The answer’s not surprising, Gallup did a poll and found three candidates chosen by a Majority of Republicans and Republican leaning Independents as candidates they’d like to see run in 2012:
All other candidates including Bobby Jindal and Charlie Crist are going to have a tough road to hoe.
Palin’s numbers among conservatives stand out as do Mitt’s numbers among moderates. It doesn’t seem Republicans are hankering for “new voices” which could be pretty bad news for presumptive candidates like Pawlenty. Republican voters with their conservative tendencies tend to go with familiar faces and whoever’s next in line. The debate is ultimately over who the next person in line is, and if two of these big three get in, I’d take 3:1 odds that no one else is going to come in and take the nomination.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
“It doesn’t seem Republicans are hankering for “new voices” which could be pretty bad news for presumptive candidates like Pawlenty.”
You cannot conclude that because the poll didn’t ask that.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I’m hoping this changes.
I don’t want to offend anyone but I honestly don’t believe either of those three are likely to beat Obama no matter how poorly he governs.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
You can’t conclude that Pawlenty WOULDN’T get anywhere, but you can conclude that there isn’t a big opening for new faces – the vast majority of the party is happy with the options currently available.
Unfortunately, this poll doesn’t help much beyond that – it gives absolutely no indication of who has the most people actually planning on supporting them.
My experience with Palin supporters is that they are rather rabidly dedicated to the gov. – so that might explain her higher numbers.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
The only way Romney doesn’t win is if he doesn’t run.
But he will.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
For all the polling they did, you would think they could have asked people who they were gonna vote for…
November 21st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I wouldn’t be so quick to count out anyone outside the big 3 trio of Huck, Mitt, and Sarah. Who would’ve thought Huckabee and Romney would’ve been the two most prominent challengers to John McCain in 2008 in 2006, early 2007, much less 2004!? In 2004, most thought it was gonna be McCain or Rudy as gthe GOP nominee, but by 2005-06, George Allen and Rick Santorum were mentioned a lot as the nominees before they got dumped out of the Senate. Rudy and Romney were the frontrunners for most of the fall of 2007, but McCain and Huckabee shot up late and McCain won. I don’t take too much stock in EARLY predictions, Adam.
BTW, Keep up the great work on this site. You’re one of the very few here that I can mostly agree with. Don’t let some ppl here who think that your Huckabee support means you shouldn’t be allowed to be a front-page poster get to ya. BTW, on that topic of front-page posters… how do you become a front-page poster??? would like to post some things every now and then.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Tim Pawlenty wasn’t even polled by Gallup. They poll Lindsey Graham and not Tim Pawlenty?
That’s incredibly silly.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Does anyone think ALL THREE (Romney, Huckabee, Palin) would all get in in 2012? That might reeaaally divide the party, since all three are liked by a lot of Republican voters. Or it could really energize it and strengthen its organization and base going into the general election, as the Hillary/Obama race did.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Adam is correct, this will either be no race, or a two person race. Unknowns never win the nomination.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
You really can’t compare. There were three factors that led to the rise of Romney and Huckabee:
1) The sudden removal of a top candidate who was considered one of the frontrunners from the field (George Allen)
2) A generally dissatisfied party with the remaining top options – Giuliani and McCain
3) A national anger at the GOP that encouaged the rise of outsiders.
Its unlikely any of those will exist in four years.
Also, while we did see wild swings, Everything that happened in 2008 followed the Republican tradition of giving the nomination to the next in line.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“I’m hoping this changes.
I don’t want to offend anyone but I honestly don’t believe either of those three are likely to beat Obama no matter how poorly he governs.”
I have that fear too. All three have taken major image hots over the past election cycle. And they would definitely get more hits in the next election cycle. A fresher face that can unite most of the factions that support those three could be better (I think Jindal, Pawlenty are viable contenders).
November 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Why would they not ask who people were supporting?
Thats just strange.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
How many times did Reagan run before he got the nomination? At least three – 1964, 1968, and 1976.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
12, you would probably not want to see the numbers, and yes Palin supporters are as hard core as obama supporters.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
#10… good point there. Didnt consider those factors. But scenario 1 (removal of a top contender) could happen still. Scenario 2 and 3, less likely. Agreed there.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Reagan only ran in.1976.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I am betting my car that the ticket is on that poll. Sarah and Rudy will run against Obama biden.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Repeat:
Pawlenty wasn’t even polled.
