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

[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.

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

I'm not sure how you already know this. Obama never said it would be over and only suggested that we'd be bringing some troops home. I hope we're not in any wars but until Al-Qaida is gone we will always be at war.

[Yelnoc]

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.

I'm not sure how you already know this. Obama never said it would be over and only suggested that we'd be bringing some troops home. I hope we're not in any wars but until Al-Qaida is gone we will always be at war.

We have a timeline to leave Iraq in place.  By December 31, all US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq.  That doesn't mean that we are going to stop fighting Al-Qaeda, only that Iraq will no longer be our battlefield.  Most likely we will end up intervening in Yemen.

[All Along The Watchtower]

John Thune might be a decent VP candidate for the GOP, but I don't see him being a good Presidential candidate, for various reasons.

[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.

I'm not sure how you already know this. Obama never said it would be over and only suggested that we'd be bringing some troops home. I hope we're not in any wars but until Al-Qaida is gone we will always be at war.

We have a timeline to leave Iraq in place.  By December 31, all US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq.  That doesn't mean that we are going to stop fighting Al-Qaeda, only that Iraq will no longer be our battlefield.  Most likely we will end up intervening in Yemen.

In late 2008, Bush and the Iraqi govt. negotiated an agreement which stated that all U.S. forces must withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. And I doubt we will have a large-scale intervention in Yemen. Maybe some bombings here and there, but the American people would be wary of starting another full war. We'll probably just give more aid to the Yemeni dictator (who is pro-American) in fighting al-Qaeda.

[pragmatic liberal]

Possibly, but it's hard to handicap these things in advance. Even I thought Fred Thompson would be a strong candidate when his running became a possibility.

I do think that Daniels and Thune are - on paper - the strongest potential Republicans. Despite the current political climate, most presidents win reelection, and so long as the economy is growing Obama should win reelection. Moreover, as you pointed out, given his political skills and the weakness of the Republican field, he could probably win reelection even with approvals in the mid-40s.

Daniels would on paper be the strongest, and given that even many Democrats like him, if Obama is unpopular, he could be a perfectly adequate alternative, enough to win. But he's not a particularly intimidating or charismatic presence and that could doom him.

Thune would seem stronger in those respects, though he runs the risk of coming across as a bit of a lightweight.

However, Thune would be smart to run. Given the GOP's penchant of nominating a prior runner-up, even a credible losing bid would bode well for his getting the nod in 2016. Hell, even if he is the 2012 nominee but only narrowly loses to Obama, it's not inconceivable the party could give him a second chance in 2016.

[Yelnoc]

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.

I'm not sure how you already know this. Obama never said it would be over and only suggested that we'd be bringing some troops home. I hope we're not in any wars but until Al-Qaida is gone we will always be at war.

We have a timeline to leave Iraq in place.  By December 31, all US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq.  That doesn't mean that we are going to stop fighting Al-Qaeda, only that Iraq will no longer be our battlefield.  Most likely we will end up intervening in Yemen.

In late 2008, Bush and the Iraqi govt. negotiated an agreement which stated that all U.S. forces must withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. And I doubt we will have a large-scale intervention in Yemen. Maybe some bombings here and there, but the American people would be wary of starting another full war. We'll probably just give more aid to the Yemeni dictator (who is pro-American) in fighting al-Qaeda.

I meant December 31, 2011.

And the reason I think that we'll eventually go into Yemen is that between its Nepotistic dictator, southern seperatists, northern rebels, and Al-Qaeda elements it is fast becoming another Somalia.  And, like it or not, America is the world's police state.  In my mind, some kind of UN intervention seems immenent and guess who will spearhead that?

[Bull Moose Base]

Thune has been pretty successful in South Dakota politics, serving three terms in the House and is probably going to win re-election in the Senate with ease this year.  He has charm, charisma and he's family-oriented. 

For those of you that see my posts, you know I'm a moderate, "RINO" I suppose.  That being said, I would strongly support Thune for 2012.

1) He comes from an outside state, SD, which could serve as an advantage, similar to Carter (GA) in 1976.

2) He has the conservative establishment behind him

3) He doesn't come across as one of those ignorant types.  For example, he's said that while he is strongly pro life and against gay marriage, he understands and RESPECTS the other side's opinion.  The tolerance factor I like.

