Why I think John Thune is the GOP's best chance in 2012

[milhouse24]

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.

[Derek]

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.

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.

[hcallega]

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.

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.

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

[Derek]

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.

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.

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.

[Bo]

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.

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.

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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

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.

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

Yes, indeed, a libertarian is our only option.

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

[Ameriplan]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Bo]

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.

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.

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.

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

Proof?

[pbrower2a]

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?

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.

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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

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.

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.

[hcallega]

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?

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.

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?

[auburntiger]

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

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Bo]

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

Warren G. Harding, JFK, and Obama did.

[milhouse24]

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

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. 

[Derek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Yelnoc]

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.

[Derek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pbrower2a]

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.   

[pbrower2a]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Yelnoc]

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.

[Derek]

Obama is at 41% in Colorado.

[Yelnoc]

Obama is at 41% in Colorado.

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

[Derek]

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.