Talk Elections

Thune has been pretty successful in South Dakota politics, serving three terms in the House and is probably going to win re-election in the Senate with ease this year.  He has charm, charisma and he's family-oriented. 

For those of you that see my posts, you know I'm a moderate, "RINO" I suppose.  That being said, I would strongly support Thune for 2012.

1) He comes from an outside state, SD, which could serve as an advantage, similar to Carter (GA) in 1976.

2) He has the conservative establishment behind him

3) He doesn't come across as one of those ignorant types.  For example, he's said that while he is strongly pro life and against gay marriage, he understands and RESPECTS the other side's opinion.  The tolerance factor I like.

4) He's a very good speaker and doesn't make gaffes.

5) From what I read, his record is clean.  There is no dirty work on him, which is an advantage.

6) His location in the Plains/Midwest could be an advantage to the GOP, which is rtying to still break into the upper midwest (although we got IA back in 2004

7) He's got charisma.

While the cupboard appears bare, I think this is our man for 2012, or maybe 2016, if he feels 2012 becomes unwinnable depending on the economy in the next two years.

Yes, Thune is the best candidate at the moment but any 'serious' candidate would win easily.

Nobody is taking down Obama so easily.  With the charisma he's got and the media being on his side, any solid Republican would still have a very hard time, even if the economy doesn't improve.  The electoral map doesn't help the GOP either now.  There has to be a breakthrough in the northeast somewhere or in the midwest. 

I still think Thune because of the reasons I listed, is our best shot.

He's basically Obama in a Republican's body.

By that, I mean image, story, positions (will present himself as a moderate, but will be tied to the fringes of his party), etc.

And possibly far more competent. He'll have far more experience under him than Obama ever did.

That said, I still abhor his politics.

Yes, like Barack Obama, John Thune is a clone of George W. Bush. I think America has had enough of the disastrous policies of Bush/Obama/Thune.

I still think a lot of you underestimate Obama.  He's seen as very likeable and among a lot of voters, "he can do no wrong".  Reagan was the same way, as was JFK.

Charisma buys a ton of votes.  That's why I think Thune helps us in that he has a lot of positive energy/charisma too.

What's "positive" about Thune?

There's absolutely nothing special about him. He's boring and horrible. Thune sucks.

Are you just a miserable human being?  Move to Canada.  Maybe you'll feel better.

No, I think this country has had enough of being governed by your style of politics.

I actually did a project on a fake 2012 election with Thune as the GOP nominee. I agree with all of your reasons. Your analysis is spot on.

Your arguments are very valid and reasonable. However, I will state my opinion again: I think Obama will beat any GOPer in 2012 because the economy will continue to improve and many people will begin feeling the recovery. Thus, Obama could just say in 2012 "Bush screwed over our economy. I fixed it. Elect another Republican with Bush's policies and the economy will go down the drain again."

I think Thune will come across likable to the American people, and doesn't have the baggage that other candidates have. However, he has a major flaw - South Dakota is not a major air hub. That could prevent him from winning the nomination over Gingrich, who has Atlanta, and Romney, who has Boston.

Can someone please explain this air-hub theory to me?

No, Obama is black, the media isn't on his side, and the map still favors Republicans heavily.  It was a fluke Obama was elected in the first place, and the charisma is the wrong kind, alas.  Oh, and all signs point to the economy remaining very bad for many years.

The map is not favorable to Republicans at all.  There is 0 viability in NY/CA, IL, WA and most of the states in the notheast.  Too may electoral votes lost instantly. Obama proved that he was serious in making inroads in the south and made a splash by winning VA and NC.  He also won conservative IN with the youth vote.  He was also relatively close in GA too.

If the media was not on Obama's side, then why did 90% of those outlets endorse him?  The biggest question right now with the GOP is this, and it's the same that was being said by Democrats in the 80s as they put up with losers like Mondale and Dukakis, do they have a clue how to win?  With idiots like Angle running in what should have been a shoe-in to knock out Harry Reid and choosing Farina who is not going to beat Boxer (although the polls may be halfway close), I'm convinced the party doesn't care if they win as long as the severe right is on the top of the ticket, or, they just have no clue

Apparently it's easier to campaign if there is an air hub near you because you have easier access to flying. Pbrower can explain it better. After all, he came up with it.

