This week’s National Journal poll of asked right-leaning bloggers to list the 5 most-likely Republican presidential nominees in 2012. Left-leaning bloggers were asked to name which Republican would be the strongest candidate. Mitt Romney won both races handily. I voted for Romney as most likely, but don’t think he would be the most likely candidate to win the general election: “The Republican lower tiers (e.g., Thune) might be much stronger in a general election than would be the better-known possibilities (e.g., Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich).”
erp says:
Ain’t gonna happen.
January 8, 2010, 2:42 pmKazinski says:
Romney will not live down Romneycare in Massachusetts:
January 8, 2010, 2:43 pmDan in Euroland says:
Look for Mitch “The Blade” Daniels to be the Republican candidate. He is the present governor of Indiana, and has a tract record that I think both extremists and moderates in the republican party would like. The Blade will win the median republican vote.
January 8, 2010, 2:44 pmJon Rowe says:
For those like me who love to discuss religious controversies and politics, this is great news.
January 8, 2010, 2:47 pmAdam says:
If this is true, the Republicans can kiss another chance to win the Presidency. It would be a shame, too, as I keep hoping the Republicans will offer a real alternative to the statist policies of the Democrats (but, alas, hope springs eternal).
January 8, 2010, 3:01 pmruuffles says:
Another being former Gov Huntsman, now Amb. to China, biding his time for 2016.
January 8, 2010, 3:04 pmJust Dropping By says:
Awesome Freudian slip!
January 8, 2010, 3:06 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Dan:
January 8, 2010, 3:09 pmI am both a hoosier and a state employee. I think that Mitch Daniels has been a very capable governor. While Indiana has suffered during the recession, we have done a lot better than most states have.
But Daniels is not very telegenic–short, bald/combover, rather whiny voice. I think that this will hurt him in the cattle calls. I think he is a good bet for veep though.
Nunzio says:
I agree Mitch Daniels would be a much better candidate. He’s done a very good job as Indiana governor.
Romney’s one-term governship was not successful.
January 8, 2010, 3:10 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
I suspect the Tea Party movement is more concerned with 2010: 2012 can wait on developments.
January 8, 2010, 3:11 pmSenator Christmas says:
Who the Republicans run should be determined by what Obama’s perceived weakness is.
Rough guess now is the economy, and Obama being perceived as a pushover on foreign policy.
Romney would be a poor choice.
January 8, 2010, 3:15 pmzuch says:
While a LDS Republican may win in Massachusetts (with their threadbare stables of cwazy RW foamers, both voters and candidates), it’s quite another thing nationally in Republican primaries….
Cheers,
January 8, 2010, 3:41 pmCornellian says:
It’s a moot point since today’s GOP will never nominate a Mormon.
January 8, 2010, 3:42 pmNunzio says:
I agree with Cornellian. Even if Romney were a better candidate, I don’t see him getting enough of the vote of the Republican primary voters in many states because of his religion.
January 8, 2010, 3:52 pmRecovering Law Grad says:
Mitch Daniels may have done an excellent job as Governor, but he was an utter disaster as head of OMB. If you recall, Daniels helped engineer Lawrence Lindsey’s ouster by ridiculing Lindsey’s now-laughably low estimate of the Iraq war. Lindsey estimated between $100-$200 billion. Daniels came in even lower at $50 to $60 billion. This was an act of incompetence surpassed only by the Bush administration’s other Iraq War efforts.
Of course, other aspects of the Bush administration’s budgetary follies are well-known (though myteriously forgotten by some).
January 8, 2010, 4:17 pmKazinski says:
Religion has nothing to do with it for most of Romney’s GOP detractors. Maybe some, but not even a plurality will vote just based on that. When you see this video of Romney trying to get to the left of Teddy Kennedy in this 1994 Senate debate, it isn’t hard to see why Romney isn’t trusted by the conservative wing of the party.
It think his main core of support are attracted to him because he is bright, articulate, telegenic, presidential, and is a capable executive. But he is not a spending hawk, embraces statist solutions to problems, like Romneycare, and doesn’t seem to have core beliefs that he is unwilling to sacrifice to political expediency.
