Why I think John Thune is the GOP's best chance in 2012

[pbrower2a]

Florida goes back to the GOP because of the oil spill?

The swift and effective response ensures that the spill is off people's minds long before November 2012.  The solution to the gusher in the Gulf was an engineering solution -- not a political solution.

The oil spill is the result of lax enforcement of safety and environmental laws that the previous Administration promoted on behalf of his oil buddies. The President may have had priorities other than purging a regulatory bureaucracy that did a bad job.

Florida remains a legitimate swing state.  

At least I have disabused someone of the idea that Thune would win Minnesota or Iowa because of those states bordering South Dakota.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Florida goes back to the GOP because of the oil spill?

The swift and effective response ensures that the spill is off people's minds long before November 2012.  The solution to the gusher in the Gulf was an engineering solution -- not a political solution.

The oil spill is the result of lax enforcement of safety and environmental laws that the previous Administration promoted on behalf of his oil buddies. The President may have had priorities other than purging a regulatory bureaucracy that did a bad job.

Florida remains a legitimate swing state.  

lol

[Yelnoc]

Florida goes back to the GOP because of the oil spill?

The swift and effective response ensures that the spill is off people's minds long before November 2012.  The solution to the gusher in the Gulf was an engineering solution -- not a political solution.

The oil spill is the result of lax enforcement of safety and environmental laws that the previous Administration promoted on behalf of his oil buddies. The President may have had priorities other than purging a regulatory bureaucracy that did a bad job.

Florida remains a legitimate swing state.  

lol

This pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think Thune will come across likable to the American people, and doesn't have the baggage that other candidates have. However, he has a major flaw - South Dakota is not a major air hub. That could prevent him from winning the nomination over Gingrich, who has Atlanta, and Romney, who has Boston.

Can someone please explain this air-hub theory to me?

Apparently it's easier to campaign if there is an air hub near you because you have easier access to flying. Pbrower can explain it better. After all, he came up with it.

It's logistics, and it can explain why it is not advantageous to be from a state that doesn't have a big air hub. Since about 1960 all strong campaigns have been done by air, and even if the candidate has a private jet, not everyone in the campaign can so travel. Such staff get stuck with commercial travel.

The air hubs closest to South Dakota are Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Denver -- and that's where some critical campaign staff will need to go through to get to places like Indianapolis, Cleveland, Richmond, Charlotte, Orlando, and Albuquerque.  At that Obama has an obvious advantage with staff located in greater Chicago, which has O'Hare International Airport. Airline transfers are always tricky, and if campaign staff must get to such a location as Charlottesville, Virginia from Sioux Falls, South Dakota one must make transfers in Minneapolis and Washington.

John Thune had better locate his campaign somewhere other than South Dakota. Like Chicago.

It was incredibly severe with Sarah Palin.

Dude it's like a 90 minute flight from Sioux Falls to here. That is not some severe impediment that will derail a campaign. Not like Thune can't just base his campaign out of DC considering that's where he spends most of his time anyway, or that he won't be hiring staffers in all states and have all sorts of campaign HQs like every half-serious campaign does. No clearly a Thune campaign will have to run everything out of South Dakota.

[pbrower2a]

I think Thune will come across likable to the American people, and doesn't have the baggage that other candidates have. However, he has a major flaw - South Dakota is not a major air hub. That could prevent him from winning the nomination over Gingrich, who has Atlanta, and Romney, who has Boston.

Can someone please explain this air-hub theory to me?

Apparently it's easier to campaign if there is an air hub near you because you have easier access to flying. Pbrower can explain it better. After all, he came up with it.

It's logistics, and it can explain why it is not advantageous to be from a state that doesn't have a big air hub. Since about 1960 all strong campaigns have been done by air, and even if the candidate has a private jet, not everyone in the campaign can so travel. Such staff get stuck with commercial travel.

The air hubs closest to South Dakota are Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Denver -- and that's where some critical campaign staff will need to go through to get to places like Indianapolis, Cleveland, Richmond, Charlotte, Orlando, and Albuquerque.  At that Obama has an obvious advantage with staff located in greater Chicago, which has O'Hare International Airport. Airline transfers are always tricky, and if campaign staff must get to such a location as Charlottesville, Virginia from Sioux Falls, South Dakota one must make transfers in Minneapolis and Washington.

John Thune had better locate his campaign somewhere other than South Dakota. Like Chicago.

It was incredibly severe with Sarah Palin.