Where was Mitt Romney polling in 2006 and 2007?
Yeah, single digits. A few votes shifted in New Hampshire and he would have been the nominee.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“12, you would probably not want to see the numbers”
Two of three have shown Romney with a comfortable lead – and they agreed with each other almost to the point. When in doubt, throw out the polls that aren’t backed up.
“and yes Palin supporters are as hard core as obama supporters.”
One reason to believe that Romney or Huckabee may be ahead of Palin in terms of people actually supporting them. The only reason I say that is because, if Palin supporters do worship her the way they seem to, they are probably far less open to other candidates than Romney or even Huckabee supporters.
Agree?
November 21st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Reagan only ran in.1976.”
No – he deffinately ran in 1968, because Nixon mentioned him in his acceptance speech, along with George Romney – http://watergate.info/nixon/acceptance-speech-1968.shtml.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Doug, but the fact is, those votes DIDN’T shift.
Should have, would have, could have, it doesn’t matter. Sure, Romney and Huckabee both experienced great rises that put them on the level of top competitors in 2012, but that didn’t effect who the eventual nominee was.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Actually act blog, two of 3 have shown Palin ahead, including one with a massive lead. I would agree with your last point, but that will change, because Palin and Romney agree on more than they do with huckabee. Palin supporters are not going anywhere.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
MatthewK,
How did they not effect who the eventual nominee was? Romney and Huckabee KILLED Giuliani in November in December. Here’s the flow of events. People lazily back Giuliani for the most of 2007, but some of them, especially so-cons, are casting around for another option. Sometime in November, Huckabee has that great debate, while so-cons are simultaneously threatening to bolt if Rudy’s nominated- this sends much of Rudy’s so-con support to the Huckster, while making the rest of his supporters anxious. In December, Mitt absolutely pummels Rudy over taxes and immigration, and most of Rudy’s remaining “three-legged stool” supporters sidle over to Mitt. At the same time, Rudy’s moderate supporters are anxious, because he’s not gaining much traction, and they fear that Huck or Mitt is on the verge of being nominated. This group starts to flee to McCain, after his dozens of December endorsements (the Lieberman endorsement, and the Press endorsements most notable). Rudy’s suddenly left without any constituency. Without Huck’s debate, and Mitt’s attacks, Rudy ends up our nominee. How exactly didn’t they effect the outcome?
November 21st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“two of 3 have shown Palin ahead”
???
Rasmussen had Palin ahead, this is true – http://race42008.com/2008/11/07/poll-alert-rasmussen-2012-republican-primary-poll/
But Newsweek put Romney in the lead – http://race42008.com/2008/10/24/newsweek-2012-gop-primary-poll/
and so did WSJ/NBC – http://race42008.com/2008/11/06/poll-alert-2012-republican-nomination/
November 21st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Because Matt, McCain started the favorite (you have to go WAY back, but he did), and ended as the nominee.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
By the way, I think these polls are idiotic. How can 51% of the GOP “not want” Charlie Crist to run? I bet fewer then 20% of the GOP has even heard of the guy.
Petraeus is an interesting wildcard though. I’ve said before, that I’d be enormously inclined to support a Petraeus bid, even though I don’t know where he stands on a number of issues. If he’s a relatively mainstream Republican on domestic and social issues…then can we say Petraeus/Jindal?
November 21st, 2008 at 8:46 pm
MatthewK,
I think it’s pretty meaningless to say that McCain was the favorite. As many Rudy supporters pointed out at the time, McCain was NEVER really the favorite, in polling, once it looked like Rudy would run. Certainly for all of 2007 Rudy was ahead of McCain. I’m too lazy to look up the data now, but that’s certainly what I recall.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Memio, you would support the general even though you have no idea what he stands for or if he can campaign? Jesus Murphy!
November 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I think hes saying he’d be willing to support him depending on where he stabds on domestic/social issues.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Kristofer,
I think foreign policy is the single most important issue with which a President deals. I could have conceivably supported FDR in 1940, since he was one of only a handful of men who was prepared, perhaps even eager, to fight the war pre-Pearl Harbor. You can forgive a man alot, if he’s unerringly right on something so terribly important. I have a pretty good sense of where Petraeus stands on foreign policy, and I’m awfully impressed. So I’m willing to give him some leeway on domestic issues.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Mitt’s numbers among moderates are interesting. Though we have to keep in mind that conservatives dominate the party, hence Palin does better among all Republicans (since she wins the conservatives). But 4 years is a LONG time in politics. Tell that to our potential next Secretary of State who most thought was gonna be our next President a year ago.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Well, thats part of the reason this poll is useless. Palin doesn’t necessarily have more support, just a broader number of people who are willing to consider her.