This thread is pretty indicative of how clueless the Republicans are. If they really think nominating George W. Bush III is their "best chance", Obama might as well just go on vacation for Campaign 2012.

George W. Bush's political views are somewhat in line with Republican voters. The ideal candidate you have, which is much more libertarian, has little to no chance. I doubt even a moderate will be able to win. In 2012, Republicans will try as hard as possible to get a conservative candidate nominated.

Go away.  Nobody wants you here and like I told you before, if you're that pissed off with America, pack your bags and get the hell out of here.  I'm as a liberal republican as they come, and I've stated the reasons why I think Thune would be strong for the party.  Nobody cares about your useless opinion or life.

John Thune is even more out-of-touch with Americans than John McCain was. He doesn't appeal to conservatives, he doesn't appeal to liberals, he doesn't appeal to moderates, he doesn't appeal to libertarians, he doesn't appeal to the tea parties.

In fact, a guy who voted for TARP is liable to incite a third-party tea party challenge. And remember, this won't be like 2008 again: the tea parties have infiltrated the GOP itself in many places.

 The only people who seem to support Thune are those in his strange and unwarranted personality cult.

This pretty much. Thune is basically just another Bush-Republican non-entity. I haven't seen any speculation or support for a serious run for him outside of internet politicos.

where's the link?

He's boring and regularly gets caught not knowing what he's talking about.  At least Bush was interesting.  NO NO NO.  Not only would we get another Republican hack canidate, but the election will be really boring and Obama will win handily. 

I think Thune has far more potential than anyone seems to think.  He could be underestimated.

That being said, I think his state is too small and out of the way to have influence in the general election.  He's almost as far away as Alaska. 

I'll have to see how he connects during the campaign.  He would be a very good debater. 

For now, I have him as the most likely VP candidate.

Charm, charisma, and speaking is good for hollywood and bad for the country. South Dakota is a state that is at a big disadvantage size wise to build a base. The establishment of the GOP would support him, but that's any nominee. However, he would have an advantage in IA and MN. Record and gaffes are fine right now but the liberal media will create them for him which is something Republicans just have to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see any GOP beat Obama in the next election, but I think he's more of a running mate.

Right because a libertarian would definitely be a better option for the GOP
lolololololololololololololololoolololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thune is the most in touch candidate I can think of. He has 2 kids and a wife and is from rural South Dakota. Didn't you see the ads about his girls saying "vote for our dad" while his wife was making breakfast for everyone before they started their day? Now that's an American family.

Obama can make an ad like that as well.

Yes, indeed, a libertarian is our only option.

It's Ron Paul or ruin in 2012- for the country, not the GOP.

Except that his wife doesn't know how to cook.

Proof?

It's logistics, and it can explain why it is not advantageous to be from a state that doesn't have a big air hub. Since about 1960 all strong campaigns have been done by air, and even if the candidate has a private jet, not everyone in the campaign can so travel. Such staff get stuck with commercial travel.

The air hubs closest to South Dakota are Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Denver -- and that's where some critical campaign staff will need to go through to get to places like Indianapolis, Cleveland, Richmond, Charlotte, Orlando, and Albuquerque.  At that Obama has an obvious advantage with staff located in greater Chicago, which has O'Hare International Airport. Airline transfers are always tricky, and if campaign staff must get to such a location as Charlottesville, Virginia from Sioux Falls, South Dakota one must make transfers in Minneapolis and Washington.

John Thune had better locate his campaign somewhere other than South Dakota. Like Chicago.

It was incredibly severe with Sarah Palin.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with this hypothesis of yours which has long-been debunked? Even ardent Democratic hacks find your "air hub theory" ridiculous.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself by advocating for radical candidates and ideologies?

John Thune would be a better VP. Senators don't usually win the presidency.

