In 2006, Romney was a practical nobody with names like Rudy, McCain, Allen, Frist and and others getting far more attention.
A couple of good debate performances and early organizing in Iowa and NH and by August 2007, nationally the game was Rudy and Fred in meaningless national polls, whilst both were trailing Romney in IA and NH.
Allen and Frist didn't run in 2006.
Always smarmy, never change. His post is easy to understand if you aren't just looking to be a douche.
I'm going to defend Landslide Lyndon here. Romney was also getting overshadowed by these other people but then half of them didn't run? What does that have to do with Kasich? There's no way Romney's polling and fundraising was as far behind as Kasich's are now.
Yes, he's the Pawlenty of this cycle.
Pawlenty would probably have been the nominee if he hadn't dropped out, and maybe won.
Huntsman without the redeeming features
I've been slow to warm up to this but it does seem like the best comparison.
I just don't see where his place is. He isn't a good fit for Iowa. I could see him doing well in New Hampshire but I don't think he's made enough contacts on the state or started early enough. He isn't particularly fit for SC or Nevada. If he doesn't do well in one of these states, he's toast. If he does start to gain fire, ad after ad will eviscerate him for Medicaid expansion, and I don't think any of the other candidates will rush to his defense. He'd be an excellent VP pick, but Governor Kasich doesn't strike me as someone who wants to be Vice President.
Agree this. New Hampshire is maybe an opening for him but polls tell us very little and their history is confusing. Pat Buchanan and John McCain won presidential primaries 4 years apart, Kelly Ayotte and Ovide LaMontagne statewide primaries 2 years apart. And as long as Bush is a frontrunner, Kasich is likely to struggle like Huntsman against Romney.