Huckabee has all the religious qualifications that Liberals seem to think are what counts amoung Republican voters, and he is telegenic with plenty of executive experience to boot, but he is also a non-starter. His commitment to small government, free enterprise, and free trade are all very suspect, regardless of his position on the social issues that outsiders think drive the Republican candidate selection dynamic.
January 8, 2010, 4:19 pmThe Truth Is Out There HAHA says:
What do these bloggers know? The R nominee is gonna be Sarah!
Drill baby drill!
(And as a Dem, I hope she gets the nomination so she can get crushed in the gen election!)
January 8, 2010, 4:23 pmChrisIowa says:
I’d agree that Romney is the most likely, but only because the odds are so low for everyone else. The eventual nominee is probably not even on the list yet.
January 8, 2010, 4:25 pmAF says:
His reputation as a flip-flopper and a phony and a closet moderate is not going to be helped when he comes out vociferously against the same health care reform which he took credit for in Massachusetts.
January 8, 2010, 4:34 pmGuy says:
Given the disaster that was the 2008 Republican primary, I think the GOP would be best served by running an entirely new candidate. Of course, it’s hard to predict such candidates this long before an election.
January 8, 2010, 4:49 pmJustin says:
I think it would be interesting to discuss this more, and on a deeper level than might be possible in a primary or general election. Are there key differences between RomneyCare in Massachusetts and ObamaCare for the nation? In some sense, isn’t a state somewhat constrained by national laws as to what it can do to reform its health care system? And being so limited, could RomneyCare be defensible as the best a state can do while the national government refuses to enact certain reforms, say some of the key reforms that Republicans have been advocating (e.g., allowing insurance markets to cross state lines, getting rid of the asymmetrical tax implications of employer sponsored health plans, etc.)? Is it really so simple to equate RomneyCare to ObamaCare?
January 8, 2010, 4:53 pmPat Pariot says:
I can’t believe people still talk about Mike Huckabee as a serious 2012 contender. I recently saw him on his TV show interviewing Chuck Woolery. Yes, Chuck Woolery. If I were considering any of the 2008 Republican candidates for 2012, I would take a hard look at how they spent the intervening four years. I want to see them boning up their presidential creds, not interviewing C-list celebrities on some crappy talk show. Huckabee should be embarrassed by what he’s doing.
January 8, 2010, 5:00 pmCato The Elder says:
I was fully behind Romney in 2008; indeed, I found the undercurrent of religious parochialism that declined to elevate such a capable executive a bit disheartening. Yet notwithstanding his obvious qualifications he cannot be at the front of our future ticket. Why? Because the Democrats will try to assign the blame for their failed policies as a bipartisan effort, as they always do, and Romney is quite vulnerable to the ongoing situation in Massachusetts. We must be able to draw a strong contrast between what Left and Right stands for in 2012 — and it is imperative for that cause that the Democrats eat (or perhaps alternatively enjoy) every last bit of the consequences of their legislation when they can’t possibly offer any excuses. I won’t stand for it to be any other way.
January 8, 2010, 5:02 pmB.D. says:
Petraeus-Daniels, maybe.
Who knows? It’s way too soon. Let’s see what happens in November first.
January 8, 2010, 5:18 pmArrowSmith says:
The heart says Palin, the head Romney. Either way, Obama will win re-election easily even with 15% unemployment and terrorist strikes every other week. The media is so all-powerful that they can swing that.
January 8, 2010, 5:20 pmVader says:
I would like to see Romney as President; I think he’s eminently qualified. However, it isn’t going to happen. In addition to the reasons others have given, there are some that are more subtly rooted in his religion.
One commenter here has the perception that Romney has no core beliefs. That is almost certainly not the case. I suspect his Mormonism is at his core, judging from many measures, including the perceptions of a mutual friend whose judgement I trust. In a more objective world, Romney’s core religious beliefs would not necessarily be a disqualification for a Repoublican candidate — the Mormon community has a pretty conservative Weltanshauung, which is why Utah is the reddest of states — but, in the last race, I believe Romney feared that this would cost him the Evangelical vote, so he never really let us see his core. I think this was a mistake, but it is not one that can now be undone. Any effort to open up and be more “authentic” would be perceived as inauthentic; and, ironically, the more authentically he now projects himself, the more inauthentic he is likely to be judged.
