The GOP candidate for President in 2012 is not going to be Romney, Palin, Huckabee or Gingrich

The straw polls, the chattering of the pundits, and speculation in Freeperland is way off the mark.

The GOP Presidential candidate will not be anyone who has run and failed. Not going to happen.

The most likely choice is one of the sitting governors. The other possibility is someone coming out of the military.

All of the present candidates have way too high negatives and would never survive a serious primary challenge and this was proven by the fact that McCain, a very poor candidate, beat them like a junkyard dog.

Moreover both parties do not like candidates who have tried once and lost.

The leaders of the party are letting this puppet show continue for now but there is no chance that any of these losers are going to run against President Obama as the Republican nominee.

Given the fact that the successful nominee will probably win the nomination by taking Iowa by storm and finish the fight with a win in NH the likely candidates are:



Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana

He is widely cited as a rising star within the Republican party and has approval ratings hovering near 70%.<2><3><4>


Although Daniels had claimed to be reluctant to seek higher office,<25> many media outlets, including Politico, Forbes, The Washington Post, and The Indianapolis Star had speculated that Daniels may be in position to seek to Republican nomination for President in 2012 after he joined the national debate on cap and trade legislation by penning a response in the Wall Street Journal to policies espoused by the Democratic-majority Congress and the White House.<26> The speculators have cited Daniels' record of reforming government, reducing taxes, balancing the budget, and connecting with voters in Indiana.<27><28><29><30> In response to their speculation Daniels dismissed a presidential run in June 2009, saying "I've only ever run for or held one office. It's the last one I'm going to hold."<31> However, in February 2010 he told a Washington Post reporter that he was open to the idea of running in 2012.<32>





Mike Rounds Governor of South Dakota


Rounds was reelected on November 7, 2006. The results were as follows:

Republicans: Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard– 61.7%
Democrats: Jack Billion and Eric Abrahamson– 36.1%
Constitution: Steven J. Willis and Larry Johnsen– 1.2%


The one that would have been the most serious challenger, Governor Huntsman of Utah who is now the Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

last time was ugly.

And a good way to describe Republicans

and will be the Standard Bearer for the GOP in 2012. Everything else you see on the MSM from Palin to the yahoo's in the OP and everyone in between are just for purposes of entertainment. Nine potential candidates!!! Which will be the next to go? Not unlike American Idol, except the outcome is already defined. S.S.D.D. :boring:

can control their base, because they do not want him. Palin's role will be to corral the base behind Romney. However, the base is going to be turned off to him because he was once pro-choice and his healthcare plan is the template for the current law.

With all that said, if the economy is greatly improved by 2012 and there are no other scandals or crisises, then Obama is going to win in a landslide, and they will nominate a sacrificial candidate like they did with Bob Dole in 1996, think Orrin Hatch.

wing of the party on his side he has a wide selection of youtube takes that have him on both sides of the same issue, to which he has now added even more with the health care debate.

He had a terrible showing in Iowa last time despite outspending Huckabee.

There is no historical record of a Republican candidate losing an open nomination battle and then coming back to win in a General Election campaign.

Reagan lost against Ford but Ford was a sitting President.

Bush Sr. lost against Reagan but entered the primaries as a sitting vice President.

The other factor that counts against Romney is that Republication nomination seasons are much shorter with the party coalscing behind the early winner and not fighting it out down the line, thereby reducing Romney's financial largesse and giving more power to evangelical activists in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

If I were a betting man, or could afford to BE a betting man, my money would be on Romney as the GOP candidate for 2012.

They still tossed him in the ring again in 08. I don't think winning the GE is the criteria we should go by here. For the moment, we are just looking at their primary. And just cause it didn't work last time or any time don't mean they won't try it again. They are Republics, after all.

The fact is if you lost in an uncontested primary you are going to have an almost impossible task raising money and getting support. Add to the fact that Romney has no real home base, drives both the Freepers and the Evangelicals crazy and is the most well documented flip flopper in history makes him the least likely to be nominated.

He got trashed in Iowa and that isn't going to change.

And now he has publicly stated the worst possible thing - Romney care is comparable to Obamacare.

His Mormon faith will prevent the right wing from trusting him.

the evangelicals will swallow the notion of the Earth as 6,000 years old and the flood myth and the impending Rapture as truth, yet they think things like magic undies and tales of golden tablets are way "out there."