I embarrass myself by not associating with the criminals and ideologies that have destroyed this country? I think it's the other way around. I would be embarrassed to be a neocon.

Warren G. Harding, JFK, and Obama did.

Its so rare that a Senator can win but it seems that a young Senator is more exciting than a Senate lifer. 

And no one would EVER believe that a family like his is like that. Oh yea that's right the first lady doesn't have maids and servants to wait on her hand and foot is what people will believe outside of your party. Plus he's from Chicago where the traditional and rural American family life style is looked down up and crime runs rampant alongside backroom political deals. Obama has never been seen as in touch or one of the regular people.

So you're saying that an African-American family isn't really American? Shame on you. And most Americans lived in urban areas for 90 years now. No one cares anymore whether a candidate is from an urban or rural area. There is a lot of crime and corruption in most cities in the U.S. What's your point? And Obama is more of an average guy than both Bushes ever were. Obama was born middle class and had to work his way up, while the Bushes just inherited a lot of money from their families and had everything given to them.

Thune seems more like a running mate to me, a good pick for a more liberal republican nominee that wants to shore up the base.  Not that we're going to get a liberal republican but you get the point.

No what are you talking about? You're off subject and trolling. Stop trying to use race to score a political point!!! No it's not the area they're from but the lifestyle they live and no one ever said it wasn't. Obama was given everything for free. Welfare as a child, grants as a student, all paid for by our tax dollars.

A quick lesson on political geography involving John Thune:


()

He will win South Dakota and the states most politically similar to South Dakota (essentially the High Plains States from North Dakota to Kansas, except that he might not win NE-02, which is very urban Greater Omaha). It's a fairly-homogeneous region dissimilar from any other part of the country. Omaha votes separately, and one would get similar results with Kansas City, Kansas if Kansas split its electoral votes as Nebraska does. It's a small area politically with only sixteen electoral votes.  

As you can see below, Texas (orange) is bigger with 37 electoral votes in 2012, and the states that Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 won but Obama got hammered in 2008 and won't win any of except in a landslide in 2012 (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee,  and West Virginia -- light green) give even one more electoral vote for Thune in 2012 than Texas alone. Two of the states most polarized politically by race -- Mississippi and Alabama (dark green) offer one fewer sure electoral vote for him than does his dark-blue "home" region. Mormon country (yellow) and two states (Alaska, Oklahoma -- in olive) in which oil interests dominate effectively seal the sure things.

()

Those comprise 124 sure votes for any Republican running against Obama in 2012. They all went by margins of 10% or more, and the Favorite Son effect knocks out South Dakota out of any contention for any Democrat. The Dakotas, which Thune definitely wins (I am not sure that Huckabee or Barbour wins them) make another. The rest range from possibility to sure things for Obama. Least likely of the rest are in light blue because certain things must go right for Obama to win them.

He wins Arizona if the immigration issue blows up on the GOP, and Georgia and South Carolina (light blue) should he get a satisfying resolution of the military situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. The really-close states of 2008 could go either way, as could Colorado and Virginia. Aside from NE-02, Thune could afford to lose only one of those states in 2012, and that one is Montana.

()

Before you make the claim that because he is from South Dakota he can be effective in winning Minnesota and Iowa -- then consider the argument that because Obama's political base is in Illinois he has an excellent chance of winning Indiana. OK, Obama did win Indiana in part because he spent lots of time campaigning there early and his electoral  effort threw huge resources into the state, and I can't imagine any Democratic nominee winning the state in a close election since Truman (who barely lost the state in 1948). Kennedy, Gore, and Kerry all got clobbered there; Bill Clinton, one of the slickest politicians as we have ever had, won every state surrounding Indiana in two Presidential elections but did not win Indiana.  

But note well: the argument that Thune could win Minnesota or Iowa because of their proximity to South Dakota is much like the argument that Obama could win Indiana in 2012 again or Missouri in 2012 because of its proximity to Illinois. It will take much more than proximity to Illinois to make Indiana or Missouri a win for Obama in 2012, and it will take much more than proximity for Thune to win Minnesota or Iowa.

