As always, when I make these rankings, I’m not concerned about whose leading for 2012, but rather who is most likely run based on what happened last quarter:
Likely Candidates
1) Tim Pawlenty-73% (+15)
Pawlenty removed a lot of ambiguity from his 2012 plans by delivering a well-received speech at the Values Voter summit, starting a PAC and hiring top drawer talent to run it. There are many questions about the viability of Pawlenty’s campaign, but whatever those questions, it looks like a go.
2) Mike Huckabee-70% (+10)
Huckabee had a few things go right this quarter. His win at the Values Voter Strawpoll and his trip to Israel. In addition, I think the chance of Huckabee running increase at half the rate that Palin’s chances of running decline. Huckabee has hedged his bets. He’s made it clear that he’s not running if there’s not a chance of victory. Whether we see a Huck-repeat will probably have a lot to do with how the Obama Administration fares, and potentially the success or failure of Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa.
3) Mitt Romney-68% (+8)
Nothing appears to indicate that Romney’s not running for President again and the word came out this quarter that Romney’s expected to write a 2012 book.
Unlikely Candidates
4) Haley Barbour (-2)-40%
4) John Thune (-3)-40%
Both of these men have been out of the spotlight and nothing indicates that they are running, other than speculation about it. I downgraded Thune more because he’s had more opportunity to get national press in DC hasn’t availed himself of it.
6) Sarah Palin-39% (-10)
There are two sides to this equation. On one hand, Sarah Palin hasn’t done anything that would show interest in 2012. She skipped the Values Voter summit, and hasn’t at any events that woul indicate interest in the election. On the other hand, she could be planning an unconventional campaign that will go away from the endless and ultimately useless nine digit campaigns to instead go back to a Front Porch style of campaign where the candidates doesn’t throw herself out there every night and spend her time constantly fundraising. My bet at this point is that Palin lacks interest in a campaign, however, Palin is the one unlikely candidate who changes everything if she gets in.
7) Gary Johnson-38% (+2)
This bump is based solely on Kristopher’s rumor report.
Newt Gingrich-32% (+2%)
9) Rick Santorum-30% (not ranked)
The Santorum possibility is interesting, but I wouldn’t bet him on pulling the trigger. He was far more popular inside the beltway than outside of it and he’s going to need a lot of money to get this done. My bet is that Santorum is trying to raise issues and draw attention but won’t pull the trigger.
10) John Huntsman-29% (NC)
11) Mike Pence-20% (Not Ranked)
Pence says he has no plans to run for President. I tend to believe him, but that leaves some wiggle room.
12) Mitch Daniels-17% (-2)
13) Bobby Jindal-16% (-3)
His Star has come back to Earth a bit in Louisiana. I still think on balance, he’d make a good VP and if Republicans still don’t hold the White House come in 2016, Jindal could look very good.
14) John Cornyn-14% (-5)
Who needs the Presidency when you feel that you can dictate to every state GOP in the nation who their senate candidates will be.
15) Charlie Crist-12% (+3)
Crist’s talk of a Carteresque defeat for Obama could indicate that Crist is interested in doing the deed. Too bad for him, he committed himself to this race with Marco Rubio that lessens his national stature and ensures whether he wins or loses in Florida, the party base will have a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to him.
16) Jim DeMint-11% (-2)
17) Rudy Giuliani-9% (NC)
18) Jeb Bush-8% (+3)
Do polling companies know something we don’t know when Jeb Bush starts getting included in trial heats? Probably not, but perhaps Jeb is way too low.
Chances are greater of me getting a tongue ring and the Cubs winning the World Series on the same day candidates…
19) Ron Paul-5% (+4)
Okay I concede that despite the fact I don’t see Paul running for President, there’s a greater than 1% chance of him running. Happy?
20) Tom Ridge 4% (-11)
Memo to Ridge: If you thought the book was going to improve your chances of being seen as a Presidential candidate, think again.
21) David Petraeus: 3% (-)
22) Mark Sanford-1% (-1)
Yeah, it’s unlikely, but who knows if running for President could become part of Mark Sanford’s “secret agent mission?”
