Talk Elections

Now that Daniels's name is getting some mentions, I thought a thread/poll would do.  Yes, it is late in the game for a candidate to be getting in, but with such a weak field and a drawn-out calendar, it is certainly possible for him to win at the convention.

He was my #2, and would be miles ahead of our current pack of incompetents. Why not?

Is this thread designed to sexually excite Bill Kristol?

No, no, and HELL NO!

A good governor and would be a great candidate. I just don't think he'll jump in due to his personal baggage (or rather, his wife's).

name one reason the jmfcsts would support Mr. Mitch "Let's-Surrender-The-Cultural-War" Daniels?!

I personally don't get it. He remarried his wife, after he had made some wealth. Is the idea is that  he was had and thus is weak-willed or something?


You can't fight a culture war if the economy sucks.

They would support him in the general because he is a Republican.

Duh?

since when is the absence of truth an ingredient to economic prosperity?  the mere fact that Daniels somehow doesn't think we can rebuild the economy while speaking truth proves he is not fit to lead.

When has any POTUS ever advocated openly lying to each other in order to improve the economy?!

How has he lied? He just called for putting social issues aside while dealing with the more pressing issue of the economy.

Yes, if Paul does not win.

Because the jmfcsts are losing the cultural war and will lose it once the current baby boom generation completely phases out.

So you want someone whose first, second, and third propensities is to surrender to the left?!?

dude, the jmfcsts are FULLY aware that nothing is going to stop the world's morality from going to hell in a hand basket, but we simply refuse to stand by and keep quiet while it happens...because by speaking up, we will save some.

His wife left him, very quickly remarried, and then came back to him. The family is very private about this period. There'd likely be a lot of questions about it if he was to run.

I don't see the issue. And yet we're willing to give Gingrich a pass? Come on.

I don't think it's a reason people won't vote for him. But he chose to stay out of the race despite having an excellent shot at the nomination the first time. I think his family's privacy might be a big reason.

Now that Huntsman's out, I'm definitely supporting him if he runs, though.

I was a big supporter then, and would become one again if he entered the race.

Because it's over.

I can't wait until Mitch Daniels gives a predictably terrible response to the SOTU and this nonsense ends.

Yes, not because I think he's the Messiah of the Republican Party or anything (I actually think he'd crash and burn at this point... I tend to think the more Newt produces the red meat, the more securely the majority of the base is going to latch onto him and willingly overlook his various weaknesses), but because I'd gladly welcome any new development which would increase the overall absurdity of this primary season.

lol.

cause he's hatcheting up labor unions.

in answer to the poll question I would support it insofar as I'd like to see it happen.

Daniels is not well known, does not bring the base (to put it lightly) or a national core of supporters, could have any number of skeletons in his closet, and would not necessarily be a good campaigner (certainly not very exciting- any draftee would have to deliver an Obama '04 (or Bryan '96)-esque convention speech, not just agree with you).

If the Republicans go that route, it'll have to be Huck or Christie.  Mayyyybe Ryan but he's pretty boring too.

Nay. The current crop of candidates (minus Paul) accurately reflects the GOP base.

Embrace it

I'd take him if it meant avoiding the risk of having Gingrich.

Of course I would. For the lulz

No. He's too likely to win the presidency.

I find it pretty sad how the Republican Party can't seem to deal with the fact that the vast majority of their candidates are clowns, and that their voters are incapable of making even half-way decent choices, or maintain their support for one candidate for more than two weeks straight.

Deal with it guys. Seriously. You've gone through more "Great Right Hopes" since Obama's inauguration than I can count on all four limbs.

I would be delighted with a Daniels entry :)

No. You work with the people who actually wanted to run from the start.

Rick Perry went in as the savior of the Republican Party and he is back in Texas. That will turn people off.

I probably would. I'd be happier with a "Draft John Thune" campaign though.

Rick Perry was a gaffe machine working in overtime. His record is also quite poor. Daniels has an advantage in both of those areas. He could win.

I'm not saying that Daniels will go down like Perry, but the fact is that Perry came in as The Big Guy. The savior of the party. That he is back in Texas already will be a warning to other possible saviors.

And the other candidates will go after Daniels from the moment he steps in.

What baggage does Daniels have that other candidates don't? Sure, he was divorced. Sure, his wife had an affair. Gingrich was divorced too. Even if the other candidates attack him on it, voters don't even really seem to care.

Even if Romney says, "You're only in this race because you're an opportunist," Daniels can say, "Yes--I saw that our chance as a party to defeat Obama in November was diminished by this weak field, so I stepped in myself."