Does anyone argue that because Illinois borders Kentucky that Obama has a good chance of winning it in 2012? Illinois' border with Kentucky is in fact longer than is South Dakota's border with Iowa. As for that, westernmost Tennessee is closer to southern Illinois than it is to eastern Tennessee, let alone much of the rest of the South. Does anyone say that Obama carries Tennessee in 2012?  Heck, Bill Clinton never won Texas -- even though he is from the part of Arkansas nearest Texas.

In 2008, Obama won Minnehaha County, South Dakota. That county contains the only real metro area in South Dakota -- Sioux Falls. I could make the case that Sioux Falls is more like Minnesota or Iowa in its politics than it is the rest of South Dakota. Thune might win Minnehaha County because of the Favorite Son effect, but the Favorite Son effect won't extend across a state line.

In deep red are the states and DC that no Republican has won since 1992, inclusive. All of them voted for Obama by at least 10% in 2008. That is 243 electoral votes.   In medium red are those that have voted  for a Republican nominee only once since beginning in 1992 -- 15 electoral votes -- 258 electoral votes practically lost before the election begins except with an extraordinary Republican nominee or an Obama failure.  In pink is Nevada, whose six electoral votes went to Obama by more than 13%. That will be a hard state to win back.

()

Any GOP nominee seems to have lost 243 electoral votes before the primary season begins and to have nearly lost 264. There's just too little wiggle room. The legitimate swing states of 2008 are too geographically dispersed and too dissimilar as a group that any specific strategy can win them all with appeals addressed to them individually. To secure them all a Republican nominee will need appeals that work in them all and probably cut deeply at the same into Obama support and the habit if voting Democratic nationwide, already very difficult.

We need recognize that the victories of George W. Bush were remarkable. Whatever his deficiencies he had as a person and as a politician, his campaign found ways in which to win about everything not a sure thing for Democrats. Such might not be repeatable if the Democrats have a candidate who has any acumen as a campaigner and the Republicans run on the Dubya agenda.   

1. The Cosby Show, a show about a highly-successful black family, got excellent TV ratings for a long time. The Huxtable family was a very normal family that happened to be black.

2. What do you mean -- "normal family life is looked down upon in Chicago"? Those people who have broken families would often prefer a "normal" family. Urban families can be quite normal, but for some reason the family doesn't ordinarily milk its own cows.

If you are talking about gay and lesbian families -- such couples (and, yes families) would like to be accepted as normal. I heartily encourage people to accept homosexuality as normal because it is inevitable.

3. America is mostly urban (if you include Suburbia). Have you noticed that Suburbia now has urban problems such as traffic jams, pollution, poverty, unemployment, crime, drugs, and high costs of public services?  Barack Obama is the first candidate to recognize Suburbia as legitimately urban. Why not? The dividing line between a core city and its suburbs is often ambiguous.

4. Rural America isn't as idyllic as you think. The rural county in which I live is drowning in meth. Meth is to Rural America what heroin was to ghettos in the 1970s.

pbrower, a lot of those "swing" states won't be in 2012.  Here is your map from the EV Calculator.  It shows Obama with 169 Ev's, but with the new Census distribution he will have a bit less then that.

()

Now, because of the oil spill, Florida is almost certainly in the GOP column.  Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia swing back to the GOP column because there will be a higher voter turnout amongst conservatives and because he won't be able to run a campaign as effectove as "Hope" and "Change".  The EV gap has just closed considerably.

()

Next, I think his regional appeal will allow him to win NE-02 while holding Montana and Missouri.  Now it's very close, according to 270towin.com Obama is barely ahead, 264-247.

()

Now, Thune has to win both Ohio and Colorado.  Honestly, I don't know whether he will be able to and it's really impossible to make any kind of prediction before we have even gotten to midterms on which way these states will swing.

Obama is at 41% in Colorado.

The thing is, how would Thune match up against Obama in Colorado?  Honestly I have no idea.

It's a reddish purple state. Thune would win.

Florida goes back to the GOP because of the oil spill?