The republican party likes to nominate the old guy and/or the guy who finished second last time (Dole, McCain). Bush II was an exception, but even he was a retread of his father.

If the young governors know they are going to get beat, they'll wait until 2016 and let a has-been take the fall.

defeating an incubent President is getting increasingly more difficult and hasn't been done in a straight two party race in 34 years despite Reagan, Clinton and Bush all having serious crises at the end of their first term.

The nominee will have a walk in the shade for 2016 if they run a reasonable campaign.

2012 may be different so the people who run the Republican party will be much more choosy. They are not stupid and will choose a person that the majority of the Republican party will support.

Found plenty of links but will only list one

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/08/politics/main6279641.shtml

Maybe groom someone for 2016. Republicans have a history of rewarding a loser with the nomination 4 years later. But it has to be someone young enough to be viable in 2016. So I am thinking a youngish governor.

The economy is going to recover. It's what economies do after deep recessions. If we're looking at only 5-6% unemployment in 2012, declining bankruptcies and more and more people covered by health insurance, I don't think the Republicans have much of a chance unless there is a major international or ethics incident that the Obama Administration bungles badly.

One thing to look for is a sacrificial lamb at the top of the ticket (think Bob Dole in 1996) with a younger candidate as VP. That way the "taint" of losing doesn't stick around for 2016.

I would say that if the person is the party's nominee and loses, that person would have a tough time getting the nomination again, ala Nixon.

was a sacrifice because after * no Republican was going to get elected in '08.

That rag is one of the worst conservative papers in the country.

If you want to bring Daniels into the picture I say bring it on. Aside from being Bush's Director of OMB, where he "came under fire for overseeing a $236 billion annual surplus turn into a $400 billion deficit during his 29-month tenure," we can show the people how nice it is when he does stuff like lease the Indiana Toll Road to foreign interests. Sure, he balanced the state budget in the near term by selling the state's infrastructure off for $3.6 billion. But that will only cover things for a few years. The lease lasts for 75 years ... during which time the state will get no further revenue and future generations will have to figure it all out.

Hell, Daniels even privatized the fucking Welfare system in Indiana! Didn't work out too well, what with those inefficient call centers and all.

I'd love to dig into all the juicy oppo research on Mitch Daniels. Eli Lilly's anyone?

Because they shifted property tax revenue to sales taxes those that itemize their deductions have less. Federal returns you have the option of itemizing your sales taxes or property taxes. Not both.

Because part of the school taxes from the property taxes has been diverted to the state budget schools are in trouble financially. Daniels cut the budget he has control of for schools.

exposure to Evangelicals.

All past GOP Presidential nominees back have had really good name ID, candidates like these would have to build it. These names might pop up for running mates, but not for the head of the ticket.

<Moreover both parties do not like candidates who have tried once and lost>


Prior to Dumbya Jr and excluding Gerald Ford (who wasn't elected to office), every Republican President in the postwar period except Eisenhower had contested either the Republican primaries or the November general election unsuccessfully before winning their respective presidential terms

-Nixon won the Republican nomination in 1960 but lost the general election to Kennedy
-Reagan contested the Republican primary against President Ford in 1976 (in addition to a half-hearted bid against Nixon in 1968) and was defeated
-Bush Sr. contested the Republican primary in 1980 but lost to Ronald Reagan

Additionally
-Dole ran for the Republican presidential nomination against Bush Sr and was defeated before winning the nomination in 1996
-McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination against Dumbya in 2000 and was defeated before winning the nomination in 1980

both were sitting vice presidents. Romney is not a sitting vice President

Dole and McCain both ran lost then won the nomination and lost the GE.

In addition to the other factors both parties strongly prefer to nominate Governors. President Obama's election was the first Senator to win in 50 years.

the Bush people. I don't understand it.


If latinos rally around Rubio, he could be trouble as well. Maybe even a Bush/Rubio ticket which is scary.

A lot of us take for granted that the country has "Bush fatigue", but us Floridians can tell you that he would indeed have a shot.

As I recall Pres and VP cannot come from the same state.

Remember when Cheney suddenly became a resident of Wyoming for this purpose? Now we just have to guess where they'll choose to have one of them coming from.