October 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Your rankings are bizarre. I simply cannot conceive of how a person could actually think there’s only a 68% chance that Romney runs.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Romney is more likely to run than Huckabee. Romney’s path to the nomination is easier than Huck’s, and as you yourself said Adam, Huck won’t run unless he feels he can win. Romney is running again come hell or highwater.
Pawlenty’s almost-certain run will most likely keep John Thune and Mitch Daniels on the sidelines. There can be room for only one Midwesterner in the field, and Pawlenty has preempted the others.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Each of the candidates you rank as being ‘likely’ are more like 100% than 68% to 73%. Meanwhile, with the exception of Ron Paul, everybody you rank as ‘unlikely’ are closer to ZERO, ZILCH, AND NADA than the values you ascribe to them.
BTW, how did you come up with these numbers?? When you state that Pawlenty has a 73% chance of running, and Mitt has a 68% chance of running, one could infer a degree of scientific precision, although none is obviously present.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
If I were Romney I’d start finding some 2012 Fred Thompson (Jim DeMint, maybe?) who can give it to Huckabee for all its worth while coasting by unscathed.
If McCain weren’t such a natural underdog player I’d say his strategy in ’08 was concocted – let all his opponents brutalize each other, then walk in and steal state after state out from under them. Absolutely brilliant.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
#1:
I seemed to remember a lot of people chiding me for not giving Huntsman a 100% chance of running. A lot can change in a year plus.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
So who will be VP for President Huck? I’m not sure about you guys but in my view, either Huck, TPaw, Mitt, or Sarah if she wants, will be the nominee of the Republican Party in the year 2012. My question for you is who will be the VP for each? I really do wish we could start a thread on this one.
What I’m thinking:
Romney-Pence
Huckabee-Thune
Palin-Rudy G
TPaw- DeMint
October 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Gov. Palin will likely run an inverted front porch (IFP) campaign and will harness some of the unorthodox and revolutionary tactics such as the you tubes videos of Fred Thompson. Her book tour and subsequent 2010 campaigning will give us an early preview of such a campaign in which she welds the on air endorsements and support of talk radio to the on the ground passion and energy of the Tea Party foot soldiers.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
#4:
If I were a Romney strategist, I’d pray for Palin to jump in the race. Romney needs Palin to start peeling away social conservative support from Huckabee to keep him from winning early on, like in Iowa or South Carolina. The Romney people probably figure that once Palin knocks Huckabee out of the race, Romney can take her down in the big states like CA, NY, FL, IL and the rest. That is what I think the Romney people are counting on. The only problem is that the winner of the Huckabee-Palin feud may gain some momentum or Pawlenty or one of the 2nd tier might slip in.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
6 –
actually like Thune as a Huckaveep – trying to think of who else I would pair there. Romney-Pence is okay, not sure I could do much better but seems like doubling down on the appeal in some areas.
See DeMint more with Palin than T-Paw (which could work for Sarha under certain circumstances). That said, my two Palin picks right now are John Bolton if she wants high-risk-high-reward or Judd Gregg if she wants to play it safe.
Thune might actually be a very good pick for TPaw as well. And I could actually see TPaw himself as a very good choice for Romney’s veep.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Does anyone else think that T-Paw has the potential to siphon votes from Mitt? Conservatives skeptical about individual health mandates and Mass Care plus Evangelicals disinclined to vote for Mitt might move to T-Paw. Huck will be fighting for Gov. Palin votes but I see Huck as an anomaly of the weak conservative field in 2008 and I don’t see him being able to compete against Gov. Palin.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
#6:
A Romney-Daniels ticket could be very good since it will reinforce Romney’s strengths and will help him in the Midwest (2 good executives, D.C. ‘outsiders’, etc.)
Palin will need a moderate choice. I’d say she goes for either Gregg like Adam said, or Rudy
Huckabee needs to pick someone like Gregg, or Thune or maybe even someone like Senator Kyl. Actually, Gov. Carcerri of Rhode Island would be an interesting pick
Pawlenty could use someone like Senator Gregg or Governor Carcerri or an inoffesnive Southerner or border state person (I’m thinking Senator Corker of TN).