The swift and effective response ensures that the spill is off people's minds long before November 2012.  The solution to the gusher in the Gulf was an engineering solution -- not a political solution.

The oil spill is the result of lax enforcement of safety and environmental laws that the previous Administration promoted on behalf of his oil buddies. The President may have had priorities other than purging a regulatory bureaucracy that did a bad job.

Florida remains a legitimate swing state.  

At least I have disabused someone of the idea that Thune would win Minnesota or Iowa because of those states bordering South Dakota.

lol

This pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

Dude it's like a 90 minute flight from Sioux Falls to here. That is not some severe impediment that will derail a campaign. Not like Thune can't just base his campaign out of DC considering that's where he spends most of his time anyway, or that he won't be hiring staffers in all states and have all sorts of campaign HQs like every half-serious campaign does. No clearly a Thune campaign will have to run everything out of South Dakota.

Much will be done by video conference and e-mail anyway, which could reduce the need for travel by staff. 

EXACTLY. Which is why the whole big deal about being near an air hub is rather silly.

Arkansas isn't anywhere near a major air hub, yet Clinton got elected in 1992. And in 1992 cell phones were a luxury, the internet existed only in a crude form barely recognizable today, and laptops and wi-fi were the work of science fiction. Today anyone near a cell signal can have as much access to campaign resources as someone in the campaign HQ.

Wow you're naive.  The economy will not continue to improve.  2011 will be an economic disaster thanks to Pres Obama

No, you're the naive one. Tell me exactly why Obama's policies will make 2011 a disaster? The economy will be sluggish and recover slowly, but it will continue recovering.

Obama's policies are the same as Bush's policies.

I don't think Bush would have gone with a stimulus and Obama isn't really in to Bush's tax cuts.

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

No winning candidate has been from that small of a state, but trends can be broken.

Actually, Franklin Pierce came from NH, which had 5 EVs in 1852 and now has 4 EVs. Also, Calvin Coolidge was born in VT, which now has 3 EVs.

I'm sorry, I stand corrected.

Obama was born in Hawaii (4); Eisenhower was brought up in Kansas (8 in the 1950s but 6 now), but Leip considers New York  his home state for political purposes. I don't think that what state Ike came from would have mattered, in view of his war record; he could have been elected from Guam in either 1952 or 1956.   (Leip considers Illinois Obama's home state).

At the least, Bill Clinton came from a region that was fairly homogeneous in its culture  -- the Inner Arc  of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia, one  that comprised 38 electoral votes, which is electorally about as big as Texas.

A conservative from South Dakota would get little advantage from being from South Dakota.  The Plains states north of Oklahoma have only seventeen electoral votes between them and sixteen are best described as sure things for any Republican nominee. (NE-02 is not a sure thing unless the State of Nebraska reapportions its Congressional seats to split Greater Omaha, which I think unlikely).  Several States themselves have 16 or more electoral votes.

Now contrast Mike Huckabee, should he run for President; he takes the Inner Arc and about 35 electoral votes completely out of contention for Obama. Thune might have to work to solidify those states for himself; Huckabee could expend his efforts elsewhere more profitably for his campaign. I am not saying that Thune doesn't eventually win those states, but such a benefit as Huckabee has in being from an electorally-important region of the country is that he can spend more time in places like Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia where neither Huckabee nor Thune  has no particular strength.

Recent polls showing 43%* approval ratings for the President in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee suggest that he has done a few things right for those states. The three states are fairly similar in being tough on crime and unsympathetic to misbehaving d@mnyankee financiers, and president Obama has shown himself anything but lenient on either street crime or on financial cheats. No Republican nominee has been able to win without them since at least 1956 (Eisenhower did win Tennessee twice, but didn't need it).

*A strong campaign and a good electoral apparatus is good for about a 6% gain for an incumbent President, Senator, or Governor, so my prediction of the 2012 Presidential election says that all three states would be close in 2012).

Huckabee or not, the states of the so-called 'Inner Arc" are already "completely out of contention for Obama".