4) He's a very good speaker and doesn't make gaffes.

5) From what I read, his record is clean.  There is no dirty work on him, which is an advantage.

6) His location in the Plains/Midwest could be an advantage to the GOP, which is rtying to still break into the upper midwest (although we got IA back in 2004

7) He's got charisma.

While the cupboard appears bare, I think this is our man for 2012, or maybe 2016, if he feels 2012 becomes unwinnable depending on the economy in the next two years.

You list almost nothing that has to do with substance so saying he's the GOP's best chance is a bit cynical.

Thune is a pretty good bet to be the nominee.  His biggest vulnerability in a GOP primary will be his vote for TARP.  Then again, probably very few GOP 2012 primary candidates will have opposed it.  Johnson and if they run, Huckabee and Pence.

[pragmatic liberal]

Thune/Jindal would probably be a good ticket. These two would be acceptable to all major wings of the party, would project an appealing image to moderates, and would be generally credible leaders.

Of course, against an incumbent, their success would mostly depend on how Obama's approvals are. Even a poor pairing would be sufficient if Obama were in the low 40s or 30s. And even a strong pairing would have little traction if he's firmly in the 50s. The main upshot to a Thune/Jindal ticket would be that if Obama's in the mid-to-upper 40s -- which would suggest a very tight race -- they'd be well-placed to be on the winning side.

[feeblepizza]

Agreed. Thune is a great Senator, a great candidate, and one of the GOP's most rapid rising stars. If he picks someone like Rubio or Ayotte as his VP, he could certainly score big(ger than he normally would).

[All Along The Watchtower]

Romney/Thune would be a likely ticket, I think.

[milhouse24]

Thune is the GOP version of Obama, a one-term Senator who is handsome and youthful.  He needs to build a lot of momentum because there are stronger GOP veterans using their influence like Haley Barbour.  But the GOP is disorganized now with no true establishment leader like Palin.  There are too many factions, but the strongest faction is still the Evangelical Christian faction, which is so far comprised of Palin, Thune and Barbour. 

Romney is still a longshot because he is not an Evangelical.  Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers.  But a strong governor like Barbour can climb the ladder faster. 

Thune is not a rock star yet like Palin or Romney in name recognition.  But he has strong potential.  He is more viable as President in 2016.

[Mr. Morden]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

[milhouse24]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

[milhouse24]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

[Bull Moose Base]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Romney or Thune will have no trouble whatsoever raising mountains of cash or getting high profile  endorsements.  No one in a primary will go after Thune for being too inexperienced a senator, but all the governors would try to nail him on being only a senator i.e. having no executive experience, and will try to compare him to Obama 2008 in that way.  And those candidates who opposed TARP (possibly that will only be Gary Johnson?) will hit him on voting for it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

i think gop'ers will come to the conclusion, shortly after the midterms, that Palin/Huck/Romney are failed retreads and support will flood in behind Thune

[milhouse24]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

lol. The thing about Hillary being a co-President is just a myth and nothing more. The only thing Hillary did as First Lady was attempt to write a healthcare plan for the U.S., and she failed miserably at that. Afterwards Bill didn't give her any responsibilities for the last 6 years of his Presidency. Thus I stand by my statement that Hillary only had 8 years of political experience and thus was also a Senate newbie when she ran for President. Executive experience is important, but it isn't everything and I don't think it's that much of an issue for most voters. And I beg to differ about Barbour being more charismatic. Barbour is pretty boring. Thune, on the other hand, is very charismatic (and I watched both of them, so I know). And if Palin runs (and she probably will), Rush will probably support her over both Barbour and Thune (if they both decide to run).

[milhouse24]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

lol. The thing about Hillary being a co-President is just a myth and nothing more. The only thing Hillary did as First Lady was attempt to write a healthcare plan for the U.S., and she failed miserably at that. Afterwards Bill didn't give her any responsibilities for the last 6 years of his Presidency. Thus I stand by my statement that Hillary only had 8 years of political experience and thus was also a Senate newbie when she ran for President.

Executive experience is important, but it isn't everything and I don't think it's that much of an issue for most voters. And I beg to differ about Barbour being more charismatic. Barbour is pretty boring. Thune, on the other hand, is very charismatic (and I watched both of them, so I know). And if Palin runs (and she probably will), Rush will probably support her over both Barbour and Thune (if they both decide to run).