October 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Romney – Pawlenty
Huckabee-Pawlenty
Palin-Romney (even though he will overshadow her)
TPaw-Romney
October 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
#9,
Bolton would be a very solid pick but I see him as probable for President Palin’s Sec. of State with possibly Randy Schuenemann as National Security Advisor.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Palin/Steele, Palin/Rudy, Palin/Gingrich, Palin/Thompson
Romney/Ridge, Romney/Watts, Romney/Steele, Romney/Rubio, Romney/Gen. Wm. McChrystal
Huck/Thompson, Huck/DeMinnt, Huck/Crist, Huck/Petraeus, Huck/Watts
Pawlenty/Gregg, Pawlenty/Thune, Pawlenty/Edgar, Pawlenty/Steele
October 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
A friend and I had been thinking about Petraeus for a couple of months already. We need to find out more about him though. Who raises to the top will all depend on the events and the climate in 2011 and 2012. If the world turns out to be a much more dangerous place, somebody like Patraeus will have a good chance at first or second place on the ticket. I could see a Palin/Petraeus ticket.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Is romney the most feared for obama and his advisers to wet there pants ?
October 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He didn’t do too well to win in the South last 2008 primary. He is not conservative. He is done! Tim Pawlenty might be a good choice to run for President in 2012. He is seemed to be a nice guy. He is better than Romney. I don’t know about Sarah Palin if she is going to run or not. The problem with Palin, she resigned from her job early as the Governor of Alaska and didn’t finished her first term in office.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I like the idea of putting TPaw with someone who will shake things up a bit. the bum rap on him is that he is too boring. Not really sure how Corker or Gregg can bring excitement to the table.
When was the last time two governors ran on one ticket? I really like the idea as I think it’d bring in two executives into the Oval Office. But I’m not sure if it is feasible.
TPaw-Thune reminds me of Clinton-Gore, I like. Brings youth to the table. I think Mitt needs someone like Pence who can bring real conservative values to the table and can speak truth to power in real men’s terms.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
#18:
After 4 years of the ‘exciting’ Barack Obama, the American people may like the thought of a ‘boring’ ticket. If we nominate Pawlenty in the 1st place, it won’t be because the GOP wants exciting. Adding Corker or Gregg to a Pawlenty led ticket adds Washington experience to the ticket and Corker can help lock up the South, while Gregg could help in the Northeast.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
But where were Corker and Gregg on the bailouts? How conservative are they? Corker is a good ol’ boy and that is always a positive.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin (this combo would be a winner and beat them all)
October 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Mitt Romney-Sarah Palin (this combo would be a winner and beat them all)
October 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
#20:
Corker was a lead Republican thinker and pointman on the auto-bailouts and Gregg was supposed to be Obama’s Commerce Secretary, but he couldn’t agree to promote Obama’s reckless spending agenda. Corker had a 83% from the ACU, and Gregg has a 78% lifetime record.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“Expected” to write a book? The book is finished, ahead of time and under budget. That is a consistent pattern with Romney. The dude knows how to meet or beat both a deadline and a budget. Sure could use some of that right about now.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Jonathan,
Who would be a better pick?
October 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
#25:
Probably Gregg. He’d help solidify Pawlenty’s fiscal conservativism, and he might even help us carry New Hampshire. Corker is a ‘safe’ choice, someone who isn’t going to hurt the ticket, but he might help us take back North Carolina and Virginia.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
So Pawlenty- Gregg, Huck-Thune, and Mitt- Pence, and Sarah-Rudy?
October 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I kind of like Corker better to be honest. I think he could fire up the base better and would be able to run when Tim was done.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
I can’t imagine most would pick a running mate that hadn’t been on the campaign trail, especially Mitt. I can see Mitt with Pawlenty. Other than that, I’d have to wait to see who else jumps in.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Do you really think two governors on one ticket would be a good idea? When was the last time that was done? How’d it work out?
October 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
#29:
The nominee usually doesn’t pick one of their rivals as the running mate. Kerry, Reagan and Obama are really the only ones since 1964 who picked one of their opponents in the primaries.
#30:
The last time 2 Governors were on the ticket was in 1948 when Dewey picked Earl Warren. 4 years earlier, to placate the Republican right, Dewey had picked Governor Bricker of Ohio. The last pair to get elected were Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall in 1912 and 1916.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
The GOP doesn’t need to lock up the South. Unless some star Republican emerges from Virginia or North Carolina, no Republican will seriously consider a Southerner for geographic strength. I could see Romney picking Demint out of comfort, but other than that, I expect we will have a Southernless ticket for the second election running.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Scratch that. I’d forgotten about Jindal. He’ll be at the top of every list because of the diversity/youth factor.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
“Some Star Repulican Emerges from Virginia”: Bob McDonnell?