Now, if Palin’s supporters are as dedicated and rabid as they seem to be, then they are going to be less open to other candidates than supporters of Romney or Huckabee.
That could explain the higher level of support for her – Palin supporters don’t want the competition to run, while Romney supporters and Huckabee supporters are more open to having other candidates in the field, even if they aren’t supporting them.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Mac,
I think it’s interesting that Mitt is perceived, somehow, as the most moderate potential candidate. That’s probably good for him, since it’s not like he’s doing too badly with conservatives, but it effect how he tries to run in 2012. If Palin, Huck, and Gingrich all run, Mitt may almost have to try to run as a “reasonable conservative”. I’m not convinced that Gingrich, even in his new Kumbaya persona, will ever be trusted by moderates. That’s part of the reason I’d have a hard time supporting him. Palin has alot of work to do, on that score, as well. And Huck’s too much of a culture warrior to ever sell these folks. Now, if only a couple of the heavyweights run, then probably Pawlenty, Huntsman and Daniels get a little traction, and Mitt’s positioning gets a little more complicated.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
MatthewK,
Or it could be that Palin’s just more popular with Republicans right now. That’s allowed you know, even if you don’t like it.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Romney’s best bet is to run similar to how he ran in 2008 – as a competent conservative.
Moderates will admire resume, competence, experience, and accomplishments.
Conservative could be drawn to Romney because he shares the positions they like.
Romney’s opening in 2012 will likely be running as the candidate who can produce unity by attracting members of all parts of the GOP.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Memio, sorry I did not realize you shared that philosophy with aron and I, sorry. I’ll try to get to know you better, my fault.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“MatthewK,
Or it could be that Palin’s just more popular with Republicans right now. That’s allowed you know, even if you don’t like it.”
Of course its allowed, and of couse it could be true, and of course it could change.
The problem is that the polls do not support the idea that Palin is most popular. With the exception of Rasmussen, she trails in the polls, and not by a small margin.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I think its bad to latch onto one candidate or the other. On that point, we agree. I like Huckabee and Palin out of the BIG THREE, but I’m willing to support other candudates like Jindal or Pawlenty just as equally as Palin and Huckabee. Heck, (this is a SHOCKER), I;m willing to support Romney if push comes to shove. This is a lot of name recognition right now. Huckabee, Romney, and Palin are the THREE most well-known Republicans besides Bush and McCain. But I wouldn’t totally discount anything here… Romney, Palin, and Huckabee if they all run in ’12 will have large bases of organization and major supporters. At the same time, I wouldn’t crown any of them right now.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Act-blog, you are going to be shocked to realize that Romney will be the moderate candidate, unless crist surprises is all.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I believe a high number want to see Sarah run in order to stay relevant and/or to give her a stronger shot at the VP slot. I don’t believe she would be given top choice. Kristofer, I’ve only seen two polls asking about who is the favorite for Presidential nominee in 2012, and Mitt won both of them. The only thing I saw asked showing Sarah did well was a question as to whether or not Sarah was the right VP pick. There is a big difference my friend.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Kristofer, hasn’t MatthewK respectfully asked you to refrain from calling him that name?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“Romney’s best bet is to run similar to how he ran in 2008 – as a competent conservative.
Moderates will admire resume, competence, experience, and accomplishments.
Conservative could be drawn to Romney because he shares the positions they like.
Romney’s opening in 2012 will likely be running as the candidate who can produce unity by attracting members of all parts of the GOP.”
Theres definitely something to that argument. My only problem is that Romney needs the “empathy/I feel your pain” factor, a huge part of connecting with people in the middle. Not discounting the resume/competence part, just saying that probably won’t be enough. Experience wont be enough… look at McCain/Obama, Bush/Clinton, Gore/Bush.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I don’t have a problem with Romney being the “moderate” candidate – because he is still conservative.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
If Mitt ran as a competent conservative in 2008, why did he not win the GOP nomination? 2012 could probably be a much better environment for the GOP as a whole though, so if that happens, your point is more valid.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
39, no, she achieved 69% in ras. Palin killed Romney. 40. He has? Someome else on here calls him his actual last name, I do not do that.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“If Mitt ran as a competent conservative in 2008, why did he not win the GOP nomination? 2012 could probably be a much better environment for the GOP as a whole though, so if that happens, your point is more valid.”