Hillary had 8 years of political experience as a national fundraiser and national celebrity, which helped her immensely in getting votes instead of just being a no-name 7 year senator.  Thune may be more flashy, youthful, and handsome, but I don't think GOP voters will go for that.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

lol. The thing about Hillary being a co-President is just a myth and nothing more. The only thing Hillary did as First Lady was attempt to write a healthcare plan for the U.S., and she failed miserably at that. Afterwards Bill didn't give her any responsibilities for the last 6 years of his Presidency. Thus I stand by my statement that Hillary only had 8 years of political experience and thus was also a Senate newbie when she ran for President.

Executive experience is important, but it isn't everything and I don't think it's that much of an issue for most voters. And I beg to differ about Barbour being more charismatic. Barbour is pretty boring. Thune, on the other hand, is very charismatic (and I watched both of them, so I know). And if Palin runs (and she probably will), Rush will probably support her over both Barbour and Thune (if they both decide to run).

Hillary had 8 years of political experience as a national fundraiser and national celebrity, which helped her immensely in getting votes instead of just being a no-name 7 year senator.  Thune may be more flashy, youthful, and handsome, but I don't think GOP voters will go for that.

You forget that Obama was also a celebrity Senator. After giving his keynote address in 2004, Obama became an instant rock star throughout the Democratic Party. Thus, throughout his four years as Senator, Obama was treated like a celebrity instead of some no-namer. I think the fact that two Senate newbies together got over 95% of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 (and that's not counting John Edwards) shows that many voters are willing to nominate and elect Senate newbies for President. And if the GOP nominated GWB in 2000, who had only 6 years of political experience, then I think Thune has a decent chance of being nominated at the end. Thune also has more than a decade of political experience (counting his service in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that should help persuade many voters that he has what it takes to become President. And again, charisma also matters a lot in determining the nominee, and Thune has a lot of charisma. Thus, I stand by my point that Senate newbies can get nominated and elected President if they have a lot of political skills and know how to run a good campaign.

[milhouse24]

Hillary had 16 years of fundraising, campaigning, working the phones and chicken dinners on a national level.  She may have been a newbie in the Senate, but not in the presidential primaries.  She worked on Bill's campaigns and knew the district party leaders.  From a logistical operational standpoint, she had a very big advantage.  Edwards also had a strong network because of 2004. 
But that is why Obama won, because had the same one term experience as Edwards and Clinton, so Obama won by luck and charisma.  Obama also loaded up buses of volunteers from Chicago into Iowa that may or may not have voted in the Iowa caucuses.  From an operational standpoint, Hillary should have won.  But because all 3 of them were newbies, no one could respectively claim a 3 AM wake a call and not get laughed at.

The GOP nominated Dubya because of his last name, it didn't matter if he had experience.  So unless John Thune becomes John Bush-Reagan, then he will not have as easy a time.  The Grand Old Party will nominate a Grand Old Wrinkly Guy like Dole or McCain.

You forget that Obama was also a celebrity Senator. After giving his keynote address in 2004, Obama became an instant rock star throughout the Democratic Party. Thus, throughout his four years as Senator, Obama was treated like a celebrity instead of some no-namer. I think the fact that two Senate newbies together got over 95% of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 (and that's not counting John Edwards) shows that many voters are willing to nominate and elect Senate newbies for President.

And if the GOP nominated GWB in 2000, who had only 6 years of political experience, then I think Thune has a decent chance of being nominated at the end. Thune also has more than a decade of political experience (counting his service in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that should help persuade many voters that he has what it takes to become President. And again, charisma also matters a lot in determining the nominee, and Thune has a lot of charisma. Thus, I stand by my point that Senate newbies can get nominated and elected President if they have a lot of political skills and know how to run a good campaign.

[Bo]

Hillary had 16 years of fundraising, campaigning, working the phones and chicken dinners on a national level.  She may have been a newbie in the Senate, but not in the presidential primaries.  She worked on Bill's campaigns and knew the district party leaders.  From a logistical operational standpoint, she had a very big advantage.  Edwards also had a strong network because of 2004. 
But that is why Obama won, because had the same one term experience as Edwards and Clinton, so Obama won by luck and charisma.  Obama also loaded up buses of volunteers from Chicago into Iowa that may or may not have voted in the Iowa caucuses.  From an operational standpoint, Hillary should have won.  But because all 3 of them were newbies, no one could respectively claim a 3 AM wake a call and not get laughed at.

