Is this the most ridiculous Republican Primary in the recent past?

[Lincoln Republican]

The attention, time, and money spent on Iowa and New Hampshire is a travesty of the political system.

They are only significant because the media has made them so.

Iowa and New Hampshire are representative of nothing, except Iowa for radical evangelical farmers and New Hampshire for screaming for attention by throwing their support behind someone who comes from behind to win in an upset.

Both Iowa and New Hampshire need to be slapped down a notch or two, probably more.

And yes, this Republican primary is bordering in the ridiculous.  It has one solid, Presidentially capable candidate, Romney, one semi qualified Presidential candidate, Gingrich, and the rest a field of jokers and misfits. 

[TJ in Oregon]

This is a terrible primary. I get to choose between Mr. Ideological Ambivalence and a pack that just escaped from the Funny Farm.

I guess I'll end up voting for Romney, not becuase I actually like him, or, heaven forbid, trust him at all, but because there really aren't any other options (well, unless I'm willing to go for the long shot of Santorum... but if that happens I'd probably have to leave this forum to keep my sanity). I don't trust Mitt. I trust him enough to pull out the standard set of Republican positions and react as such in most situations. But, I don't get the feeling he actually cares about any issues. If put in a political fight over something like a Supreme Court nomination, I don't see him trying harder to win.

I suppose it shouldn't matter too much that I don't trust Mitt; why should I ever trust any politician? If given the choice though, I'd have a hard time picking anyone as a candidate given the entire country to choose from. Some would say the country deserves better than the leaders we have on both sides of the aisle, but IMHO I really don't think we do. I guess I'm becoming a misanthrope.

[pbrower2a]

I recommend this Weekly Standard piece by Jay Cost:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cost thinks that it's fair to limit the pool of potential nominees to governors of states with more than 11 electoral votes and senators under 65 years old who have served a full term over the last decade. These two lists are the result:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the field of potential nominees is this exclusive. But it's obvious from this list that Mitt has been absurdly lucky.
   

Of those --  Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally ineligible.

Murkowski and  Crist both did the unforgivable; they ran as independents.

Snowe and Collins are too moderate to win the primaries.

Vitter is a known consort with whores.

Taft is a gubernatorial failure.

Daniels is a Dubya crony.

Jeb is a brother of an unpopular President. 

Cornyn, Crapo, DeMint,  Graham, and Sessions are from the sorts of states that offer easy wins to any Republican.

Pataki has been off the scene too long.

Thune is from a state vastly different from America at large; he has never shown the ability to win any large urban area in a contested election. 

OK -- Mike Huckabee.

[Ogre Mage]

Frankly, the 2012 GOP Clown Car is so pathetic that Rick Perry is the only one currently serving in a major statewide office and he can't remember three things. 

[Averroës Nix]

To be clear, Mitt is lucky because that list is so weak, not because most of those listed aren't running.

[Erc]

I'm too young to remember much of the '96 primaries, but it doesn't seem too dissimilar (Mainstream candidate Dole plus Buchanan and flat-tax Forbes as crazies).  Except you could actually respect Bob Dole, and there were other respectable options (e.g. Lamar) that gained no traction.

Cost thinks that it's fair to limit the pool of potential nominees to governors of states with more than 11 electoral votes and senators under 65 years old who have served a full term over the last decade. These two lists are the result:

I did a similar project, with fewer restrictions (Governors and Senators under 74 and who were in office after 2005, plus a few other 'notables'), and left it to the fine voters of this forum to decide who might run.

The forum only thought 16 of those might even possibly run, and of those, only Romney and Huntsman are still in the race.  The only false negative (among listed options) was Perry---less than a quarter of you thought he would run.

[King]

IMO Paul Ryan is the only one who didn't run that actually could have won.  All the other turn downs were really flawed and rightly knew they couldn't do it.

[The Mikado]

IMO Paul Ryan is the only one who didn't run that actually could have won.  All the other turn downs were really flawed and rightly knew they couldn't do it.

I'm not sure about Chris Christie.  (Assuming he had weighed in at a reasonably early date)