyle, for example.

  77. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    Palin voted for him last time so I guess she likes him pretty well.

  78. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    Let’s hope this time she campaigns for him.

  79. Jonathan Says:

    #78:

    Who was Sarah Palin during the 08 primaries? A nobody. Her endorsement wouldn’t have meant anything before August of 08. Plus, if Romney had become the nominee, I doubt he would have picked her as his running mate.

  80. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    I made no claims that it would have meant anything, and I sure as heck don’t think Romney would have even though about using her for a mate. No way Jose!

  81. ParamusParis Says:

    #75 No, you miss the brilliance of Romney-Palin: you want two people with different, complementary strengths, not the same strengths. And you want two people who will get votes from as wide a swath of voters as plausible.

    But first, Romney isn’t a technocrat; a techncrat is someone whose primary credential is in government (the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is a “technocrat”; the French are into technocrats, we really don’t have them running for major office). Romney’s base experience is in managing businesses, to which he added the government experience, and the Olympic experience.

    The brilliance of Romney-Palin is that Romney is “officially” really smart, and experienced in business, but he isn’t perceived as especially charismatic; he’s dull, even. He’s also not perceived as clearly conservative (I question this, but perception is what matters) Palin on the other hand is perceived as more conservative, is charisma defined, and has a more right-brained (creative) intelligence. And, alas, the LDS issue is negated for all intents and purposes by Palin’s religious background.

    Would a significant number of voters not vote for Palin because she is perceived as too conservative and/or too inexperienced–YES. Would a significant number of voters vote for Romney not vote for him with Palin as VP choice? No. Would anyone vote for Romney because he picks Palin OMG, YES. That’s why Romney-Palin makes sense.

  82. hamaca Says:

    Sarah Palin sounds fine when she gets to research her answers in advance–like for Facebook and softball interviews. Otherwise, she comes across great to fans who want someone like themselves. When she’s up against competition in debates or MSM personalities, her intellect come across to many as lacking–not poor, just not up to par with the others.

  83. narciso Says:

    No, of course not, the desire to just accept any crumb from the Obama administration, was too strong, frankly you can’t deny that she was correct about what the Obama administration would bring

  84. hamaca Says:

    81. You may be right if the Palin factor is enough to fire up conservatives, moderates, independents and undecideds enough to overcome the Democrat strategy, as unfair as it may seem, of showing clips of her bungling interviews with the “heartbeat from the Presidency” message.

  85. Jonathan Says:

    #81:

    A Romney-Palin would bring nothing to the party electorally. We are already going to win Alaska, and unless Obama is heading for a landslide defeat of epic proportions, we probably aren’t going to carry Massachusetts. Plus, combined, Romney-Palin have only 6 years in government at any major level. Electorally speaking, Palin and Romney never stood before the voters of their states after their service in office to be judged upon their records. The Dems could go after them on that, saying “when the going gets tough, Romney and Palin get going”. On top of that, both Romney and Palin carry scars from the 08 campaign and are probably (along with Huckabee) the most divisive figures in the party.

  86. ParamusParis Says:

    #82 Honestly, that was one of my concerns as well, and it still is, but as I’ve watched her, and listened to her speak, the concern becomes less and less founded. But yes, she still needs to prove you wrong over the next two years to even be a credible VP candidate–Joe Biden should not be the benchmark for VP; dare I say, however, that I’m not even sure Obama is more of an intellect than Biden? Is it that obvious that he is sans teleprompter?

  87. James Says:

    I support Thune

  88. ParamusParis Says:

    #81 Come on. Romney isn’t going to carry MA; and Palin’s value isn’t about Alaska. As a simplification, Romney’s appear is more centrist, and more urban/suburban. Palin’s appeal is more rural, and southern–including places where it doesn’t snow ;-)

  89. hamaca Says:

    85. Only 6 years in government–I thought people were tired of career politicians.

  90. hamaca Says:

    86. Say Romney gets the nomination–he gets to choose his VP candidate. Do you think he’d go for electoral impact or for what he’d have in mind for the VP to accomplish if they win? I think they may be two different individuals with different capabilities.

  91. AKReport Says:

    Palin-Rudy or Palin-Pawlenty will be a good combo.

  92. Jonathan Says:

    #89:

    People are looking for government that works. Take Bob McDonnell for instance. He was a “career politician”, yet he offered ideas and solutions to the problems facing the people of Virginia, along with a track record of having done things. The end result; he won by a huge landslide. That is why Mitch Daniels would be such a great choice. He’s been a marvelously effective Governor who has offered innovative ideas for Indiana and the people responded by giving him a second term by a landslide, even as Obama was carrying the state. That is a problem for both Palin and Romney; they never asked the voters for a referendum on their stewardship of their states.

