Who will have a better showing?

[Eraserhead]

We already know that both of these gentlemen are destined to lose and lose badly. However, I would like to know which one you think will have a slightly less embarrassing showing.

[Bacon King]

Pawlenty will get more votes overall. Huntsman will come out looking better though because he's only in to boost name recognition for 2016 whereas Pawlenty will probably leave the primary as a nobody.

[TheGlobalizer]

Huntsman.  Pawlenty has already peaked.  Huntsman is TBD but it'd be hard to perform worse than Pawlenty relative to expectations (or just about any other measure).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Huntsman will survive past Iowa, make a decent showing in NH (5-7%?) and go on to Florida, where he will drop out. He will be viable in 2016 as a result. Pawlenty, like Sam Brownback, needs Iowa to go anywhere.

[California8429]

Pawlenty, he actually has a base, Huntsman just has money backers.

And with more moderates like Giuliani and Pataki entering the race, that hurts Huntsman, especially Giuliani.

[Napoleon]

Pawlenty

[ZuWo]

Pawlenty. Huntsman is loved by some journalists, but those who praise him are not going to be primary voters.

[Paul Kemp]

I guess Huntsman but they're both going to be in single digits so it doesn't really matter.

[tpfkaw]

Whichever one doesn't drop out before Iowa.

[Torie]

Well since I think Huntsman has some chance of becoming POTUS with odds a bit more than fanciful, and T-Paw does not ...

[Paul Kemp]

Huntsman appeals to the middle of the road conservatives who don't really have a horse in this race. The crowd that Pawlenty is going for already has a bunch of candidates.

[Mehmentum]

Huntsman has a niche with liberal Republicans and independents.  The best response Pawlenty gets is "meh, he's not bad" and "Who?"

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Huntsman has a niche with liberal Republicans and independents.

That's why he's an irrelevancy. There are maybe three liberal Republicans left in the whole country (two are for Obama, the third is leaning Romney). And Torie/anvi fantasizing aside, David Gergenesque indies are never going to be a large factor in a GOP primary.

Say what you will about Pawlenty, he at least has some idea of who comprises his party's base now.

[Eraserhead]

Well since I think Huntsman has some chance of becoming POTUS with odds a bit more than fanciful, and T-Paw does not ...

How would he win the nomination, Torie?

[Torie]

Well since I think Huntsman has some chance of becoming POTUS with odds a bit more than fanciful, and T-Paw does not ...

How would he win the nomination, Torie?

Mittens needs to stumble, and Huntsman needs to impress in the debates, and probably show substantially better than Mittens against Obama in the polls. I don't think the rest of the field is in the hunt. They are all losers - all of them. Give it time. T-Paw will be out in the near future. That leaves two candidates with some credibility. Yes, Perry will start out with some, but will fade in a hurry if he is foolish enough to get into this fray. With the klieg lights on him, it won't take long.

[RogueBeaver]

Pawlenty. I keep forgetting who has the Venn diagram where 99% of Huntsman supporters are journalists, but I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. Read POLITICO's article on how Huntsman's campaign is like an exploding WWII battlewagon: magazines going up every little while with auxiliary power flickering on and off. Or to put it another way: McCain summer '07 x1000.

[TheGlobalizer]

Well since I think Huntsman has some chance of becoming POTUS with odds a bit more than fanciful, and T-Paw does not ...

How would he win the nomination, Torie?

Mittens needs to stumble, and Huntsman needs to impress in the debates, and probably show substantially better than Mittens against Obama in the polls. I don't think the rest of the field is in the hunt. They are all losers - all of them. Give it time. T-Paw will be out in the near future. That leaves two candidates with some credibility. Yes, Perry will start out with some, but will fade in a hurry if he is foolish enough to get into this fray. With the klieg lights on him, it won't take long.

This is, roughly, my view of Huntsman and my basis for support.  Huntsman does have a path if he can present himself as the authentic statesman the GOP primary currently lacks, but someone is going to have to really stick it to Romney for that to happen.

[Sam Spade]

Well since I think Huntsman has some chance of becoming POTUS with odds a bit more than fanciful, and T-Paw does not ...

How would he win the nomination, Torie?

Mittens needs to stumble, and Huntsman needs to impress in the debates, and probably show substantially better than Mittens against Obama in the polls. I don't think the rest of the field is in the hunt. They are all losers - all of them. Give it time. T-Paw will be out in the near future. That leaves two candidates with some credibility. Yes, Perry will start out with some, but will fade in a hurry if he is foolish enough to get into this fray. With the klieg lights on him, it won't take long.

Torie, I've known you for many years now, and have always found your political analysis to be highly insightful, but you're smoking crack if you think Huntsman has more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.  His chance at the nomination could basically be killed with one sentence that I think we all know the content of.

Frankly, the only reason why Romney has to be considered the favorite is because of the strength with which he is polling nationally against Obama.  If the other "kookier" candidates with a chance either start polling ahead of Obama or start polling the same as Romney, he will no longer be considered the favorite, and may collapse, because they are where the vast majority of the GOP base (and its corresponding "Independent" cohort) are.  It's that simple, really.

[Torie]

Yes, I know Huntsman is a long shot, Sam, but let's see how he does in the debates, OK?  By the way, even Hugh Hewitt admitted that Bachmann is unelectable against Obama, so in the end, it has to be somebody that really seems creditable to put their family pics on the Oval office desk. And it will be. And looking at the list, I don't see anyone creditable but the two Mormons (sorry, T-Paw means well, but he's a nebbish). Don't blame me!

[Sam Spade]

Yes, I know Huntsman is a long shot, Sam, but let's see how he does in the debates, OK?  By the way, even Hugh Hewitt admitted that Bachmann is unelectable against Obama, so in the end, it has to be somebody that really seems creditable to put their family pics on the Oval office desk. And it will be. And looking at the list, I don't see anyone creditable but the two Mormons (sorry, T-Paw means well, but he's a nebbish). Don't blame me!

I seem to recall that Huntsman was a willing part of the Obama administration.  If so, why do I need to see any debates?

At this point, anyone who can win the Republican nomination is electable as President because the potential for economic chaos is substantial, where anyone with a pulse can win.  I will certainly concede that if X cannot win the nomination, then they cannot win the Presidency, but you are counting far too many people as being "out" at this point - insurgency is a very powerful force right now.

Just as an FYI, Obama certainly was elected under similar conditions in 2008, but probably would have been elected anyway because of the legacy of Bush.  Without the legacy of Bush and economic chaos, the chances of Obama winning would have dropped dramatically, and honestly, he probably wouldn't have gotten out of the Democratic primary (which he barely did anyway, due to taking complete advantage of the weird system).

As for Hugh Hewitt, I generally find him to be a simple-minded idiot of the Republican/conservative persuasion.  There are a lot of those.

[TheGlobalizer]

I seem to recall that Huntsman was a willing part of the Obama administration.  If so, why do I need to see any debates?

What a strange thing to say.

All Huntsman needs to say in response to this Obama administration stuff is "I wanted to serve my country".  It's like questioning an Army general for serving under a Democratic president.