Dude it's like a 90 minute flight from Sioux Falls to here. That is not some severe impediment that will derail a campaign. Not like Thune can't just base his campaign out of DC considering that's where he spends most of his time anyway, or that he won't be hiring staffers in all states and have all sorts of campaign HQs like every half-serious campaign does. No clearly a Thune campaign will have to run everything out of South Dakota.

Much will be done by video conference and e-mail anyway, which could reduce the need for travel by staff. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

EXACTLY. Which is why the whole big deal about being near an air hub is rather silly.

Arkansas isn't anywhere near a major air hub, yet Clinton got elected in 1992. And in 1992 cell phones were a luxury, the internet existed only in a crude form barely recognizable today, and laptops and wi-fi were the work of science fiction. Today anyone near a cell signal can have as much access to campaign resources as someone in the campaign HQ.

[timmer123]

Your arguments are very valid and reasonable. However, I will state my opinion again: I think Obama will beat any GOPer in 2012 because the economy will continue to improve and many people will begin feeling the recovery. Thus, Obama could just say in 2012 "Bush screwed over our economy. I fixed it. Elect another Republican with Bush's policies and the economy will go down the drain again."

Wow you're naive.  The economy will not continue to improve.  2011 will be an economic disaster thanks to Pres Obama

[Bo]

Your arguments are very valid and reasonable. However, I will state my opinion again: I think Obama will beat any GOPer in 2012 because the economy will continue to improve and many people will begin feeling the recovery. Thus, Obama could just say in 2012 "Bush screwed over our economy. I fixed it. Elect another Republican with Bush's policies and the economy will go down the drain again."

Wow you're naive.  The economy will not continue to improve.  2011 will be an economic disaster thanks to Pres Obama

No, you're the naive one. Tell me exactly why Obama's policies will make 2011 a disaster? The economy will be sluggish and recover slowly, but it will continue recovering.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Your arguments are very valid and reasonable. However, I will state my opinion again: I think Obama will beat any GOPer in 2012 because the economy will continue to improve and many people will begin feeling the recovery. Thus, Obama could just say in 2012 "Bush screwed over our economy. I fixed it. Elect another Republican with Bush's policies and the economy will go down the drain again."

Obama's policies are the same as Bush's policies.

[Yelnoc]

Your arguments are very valid and reasonable. However, I will state my opinion again: I think Obama will beat any GOPer in 2012 because the economy will continue to improve and many people will begin feeling the recovery. Thus, Obama could just say in 2012 "Bush screwed over our economy. I fixed it. Elect another Republican with Bush's policies and the economy will go down the drain again."

Obama's policies are the same as Bush's policies.

I don't think Bush would have gone with a stimulus and Obama isn't really in to Bush's tax cuts.

[DS0816]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

No winning candidate has been from that small of a state, but trends can be broken.

[Bo]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

No winning candidate has been from that small of a state, but trends can be broken.

Actually, Franklin Pierce came from NH, which had 5 EVs in 1852 and now has 4 EVs. Also, Calvin Coolidge was born in VT, which now has 3 EVs.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

No winning candidate has been from that small of a state, but trends can be broken.

Actually, Franklin Pierce came from NH, which had 5 EVs in 1852 and now has 4 EVs. Also, Calvin Coolidge was born in VT, which now has 3 EVs.

I'm sorry, I stand corrected.

[pbrower2a]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

Obama was born in Hawaii (4); Eisenhower was brought up in Kansas (8 in the 1950s but 6 now), but Leip considers New York  his home state for political purposes. I don't think that what state Ike came from would have mattered, in view of his war record; he could have been elected from Guam in either 1952 or 1956.   (Leip considers Illinois Obama's home state).

At the least, Bill Clinton came from a region that was fairly homogeneous in its culture  -- the Inner Arc  of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia, one  that comprised 38 electoral votes, which is electorally about as big as Texas.

A conservative from South Dakota would get little advantage from being from South Dakota.  The Plains states north of Oklahoma have only seventeen electoral votes between them and sixteen are best described as sure things for any Republican nominee. (NE-02 is not a sure thing unless the State of Nebraska reapportions its Congressional seats to split Greater Omaha, which I think unlikely).  Several States themselves have 16 or more electoral votes.

