Most likely nominee

[Senator Snowstalker]

Just getting out a poll.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

Romney right now, if they decide to run down the line, possibly Daniels or Thune.

[Grumps]

Willard

[You kip if you want to...]

Governor Palin.

[Swedish Cheese]

Huckabee if he runs, but since I think he won't run I still see Romney as the favourite.

[feeblepizza]

Romney is the current favorite, but I don't see his lead lasting long enough. Once it deteriorates it'll be Daniels.

[For Oklahoma]

Unfortunately, it'll be Mitt.

[feeblepizza]

Unfortunately, it'll be Mitt.

He's leading now, but I think that his popularity will slowly decline in the coming year, as Giuliani's did. He may not last all that long.

[Former Moderate]

At this point, Romney.  He fits the traditional "it's your turn" mold of Republican nominees like Reagan, Bush (Sr.), McCain, and Dole. He's largely inoffensive, mainstream GOP, and "presidential feeling."

I think Pawlenty is decently positioned too, but he's more "Lamar 1996" or "McCain 2000" than anything else -- the respectable outsider who probably won't win. It certainly won't be Palin or someone from the "Palin wing," though I expect them to have a candidate in contention for the nomination until March or April (mathematically) and then serving as an outlet of protest votes through to the convention.

All in all, a pretty conventional primary.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Romney *vomits*

[For Oklahoma]

Unfortunately, it'll be Mitt.

He's leading now, but I think that his popularity will slowly decline in the coming year, as Giuliani's did. He may not last all that long.

Yeah, that's a viable point. I just hope Mitch Daniels or Ron Paul takes advantage.

[feeblepizza]

Unfortunately, it'll be Mitt.

He's leading now, but I think that his popularity will slowly decline in the coming year, as Giuliani's did. He may not last all that long.

Yeah, that's a viable point. I just hope Mitch Daniels or Ron Paul takes advantage.

Trust me, Mitch Daniels will get pretty far.

[Mehmentum]

Huckabee, he'll win Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire and Nevada.  Huckabee wins South Carolina, Palin drops out (if she was running in the first place), unifying the conservative base against Romney.

It will probably be a dragged out fight between Huckabee and Romney (since the RNC has voted to make all the earlier states proportional representation), much like the contest between Obama and Clinton.  I think that Huckabee will eventually prevail.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Unfortunately, it'll be Mitt.

He's leading now, but I think that his popularity will slowly decline in the coming year, as Giuliani's did. He may not last all that long.

Yeah, that's a viable point. I just hope Mitch Daniels or Ron Paul takes advantage.

Trust me, Mitch Daniels will get pretty far.

So you abandoned Buddy Roemer team?

[Likely Voter]

Huckabee, he'll win Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire and Nevada.  Huckabee wins South Carolina, Palin drops out (if she was running in the first place), unifying the conservative base against Romney.

It will probably be a dragged out fight between Huckabee and Romney (since the RNC has voted to make all the earlier states proportional representation), much like the contest between Obama and Clinton.  I think that Huckabee will eventually prevail.

Agree with this, but Romney still has a good chance of beating Huckabee if he can get past the individual mandate thing.

[feeblepizza]

Unfortunately, it'll be Mitt.

He's leading now, but I think that his popularity will slowly decline in the coming year, as Giuliani's did. He may not last all that long.

Yeah, that's a viable point. I just hope Mitch Daniels or Ron Paul takes advantage.

Trust me, Mitch Daniels will get pretty far.

So you abandoned Buddy Roemer team?

I have never claimed that he is my favorite.

[N.i.K.]

As of now, probably Mitt Romney. Basically by default, though; We are not sure that Huckabee or Palin is running, whereas Romney we are certain of. He has arguably the strongest organization and development, which is a boon. While I would prefer Daniels, Romney is the current favorite and is tough to beat.

[RogueBeaver]

Romney. Huckabee, Thune and Palin will not run.

[Korwinist]

Romney has the best starting position, but he is in the worst long term position. A history of supporting the exact wrong issues (Romneycare, Abortion, etc), a major lack of star power (that, for example, Palin has), and nothing to drive a Romney campaign.

He is starting good because he doesn't have strong positions on, well, anything. Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Paul, etc all alienate people because (as much as I dislike the first three) all have positions that they won't back down on. He also has boatloads of cash to spend, and is a businessman (which, in the present climate, is a favourable thing for American right wingers).

But in the long run? He is incredibly open to easy attacks and I can't see any way for him to improve on his current situation (unlike Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich and Paul, all of who can easily raise their standings) . Once the election gets going, unless he is up against an extremely split opposition (if the other four main candidates are all running, they will sap the conservative/libertarian wing sufficiently to let Romney cruise to victory) he is going to be attacked like crazy and his support will drop like a rock.

Hmm. Now the others:

Palin seems to be all rhetoric and no substance. She would be better off not running and playing kingmaker to one of the other right wingers. She really trashed her potential in 2008, where she managed to make herself look like a complete moron. She definitely has a chance of winning the nomination for 2012 (she has at least enough media support and fame for that), but if she did she would never be able to beat Obama.

Gingrich doesn't have much backing him except fame from the 90s. He could definitely do way better, but I don't think he is a very strong candidate overall. I suspect he will sit this one out to make money from his books.

Huckabee definitely has lots of potential, but he is a bit limited due to his image as a "Crazy Evangelical" that he seems to have picked up. He already will do well in the south, but he can't do very well out west or in the northeast, where it really matters. At least he has a couple of strong issues that he can ride on for extra support (unlike, say, Romney).