Simply put? Because it wasn’t his turn. Thats the way the GOP works. You have to run, lose, earn your place in line, and then run again to claim your prize.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Kristofer,
Aron and I agree on almost nothing. In the ordinary course of things, foreign policy wouldn’t have much impact on my primary selection, because foreign policy is a neglected art, and most Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) are pretty generic. But, give me a chance to select a conservative who knows TONS about these issues, because he’s dealt with them, at the highest levels, for 30 years- a student of history, diplomacy, and war- and I’m prepared to jump to attention. Give me a MacArthur or a Churchill, as the world seems about to go to pieces, and I’ll barely even glance at their domestic policies. Petraeus may be a MacArthur, and the world sure looks like it could go to pieces in the coming years.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
45, go back to “act-blog”. You had an excellent blog and radio show under that name, plus you never throw away your trade mark!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
It’s easier to remember ACTblog because he used it for over a year, and we’ve had at least 6 or 7 matthew’s posting at one time or another, so it singles him out more, thus leaving little room for confusion.
It’s friday night, I’m out.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Kristofer, I’ll assume you were just mistaken, but here it is: Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.
This has nothing to do with 2012 presidential nomination, sorry bud!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
IllinoisGuy,
No, Kristofer is right. There was indeed a Rasmussen poll, on the 2012 primaries, that had Palin in the 60′s.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I don’t write for the act blog any more – I gave that up for a position with http://www.committedtoromney.com
November 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Tommy, I am already out, yeah blackberry! Btw, thanks for not Emailing me oh the Thompson story I was working on!
November 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Three polls – two put Romney in the lead (and were pretty close). Rass, until I see another poll confirming it, I won’t believe.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I’ll look again Matthew, but that’s where I got that one, Rasmussen? The one I posted shows nothing. They could have asked do you think ‘Joe the Plumber’ helped McCain and got 77% saying yes. That would not have meant that tehy thought he was their favorite for Pres in 2012.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Kris,
Never got your email. I sent you a blank. I was wondering when you were going to send it.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I know you’re over at that supremely logical and objective site.
OK, now I’m really gone.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
but maybe I’ll refer to you as Committed from now on.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Sorry guys…I’ve looked at every Rasmussen since the election, and there is nothing like that; just the one I showed.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Polarization Ranking (subtracting the percentage of moderate/liberal Republicans from the percentage of conservative Republicans)
Palin +25%
Huckabee +19%
Gingrich +15%
Jeb Bush +14%
Petraeus +13%
Jindal +11%
Romney +5%
Giuliani -3%
Crist +2%
Graham -1%
November 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Ok, I see your number is embedded within the poll I cited. They had already asked several questions about Palin, then they asked who they prefer as the nominee…..not a very valid way to conduct a poll.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
60, that is why we may notb have much of a contest in 3 years.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I don’t know how to read this poll. The question is kind of vague. Some liberals might want Palin to Vote to split a dynamic, while others might want Guiliani to run just because they like him, but some strong conservatives aren’t exactly thinking in terms of splitting sections of the vote. There are other ways to view this as well.
Most likely is you could take the top 4 or 5 and say at this point they seem to enjoy the top support, but not neccasarily the most.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Reagan ran in 1968, but it wasn’t a vigorous campaign. He ran as a favorite son. Bob Dole ran twice before getting the nomination (1980, 1988).
November 21st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
What was Mitt Romney polling in 2006?
What was Mitt Romney polling in January 2008?
These early polls are entertaining but they have no predictive ability.
In fact the polls didn’t begin to predict anything until a few weeks before primary voting started.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Cant make too much out of this poll. I think Pawlenty has a fair shot, would like to see his numbers.
like i said a few days ago its good to be Mitt Romney. Very broad appeal across the GOP spectrum from conservatives at 64% to moderates/liberals at 59%. No one comes close to those favorables across the board.
Although will someone help me with the 5% for Romney and 6% for Huckabee that have “no opinion” on these guys. Where have they been for the last year and a half?
November 21st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“BTW, on that topic of front-page posters… how do you become a front-page poster??? would like to post some things every now and then.”