43% is the absolute max Obama is getting in Tennessee or Kentucky, and that's likely overly favorable to Obama. No, you can't just "add six" to his approval rating. He's maxed out already. The GOP will probably break 60% in Arkansas (and maybe Louisiana) against Obama in 2012, even without Huckabee.

You are far too fixated on the home state or "home region" a candidate comes from.  It doesn't really make much difference these days.  The fact that Obama's home state was Illinois and McCain's home state was Arizona wasn't much of a factor outside of Illinois and Arizona.  Heck, I would guess that a non-negligible fraction of voters wouldn't even have been able to tell you what the candidates' home states are.

()

It's at most a marginal effect in a nationwide election. It's not enough to save a grossly-failed campaign, but it may have an effect on resource allocation.   Any state in this map not in gray now seems to have about a 90% chance of going for a generic Republican based on how the state went in 2008. Any loss of any of these states is an unmitigated disaster for the GOP nominee, and so is even coming close to losing because any effort expended in a defense of any of these states implies the expenditure of resources that could otherwise go to efforts in states like Ohio or Florida. To be sure, states in yellow, olive, or dark green are not going to Obama except in a 500-EV  landslide. But there might be some lingering doubts about some of the others.

Huckabee (and to a slightly-lesser extent Barbour) are excellent fits for the states in light green; Thune is an excellent fit  for the states in midnight blue. I guarantee no Republican win in NE-02, in view of how it voted. Huckabee is not only almost certain to win the states that Clinton won twice but Obama got clobbered in, but he would also quickly establish that those states are absolutely out of reach for President Obama. Those states comprise 38 electoral vote. Huckabee or Barbour gets those electoral votes so soundly that either can easily transfer resources to other states as needed. Neither Huckabee or Barbour has states in midnight blue so quickly wrapped up as Thune does, but it's far cheaper and easier campaign when one has 38 electoral votes sewn up than when one has  16 electoral votes sewn up.

President Obama will not be an easy incumbent to defeat.

I was relating the 3 electoral votes from South Dakota as being one of the smallest states and its percentage of residents versus the rest of the nation. Bill Clinton was one of those rarities of hailing from a smaller state not among the top half in population.

(Franklin Pierce counts. Interestingly enough, his home state of New Hampshire had more electoral votes in Election 1852 — a total of five — than California, Florida, and Texas. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1852. Calvin Coolidge's home state was Massachusetts; Dwight Eisenhower's homes states were New York and Pennsylvania.)

Of course since, by definition, the smaller states have fewer people, one would naturally expect more presidents to come from the larger states.  It takes an awful lot of small states to add up to the bottom quartile by population.  Someone should do an analysis of the number of presidents by home state in terms of which quartile of population the state belongs in.

Moving to Canada is unlikely to make you feel better.

Thune is a good idea because he is a WASP male, nice-looking at that. any 'views' can be superimposed on that template in a nonfunctioning democracy.

WASPs aren't as attractive as they used to be with the elections of Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Catholic).

I like Thune's young family man approach, but he's not ready yet. Someone with governing and military experience is needed for the job with us fighting 2 wars and being so far in debt.

Iraq is going to be over at the end of 2011, so we're only going to be fighting one war in 2012.

I'm not sure how you already know this. Obama never said it would be over and only suggested that we'd be bringing some troops home. I hope we're not in any wars but until Al-Qaida is gone we will always be at war.

We have a timeline to leave Iraq in place.  By December 31, all US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq.  That doesn't mean that we are going to stop fighting Al-Qaeda, only that Iraq will no longer be our battlefield.  Most likely we will end up intervening in Yemen.

John Thune might be a decent VP candidate for the GOP, but I don't see him being a good Presidential candidate, for various reasons.

In late 2008, Bush and the Iraqi govt. negotiated an agreement which stated that all U.S. forces must withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. And I doubt we will have a large-scale intervention in Yemen. Maybe some bombings here and there, but the American people would be wary of starting another full war. We'll probably just give more aid to the Yemeni dictator (who is pro-American) in fighting al-Qaeda.

Possibly, but it's hard to handicap these things in advance. Even I thought Fred Thompson would be a strong candidate when his running became a possibility.