The only candidates I could see picking a vp from the south are: Romney or TPaw. Southern candidates are generally speaking more authentic than those from the north (i.e. Mitt vs. Huck)
I think a candidate like a Thune or Pence would be great for Romney because they still bear authenticity but also are more midwestern as opposed to being more Southern. In other words, the South could still relate to them.
I think we would obviously see a Southern ticket if Huck were to become the nominee.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I could see Romney-Jindal. I could kind of see TPaw-Jindal. I def could not see Huck-Jindal or Palin-Jindal.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I like Jindal, but one thing that did not escape me is that the polls that have included actually showed he was not doing well with minority groups. I don’t know why.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Huckabee has spoken very favorably about Mike Pence. A Huckabee/Pence ticket would work well.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Texasconserv,
I thought about a Huck-Pence ticket. But wouldn’t that just create a ticket composed entirely of talk show hosts? Not really sure if that would fly. I’d be curious to get your take on your governor election.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Romney-Jindal
Palin-Giuliani
Huckabee-???
October 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
#39:
Huckabee-Gregg. Senator Gregg is practically the antithesis of Mike Huckabee. Prominent fiscal conservative Senator from New England paired with the prominent social conservative Governor of Arkansas. It’s actually a pretty good ticket.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Alex,
Huckabee-Thune.
How do you feel aboout him picking a vp who wins in 2010? Maybe Huckabee-Toomey or Huckabee-Portman?
October 5th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Jonathan,
I can dig a Huckabee-Gregg ticket. I think that Gregg is one sharp tool and Mike is one smooth talking man. Together that could very well be a dream ticket.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
If Romney is the nominee, he could pick DeMint for the Southern vote or Thune for the Evangelical vote (Biola Grad)
October 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
MF. Why take Romney down? Romney would never lower his standards to choose Palin.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Ikv. Liking the Romney/thune ticket. Adults with no baggage.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
#44:
Romney will pick who helps him win. If he has information showing that Palin helps him win, he’ll pick her. If someone he likes (such as DeMint or Daniels or Thune) can help him win or at least not hurt, he’ll pick them. Yes, even if his arch-rival Mike Huckabee can help him win, both of them will swallow their pride and join together on a ticket.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Romney/Guliani would be very dynamic…they know how to get results.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Newt: Pawlenty ‘should run’
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=26307CEB-18FE-70B2-A8645B61E86B463A
October 6th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Sept-Oct
Power Rankings
1.Palin (Hong Kong speech, and huge book pre-order sales.)
2.Pawlenty (starts a pac)
3.Romney (raising money, and avoiding Romneycare talk as much as possible)
4.Huckabee (wins value voters straw poll)
October 6th, 2009 at 2:51 am
The main complaint about Obama is inexperience and basically needs to stop campaigning and work. The man who can beat Obama will ooze experience and is work driven. = Romney
October 6th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Pawlenty, perhaps, would be reasonably credible as a candidate. probably not win, but O.K.
Huckabee? You are nuts. He couldn’t win a dog catcher’s race, nor could Sarah Palin. And they will probably run against each other for the 20 % of the vote they both appeal to.
So, If these are your rankings, you are really in Bizarro Land.
By the way, is Romney’s 2012 book his second ? His first will be published in March 2010, unless your information sources are also on the moon.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:26 am
” Chances are greater of me getting a tongue ring and the Cubs winning the World Series on the same day candidates…”
Adam – you can always get a Prince Albert instead – - that may increase the odds a little. :-p
October 6th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Adam,. Sorry for my totally incorrect and somewhat caustic comment. It is early and I totally misread your posting. I will try and have 2 cups of wake up coffee next time
Craigs
October 6th, 2009 at 7:16 am
“Huckabee has spoken very favorably about Mike Pence. A Huckabee/Pence ticket would work well.” Mr. Pence on the ticket would make me more comfortable with both Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:02 am
No candidate in his right mind would choose Palin for VP again. What a risk that would be. It didn’t work out so well for McCain – and it’s one of the main reasons that she cannot be the nominee.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:13 am
“It didn’t work out so well for McCain” You forgot that McCain – Palin was winning prior to TARP. The main reason Mrs. Palin cannot be the nominee because she is Conservative. We would not want to offend the moderates on the East coast who do not want a Conservative to lead us.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:52 am
“The main reason Mrs. Palin cannot be the nominee because she is Conservative. We would not want to offend the moderates on the East coast who do not want a Conservative to lead us.”