Adam G…. do you have an answer to this? Anybody that does, I’d like to know.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 am
Palin won’t be a VP candidate again. I don’t think anyone would pick her, and I don’t think she would want it. My bet is for a Romney/Jindal ticket in ’12.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 am
I think a lot of people on here are very “influenced” by Romney. So many people try to make him out to be some kind of “true conservative”, but he quite simply is not. For the same reason as Huckabee, but different issues. They weren’t and aren’t acrossed the board conservatives. Romney is an economic conservative, and understands how to balance a government checkbook….but he held LIBERAL positions on many issues prior to running for president. The same can be said of Huck except that his strong suit was social conservatism. I’m against either of these jokers running next time.
Oh, and why do people think Mitt is “next in line”? He’s not. Huckabee won more delegates than Romney. Yes, Romney could’ve won more if he stayed in, but then we may not have even ended up with a McCain nomination. Next in line is almost always the VP nominee. Sarah Palin has “next in line” status, not Huck or Romney. Personally, I don’t want any of these three.
I’d take Jindal, Pawlenty, Cantor or Sanford over them. I just hope that Huckabee doesn’t run so Jindal can get blocks from the south. I’d be more in favor of Romney as VP.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:56 am
While I am not in anyone’s camp yet, It is true that I respect Mrs. Palin more than anyone else. I am not yet officially joining her camp or anyone else’s camp yet because I know not know who will actually run (I can make an educated guess) or who will be the best candidate to beat Mr. Obama. I further realize that like everybody esle, Mrs. Palin is not perfect and she of course may not be the best person to lead our party in 2012. Nevertheless, I admire her political beauty. Even without her good looks, she still has a great brain. Many people overlook this fact. Those of us who could potentially join her camp one day and defend her from the trashers are accused of worshiping her. Very few of her supporter and those that respect her actually worship her. Most of of worship GOD in one way or another, some worship money and some worship both. Again however, we do not actually worship her, we defend her from the trashers and we defend her beautiful Conservative ideas. Despite all her Pro and Cons, few people are as well balanced a Conservative as Mrs. Palin. She is almost perfect on Social, economic and foreign policy issues.
Whether or not she will ever lead or should lead our party, she will always have my admiration and respect. I will admire her whether or not I choose to join her camp or somebody else’s camp, but I will never worship her.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 am
OH Joe #69: That’s pretty much the way I feel about it, too. It’s too early to pin my hopes on any one individual running against the President and Congress that haven’t even done any governing.
We don’t yet have a good idea of what we’re supposedly going to be opposing.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
OHIO – What leads you to believe Palin has a great brain? The Turkey interview yesterday? Her incomprehensible syntax? That she can see Russia? That the bailout was about health care reform?
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
One more for you, OHIO. Is being pro-amnesty, a beautiful conservative idea? How about calling for control of CEO pay? Or imposing the largest tax ever on oil companies during a time of crisis?
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
At this point the race will be between Palin, Huck Mitt and someone else, possibly Newt or Crist.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
wateredseeds.#68:
Yes, that argument can and has been made. However, have you ever noticed that the only ones making it are Huckabee supporters, and not even all of them?
The problem is “next in line” is in actuality closer to “almost won” than just “second place in the vote count”. It is easy to make the argument that either Palin or Romney almost won. It is a lot harder to make the same claim about Huckabee.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
I would say right now that the people most likely to receive the 2012 nomination are Romney, Palin, and Jindal. I wouldn’t complain too loudly if either one of these fine Republicans get the nod.
I think that Huckabee is too busy burning bridges and picking fights at the moment to have any reasonable chance of winning the nod. His antics are turning off a whole lot of people. It’s selling a lot of books, though.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
marK,
The only people that make the argument that romney is next in line is romney supporters. Everyone else thinks Palin is next in line, Huckabee is next in line or that we should shoot everyone that is next in line because that worked out so well for us this time(rolls eyes). When you say the only people making that argument are Huck supporters, I think that’s a stereotypical response. WAS I a Huck supporter? Yes, but I started being a Jindal supporter before the 2008 election was even over. I’d have taken Jindal over any of the jokers we had in 2008. What a rediculous bunch of candidates. Everyone in the top tier was a moderate! Romney, Guliani, McCain and Huckabee were all moderates. None of them were acrossed the board conservatives. I think we need to move beyond the 2008 crowd entirely. Jindal, Pawlenty, Sanford, Ryan, Cantor and a few others could make a nice crop of candidates in 12′. Romney needs to start vying for VP and back a candidate behind the scenes. Romney is very popular on this site to the tune of about 60%. This site is not a berometer for what the republican base is thinking. Especially since most people that come here are social moderates. Maybe that’s why they like Romney so much. He doesn’t really care about the social issues, unless he’s running for something. What a joke. If this guy gets the nod by some mirical 12′ the socons will end up bolting the party…..WHICH WOULD BE A HUGE LOSS TO BOTH SOCONS AND REPUBLICANS. I think Romney needs a voice in our party, but he shouldn’t be our nominee in 2012.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
lol, i mispelled miracle
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
“The only people that make the argument that romney is next in line is romney supporters.”