Electors just have to vote for at least one candidate who isn't from their own state. In other words, the Texas electors in 2000 couldn't have voted for both Bush and Cheney if they were both from Texas. They'd had to have voted for Bush and someone not from Texas (or Cheney and someone else). Of course, then Cheney wouldn't have gotten the majority to win.

So you could do it, you'd just need either a big enough margin that losing those electors wouldn't matter...or a small enough state with only a few votes to lose.

It's a relic from when electors voted for two presidential candidates instead of president/VP tickets.

and the others

We can only hope.

the bush name is poisoned.

They will go crazy at the convention if she is not the nominee in 2012.

I think the GOP establishment is happy to use her popularity at the moment to help bring down Obama, but if there's a chance of her getting a real shot at power, the knives will be out for her the way they were for Huckabee.

Add to that Fox "News", Gingrich, the Michelle Bachman followers, the Virginia Foxx crowd, DeMint, Vitter and the like and you have the power structure of the republican party. They are calling the shots from now on. The rest of the republicans (McConnell, Coburn, Cantor, Pawlenty et al are left in the dust).

But behind the scenes, the 1%ers are still calling the shots.

I think Romney's the frontrunner at this point, and may well be the nominee.

He'd present the strongest challenge to Obama if the economy takes another hit.

Defeating Ford his narrow loss was seen as a win.

Romney ran and lost against a very weak field and was beat by a very compromised candidate.

There is no way that the serious money is going to back any of the candidates who proved that they couldn't beat McCain when that candidate is going to turn around and have to run against President Obama.

is a wash. Oh they will put up a good fight,but remember they are back room dealing trolls. they plan things way ahead of time and its always to the negative. So they will have their hate tea bagger hats and shirts with the good old red white and blue and make a fuss during the 2012 elections. But they will be in strategy for 2016. And they will try and find someone who appeals to the younger voter. Maybe by that time our first Lady will think about it. Because I can see her as a viable candidate. And even if she doesn't I can always hope.

It was gonna be Hillary vs. Giuliani according to the media in 2007.

whatever is on sale in the veggie bin at the local market.

They have the worst candidates imaginable...:D

John Thune is another one--yet you'd think he'd want to make himself more visible if he was going to run.

Daniels is the one I'd worry about though--he's shown repeatedly he has crossover appeal.

Repukes will not stand a chance in 2012. So which loser they pick does not matter much to me.

My Man Mitch. :puke:

and could win depending on the secuity situation at the time of the election.

The following statement is mistaken:



While the Democrats like new faces (JFK, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama) the Republicans are royalists and dislike upstarts; they usually nominate the person with the most standing, often one who's run previously and lost, even if he's a charisma-free sure loser (like Dole or McCain in 2008): Nixon 1960 after eight years as vp, Nixon 1968 after having lost the general election in 1960, Reagan 1980 after having placed a close second in the 1976 primaries, Bush I after eight years as vp, Dole 1996 after placing second in the 1988 primaries, Bush II largely as a legacy, McCain 2008 after finishing second in the 2000 primaries. The combination of precedent plus acceptability to the GOP's big money interests suggests Romney.

to run and the nutbags can't get behind Romney, no matter how much money he spends.

And Palin likely lacks the attention span to sustain focus on something lasting more than a few weeks. Also she's explosively stupid.

I hadn't considered Mike Rounds. Maybe I should.

Indiana is going to be an interesting place as 2012 gets closer. It could be that both Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence are interested in a run. Two more cases in point to strengthen the notion that Republicans from Indiana are bad news no matter what.

After the dust settles, they'll always be known as the second Republican presidential nominee that lost to President Obama.

Dude is clearly not insecure about his balding status at all! :sarcasm:

I'm sure this insecurity can be exploited to maximum effect!! :evilgrin:

Yeah, even Repukes would say "Mitch WHO" now. But Daniels is a Big Pharma shill, and with Shitizens United unleashing corporate Hell on campaign advertizing....

Well, just notice who controls the "normal" commercials on TV even now when it's NOT campaign season. Those fucking pieces of shit would LOVE to own the pResident. (as if they didn't come close enough under the Chimp, whose original cabinet had more pharma shills than any other in history, including Daniels himself)