Who do you think will be fighting for 1st in Iowa in 2012?

[Speaker Perez]

Jindal will run he's very popular among republican. He has a 77% approval rating, he'll have a smooth re-election as Louisiana Governor. He's the future of the party not Palin.

[nhmagic]

Jindal will run he's very popular among republican. He has a 77% approval rating, he'll have a smooth re-election as Louisiana Governor. He's the future of the party not Palin.

But his re-election will be 2 months before Iowa.  He's not going to run for governor and president simultaneously.  He is not running for president in 2012.

Jindal is a big-government conservative who along with Mary Landrieu openly hoared Louisianas healthcare vote for 300 million for the state.  He's not the future of the party - he's the problem.  The more you hate Palin the more powerful she becomes.  Palin, may not be herself, the future of the party, but everything she represents is.  The real down to earth person, taking power from the filthy corrupt government, ending abortion in America once and for all, freeing every man, woman and child economically from as much of the state as possible.

[useful idiot]

Jindal will run he's very popular among republican. He has a 77% approval rating, he'll have a smooth re-election as Louisiana Governor. He's the future of the party not Palin.

But his re-election will be 2 months before Iowa.  He's not going to run for governor and president simultaneously.  He is not running for president in 2012.

Jindal is a big-government conservative who along with Mary Landrieu openly hoared Louisianas healthcare vote for 300 million for the state.  He's not the future of the party - he's the problem.  The more you hate Palin the more powerful she becomes.  Palin, may not be herself, the future of the party, but everything she represents is.  The real down to earth person, taking power from the filthy corrupt government, ending abortion in America once and for all, freeing every man, woman and child economically from as much of the state as possible.

Yeah the only problem is she's a complete moron and her followers are just as stupid. The more she talks the more she damages credible and respectable conservatism and conservatives(and yes there are very conservative people whose views I respect). You had someone who was a "real down to earth person" and it set your movement back at least a decade. If you think Palin would be any different from Bush then you're dreaming. She has no idea how the federal government works, how foreign policy works, or how economics work. She'd end up leaving day to day duties to power hungry cabinet members, ala Bush. Oh and one other thing: she will NEVER get elected in a national election.

There's someone else among those who've expressed interest in running that in all likelihood is also unelectable. In fact he got trounced in his re-election campaign in 2006. However he's an articulate and intelligent spokesperson for conservatism, has a clean wholesome image, and knows how to fight for conservative causes. He's young(while still having 16 years in congress), has more pro-life credentials than anyone in the GOP, and knows how government works. If you run him he'll be your Barry Goldwater, the true believer who isn't going to win but can present the case for what conservatives believe in in an effective, intelligent, and rousing way. You run Sarah Palin and you're going to get an ignorant redneck who can't string two sentences together and will do far more harm to the movement then she could ever do good...

[JSojourner]

It's hard to imagine Iowans embracing Romney, and money isn't the answer to everything.  But it sure as hell helps.  And he will spend a crapload of cash in the early primary states.

I definitely see him "fighting for first".  Along with Pawlenty and John Thune.  Thune, unless DeMint steps in, is probably the new darling of the religious right.

Gary Johnson is not a joke candidate -- at least not at this point.  Didn't he have a good record as Governor of New Mexico?  He can run on that.  But those who dismiss him make an excellent argument.  The more liberal or Libertarian attitude toward drug legalization will ruin him with "law and order" conservatives.  And his positions on abortion and possibly gay rights will damn him with the Talibagelicals.

Someone, in another post, suggested there may be a woman not named Sarah Palin in the mix.  That's intriguing.  Perhaps that should be another thread entirely...but would that person (or anyone) care to run a few names up the flagpole?

[Alexander Hamilton]

It is easy to spin drug legalization in favor of law and order.

[California8429]

Jindal will run he's very popular among republican. He has a 77% approval rating, he'll have a smooth re-election as Louisiana Governor. He's the future of the party not Palin.

But his re-election will be 2 months before Iowa.  He's not going to run for governor and president simultaneously.  He is not running for president in 2012.

Yeah I don't think what we're saying is making it to this kid's head

[segwaystyle2012]

Not Huckabee. Luckily.

[pbrower2a]

Palin WON'T RUN. Huckabee may or may not.

If he does run and this thing blows over eventually (we have 3 years) he will be fighting for first, possibly against Pawlenty who is moving to the right. Romney may or may not try depending on who is running and will move to New Hampshire, Michigan and Florida if possible plus Wyoming (out of the 2008 calender).

If Huck doesn't run then I see Romney, Pawlenty, and someone we aren't thinking about, fighting for first.

Why wouldn't Palin run?  She loves the spotlight and what else is her next book going to be about?  She has as high favorable ratings among Republicans.  I think she'll run.