I do think that Daniels and Thune are - on paper - the strongest potential Republicans. Despite the current political climate, most presidents win reelection, and so long as the economy is growing Obama should win reelection. Moreover, as you pointed out, given his political skills and the weakness of the Republican field, he could probably win reelection even with approvals in the mid-40s.

Daniels would on paper be the strongest, and given that even many Democrats like him, if Obama is unpopular, he could be a perfectly adequate alternative, enough to win. But he's not a particularly intimidating or charismatic presence and that could doom him.

Thune would seem stronger in those respects, though he runs the risk of coming across as a bit of a lightweight.

However, Thune would be smart to run. Given the GOP's penchant of nominating a prior runner-up, even a credible losing bid would bode well for his getting the nod in 2016. Hell, even if he is the 2012 nominee but only narrowly loses to Obama, it's not inconceivable the party could give him a second chance in 2016.

I meant December 31, 2011.

And the reason I think that we'll eventually go into Yemen is that between its Nepotistic dictator, southern seperatists, northern rebels, and Al-Qaeda elements it is fast becoming another Somalia.  And, like it or not, America is the world's police state.  In my mind, some kind of UN intervention seems immenent and guess who will spearhead that?

You list almost nothing that has to do with substance so saying he's the GOP's best chance is a bit cynical.

Thune is a pretty good bet to be the nominee.  His biggest vulnerability in a GOP primary will be his vote for TARP.  Then again, probably very few GOP 2012 primary candidates will have opposed it.  Johnson and if they run, Huckabee and Pence.

Thune/Jindal would probably be a good ticket. These two would be acceptable to all major wings of the party, would project an appealing image to moderates, and would be generally credible leaders.

Of course, against an incumbent, their success would mostly depend on how Obama's approvals are. Even a poor pairing would be sufficient if Obama were in the low 40s or 30s. And even a strong pairing would have little traction if he's firmly in the 50s. The main upshot to a Thune/Jindal ticket would be that if Obama's in the mid-to-upper 40s -- which would suggest a very tight race -- they'd be well-placed to be on the winning side.

Agreed. Thune is a great Senator, a great candidate, and one of the GOP's most rapid rising stars. If he picks someone like Rubio or Ayotte as his VP, he could certainly score big(ger than he normally would).

Romney/Thune would be a likely ticket, I think.

Thune is the GOP version of Obama, a one-term Senator who is handsome and youthful.  He needs to build a lot of momentum because there are stronger GOP veterans using their influence like Haley Barbour.  But the GOP is disorganized now with no true establishment leader like Palin.  There are too many factions, but the strongest faction is still the Evangelical Christian faction, which is so far comprised of Palin, Thune and Barbour. 

Romney is still a longshot because he is not an Evangelical.  Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers.  But a strong governor like Barbour can climb the ladder faster. 

Thune is not a rock star yet like Palin or Romney in name recognition.  But he has strong potential.  He is more viable as President in 2016.

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Romney or Thune will have no trouble whatsoever raising mountains of cash or getting high profile  endorsements.  No one in a primary will go after Thune for being too inexperienced a senator, but all the governors would try to nail him on being only a senator i.e. having no executive experience, and will try to compare him to Obama 2008 in that way.  And those candidates who opposed TARP (possibly that will only be Gary Johnson?) will hit him on voting for it.

i think gop'ers will come to the conclusion, shortly after the midterms, that Palin/Huck/Romney are failed retreads and support will flood in behind Thune

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

lol. The thing about Hillary being a co-President is just a myth and nothing more. The only thing Hillary did as First Lady was attempt to write a healthcare plan for the U.S., and she failed miserably at that. Afterwards Bill didn't give her any responsibilities for the last 6 years of his Presidency. Thus I stand by my statement that Hillary only had 8 years of political experience and thus was also a Senate newbie when she ran for President. Executive experience is important, but it isn't everything and I don't think it's that much of an issue for most voters. And I beg to differ about Barbour being more charismatic. Barbour is pretty boring. Thune, on the other hand, is very charismatic (and I watched both of them, so I know). And if Palin runs (and she probably will), Rush will probably support her over both Barbour and Thune (if they both decide to run).