Paul is kind of the opposite of Romney. He is starting low, but has plenty of potential to do better. His beliefs are unusual, but they have been gaining serious traction recently.  He appeals to a whole bunch of demographics that normally wouldn't go Republican (anti-war, anti-drug war, etc), which means a chunk of his support will come from non-Republicans, making him a bit harder to classify (as it comes down to whether they are willing to switch parties to help him out or not). Also, he has by far the most dedicated grassroots movement, which is quite a huge bonus. He will probably do better with less right-wing candidates running (Palin would be the big one, as I suspect loads of Palinites would go for Paul if she didn't run). Assuming he won (and that is a big assumption, he is definitely the least likely out of the big five), it would be very interesting to see him debate Obama. It certainly wouldn't be a regular conservative vs liberal election. Obama would have the home field advantage though, and he is far closer to the Democrat base than Paul is to the Republican base.

So, I don't really know. I suppose Palin has the best chance of winning the nomination itself if she plays her cards right, but she has the worst chance of winning the general election. Romney's chances come down to how many candidates there are and how much he is slammed for his flip floppery, though I would say he is second most likely. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Paul all have their weaknesses and advantages, so they are effectively tied (if you want to argue about how I am sticking Ron Paul right beside Huckabee and Gingrich, go ahead as I have plenty of reasons but don't want to turn this post into a wall of text).

Oh, and Pawlenty, Santorum, Thune, etc? I seriously doubt they are going to become strong enough to manage anything, and most of those guys probably won't run. They aren't polling high enough to push themselves up on their own fame, and none of them are especially exceptional/unusual candidates to push up their chances.

I guess it comes down to what happens in 2011. Anything is possible.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Daniels or Paul.

Romney: way too liberal and a flip flopper (if he's the nominee I will vote for Wayne Allen Root)
Huckabee: though I like Huckabee he is too liberal on economics
Palin:Even though I like her she'stoo divisive and was forced by McCain ppl to compromise some of her own libertarian tendencies
Gingrich: two words, moral shenanigans
Rudy: see Romney

[For Oklahoma]

Daniels or Paul.

Romney: way too liberal and a flip flopper (if he's the nominee I will vote for Wayne Allen Root)
Huckabee: though I like Huckabee he is too liberal on economics
Palin:Even though I like her she'stoo divisive and was forced by McCain ppl to compromise some of her own libertarian tendencies
Gingrich: two words, moral shenanigans
Rudy: see Romney

I completely agree. Bachmann won't win for obvious reasons, nor will Pawlenty. It seems Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Daniels or Paul.

Romney: way too liberal and a flip flopper (if he's the nominee I will vote for Wayne Allen Root)
Huckabee: though I like Huckabee he is too liberal on economics
Palin:Even though I like her she'stoo divisive and was forced by McCain ppl to compromise some of her own libertarian tendencies
Gingrich: two words, moral shenanigans
Rudy: see Romney

I completely agree. Bachmann won't win for obvious reasons, nor will Pawlenty. It seems Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position.

An if Daniels is the guy I will support him fully(provided he doesn't have Mitt as VP)

[For Oklahoma]

Daniels or Paul.

Romney: way too liberal and a flip flopper (if he's the nominee I will vote for Wayne Allen Root)
Huckabee: though I like Huckabee he is too liberal on economics
Palin:Even though I like her she'stoo divisive and was forced by McCain ppl to compromise some of her own libertarian tendencies
Gingrich: two words, moral shenanigans
Rudy: see Romney

I completely agree. Bachmann won't win for obvious reasons, nor will Pawlenty. It seems Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position.

An if Daniels is the guy I will support him fully(provided he doesn't have Mitt as VP)

Pawlenty would be the best pick because he'd be able to provide a Minnesota pickup for Daniels as well as picking up some of the Independents.

[feeblepizza]

Daniels or Paul.

Romney: way too liberal and a flip flopper (if he's the nominee I will vote for Wayne Allen Root)
Huckabee: though I like Huckabee he is too liberal on economics
Palin:Even though I like her she'stoo divisive and was forced by McCain ppl to compromise some of her own libertarian tendencies
Gingrich: two words, moral shenanigans
Rudy: see Romney

I completely agree. Bachmann won't win for obvious reasons, nor will Pawlenty. It seems Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position.

An if Daniels is the guy I will support him fully(provided he doesn't have Mitt as VP)

Pawlenty would be the best pick because he'd be able to provide a Minnesota pickup for Daniels as well as picking up some of the Independents.

Pawlenty is very unpopular in Minnesota. He may change the score there by a point or so, but no more. A better pick would be John Thune.

[For Oklahoma]

Daniels or Paul.

Romney: way too liberal and a flip flopper (if he's the nominee I will vote for Wayne Allen Root)
Huckabee: though I like Huckabee he is too liberal on economics
Palin:Even though I like her she'stoo divisive and was forced by McCain ppl to compromise some of her own libertarian tendencies
Gingrich: two words, moral shenanigans
Rudy: see Romney

I completely agree. Bachmann won't win for obvious reasons, nor will Pawlenty. It seems Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position.

An if Daniels is the guy I will support him fully(provided he doesn't have Mitt as VP)

Pawlenty would be the best pick because he'd be able to provide a Minnesota pickup for Daniels as well as picking up some of the Independents.

Pawlenty is very unpopular in Minnesota. He may change the score there by a point or so, but no more. A better pick would be John Thune.

Why? Thune has no base outside of South Dakota.