Now contrast Mike Huckabee, should he run for President; he takes the Inner Arc and about 35 electoral votes completely out of contention for Obama. Thune might have to work to solidify those states for himself; Huckabee could expend his efforts elsewhere more profitably for his campaign. I am not saying that Thune doesn't eventually win those states, but such a benefit as Huckabee has in being from an electorally-important region of the country is that he can spend more time in places like Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia where neither Huckabee nor Thune  has no particular strength.

Recent polls showing 43%* approval ratings for the President in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee suggest that he has done a few things right for those states. The three states are fairly similar in being tough on crime and unsympathetic to misbehaving d@mnyankee financiers, and president Obama has shown himself anything but lenient on either street crime or on financial cheats. No Republican nominee has been able to win without them since at least 1956 (Eisenhower did win Tennessee twice, but didn't need it).

*A strong campaign and a good electoral apparatus is good for about a 6% gain for an incumbent President, Senator, or Governor, so my prediction of the 2012 Presidential election says that all three states would be close in 2012).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

Obama was born in Hawaii (4); Eisenhower was brought up in Kansas (8 in the 1950s but 6 now), but Leip considers New York  his home state for political purposes. I don't think that what state Ike came from would have mattered, in view of his war record; he could have been elected from Guam in either 1952 or 1956.   (Leip considers Illinois Obama's home state).

At the least, Bill Clinton came from a region that was fairly homogeneous in its culture  -- the Inner Arc  of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia, one  that comprised 38 electoral votes, which is electorally about as big as Texas.

A conservative from South Dakota would get little advantage from being from South Dakota.  The Plains states north of Oklahoma have only seventeen electoral votes between them and sixteen are best described as sure things for any Republican nominee. (NE-02 is not a sure thing unless the State of Nebraska reapportions its Congressional seats to split Greater Omaha, which I think unlikely).  Several States themselves have 16 or more electoral votes.

Now contrast Mike Huckabee, should he run for President; he takes the Inner Arc and about 35 electoral votes completely out of contention for Obama. Thune might have to work to solidify those states for himself; Huckabee could expend his efforts elsewhere more profitably for his campaign. I am not saying that Thune doesn't eventually win those states, but such a benefit as Huckabee has in being from an electorally-important region of the country is that he can spend more time in places like Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia where neither Huckabee nor Thune  has no particular strength.

Recent polls showing 43%* approval ratings for the President in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee suggest that he has done a few things right for those states. The three states are fairly similar in being tough on crime and unsympathetic to misbehaving d@mnyankee financiers, and president Obama has shown himself anything but lenient on either street crime or on financial cheats. No Republican nominee has been able to win without them since at least 1956 (Eisenhower did win Tennessee twice, but didn't need it).

*A strong campaign and a good electoral apparatus is good for about a 6% gain for an incumbent President, Senator, or Governor, so my prediction of the 2012 Presidential election says that all three states would be close in 2012).

Huckabee or not, the states of the so-called 'Inner Arc" are already "completely out of contention for Obama".

43% is the absolute max Obama is getting in Tennessee or Kentucky, and that's likely overly favorable to Obama. No, you can't just "add six" to his approval rating. He's maxed out already. The GOP will probably break 60% in Arkansas (and maybe Louisiana) against Obama in 2012, even without Huckabee.

[Mr. Morden]

A conservative from South Dakota would get little advantage from being from South Dakota.  The Plains states north of Oklahoma have only seventeen electoral votes between them and sixteen are best described as sure things for any Republican nominee. (NE-02 is not a sure thing unless the State of Nebraska reapportions its Congressional seats to split Greater Omaha, which I think unlikely).  Several States themselves have 16 or more electoral votes.

Now contrast Mike Huckabee, should he run for President; he takes the Inner Arc and about 35 electoral votes completely out of contention for Obama. Thune might have to work to solidify those states for himself; Huckabee could expend his efforts elsewhere more profitably for his campaign. I am not saying that Thune doesn't eventually win those states, but such a benefit as Huckabee has in being from an electorally-important region of the country is that he can spend more time in places like Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia where neither Huckabee nor Thune  has no particular strength.

You are far too fixated on the home state or "home region" a candidate comes from.  It doesn't really make much difference these days.  The fact that Obama's home state was Illinois and McCain's home state was Arizona wasn't much of a factor outside of Illinois and Arizona.  Heck, I would guess that a non-negligible fraction of voters wouldn't even have been able to tell you what the candidates' home states are.

