leading 2012 GOP presidential candidates as of early 2009?--May '08 edition

[Mr. Morden]

In little more than six months, right after the '08 general election, this board will be knee deep in speculation over who will run in 2012.  But why wait that long?  I've already done a few of these polls in '07, but here's the May 2008 edition.  Previously, I left it up to each poster to decide who they were predicting as nominees in 2008 when making their 2012 prediction.  But now I think it's safe to assume that 2008 will be McCain v. Obama.

So, for the purpose of this poll, assume that Obama beats McCain in November.  Now here's the question: In the spring of 2009 (just ~12 months from now), who do you think will make up the media-annointed "first tier"  of potential contenders for the 2012 GOP nomination?

You can pick up to three names, but just to be clear, these are the people who you think the media and political insiders will regard as the initial "first tier".  It doesn't mean that they'll be leading in the early 2012 polls, just as (for example) Mitt Romney was regarded as a "first tier" candidate well before he reached double digits in the national polls.  (Likewise, George Allen would have been considered a "first tier" 2008 candidate in late 2005 / early 2006, but in his case his candidacy didn't go anywhere, for obvious reasons.)  My picks are Huckabee, Romney, and Sanford.

Here are the results of this poll from March 2007:

(name, followed by # of votes)

Jeb Bush 13
Crist 8
Pence 7
Barbour 6
Pawlenty 5
Thompson 5

And October 2007:

Huckabee 24
Crist 14
Jeb Bush 11
Romney 11
Pawlenty 10
Sanford 10

I'll do this again in August/September, after we know who the two VP nominees for this cycle are.

[Mr. Morden]

A pattern can be fun and interesting, but it won't apply in 2012.  By then, Huckabee and Romney will be nobodies that are 6 years from the last time they held office.

Like Ronald Reagan in 1980?

[Mr. Morden]

Reagan almost unseated the sitting President for the nomination.  Even at the convention it was unclear if anyone planned to bolt for Reagan and give him the nomination.

During that time, Reagan also wrote and spoke extensively to keep his name alive.  As much as I hate to word, Reagan seems to have had a "destiny" that only needed to play itself out as his movement built.  Huckabee and Romney seem more like accidents of the modern political climate, with no real staying power.

Yes, I know that Reagan was a "bigger figure" than Romney and Huckabee are now.  The point is that every one of these cases is unique.  In 1996, you could have argued that Dole would break the pattern of "runner up from last time around gets the nod" because he was so old.  In 2008, you could have argued that McCain would break the pattern both because of his age and because of the party base being unsatisfied with him.  But both times, the pattern held.

I don't see why being out of office for six years is a good enough reason to discount the "runner up from last time around gets the nod" this time around.  Why would that be a big factor?  It seems to me that, nowadays, the #1 way to get onto the fast track to top tier status in the primaries is being famous.  Huckabee and Romney are now more famous than Sanford or Crist or Pawlenty or Thune.  Unless one of those folks is tapped by McCain as VP, Huckabee and Romney will still be more famous than them a year from now and two years from now and three years from now, and will have an easier path to top tier status in the 2012 sweepstakes.

[Mr. Morden]

Once McCain names his running mate, I'll do a new version of this poll, as well as a new version of the Democratic one.  If anyone has any suggestions for names to add to the list, post your ideas here.  Suggestions accepted on the Democratic side too.  Here are the Dem. names from the last thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=75657.0

I'll definitely be adding Biden on the Democratic side.....and removing Edwards.