Why didn't Pataki run in 2012?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

In 2008, he would've been overshadowed by Giuliani.

This time, he's overshadowed by....everyone.

But in 2012, I think he would've been a strong candidate. His record as governor of NY wasn't any more liberal than Romney's as governor of MA (was it?). He could've moved to the right just like Romney did.

[ElectionsGuy]

Don't know. Pataki had all the ability to run then and didn't. Maybe he wanted to full effects of an Obama presidency to kick in so that the Republicans had a better chance of winning (there were still a lot of people blaming Bush in 2012).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because most of the GOP didn't want to run in an Obama reelect. Thought 2016 would be an easier shot to take on Hilary, but GOP is finding out, due to another economic growth, its still tough to win WH.

[Reaganfan]

Because most of the GOP didn't want to run in an Obama reelect. Thought 2016 would be an easier shot to take on Hilary, but GOP is finding out, due to another economic growth, its still tough to win WH.

You guys are a little too overconfident. Obama was re-elected (by far less than his original election) before Obamacare fully kicked in, before the Ferguson and Black Lives Matter stuff began alienating even more white voters, before ISIS existed. The world has changed. Who knows what type of electorate we are looking at.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Because most of the GOP didn't want to run in an Obama reelect. Thought 2016 would be an easier shot to take on Hilary, but GOP is finding out, due to another economic growth, its still tough to win WH.

You guys are a little too overconfident. Obama was re-elected (by far less than his original election) before Obamacare fully kicked in, before the Ferguson and Black Lives Matter stuff began alienating even more white voters, before ISIS existed. The world has changed. Who knows what type of electorate we are looking at.

Regardless of your views on whether the 2016 election is more winnable for Republicans, Pataki's chances remain the same, zero.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Guiliani stepped ahead of him in 2008 as the 911 GOPer, and Christie was US Attny during crisis as well. All three fortunes are zero as well.

[andrew_c]

He was waiting for Obama to implode.

[MATTROSE94]

Because most of the GOP didn't want to run in an Obama reelect. Thought 2016 would be an easier shot to take on Hilary, but GOP is finding out, due to another economic growth, its still tough to win WH.

You guys are a little too overconfident. Obama was re-elected (by far less than his original election) before Obamacare fully kicked in, before the Ferguson and Black Lives Matter stuff began alienating even more white voters, before ISIS existed. The world has changed. Who knows what type of electorate we are looking at.

I agree with you 100%. Obama's second term turned out to be pretty mediocre and even though the economy is growing, it is still in a very unstable state. In addition, Hillary Clinton is not turning out to be the unstoppable force that so many forum members feel she is and is actually quite a flawed candidate in reality. My gut feeling is that at this point, the Republicans are favored in the Presidential race, though I do feel that the Senate map still strongly favors the Democrats.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He had a website (which was posted here) that literally was a George Pataki for President website with an announcement video and everything else. I still don't know why he announced he wasn't running the following day.

[Badger]

The bigger question is why he's running in 2016.

[Kingpoleon]

In 2012?

He could have if Romney didn't basically keep a dictator-like hold over his infrastructure for a nationwide campaign from 2008 to 2012. In other words, take out an important member or faction of Romney's team, let Pataki form his own and then capture and mix with Romney's former staff members, and run just barely to Romney's left - talk about removing the individual mandate from ObamaCare, perhaps a "Balanced Budget by 2017" plan, and then take a center-right view on immigration: Lock up criminals, deport foreign-criminals, and put a fine on the other illegal immigrants while securing the border.

With that, Pataki could just emphasize the budget in New Hampshire, win there, take Vermont and Florida, and from there zoom to victory.

[/]

I think he actually could have had a chance.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pataki is pro-choice, and religious conservatives enjoy something of a de facto veto over an unacceptable Presidential candidate.  The Giuliani of 2008 was different; the GOP was hard-pressed to win and Giuliani was still somewhat heroic.  By 2012, the GOP was more confident that it could possibly beat Obama, and a pro-choice Republcan was just not going to make it.

Besides all that, Pataki is boring.  There's no compelling reason to want him to be President.  He's a Cabinet Secretary.  He's not even a VP choice.  He was an OK Governor of NY State with no star quality whatsoever.   He's also an example of how the Mayor of NYC often outshines the Governor of NY State.