Actually, I’ve seen quite a number of non-Romney supporters say it. Saying it does not make one a supporter of the candidate involved. I said the same thing several times about McCain in 2008, and I never once was his supporter until he wrapped the thing up. Then I became the GOP Nominee supporter.
I have never once seen a non-Huckabee supporter claim he was next in line. Have you?
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Oh, I also believe people are underestimating Huckabee. I don’t think he will actually run, but he is only making the people mad that didn’t support him this time already. His supporters and potential supporters(primary voters after he dropped out) are on board with him. Does anyone think that these people read political blogs less than a month after the last election. Diehards like us are the only ones that care about how he’s burning bridges. Personally I hope he brings down himself and romney before 2012. They are going to be very weak candidates in 2012. They would’ve been in the general this year as well.
Can you picture it. Romney ran so many contrast ads against his republican adversaries that should he get the nomination in 2012, he would be a ticking time bomb. They will run hundreds of ads on him talking about being pro-choice, and then changing his position. Being for gay rights and affirmative action, then changing his position. How about gun control? For crying out loud, he is the republican version of John Kerry, and I really didn’t like John Kerry. Romney even flipped on the war in Iraq. HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS GUY NEED TO CHANGE POSITIONS? He would be better suited as VP or secretary of state. Yes I do believe he would make a good secretary of state. For one, no one cares about your former positions on the issues. They care about your ability to be a presence in front of foreign leaders.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Well, I didn’t mention Huckabee alone, I also mentioned Palin. I was just reasoning away Romney being next in line. Which honestly I don’t care about. I knew McCain was going to be the nominee(well I thought it anyway) way back in 2004. Even when he took a swan dive in 07 I still thought, this guy is the only one that can come back after everyone else attacks each other. I don’t care much about people being next in line, and I think the GOP needs to get over it. If they don’t then we will be nominating another weak candidate. I think Romney is a smart person and capable of being president. He just can’t win the general election. If obama fails the country miserably than maybe romney could have a chance, but I doubt it. No one will trust romney when the dems are done with him.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
waterseeds, the fact that you misrepresent Romney on every key issue, doesn’t help your credibility. It makes me wonder what your true reasons are for not supporting him. Why don’t you get real?
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
wateredseeds,
Where exactly did Romney switch his stand on gun control, gay rights, and affirmative actions? Don’t just say he was for it and then against it. Where exactly did he change the specific policy he was previously advocating?
He certainly did change is position on abortion. He and all his supporters readily admit that. But he has never changed his positions on the others, not once.
Prove me wrong. Where has he taken a position, and then later gone against the exact same position? For instance, you claim he has flipped on gun control. Where was he for guns for hunting and self-defense, and then against guns for hunting and self-defense? Where was he for assault weapons and where was he against assault weapons. Since you specifically name gun control as one of his worse flip-flops, it shouldn’t be to hard to find.
You claim he has flipped on Gay Rights. Where was he for equal opportunity for gays in housing and employment, and where was he against equal opportunity for gays in housing and employment. Where was he for gay marriage and then against gay marriage. This is a famous one for him, so it shouldn’t be hard for you to show where this is the case.
Where was he for a bail-out for the credit market and then against it? Where was he for a bail-out of the auto industry and then against it? Where was he for investing in alternate energies to help the auto industry among others, and then where was he against it? Where was he for fighting for every auto job and then against it?
Just where are all these flip-flops you claim he’s made. You say he does it all the time. Show me.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Huckabee has indeed burned bridges, and is still doing it. Contrast that to Romney, who has been trying to build bridges after dropping out. I think this is one reason for the GOP tradition of “next in line”. Reagan lost to Goldwater. He didn’t go write a book slamming everyone that didn’t support him, he helped the cause. That is what Romney is doing personally and through his PAC. One of the early indicators of a candidate’s strength is by the number of endoesements. In ’08 Romney and McCain were vying for the lead. If Romney runs, who do you think the “machine” will be behind?