  93. ParamusParis Says:

    90. VP is for votes, unless you’re Obama, who was trying to reassure people. How Joe Biden reassure anyone of anything is beyond me, but I wasn’t voting for Obama so…

  94. hamaca Says:

    92. I don’t know that Obama asked for a referendum either–he quit to become President. Romney didn’t run again, presumably to run for President. I would think that voters sometimes don’t appreciate electing someone only to have them spend a significant amount of their time in office running for something else. I understand your point, however, and the Democrat marketing machine would certainly find a way to exploit it.

  95. Jonathan Says:

    #90:

    Depends. He might want a VP who reinforces a narrative, whatever that might be. In that case, he picks them regardless of the state they come from. A good example of that would be Clinton picking Gore in 92. Back before he went global warming nuts, Gore was seen as a moderate, southern Democrat, same as Clinton. If Romney is looking for electoral votes, he might choose someone like Daniels (we need Indiana’s votes back), or a southerner (to help win back NC, VA, and FL). Or, he could try and surprise people with an out-of-the-box pick, like McCain did with Palin or Bush did with Quayle. Finally, if he needs to reassure people, he goes with a Biden or Cheney pick.

  96. hamaca Says:

    93. I’m not sure Joe Biden reassures Joe Biden…

  97. Jonathan Says:

    #93:

    Biden was “reassuring” because he was a well-known figure who had significant government experience. Plus, Obama probably felt that Biden wasn’t going to lose him the election so no harm no foul. Honestly, if I had been on Obama’s team, I would have suggested Evan Bayh, Brian Schweitzer (Gov of Montana), Mike Easley (former Gov of NC), Mark Warner, or Bill Nelson (Sen from Florida).

  98. hamaca Says:

    95. I think Romney would face a dilemna (I’m not saying it’s a foregone conclusion he wins the nomination–just for the sake of the current discussion). The executive in him is going to want to “hire” a VP who will have much more of an impact than the average VP (Cheney excepted). But, he’ll realize as well, that he needs to get elected in the first place.

  99. ParamusParis Says:

    OK, and I’ll say it first YES, ROMNEY NEEDS TO DO A (BETTER?) JOB EXPLAINING AND/OR MEA CULPA’ING HIMSELF FOR MA’s HEALTHCARE SITUATION; maybe he will during his up and coming book tour? What he needs to do will partially turn on what happens with/to Obamacare over the next few days? Weeks? Months? I am not clear myself of much on the subject; whether he made a mistake; whether a good idea mutated in the legislature when he was there; or if things turned bad after. I JUST DON’T KNOW.

  100. Jonathan Says:

    #98:

    Those two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. For instance, if he does pick Palin, she could energize enough of her supporters to maybe make the difference in a close state or two. After that, he could put her in charge of working with the Dep. of Energy on oil exploration and the like.

  101. hamaca Says:

    95. Palin clearly can get large numbers of people fired up. If the strategy is to counter Obama’s appeal (if he still has any significant measure of it by then), some may think Palin is the best VP alternative. Alternatively, what if the strategy is more toward contrasting, e.g. “if you want government run efficiently, don’t hire a rock star for the job”, would a combination of the most capable, such as Romney and a lesser-known, not necessarily dynamic VP actually be more effective? Such as Daniels, Thune, McDonnell?

  102. ParamusParis Says:

    #95, Unless a lot changes very quickly, the 2012 narrative is going to be: we need free market competence to de-Obama the economy and Washington. Romney has experience turning companies around; he even has, if only psychologically from his dad, auto industry experience to “de-nationalize” GM (which one reason he can do well in the Midwest).

    And maybe, just maybe, by 2012, the disgraceful sham/fraud/travesty of CO2 warming will be exposed to the point where domestic energy production becomes a priority (with or without an attack on or, G-d forbid, a nuke attack by Iran)–That’s one of Sarah Palin’s strong suits.

    Anyway, goodnight from the City that never sleeps–or votes right ;-)

  103. ParamusParis Says:

    #101: Actually, with Romney and Palin, you get both: “boring competence” AND excitement; Palin doesn’t negative Romney, and Romney doesn’t negate Palin; that’s why it would be such a powerful ticket!

    Hey, I put my Twitter URL in the “Website” box above–neat idea for the blogless ;-)

  104. Jonathan Says:

    #101:

    If competence is the theme that Romney would run on, he needs to pick a Daniels, Thune or even McDonnell. If he is worried about firing up the people, then Palin would be a better choice, However, I don’t think whoever our nominee is will need help firing people up. Look at 2004. The Dems had a very unexciting nominee and nearly beat us. By 2012, if things continue as they are, the Republican nominee will have plenty of people energized to throw Obama and Biden out of office.

  105. hamaca Says:

    99. Perhaps just the opposite–maybe Romney needs to explain with pride what his concept was, i.e. implementing a system that actually required more responsibility and self-sufficiency on the part of MA residents. The ones who don’t like it are the ones who prefer the entitlement culture. It is not government run, it is not at all ObamaCare, it’s more conservative at its core than what they had before, e.g. tax-payers paying for the emergency room visits of those who didn’t bother the obtain insurance or who were freeloading. It also had the compassionate effect of insuring many of those who were truly in need. And more than 70% of MA voters like it better than the prior system.