I think it is too late for another candidate.  Daniels would have been my first choice.

We don't know what baggage Daniels has. We know about his wife, but maybe there is more, maybe not. We don't know.
And that makes it so dangerous. You can overcome baggage, when it is not all that bad, but you need time to do that. Clinton did in 1992 with the affairs, Obama in 2008 with Reverend Wright. Daniels doesn't have that time.


There is a reason why he didn't run in the first place. He really needs to explain why he said no six months ago and still enters the race at this point. What changed?

I agree with J. J., it's too late for a candidate to enter. He won't be able to run in half of the primaries, he needs to start almost immediately, he needs the money and Romney needs to drop out.

Clinton's scandals and Obama's scandals both broke about mid-campaign and lasted briefly. How, exactly, will Daniels not be able to recover from a two, three week media hyped scandal at the same speed with which Clinton and Obama did? I see no validity in that particular point.

Well, Daniels saw how, over time, the race just kept progressing from one rung of the hopelessness ladder to the next. Accordingly, he decided that it was in the best interests of his nation and party that he should run.

Admittedly, financing such a campaign would be a problem. Getting on the ballot in a lot of states would also be a problem. But if he were to secure a good chunk of the delegates, he could effectively force Romney and Gingrich into a bartered convention. That is where the idea of a compromise candidate in the general becomes very appealing to people who didn't like the idea of a Gingrich or a Romney nomination in the first place.

If Romney goes down then yes! I'd also support draft Bush, Christie and Ryan campaigns. ABG "Anyone but Gingrich"

He tried to  defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058671-503544.html) right after he said that. I would expect the jmfcsts to evaluate a politician more on what he does than on what he says.

Yes, because Romney has proven to be unqualified to be Leader of the Free World.

The only remote possibility of any draft movement would he a hopelessly deadlocked convention.

Who knows. Think in all those republicans waiting for an Obama's landslide and losing all their new seats to democRats.

  if he is not willing to speak and act on a national level, then it doesn't matter what he has done on the state level


...but talking about him is moot, he is too unknown to work as a late entry

You know things are bad when Bush's budget director and the epitome of "boring white guy" is your savior.

If Daniels wanted to run, he would've.

Because Obama and Clinton are far more charismatic. Mitch Daniels is probably a fine governor and politician but he doesn't seem to have the personal touch that Obama had in 2008 and Clinton in 1992. And you kind of need that to survive a storm like that.

And of course, when you are not capable of running in the primaries, it's crucial to do great in all the remaining ones. In two or three weeks, you can have 2 to maybe even 5 primaries. That is a lot if you buffer isn't that wide.


He still needs to explain why he didn't run in the first place. Why did he opt to stay out in May. If it is because his wife didn't want him to run, then why did she change her mind.

The other candidates will ask him about this. And he needs a good answer. After all, the guys that are running now are the same guys that were running in May. The field in it self didn't change.


Indeed, Daniels needs a brokered convention. And that creates a problem. Because if he wins the nomination at that convention it could create a problem with the base. After all, Daniels would be the establishments choice, not theirs. And you need the base to win in November.

I can see why it looks appealing. After all, of all the candidates named last year, Daniels seemed like the strongest. But he didn't run and I don't believe he has changed his mind or will change his mind.

Yeah, an "unnamed source" in his office or wherever said that he was not reconsidering. But can't I hope? :P

Of course you can. By the end of the day you will probably have your answer.

Another GOP "savior" that would've flopped and not gotten past 10%.

It would make things even more hilarious, give us the pleasure of watching a brokered convention, and guarantee Obama's re-election. I fully support it!

Daniels doesn't have a prayer, even with Bill Kristol.

You know, I just "got" your signature.

In any case, I don't think Daniel's would need charisma. The election, with the right candidate, will be a referendum on Obama, as re-elections should be.

However I feel like Daniels wouldn't have done much better than Huntsman or Pawlenty- however things are different at this stage.

I thought you would. ;)

Who's Mitch  Daniels?

-Reaction of the general public.

I'm flattered. However, not everyone likes chicken. Everyone likes cookies, though.

In before Daniels bombs the SOTU response and is forgotten about.

:)

That's Daniels's appeal. The American people will get their first impression of him tonight.

I really hope he does well. Otherwise it's on to Jeb Bush, but alas, his name is Bush. Then we go to Christie, but he's too new, and too fat. Then what?

Huntsman third party?

I'm so sure the GOP basically tossing the primary vote out the window and just coronating some random guy instead is going to be uncontroversial and look good too.