Although I am a Romney supporter, I would be very happy with Palin, Jindal or Sanford. Anybody but Huck. I bet there is a lot of this sentiment around.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I’d be really interested to see Mark Sanford strive for and achieve greater national prominence. I’m quite keen on his attitude and track record. His record is one of a Gingrich revolutionary who lived up to the ideals, and who believes in limited government as a guarantee of liberty. I’d like to see his star rise, but at the moment he doesn’t seem to have much national public profile.
This isn’t to say I’ve got anything against others. I’d also like to hear more from and about Pawlenty, Jindal, Huntsman, and Daniels. I know enough to be comfortable with Romney and, of course, Palin so far.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I liked her Turkey interview.
I believe it was Tina Fey (on Saturday Night Live) not actually Mrs. Palin that said she could see Russia from her backyard, but who cares.
I do not think that Mrs. Palin is outright Pro-Amesty. However, it is true that she is more Pro-Immigrant that most people like. I for one do not believe that Immigration is strictly a Liberal versus Conservative issue. Not all of us Immigrants all radical Liberals. I came here legally and I do not have a problem with other people coming here as long as they come here legally, learn enough English and live out the American way of life. Turning away Hispanic voters is no way to win an election.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
What a dis-honest and misleading take on Romney. He is at or near the top choice of ALL segments of the party — he is not simply the choice of moderates. He appeals to conservatives (having won that segment of the party during the primary against McCain) and is acceptable to the moderates. It is why he is going to win if he wants to run. Huckabee, while even usually loosing the conservative vote to Romney during the primaries, is simply despised by at least half of the party and has no chance in many of the states.
Lets see, Huck and Romney tie among conservatives — how do you think the others vote is going?
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
What CLEARLY stands out is Romney’s broad appeal to all segments of he party. WOW. Good news for Romney.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I would say nice try, except I don’t praise those who lie. Mitt Romney is a strong three legged stool Republican with strong appeal to moderates because of his intelligence and credentials.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Oh, that obviously was for the wateredseeds guy.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Romney’s big problem is his percieved flexibility. If he demonstrates more consistency in the race, he’d be the clear favorite and most people would be much more settled about him. If he can’t do that, he’d never survive the generals anyway. The question is – has his 08 campaign already sunk him? It’s a question that could go for Palin as well. Barring sharp shifts exposing their past performances as outliers, it’d be a huge mistake to nominate either of the two, IMO. Ditto on Huckabee.
Jindal or perhaps, just maybe, Pawlenty is the answer, simple as that. Conservatism has no better emissary. More name exposure should make him nigh-unstoppable.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Wateredseeds you are ridiculous (and please note the spelling of same).
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
One note about Jindal, Sanford and other new faces. Watching this election so closely, one thing is clear. It takes a lot of savvy and discipline to succeed as a national candidate. Although Democrats can and do get away with rooky mistakes and gaffes, Republicans don’t. The media eats them alive. Take the treatment of Palin as an example. This is one reason I think that as good as some of those mentioned may be, I still think we will get a veteran campaigner as a nominee in ’12. That narrows the field to Romney, Palin and (gulp) Huckabee.
The interesting thing to see is how deeply Palin will cut into Huckabee’s support. One way to guarantee a Romney nomination is for both Palin and Huckabee to run.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 am
To correct a misimpression earlier in this thread, Reagan did not run for president in 1964. In fact, at that time, he had not even been elected governor of California for the first time (that occurred in 1966).
In regard to the “next in line” argument, I think any candidate who uses the claim that they are “next in line” in support of their candidacy deserves to be rejected. Look at Dole ’96 or McCain ’08 — are those campaigns we want to emulate? Just having been the runner-up in a previous campaign is no particular advantage even in being able to appeal to the entire Republican Party, much less does it help win the general election.
(Incidentally, I don’t mean that Dole and McCain based their candidacies on being the next in line, just that focusing on the next in line is not a recipe for success.)
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 am
petraeus, he is the only one who can stand against the liberal wave. he is smarter and stronger then every democrat walking the earth.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Commenting a little late (but I am such a busy person!). This was appallingly dumb PR on the part of her handlers. Hopefully, they have learned their lesson.