[pbrower2a]

A conservative from South Dakota would get little advantage from being from South Dakota.  The Plains states north of Oklahoma have only seventeen electoral votes between them and sixteen are best described as sure things for any Republican nominee. (NE-02 is not a sure thing unless the State of Nebraska reapportions its Congressional seats to split Greater Omaha, which I think unlikely).  Several States themselves have 16 or more electoral votes.

Now contrast Mike Huckabee, should he run for President; he takes the Inner Arc and about 35 electoral votes completely out of contention for Obama. Thune might have to work to solidify those states for himself; Huckabee could expend his efforts elsewhere more profitably for his campaign. I am not saying that Thune doesn't eventually win those states, but such a benefit as Huckabee has in being from an electorally-important region of the country is that he can spend more time in places like Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia where neither Huckabee nor Thune  has no particular strength.

You are far too fixated on the home state or "home region" a candidate comes from.  It doesn't really make much difference these days.  The fact that Obama's home state was Illinois and McCain's home state was Arizona wasn't much of a factor outside of Illinois and Arizona.  Heck, I would guess that a non-negligible fraction of voters wouldn't even have been able to tell you what the candidates' home states are.

It's at most a marginal effect in a nationwide election. It's not enough to save a grossly-failed campaign, but it may have an effect on resource allocation.   Any state in this map not in gray now seems to have about a 90% chance of going for a generic Republican based on how the state went in 2008. Any loss of any of these states is an unmitigated disaster for the GOP nominee, and so is even coming close to losing because any effort expended in a defense of any of these states implies the expenditure of resources that could otherwise go to efforts in states like Ohio or Florida. To be sure, states in yellow, olive, or dark green are not going to Obama except in a 500-EV  landslide. But there might be some lingering doubts about some of the others.

Huckabee (and to a slightly-lesser extent Barbour) are excellent fits for the states in light green; Thune is an excellent fit  for the states in midnight blue. I guarantee no Republican win in NE-02, in view of how it voted. Huckabee is not only almost certain to win the states that Clinton won twice but Obama got clobbered in, but he would also quickly establish that those states are absolutely out of reach for President Obama. Those states comprise 38 electoral vote. Huckabee or Barbour gets those electoral votes so soundly that either can easily transfer resources to other states as needed. Neither Huckabee or Barbour has states in midnight blue so quickly wrapped up as Thune does, but it's far cheaper and easier campaign when one has 38 electoral votes sewn up than when one has  16 electoral votes sewn up.

President Obama will not be an easy incumbent to defeat.

[DS0816]

I was relating the 3 electoral votes from South Dakota as being one of the smallest states and its percentage of residents versus the rest of the nation. Bill Clinton was one of those rarities of hailing from a smaller state not among the top half in population.

(Franklin Pierce counts. Interestingly enough, his home state of New Hampshire had more electoral votes in Election 1852 — a total of five — than California, Florida, and Texas. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1852. Calvin Coolidge's home state was Massachusetts; Dwight Eisenhower's homes states were New York and Pennsylvania.)

[Mr. Morden]

Of course since, by definition, the smaller states have fewer people, one would naturally expect more presidents to come from the larger states.  It takes an awful lot of small states to add up to the bottom quartile by population.  Someone should do an analysis of the number of presidents by home state in terms of which quartile of population the state belongs in.

[The Vorlon]

I still think a lot of you underestimate Obama.  He's seen as very likeable and among a lot of voters, "he can do no wrong".  Reagan was the same way, as was JFK.

Charisma buys a ton of votes.  That's why I think Thune helps us in that he has a lot of positive energy/charisma too.

What's "positive" about Thune?

There's absolutely nothing special about him. He's boring and horrible. Thune sucks.

Are you just a miserable human being?  Move to Canada.  Maybe you'll feel better.

Moving to Canada is unlikely to make you feel better.

[© tweed]

Thune is a good idea because he is a WASP male, nice-looking at that. any 'views' can be superimposed on that template in a nonfunctioning democracy.

[Bo]

Thune is a good idea because he is a WASP male, nice-looking at that. any 'views' can be superimposed on that template in a nonfunctioning democracy.

WASPs aren't as attractive as they used to be with the elections of Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Catholic).

[Derek]

I like Thune's young family man approach, but he's not ready yet. Someone with governing and military experience is needed for the job with us fighting 2 wars and being so far in debt.

[Bo]

I like Thune's young family man approach, but he's not ready yet. Someone with governing and military experience is needed for the job with us fighting 2 wars and being so far in debt.

Iraq is going to be over at the end of 2011, so we're only going to be fighting one war in 2012.