Talk Elections

In little more than six months, right after the '08 general election, this board will be knee deep in speculation over who will run in 2012.  But why wait that long?  I've already done a few of these polls in '07, but here's the May 2008 edition.  Previously, I left it up to each poster to decide who they were predicting as nominees in 2008 when making their 2012 prediction.  But now I think it's safe to assume that 2008 will be McCain v. Obama.

So, for the purpose of this poll, assume that Obama beats McCain in November.  Now here's the question: In the spring of 2009 (just ~12 months from now), who do you think will make up the media-annointed "first tier"  of potential contenders for the 2012 GOP nomination?

You can pick up to three names, but just to be clear, these are the people who you think the media and political insiders will regard as the initial "first tier".  It doesn't mean that they'll be leading in the early 2012 polls, just as (for example) Mitt Romney was regarded as a "first tier" candidate well before he reached double digits in the national polls.  (Likewise, George Allen would have been considered a "first tier" 2008 candidate in late 2005 / early 2006, but in his case his candidacy didn't go anywhere, for obvious reasons.)  My picks are Huckabee, Romney, and Sanford.

Here are the results of this poll from March 2007:

(name, followed by # of votes)

Jeb Bush 13
Crist 8
Pence 7
Barbour 6
Pawlenty 5
Thompson 5

And October 2007:

Huckabee 24
Crist 14
Jeb Bush 11
Romney 11
Pawlenty 10
Sanford 10

I'll do this again in August/September, after we know who the two VP nominees for this cycle are.

Charlie Crist, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and (maybe) Jeb Bush. 

Can someone explain why Republicans turned to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush instead of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in 2000? 

George W. Bush- in office since 1995
Jeb Bush- in office since 1999

That can pretty much explain it.

Ah, yes, I quite forgot.  That's why I asked.  :P

Crist, Romney, Huckabee

Ensign, Hutchison, and Romney.

Why is Mitt Romney considered a leading contender?  He was the big money candidate of 2008, and he didn't make it.  General election polls showed him far behind Obama, Clinton, and Edwards.  In fact, general election polls showed him losing even in heavily Republican states like Kansas and Oklahoma.

I can't understand what Romney's base of support is.  He claimed to be a lifelong hunter at an NRA photo op when he was anything but.  He was for abortion rights before he was against it, and the change conveniently came right before he ran for president.  It doesn't help that a large part of the Republican base hates Mormons.  (I was surprised by this.  I assumed that Southern religious conservatives would feel a sense of solidarity with fellow religious conservatives.)  Also, he was the governor of Massachusetts.  Republican primary voters have been trained to hate candidates from Massachusetts for the last 20 years.  Everyone knows that Massachusetts is a lawless and corrupt state where there are drive-thru abortion clinics at every street corner, married gay couples lynch heterosexuals, and everyone has wild, orgasmic sex in the middle of the street.

Romney as a candidate was a joke.  I'm surprised he made it as far as he did.

Romney can be considered the candidate of the corporate, Big Business, Chamber of Commerce-Club for Growth, RLC-wing of the Republican Party.  He is the heir to Steve Forbes.  He is the antithesis to the perceived populist Mike Huckabee.

I don't think that McCain would run for reelection if he wins in 2008, so here are my two lists:

McCain wins: Republicans see this election as a lost cause having held the White House for so long and nominate another elder-statemans who they feel is owed the nomination (think Dole '96), possibilites include:

Jeb Bush,Chuck Hagel,Bill Frist

McCain loses: Republicans look to find a candidate to match Obama's speaking ability and charm but can also sure up the base as I would assume this was the reason McCain would have lost, in this case the nomination is between Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin or Mark Sanford

There aren't enough Wall Street types, Paris Hilton types, and Grey Poupon types out there to win an election, except perhaps in Beverly Hills, Malibu, Manhattan, etc.  Outside places like this, the Forbes/Romney base is only a vanishingly small proportion of the population, ESPECIALLY in "flyover country".  While most Republicans would have states like Wyoming, Alaska, the Great Plains states, and Indiana in the bag, Forbes or Romney would not. 

If Steve Forbes had been the 1996 nominee instead of Bob Dole, he would have lost every state, even Utah.  Romney would win Utah but only because being Mormon gives him "favorite son" status.

Popular choices:

Huckabee, Romney, Sanford.

Either Romney or Huckabee will be the 2012 nominee if McCain loses he election.  Look at how the Rpeublican party has worked in that sense ever since 1976.  Whoever comes in second in the primary in one election year is the nominee in the next unless the nominee is an incumbent President or VP except in 1996/2000.

1976: First place- Ford, Second place-Reagan
1980:First Place-Reagan, second Place- Bush
1988:First Place- Bush, Second Place-Dole
1996:First Place-Dole, Second Place-Buchanen/Forbes
2000:First Place-Bush, Second Place- McCain
2008:First Place-McCain, Second Place- Romney/Huckabee

A pattern can be fun and interesting, but it won't apply in 2012.  By then, Huckabee and Romney will be nobodies that are 6 years from the last time they held office.

Like Ronald Reagan in 1980?

So?  That happens quite often and for all we know they could try running for another office and win in 2010.

Reagan almost unseated the sitting President for the nomination.  Even at the convention it was unclear if anyone planned to bolt for Reagan and give him the nomination.