    That’s how I’d recommend framing it.

  106. hamaca Says:

    104. Agreed.

  107. Heath Says:

    Alex you are dead wrong about the next in line theory.

    Why else would Dole, McCain, etc have won.

    That said Romney has so many things going for him that it’s unbecoming even to mention that he probably wins anyway under the tried and tested next in line theory (fact).

  108. Alex Knepper Says:

    A Romney-Palin would bring nothing to the party electorally. We are already going to win Alaska, and unless Obama is heading for a landslide defeat of epic proportions, we probably aren’t going to carry Massachusetts.

    Yeah, because that ticket of Illinois-Delaware just bombed for the Democrats.

    And the whole Texas-Wyoming thing nearly did us in!

  109. Alex Knepper Says:

    107 – No. You didn’t read the whole thread. Between Matthew and I, the “theory” should be put to rest.

  110. Jonathan Says:

    #108:

    The last time either party had a nominee who lost his home state and still won the election was Woodrow Wilson in 1916. He lost New Jersey and his running mate, Thomas Marshall, lost Indiana. Ever since, the winner of each presidential election has carried their home state. That’s a rather tough trend to beat.

    On the bright side, with Romney as the nominee, we’d win Utah with over 99% of the vote…

  111. MPC Says:

    People I think are selective about the next in line theory, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. While our party *does* have a penchant for only nominating well-known national figures, whenever one wins, folks will always head off to declare that one the obvious next in line. If Mike Huckabee wins in 2012, folks will argue that he was the “next in line” and likewise for Palin or Romney if they win. Neither of them is any more or less worse off than the other in terms of recognition. All are well known figures, so all are “next in line”

    Tim Pawlenty is an example of someone history would tend to disfavor. He will need to become a well-known leader before he achieves the nomination, as too many people will line up behind the trusted faces.

  112. Alex Knepper Says:

    The last time either party had a nominee who lost his home state and still won the election was Woodrow Wilson in 1916. He lost New Jersey and his running mate, Thomas Marshall, lost Indiana. Ever since, the winner of each presidential election has carried their home state. That’s a rather tough trend to beat.

    Correlation vs. Causation…the fact is that both parties tend to nominate figures who are from states that are solid on their own side, or swing.

    Al Gore won the popular vote and lost his home state.

  113. Heath Says:

    Actually AK I’ve been reading your thoughts on the subject for the last 18 months or so and it always makes me laugh.

    To whoever mentioned Romney not running for re-election that was simply because he was far too conservative for NH and could not have won.

  114. Heath Says:

    No way Palin is next in line.

    No way in the world you can compare someone investing 18 months and $50 million and finishing second – to some no-name 18 month governor plucked out of no-where for 2 months because McCain felt he needed a female.

    No way in the world so please no-one ever again that Palin is next in line.

  115. Jonathan Says:

    #113:

    Then explain why Romney got elected the first time in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire. Unless he changed his views, which the Rombots claim never happens, then why wasn’t he too conservative the first time?

  116. Martha Says:

    Romney/Palin is highly unlikely. Romney is not a gambler, and that would be a doosie.

    Palin’s performance is too weak and unpredictable. Her book tour interviews were generally very poor.

  117. ParamusParis Says:

    #116 Her book tour interviews were generally very poor.

    Respectfully, you are delusional. If they were anything worse than “very good,” the media would have ripped her.

  118. Heath Says:

    Romney got elected because he was an Olympic hero who agreed not to change the abortion laws and pretended not to be a conservative.

    WHILST IN OFFICE HE MADE UNPOPULAR PRO LIFE DECISIONS EG ON STEM STEM RESEARCH.

  119. Heath Says:

    Lol people though Palin book tour interview were good?!

    Wow she does have a low bar to reach after Couric etc!

  120. Heath Says:

    Bad spelling time for bed!

  121. AKReport Says:

    If Obama finds himself in an energy crisis (likely) Palin will destroy him.

  122. Heath Says:

    The funnies come out at 5am!

  123. Martha Says:

    117. I watched them. They were almost as bad as in 08. Not quite, but clearly not much of an improvement. That’s just not going to cut it.

  124. ConservativeRepublican Says:

    My sister and I were watching one of the interviews about a week ago, and in response to one question, she got really lost in her answer to the point that neither of us had the foggiest idea what she had just said. It was terrible. We were both just shaking our heads in amazement as to how this lady had ever gotten to where she is.

  125. ItalJoeFL Says:

    How bout this ticket:

    ANY REPUBLICAN/ANY REPUBLICAN IN 2012!

  126. ItalJoeFL Says:

    In other words…ANYONE BUT OBAMA

  127. Chadballer Says:

    ItalJoeFL-I could support that ticket

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main