DeMint: "I don't plan to run for president"

[Mr. Morden]

So he said to Hannity a few days ago:

http://www.gop12.com/2010/10/demint-i-dont-plan-to-run-for-president.html

This follows his somewhat stronger denial from last month, "I'm not going to run for President. I have no intentions, no plans, but I don't want to think past 2010 right now.":

http://www.gop12.com/2010/09/demint-no-plans-to-run-for-president.html

[Phony Moderate]

It would be 'interesting' if he entered the race....

[feeblepizza]

He would easily win the South Carolina primary.

[exopolitician]

Thank goodness.

[sg0508]

Yeah, and Obama said the same thing back in 2005 or 2006.  What's brutal is that this guy, the definition of what is wrong with the GOP and politics in this country is becoming the voice of the party.

This man is a disgrace with his social ignorance

[Phony Moderate]

He would easily win the South Carolina primary.

But then again, Tom Harkin easily won the Iowa Caucus in 1992....

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, and Obama said the same thing back in 2005 or 2006.

Obama said he wouldn't run in 2004/5, but then reversed himself in October 2006, saying that he was thinking about running.

[tpfkaw]

He'll run, he'll win the primaries, and he'll win the general.  That was my prediction a month ago, and it stands.

[Bull Moose Base]

He would easily win the South Carolina primary.

But then again, Tom Harkin easily won the Iowa Caucus in 1992....

And then Tsongas won New Hampshire.  Can't recall another primary off the top of my head where the eventual winner won neither of those states.  I wonder if Romney's rivals would have any success casting a NH win as a favorite son thing and trying to snag his momentum.  Not only is he a neighbor, I think he established residency there.

[Miles]

I think DeMint has his sights on McConnell's job...GOP Senate Leader.

Just like Schumer wants Reid's job.

[Mr. Morden]

He would easily win the South Carolina primary.

But then again, Tom Harkin easily won the Iowa Caucus in 1992....

And then Tsongas won New Hampshire.  Can't recall another primary off the top of my head where the eventual winner won neither of those states.

Well, if we only count races from 1972 onwards (post-McGovern-Fraser reforms, which basically established that the primaries determine the nominee), then the only other election in which the eventual nominee lost both Iowa and NH would be 1972.  McGovern came in 2nd in both states, but went on to win the nomination.  Every primary campaign for both parties from 1976 to the present (except the Dems in '92) had the eventual nominee winning either IA or NH.

[Bull Moose Base]

I think DeMint has his sights on McConnell's job...GOP Senate Leader.

Just like Schumer wants Reid's job.

It will be seriously inept if Reid loses and the Democrats don't pick Durbin to lead.  I'd assume Obama would back Durbin but who the heck knows?  I wonder how Madigan would be doing if she were the senate nominee.

He would easily win the South Carolina primary.

But then again, Tom Harkin easily won the Iowa Caucus in 1992....

And then Tsongas won New Hampshire.  Can't recall another primary off the top of my head where the eventual winner won neither of those states.

Well, if we only count races from 1972 onwards (post-McGovern-Fraser reforms, which basically established that the primaries determine the nominee), then the only other election in which the eventual nominee lost both Iowa and NH would be 1972.  McGovern came in 2nd in both states, but went on to win the nomination.  Every primary campaign for both parties from 1976 to the present (except the Dems in '92) had the eventual nominee winning either IA or NH.

Maybe the harm of crying in New Hampshire trumps the boost of winning it.  It's interesting.   The resentment more-or-less at the early states for their favored position which motored the rush of states forward then created the Democrats' mess in 2008 somehow doesn't translate into a tendency of later states to embrace alternate candidates.  I've offered armchair analysis that NH tends to vote for a different candidate than IA as a means of protecting their own role as kingmaker.  After all, if NH follows IA kneejerk, it's much less important.  But then why wouldn't later states, childishly perhaps, do the same thing- that is, vote against early winners?  Maybe like a child, they insist on their independent-mindedness, but then do whatever their big sister did anyway.  Are we all sheep by nature?  Sorry, have had a couple glasses of red tonight.  Anyway, if say Pawlenty were to win Iowa and Romney New Hampshire and Palin still had resources to continue, I could see her jujitsu-ing that into a message of rejecting the establishment.

[Mr. Morden]

The resentment more-or-less at the early states for their favored position which motored the rush of states forward then created the Democrats' mess in 2008 somehow doesn't translate into a tendency of later states to embrace alternate candidates.  I've offered armchair analysis that NH tends to vote for a different candidate than IA as a means of protecting their own role as kingmaker.  After all, if NH follows IA kneejerk, it's much less important.  But then why wouldn't later states, childishly perhaps, do the same thing- that is, vote against early winners?

Don't confuse issues that state legislators care about with issues that ordinary voters care about.  Every governor and every state legislator in the country would love to get the kind of attention from presidential candidates and the media that's lavished on the early primary states.  Every governor would love to play the kingmaker role that Charlie Crist played in 2008, with his endorsement of McCain.

But most voters outside of IA, NH, and maybe SC are probably barely aware that there even is a controversy over the order of primary states, let alone hold a strong opinion on it.  For most, it would probably take some explaining to get them to see why it's even important.  It's just not something that's on the average voter's radar.

As for the general question of why people vote for the frontrunners who were crowned in the early states, this is a good read:

http://www.slate.com/id/2095993/

[Mr. Morden]

DeMint is sticking with his "I have no plans to run" formulation, which would certainly qualify as a "non-denial denial".  It leaves open the possibility that he will in fact decide to run this cycle:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He also says he doesn't think he's too conservative to win:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What a pussy. He already chickened out to avoid facing Alvin Greene in 2012.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Considering that he started the recession he'd be incredibly easy to attack and defeat.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, and Obama said the same thing back in 2005 or 2006.  What's brutal is that this guy, the definition of what is wrong with the GOP and politics in this country is becoming the voice of the party.

This man is a disgrace with his social ignorance

Its either him and Coburn or Jim Inhofe.


I will take the less spending choice myself.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's the typical 'Yes, Minister' response, "well, I have no plans to run... buuuut, if one were called to the service of one's country, one would not shirk from that challenge"

[pbrower2a]

A DeMint Presidency would be a perfectly safe thing to witness.

Maybe from Romania.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A DeMint Presidency would be a perfectly safe thing to witness.

Maybe from Romania.

Whoa, be careful there, brower. You promising to move to Romania if DeMint gets elected might just swing enough voters to put him over the top.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I never thought he'd run.  Although he'd have an advantage in the primary, coming from South Carolina.

[exopolitician]

Good.