The second observation, also tied to his religion, is that a presidential candidate isn’t viable these days unless he is a Rorschach blot. People have to be able to see in him what they want to see. This is how B.O. got elected; a vast number of normally sensible people saw in B.O. what they wanted to see. They are now learning that what they thought they saw isn’t really there (it’s an open question of whether there’s any there there at all), but it’s too late. Romney is the opposite; people see him him what they don’t want to see, whether it’s there or not. I think part of this may be populism (we do hate our rich in this country, almost as much as we hate our intellectuals, and Romney is both) but I think the greater share is the religion thing. Mormonism is unfamiliar to most Americans, certainly most Americans from east of the Mississippi, and there’s just no question it hurts Romney.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I should add that I am an active Mormon myself.
January 8, 2010, 5:28 pmPeter says:
By the end of the 2008 primary campaign (July), Romney was the best advocate for Rep policies. He improved enormously during the campaign. Reps tend to nominate the person who came in second the last time. In addition, with his business experience, he will appeal to voters worried about jobs. This will be important if the electoral map reverts to the blue state/red state divide. Four years of bloated govt and 8-10% unemployment may cause voters in MI, OH, PA,Missouri and Colorado to look seriously at someone with private sector experience. As for the Mass health care fiasco, remember that as governor of Calif, Reagan (1) signed a huge tax increase, and (2) signed a permissive abortion bill. Voters realize pols learn as they go along, just like everyone else. After four years of Obama & Co enriching govt employees, NGO’s, community organizers, banks, health care co’s and govt dependents at the expense of everyone else, I suspect any Rep other than Huckabee or Palin would win in ’12. It may well come down to handful of sts in the midwest in 12, and whatever Romney’s problems with the Rep base (in the South), he is well positioned to pick off two or three states in the North. His only drawback may be that while in the private sector, his method of saving companies was, apparently, slashing jobs. no fault in that, but easily demagogued.
January 8, 2010, 5:31 pmAF says:
RomneyCare does not imply ObamaCare, but not ObamaCare implies not RomneyCare.
Also, if RomneyCare is a good idea in Massachusetts, and federal preemption of state insurance regulation is a good idea in Washington, I don’t see why ObamaCare isn’t a good idea in Washington as well.
January 8, 2010, 5:45 pmzuch says:
Assuming arguendo such circumstances: Why? Why would they want a boss of the industries that aren’t hiring? Do you think that industry bigwigs give a fig about the little guys? They’d just as soon get robots and lay them all off….
But considering that Romney’s forte is leveraged buyouts (well known to stoke hiring)….
Cheers,
January 8, 2010, 6:22 pmBob from Ohio says:
General elections are more about the incumbent. Obama will lose or win based on his record. The opposition, while not totally unimportant of course, matters less than an open election.
As for the primaries, if Palin runs, she should win Iowa since Romney is weak in Iowa, the GOP side is very pro life there and Palin’s supporters are MUCH more gung ho than his. Then after Romney’s expected win in NH, they meet in South Carolina. Think Romney can beat her in South Carolina?
She’ll sweep the south and mountain west except for Utah. He’ll have to run the table everywhere else.
Its her nomination if she wants it. Mitch Daniels can be her VP.
Or maybe Jeb Bush. George Bush’s numbers are going up already.
January 8, 2010, 7:05 pmerp says:
Unfortunately in today’s video-clip world, candidates must first have a commanding appearance and persuasive voice. Other qualifications are secondary.
January 8, 2010, 7:33 pmThe Unbeliever says:
Romney in 2012 is pretty blatant electoral suicide… but then again, so was McCain in 2008, and he still managed to pick up enough pieces in the fractured field to nab the nomination.
Romney would do OK if the Dems were fielding an uninspiring non-entity candidate like John Kerry; but against a sitting President and media darling, he has no chance.