As others have pointed out re: Huck, it's not that the story won't fade, it's that it would be brought up against him and be damaging. Even without this, he has sounded like a man inclined to pass on 2012, pointing out he'd have to give up a [high-paying] job he likes and run against an incumbent, which historically is difficult.  If Obama's approval sinks significantly between now and when he'd have to make a decision- a year from now?- he could maybe get in but Huckabee has pointed out how Democrats took a bath in 1994 midterms only for Clinton to win 2 years later.  Same with Republicans in 1982 and Reagan in 1984.  Now add the clemency thing, I think he'll pass.

If he skips and Palin skips or runs but is a trainwreck, Pawlenty could be poised to rise but new economic forecasts coming out of Minnesota say he's going to leave his state a gigantic deficit when he leaves office.

Romney seems a good bet in the  "Let's nominate the most obvious person" tradition the GOP usually follows.  His big weakness in my view is that Republicans in 2010 will sound like a broken record slamming mandatory healthcare which Romney signed in Mass.  Especially his opponents with a side interest in dinging Romney will harp on it next year.

I don't think winning Iowa means all that much with the exception of Romney who I think is home free if he wins there.

She isn't an idiot. She knows she can't win, the media has screwed her over so much it's impossible.

One singular debate with Obama would show the worlds of experience and intellect she has compared to the rank amateur.  She's not that versant on national security, but she can get there.  She beat Biden in a debate.  She just has to prove that and she'll be fine.  I actually think that her and Johnson would be splitting votes.  She has yet to come out on the trail and reveal the Alaskan libertarian that she really is.  

Lest we forget, PPP had Palin with the strongest northeastern numbers out of the entire republican field in July.

When you said "rank amateur" when discussing Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, I first thought that the reference of "rank amateur" was to Sarah Palin.

No, it's simpler than that: Obama runs on his record of success and wins or runs from his record of failure and loses. Sarah Palin remains a neophyte on national security and foreign affairs, and Alaska would have a Third World economy without oil and the huge military spending in Alaska.

She is not an idiot; she is a mediocrity. Like George W. Bush, she must be on tight reins to  prevent some catastrophic gaffe. If she needs handlers all the time, then who are the handlers? Mediocrities are simply not up to the task. You don't want an intellectual mediocrity examining your accounting ledgers, defending you or your interests in a court of law, flying the jetliner on which you are a passenger, performing surgery, setting political priorities, representing your nation as a diplomat, or setting military policy. Get it? Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (either one), and Eisenhower weren't mediocrities.

She sets a very low standard for a political victory for President Obama. Does any conservative want that?  If you think that Obama is a poor President, then why don't you want him to face a GOP nominee with more political savvy, someone who can challenge him on substantive issues in 2012?   

[Vepres]

Probably 2012's equivalent of Huckabee (not as well known, religious, economically centrist) will be battling it out with Romney.

[nhmagic]

Palin WON'T RUN. Huckabee may or may not.

If he does run and this thing blows over eventually (we have 3 years) he will be fighting for first, possibly against Pawlenty who is moving to the right. Romney may or may not try depending on who is running and will move to New Hampshire, Michigan and Florida if possible plus Wyoming (out of the 2008 calender).

If Huck doesn't run then I see Romney, Pawlenty, and someone we aren't thinking about, fighting for first.

Why wouldn't Palin run?  She loves the spotlight and what else is her next book going to be about?  She has as high favorable ratings among Republicans.  I think she'll run.

As others have pointed out re: Huck, it's not that the story won't fade, it's that it would be brought up against him and be damaging. Even without this, he has sounded like a man inclined to pass on 2012, pointing out he'd have to give up a [high-paying] job he likes and run against an incumbent, which historically is difficult.  If Obama's approval sinks significantly between now and when he'd have to make a decision- a year from now?- he could maybe get in but Huckabee has pointed out how Democrats took a bath in 1994 midterms only for Clinton to win 2 years later.  Same with Republicans in 1982 and Reagan in 1984.  Now add the clemency thing, I think he'll pass.

If he skips and Palin skips or runs but is a trainwreck, Pawlenty could be poised to rise but new economic forecasts coming out of Minnesota say he's going to leave his state a gigantic deficit when he leaves office.

Romney seems a good bet in the  "Let's nominate the most obvious person" tradition the GOP usually follows.  His big weakness in my view is that Republicans in 2010 will sound like a broken record slamming mandatory healthcare which Romney signed in Mass.  Especially his opponents with a side interest in dinging Romney will harp on it next year.

I don't think winning Iowa means all that much with the exception of Romney who I think is home free if he wins there.

She isn't an idiot. She knows she can't win, the media has screwed her over so much it's impossible.