Hillary had 8 years of political experience as a national fundraiser and national celebrity, which helped her immensely in getting votes instead of just being a no-name 7 year senator.  Thune may be more flashy, youthful, and handsome, but I don't think GOP voters will go for that.

You forget that Obama was also a celebrity Senator. After giving his keynote address in 2004, Obama became an instant rock star throughout the Democratic Party. Thus, throughout his four years as Senator, Obama was treated like a celebrity instead of some no-namer. I think the fact that two Senate newbies together got over 95% of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 (and that's not counting John Edwards) shows that many voters are willing to nominate and elect Senate newbies for President. And if the GOP nominated GWB in 2000, who had only 6 years of political experience, then I think Thune has a decent chance of being nominated at the end. Thune also has more than a decade of political experience (counting his service in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that should help persuade many voters that he has what it takes to become President. And again, charisma also matters a lot in determining the nominee, and Thune has a lot of charisma. Thus, I stand by my point that Senate newbies can get nominated and elected President if they have a lot of political skills and know how to run a good campaign.

Hillary had 16 years of fundraising, campaigning, working the phones and chicken dinners on a national level.  She may have been a newbie in the Senate, but not in the presidential primaries.  She worked on Bill's campaigns and knew the district party leaders.  From a logistical operational standpoint, she had a very big advantage.  Edwards also had a strong network because of 2004. 
But that is why Obama won, because had the same one term experience as Edwards and Clinton, so Obama won by luck and charisma.  Obama also loaded up buses of volunteers from Chicago into Iowa that may or may not have voted in the Iowa caucuses.  From an operational standpoint, Hillary should have won.  But because all 3 of them were newbies, no one could respectively claim a 3 AM wake a call and not get laughed at.

The GOP nominated Dubya because of his last name, it didn't matter if he had experience.  So unless John Thune becomes John Bush-Reagan, then he will not have as easy a time.  The Grand Old Party will nominate a Grand Old Wrinkly Guy like Dole or McCain.

I'm not sure how much Hillary helped on Bill's campaigns. And where is your source for Obama bringing in a lot of voters from Illinois to Iowa? That seems like a silly rumor started by the Hillary campaign to discredit Obama. And considering that the 2008 Democratic field had two Senate veterans (Biden and Dodd), it's very impressive that three Senate newbies (Obama, Hillary, and Edwards) got over 95% of the total primary vote. By your logic, Biden and Dodd should have done much better in the primaries since they were establishment figures. And John Thune will have 16 years of political experience in 2012. That's a lot and that might give him some establishment support. And historically, not all establishment candidates won the GOP presidential nomination. Goldwater won the nomination in 1964 and Reagan won the nomination in 1980 (and almost in 1976) despite the fact that the GOP establishment supported other candidates and considered Goldwater and Reagan to be extremists and unelectable. The GOP primary voters ultimately decide the nominee, not the GOP party bosses, and I think Thune has a decent chance to appeal to them. I mean, he did a good job appealing to the people of South Dakota, especially considering that he defeated the Senate Minority Leader (Daschle) in 2004.

Hillary attended fundraisers with Bill, wrote Christmas Cards to donors, was co-president and co-campaign manager (according to her) and she had this presidential campaign experience and expertise (according to her) that added to her 7 years in the Senate.  Hillary should have been able to manage the operational logistics of a campaign, but she fell short because she was a weaker candidate and politician.  Obama had tons of volunteers bused in from Illinois, but I don't know if any of them voted in the caucuses.  My friends always go to Iowa from Chicago to watch the caucuses for every election.  The Democratic Primaries are easier for Newbies like Jimmy Carter to win.
The GOP primaries and electorate heavily favor the guy with the longest and best resume.  That was John McCain.  If Biden and Dodd were Republicans, they would have done better.  So the GOP candidates with the Best Resumes or Executive Experience are Barbour, Daniels, Newt, Santorum.