Actually, in the last week I’ve hear her SUPPORTERS claim her as neocon, populist, libertarian, and now you, once again, claim her as conservative. Some of these are near opposites of each other, but everybody seems to attempt to fit her into their favorite realm of politics.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Yes, IllinoisGuy, your camp is not the only camp to have a big tent. BTW, not all neocons, populists and libertarians are ranging liberals. There are more then a few type of Conservatisms and it Conservatism that unites the slightly different types of Conservatives under the Palin banner.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
who do you think obama and this white house and his 2012 campaign manager fear the most and they really DO NOT WANT?
October 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
59. I think they are sincerely hoping we nominate Palin.
Last election, Howard Dean stated that they feared Romney the most.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
OJ,
Palin was doing okay until the Couric interview. Polls started sliding then, BEFORE the financial meltdown. Palin’s viability was great for a couple of weeks, until her inexperience and lack of knowledge became apparent.
Then she sealed the deal by stating that the bailout was about healthcare.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
If I were Huckabee I would not use the Values Voters straw poll as any sort of compass. Only 180 or so religious right-wing votes is no indication of any potential broad support. All that poll served was to flatter and fatten the ego but when you look at the actual numbers, it was a pathetic group of loyal fellow religionists. I doubt there is any real foundation of conservatives or republicans for the guy who ran with the ultimate goal not to win but to help McCain win.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
NO I AM NOT voting for obama but do you think he is already working on his 2012 campaign I Hope the GOP is working on 2012 also? So far mike steele has not impressed me so do we have time to get a new rnc chair before 2012 really heats up?
October 6th, 2009 at 11:27 am
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com
He will run.
He will win.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Gary johnson he don’t have a chance in a general election
October 6th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Martha, Couric asked about healthcare in the bailout question. you must have just seen the edited version.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
COURIC: “Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700bn helping middle-class families, who are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas and groceries, allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?”
PALIN: “That’s why I say, I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the tax payers looking to bail out, but ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping tho— it’s got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track, so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as— competitive— scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”
Yep, that’s exactly why Palin lost support after that interview. She couldn’t find a coherent thought if it bit her on the nose.
Here’s another gem from that interview:
COURIC: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign-policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land — boundary that we have with — Canada. It, it’s funny that a comment like that was — kind of made to cari — I don’t know. You know. Reporters —
COURIC: Mocked?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our— our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They’re in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia—
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We— we do— it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where— where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is— from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to— to our state.”
October 6th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
It was painful, wasn’t it?
October 6th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I like Romney and Petraeus although I need to know more about Petraeus’ political positions but his military experience and outstanding resume’ would compliment Romney’s equally impressive resume’ and business/economic savvy to create a well balanced ticket.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Greg: “Gary johnson he don’t have a chance in a general election”
How can you say that of a Republican governor who won his election in a state dominated 2 to 1 by Democrats?
Also, California is about to legalize marijuana in 2010. The California voters will have 2 years of fighting with the federal government
by then, and Gary Johnson will be the only Republican who is on the right side of the states rights debate.
Gary Johnson is the only Republican that could get the 55 California electoral votes that are necessary to win in the general election.
A candidate that is willing to veto bills that come before him that are not fiscally sound. Vetoing 750 bills that came across his desk.
Unlike the other big spending Republicans, he actually walks the walk when it comes to small government.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Bill: “Gary Johnson is the only Republican that could get the 55 California electoral votes that are necessary to win in the general election.”
I followed the 2008 election pretty closely and every time I ran the numbers I couldn’t see McCain winning without winning California.
You just might be right about him taking California if the marijuana initiative passes. I’m not for legalizing all drugs but marijuana laws left to the states wouldn’t keep me from voting for him.