One singular debate with Obama would show the worlds of experience and intellect she has compared to the rank amateur.  She's not that versant on national security, but she can get there.  She beat Biden in a debate.  She just has to prove that and she'll be fine.  I actually think that her and Johnson would be splitting votes.  She has yet to come out on the trail and reveal the Alaskan libertarian that she really is.  

Lest we forget, PPP had Palin with the strongest northeastern numbers out of the entire republican field in July.

When you said "rank amateur" when discussing Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, I first thought that the reference of "rank amateur" was to Sarah Palin.

No, it's simpler than that: Obama runs on his record of success and wins or runs from his record of failure and loses. Sarah Palin remains a neophyte on national security and foreign affairs, and Alaska would have a Third World economy without oil and the huge military spending in Alaska.

She is not an idiot; she is a mediocrity. Like George W. Bush, she must be on tight reins to  prevent some catastrophic gaffe. If she needs handlers all the time, then who are the handlers? Mediocrities are simply not up to the task. You don't want an intellectual mediocrity examining your accounting ledgers, defending you or your interests in a court of law, flying the jetliner on which you are a passenger, performing surgery, setting political priorities, representing your nation as a diplomat, or setting military policy. Get it? Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (either one), and Eisenhower weren't mediocrities.

She sets a very low standard for a political victory for President Obama. Does any conservative want that?  If you think that Obama is a poor President, then why don't you want him to face a GOP nominee with more political savvy, someone who can challenge him on substantive issues in 2012?   

She can change all of the bad habits you mention.  Secondly, Lincoln was called every name in the book by the press (northern and southern).  He was called a dunce and mediocre all of the time.  Besides Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt 1&2 never had to worry about television interviews.  They always were able to have pre-set speeches. 

Why Palin you ask?  Palin will use all options to defeat Obama, she doesn't sit back like McCain and say it will be racist or offensive to attack Jeremiah Wright, who was a legitimate campaign issue.  She is articulate on domestic issues and can defeat him in those areas.  Don't get me wrong, she needs work on national security, but I think if she chooses, she can be up to par.  All it takes is a couple of good debates to turn the tide.  Obama is not a good debater - he just got lucky with McCain being one of the worst debaters ever.  Palin is a great debater and a great speaker - besides Biden, she also defeated Knowles and the independent republican in Alaska.   Plus shes a woman and I want the first woman president to be from the republican party - just to spite democrats for saying they are the party of women.  I also want Rubio to be president someday so that we can steal dems hispanic advantage and make them as loyal to us as blacks are to your party.

Also, you assume that Obama has a record of success already.  He doesn't.  The vast majority (democrats are being way oversampled by like 12pts in polling - including Gallup and Pew) hates his policies, but likes him personally.  That gap is decreasing quickly and soon he will be disliked both personally and policy-wise.  Additionally, partial success doesn't matter as much  as complete success now, in presidential elections.  If the economy is in the tank still, but he comes out of Afghanistan with success - he loses.  If the economy's doing great, but Afghanistan fails miserably he loses.  Its very difficult for him to win with the expectations he let people have.

[5280]

Anybody would be better than Obama come 2012.  If Palin in nominated for the Republican party for 2012 and the 3rd party candidate doesn't look all that great, I'll hold my nose and vote for her.  Better than not voting.

[minionofmidas]

I'm not really thinking about the question right now.

[Хahar 🤔]

I also want Rubio to be president someday so that we can steal dems hispanic advantage and make them as loyal to us as blacks are to your party.

...and a rich white Cuban would accomplish that?

[California8429]

Probably 2012's equivalent of Huckabee (not as well known, religious, economically centrist) will be battling it out with Romney.

any names come to mind?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I also want Rubio to be president someday so that we can steal dems hispanic advantage and make them as loyal to us as blacks are to your party.

...and a rich white Cuban would accomplish that?

But of course, look at how successful the nominations of Michael Steele and Alan Keyes were at bringing blacks into the Republican Party.


(And in that case they were actually were of the black race like 13% of the population is, whereas "Hispanic" is one of the most meaningless labels the U.S. government has ever attempted to apply....)

[California8429]

I also want Rubio to be president someday so that we can steal dems hispanic advantage and make them as loyal to us as blacks are to your party.

...and a rich white Cuban would accomplish that?

But of course, look at how successful the nominations of Michael Steele and Alan Keyes were at bringing blacks into the Republican Party.


(And in that case they were actually were of the black race like 13% of the population is, whereas "Hispanic" is one of the most meaningless labels the U.S. government has ever attempted to apply....)

Keyes isn't a Republian, so the correct term would be bingingOUT of the GOP.
And Steele has a black Republican's face on the website, so now the GOP has 1 more. So he was successful

[Derek]

Whoever the candidates are will be running for first in Iowa LOL.