During that time, Reagan also wrote and spoke extensively to keep his name alive.  As much as I hate to word, Reagan seems to have had a "destiny" that only needed to play itself out as his movement built.  Huckabee and Romney seem more like accidents of the modern political climate, with no real staying power.

Yes, I know that Reagan was a "bigger figure" than Romney and Huckabee are now.  The point is that every one of these cases is unique.  In 1996, you could have argued that Dole would break the pattern of "runner up from last time around gets the nod" because he was so old.  In 2008, you could have argued that McCain would break the pattern both because of his age and because of the party base being unsatisfied with him.  But both times, the pattern held.

I don't see why being out of office for six years is a good enough reason to discount the "runner up from last time around gets the nod" this time around.  Why would that be a big factor?  It seems to me that, nowadays, the #1 way to get onto the fast track to top tier status in the primaries is being famous.  Huckabee and Romney are now more famous than Sanford or Crist or Pawlenty or Thune.  Unless one of those folks is tapped by McCain as VP, Huckabee and Romney will still be more famous than them a year from now and two years from now and three years from now, and will have an easier path to top tier status in the 2012 sweepstakes.

You crafted my response in your own... when in doubt, Republicans run to experience.  If Rudy had been a two governor and a Senator, they would have run to him, probably.

The problem that Huckabee and Romney have is that only the modern climate could have seriously justified the candidacy of either of them.  If there had been an obvious, experienced conservative choice in this race, they wouldn't even be footnotes.

Kay

If I were a betting man that would be something not to put my money on.

If Obama wins, I look for Huckabee, Palin and Thune to be leading contenders.  This does not preclude someone like Romney from running again.  With all that money?  Of course he will.  But will he have that early fan base that candidates need two years out?  Like Deaniacs, Clinton supporters or Obamaniacs?

Let me explain.

Huckabee is convinced God wants him to be President and millions of Americans are, too.  If McCain loses (or if he wins and governs from the center), you'll have televangelists screaming for Huckabee...crying their trademark crocodile tears over not supporting him enthusiastically enough the first time.  Huckabee will likely have had four years of media exposure under his belt.  You can bet your Bible he'll have his own radio talk show, regular slot on a major TV network and/or his own traveling salvation show on Sunday morning TV.  After all, Falwell and D. James Kennedy are dead.  And conservatives who don't like all the tongues and nonsense that come with Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson and that tribe would enjoy Huckabee.  He's conservative, but he's not Pentecostal.  He WILL run for President in 2012.

Palin will be different.  She will be the "draft" candidate sought by everyday Joes and Janes who want a fresh kind of candidate.  A lot will depend on how conservative she is perceived to be -- I note with not a little sadness that the "draft Olympia Snowe" effort which began in 2005 never got off the ground.  Snowe knows she can't win the GOP nomination.  If Palin is a rightie, without being what Torie would call a "nutter", she will have that webroots Republican scene locked up.

John Thune, though, could be the x factor.  Personally, I think he's a pretty dimbulb.  I've seen him debate both Johnson and Daschle.  Johnson and Daschle are hardly our party's best, and yet I think they dispatched him pretty effectively point by point.  That said, Thune's victory proves you needn't be the sharpest knife in the drawer to win an election.  What Thune is, is a smart politician with smarter advisors.  Ideologically, there's not a gnat's eyelash of difference between Thune and Jim DeMint, Jim Inhofe or Tom Coburn.  But...Thune has the looks and he has the political sense not to lead the charge on certain issues.  I think he'd be a terribly formidable candidate.

On the outside looking in?  Don't ever count out Mike Pence.  Forget that he's just a House member.  You can pretty much transpose everything I said about Thune and apply it to Pence, too.  And like Huckabee, he has the fire in the belly.

I do not think KBH will run.  Doesn't she want to be Governor of Texas?

If Obama wins this time, I suspect the GOP Primary field will consist of Romney, Huckabee, Thune, possibly Palin if the netroots like her, Pence, one or two "blast from the past" fringe candidates (like Gilmore and Tommy Thompson were this time) and, of course, a couple none of us are expecting.

And Bob Dole.  Tell you the truth, if Bob Dole did run for President in his 90's -- I'd vote for him just because he has chutzpah. 

BUMP

Right now I'll go with this:

Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Michael Steele, and John Huntsman

wtf?  You think a state's Fmr Lt. Governor is going to run for president in 2012? 

Once McCain names his running mate, I'll do a new version of this poll, as well as a new version of the Democratic one.  If anyone has any suggestions for names to add to the list, post your ideas here.  Suggestions accepted on the Democratic side too.  Here are the Dem. names from the last thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=75657.0

I'll definitely be adding Biden on the Democratic side.....and removing Edwards.

I think Chris Christie needs to be added to the GOP list.  Of course he comes right off if he loses

I'm wondering why

I think he's going to do something big in the next few years.  Probably more of a 2016 guy though

What do you think hes going to do?  He lost one senate race already when his opponent frankly was a horrible campaigner while he did pretty well, the only reason he was elected as Lt. Governor was that Kennedy-Townsend's campaign was run idiotically.

I think Crist would be the smartest pick. Honestly, I think we're about enter a new era. As said on another thread, 1980 was the end of a liberal era, and I think 2008 will be the end of a conservative one. This assumes Barack Obama wins the election. But even if McCain wins, it's obvious that both parties are moving a bit leftward, hence their nominees.

So maybe this campaign is a transition into a progressive era or something to that nature.