2012 Republican Rundown: The Final Four

[Erc]

This last round of voting was unfortunately made rather boring by the recent news regarding Governors Crist & Huntsman, all but ruling them out of the 2012 lineup.  Even despite this, the two of them still made it pretty close to entering the Final Four---not good news for Huck & Pawlenty.

The results:

Gov. Sarah Palin (77%) def. Gov. Bobby Jindal (23%)

Gov. Mitt Romney (87%) def. Gov. Mark Sanford (13%)

Gov. Mike Huckabee (59%) def. Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (41%)

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (57%) def. Gov. Charlie Crist (43%)


So, we're down to the Final Four.  Please cast two votes, one in each of the lettered races, voting for the candidate you think most likely to win the nomination, not the one you personally prefer.

This week's matchups:

A: Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) v. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN)

B: Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) v. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Pawlenty and Huckabee.

[big bad fab]

I'd like a T-Paw Mitt final.

But the reality would be: Palin (sigh) and Romney.

[Jayhawker]

Sarah Palin ()
Mitt Romney ()

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Pawlenty & Romney.

[Lunar]

Pawlenty has no mojo and is going to have a hard time winning reelection should even choose to do so.

[Mr. Morden]

Pawlenty has no mojo and is going to have a hard time winning reelection should even choose to do so.

He's not going to run for reelection if he runs for prez.  At least, I don't think he will.  There would be little point in doing so.

[Lunar]

Oh I know, but my point was that he's not sitting pretty

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Pawlenty has no mojo and is going to have a hard time winning reelection should even choose to do so.

He's not going to run for reelection if he runs for prez.  At least, I don't think he will.  There would be little point in doing so.

Exactly, Pawlenty runs in 2012, or for reelection in 2010. But I just cannot see both.

[Vepres]

I voted Pawlenty and Romney, though it all depends on the direction the party chooses to take in the next 3 1/2 years. If they trend libertarian, I'll be right, if they trend populist, I'll be wrong.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Palin and Romney

[Magic 8-Ball]

Pawlenty and Romney.

[Daniel Z]

Pawlenty and Romney

[Senator Ben]

Palin and Romney.

[BeccaM]

Palin and Romney in terms of who has the greatest chance of leading the ticket.

T Paw probably has the best chance at being chosen as a running mate among the four, though that's probably not all that likely either.

[GLPman]

Palin and Romney in terms of who has the greatest chance of leading the ticket.

T Paw probably has the best chance at being chosen as a running mate among the four, though that's probably not all that likely either.

Couldn't agree more. I think it's very likely that Romney will be chosen as the Republican candidate in 2012.

[Citizen James]

Pawlenty and Romney

[pbrower2a]

If the economy is on its way to recovery come 2012, Romney loses some of his main sell, even among Republicans, and he'd have a tougher primary than he would today.  Of course in those circumstances, Obama would probably have high approval and scare off quite a few Republican candidates from running at all.  If Obama is popular, the social conservatives and tea bag set are probably best positioned to set themselves up as ideologically against him which could bode well for Mark Sanford who has the built-in advantage of an early South Carolina primary.

In short, the GOP primaries could decide who gets to be the Landon/Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2012 if most things go right for Obama -- no foreign-policy blowups, no personal scandal, and some well-received reforms of the economic and political systems. 

[MasterJedi]

It'll be between Romney and Huckabee.

[Citizen James]

In short, the GOP primaries could decide who gets to be the Landon/Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2012 if most things go right for Obama -- no foreign-policy blowups, no personal scandal, and some well-received reforms of the economic and political systems. 

I still remember quite clearly back in 1992 a SNL skit parodying the Democratic primaries - who gets to be the guy to lose to George H.W. Bush in the fall?  IN the skit, everyone was contending to not be the nominee.

Things change, and it is unwise to count your chickens too early...

[You kip if you want to...]

In short, the GOP primaries could decide who gets to be the Landon/Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2012 if most things go right for Obama -- no foreign-policy blowups, no personal scandal, and some well-received reforms of the economic and political systems. 

I still remember quite clearly back in 1992 a SNL skit parodying the Democratic primaries - who gets to be the guy to lose to George H.W. Bush in the fall?  IN the skit, everyone was contending to not be the nominee.

Things change, and it is unwise to count your chickens too early...

SNL also did similar sketch after the democratic debate in October 07 where all the candidates are all planning to use attacks on Hillary because they know she'll win either way. (Or something to that effect anyway)

[Coburn In 2012]

It'll be between Romney and Huckabee.

[pbrower2a]

In short, the GOP primaries could decide who gets to be the Landon/Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2012 if most things go right for Obama -- no foreign-policy blowups, no personal scandal, and some well-received reforms of the economic and political systems. 

I still remember quite clearly back in 1992 a SNL skit parodying the Democratic primaries - who gets to be the guy to lose to George H.W. Bush in the fall?  IN the skit, everyone was contending to not be the nominee.

Things change, and it is unwise to count your chickens too early...

This seems so obvious that it can't be original: there is no "typical Presidential election" in American history. Every one of them is different (except arguably 1952 and 1956). Every President is different, and the conditions under which every President wins is different.

I can't predict that there won't be a strong third-Party challenge in 2012-- yet.

A nasty situation is underway in North Korea. Who knows what resolution that will have? I can imagine the optimum (China, Russia, Japan, the US and the Republic of Korea are able to establish a definitive solution to the Korean Conflict which has never had any resolution beyond a cease-fire). All reasonably-wholesome endings to this mess involve Kim Jong-il either dead or in a mental institution.

I have more confidence in Obama than I could have had with Dubya.

[Lunar]

In short, the GOP primaries could decide who gets to be the Landon/Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2012 if most things go right for Obama -- no foreign-policy blowups, no personal scandal, and some well-received reforms of the economic and political systems. 

I still remember quite clearly back in 1992 a SNL skit parodying the Democratic primaries - who gets to be the guy to lose to George H.W. Bush in the fall?  IN the skit, everyone was contending to not be the nominee.

Things change, and it is unwise to count your chickens too early...

This seems so obvious that it can't be original: there is no "typical Presidential election" in American history. Every one of them is different (except arguably 1952 and 1956). Every President is different, and the conditions under which every President wins is different.

I can't predict that there won't be a strong third-Party challenge in 2012-- yet.

Funny enough, 2008 was the year that history dictates that a third party challenger would have emerged.

The two parties nominated the least obviously partisan, most electable candidates possible, squeezing out Bloomberg or anyone else's chances.

Edwards vs. Huckabee or Romney would have seen a Bloomberg candidacy, not sure about the other match-ups.

[5280/East California]

I'd go with Romney. I voted for him in the primary caucasus in Feb '08 when I was former Republican, and I will vote for him if he runs.