The GOP nominated Dubya because of his last name, it didn't matter if he had experience.  So unless John Thune becomes John Bush-Reagan, then he will not have as easy a time.  The Grand Old Party will nominate a Grand Old Wrinkly Guy like Dole or McCain.

You forget that Obama was also a celebrity Senator. After giving his keynote address in 2004, Obama became an instant rock star throughout the Democratic Party. Thus, throughout his four years as Senator, Obama was treated like a celebrity instead of some no-namer. I think the fact that two Senate newbies together got over 95% of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 (and that's not counting John Edwards) shows that many voters are willing to nominate and elect Senate newbies for President.

And if the GOP nominated GWB in 2000, who had only 6 years of political experience, then I think Thune has a decent chance of being nominated at the end. Thune also has more than a decade of political experience (counting his service in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that should help persuade many voters that he has what it takes to become President. And again, charisma also matters a lot in determining the nominee, and Thune has a lot of charisma. Thus, I stand by my point that Senate newbies can get nominated and elected President if they have a lot of political skills and know how to run a good campaign.

I'm not sure how much Hillary helped on Bill's campaigns. And where is your source for Obama bringing in a lot of voters from Illinois to Iowa? That seems like a silly rumor started by the Hillary campaign to discredit Obama. And considering that the 2008 Democratic field had two Senate veterans (Biden and Dodd), it's very impressive that three Senate newbies (Obama, Hillary, and Edwards) got over 95% of the total primary vote. By your logic, Biden and Dodd should have done much better in the primaries since they were establishment figures. And John Thune will have 16 years of political experience in 2012. That's a lot and that might give him some establishment support. And historically, not all establishment candidates won the GOP presidential nomination. Goldwater won the nomination in 1964 and Reagan won the nomination in 1980 (and almost in 1976) despite the fact that the GOP establishment supported other candidates and considered Goldwater and Reagan to be extremists and unelectable. The GOP primary voters ultimately decide the nominee, not the GOP party bosses, and I think Thune has a decent chance to appeal to them. I mean, he did a good job appealing to the people of South Dakota, especially considering that he defeated the Senate Minority Leader (Daschle) in 2004.

[milhouse24]

Hillary attended fundraisers with Bill, wrote Christmas Cards to donors, was co-president and co-campaign manager (according to her) and she had this presidential campaign experience and expertise (according to her) that added to her 7 years in the Senate.  Hillary should have been able to manage the operational logistics of a campaign, but she fell short because she was a weaker candidate and politician.  Obama had tons of volunteers bused in from Illinois, but I don't know if any of them voted in the caucuses.  My friends always go to Iowa from Chicago to watch the caucuses for every election.  The Democratic Primaries are easier for Newbies like Jimmy Carter to win.
The GOP primaries and electorate heavily favor the guy with the longest and best resume.  That was John McCain.  If Biden and Dodd were Republicans, they would have done better.  So the GOP candidates with the Best Resumes or Executive Experience are Barbour, Daniels, Newt, Santorum.

I'm not sure how much Hillary helped on Bill's campaigns. And where is your source for Obama bringing in a lot of voters from Illinois to Iowa? That seems like a silly rumor started by the Hillary campaign to discredit Obama. And considering that the 2008 Democratic field had two Senate veterans (Biden and Dodd), it's very impressive that three Senate newbies (Obama, Hillary, and Edwards) got over 95% of the total primary vote.

By your logic, Biden and Dodd should have done much better in the primaries since they were establishment figures. And John Thune will have 16 years of political experience in 2012. That's a lot and that might give him some establishment support. And historically, not all establishment candidates won the GOP presidential nomination. Goldwater won the nomination in 1964 and Reagan won the nomination in 1980 (and almost in 1976) despite the fact that the GOP establishment supported other candidates and considered Goldwater and Reagan to be extremists and unelectable. The GOP primary voters ultimately decide the nominee, not the GOP party bosses, and I think Thune has a decent chance to appeal to them. I mean, he did a good job appealing to the people of South Dakota, especially considering that he defeated the Senate Minority Leader (Daschle) in 2004.