January 8, 2010, 7:37 pmPeter says:
maybe i’m naive, but I think Americans have an intuitive understanding of the fact that the more costs that are imposed on employers for each employee, the fewer jobs that will be created. I think Romney would be good at talking about this aspect of the problem: employers hire when it is financially worthwhile to do so. If he is smart, he will talk about reducing the govt costs imposed on employers, thus making it easier for them to hire people.
Palin isnt even going to run in 2012. And by the way, McCain did beat Huckabee in S Carolina in 08. The moderate beat the the southern favorite that year–it can happen again. I think Palin’s major focus is on making lots of money. I dont think she is really interested in going through the electoral meat grinder again.
January 8, 2010, 7:44 pmRobert E says:
I look for Gary Johnson to emerge as a serious candidate if he gets into it. He has an outstanding record as Gov. of NM for 8 years, and has proven he can buck the GOP establishment and get elected. If he can get through the primaries he’ll have great cross-over appeal to a lot of independent or liberal voters. Strongest candidate for the general election, IMO.
January 8, 2010, 7:50 pmmariner says:
Saying that conservatives won’t vote for Romney because of his religion is like saying anyone who won’t vote for Obama is a racist.
January 8, 2010, 9:01 pmJayJay says:
I am not sure I could vote for Romney. If he is the nominee, will probably sit that one out and will be a first for me. Personally, would rather focus on the 2010 elections and get them behind us before speculating on 2012. I doubt it will happen for a variety of reasons but would love to see Eric Cantor run and win.
January 8, 2010, 9:32 pmSarcastro says:
[Thing about Palin is 20% of the base will not vote for her. The base! And, from my reading of conservative fora, it looks like 20% are threatening not to vote for anyone if she does not win.
If she runs in the primaries, it's over for the Reps in 2012.
Romney also has serious base problems from his past statements. I don't see them going away.]
January 8, 2010, 10:43 pmPurple Kooaid says:
Romney won’t get the evangelical vote and not because he is Mormon, but bc he is not pro-life.
January 8, 2010, 11:10 pmWill Spencer says:
I think we’re going to have to find a _new_ candidate for 2012.
Barry Obama proved that you don’t need any job experience to become president.
We might do better against Obama by picking some random kid fresh out of college.
January 9, 2010, 12:01 amAlan says:
Anyone advising Republicans to back the author of Romneycare is giving the kind of advice you could expect to get from a smart-mouthed rabbit begging you not to throw him into a briar patch. Mitt Romney is 2012′s McCain/Huckabee/Giuliani–he’s someone the right cannot afford to make the mistake of supporting.
I could definitely support Coburn or DeMint, if either of them ran.
January 9, 2010, 12:51 amTowering Barbarian says:
The problems with polls like this are several:
1. It presumes that “left leaning bloggers” necessarily have a clue about what does and does not win elections.
2. It assumes that even if they did that they would necessarily be truthful about the matter when it is to their perceived interests to try to get their opponents to play to their weakness. Has no one here read Uncle Remus’ tales of Bre’er Rabbit? o_O
3. It assumes that right of center bloggers necessarily have a clue as to who will even be a candidate in 2012. Sorry, I left my own crystal ball in my other set of chainmail! :P
4. And do we really think that all of us right of center bloggers, or even many of us, would necessarily be above trying to influence the nomination process by voting our heart above our head in such a poll if we thought it would influence the process or just out of confusing our own desires with what will be? o_O
So, as far as I’m concerned, this poll is just even more of a waste of time than most polls usually are. IMO, the only polls that matter are the ones held on a certain Tuesday in November and the ones held on Primary Day. All else are drivel. :P
January 9, 2010, 2:24 amomar bradley says:
The media isn’t so all-powerful. How did Bush win twice? How did Reagan win twice? How did Nixon win twice
I will go out on a limb and say that if in September 2012 unemployment is at 15% and terrorist attacks are happening every other week that either Palin or Romney would beat Obama by an even greater margin than he won with in 2008.
January 9, 2010, 2:56 amomar bradley says:
You are one of the few who actually understands how politics works. The 2012 election will come down to Obama. The GOP candidate is irrelevant. If Obama is above 50% he’ll win comfortably. If he’s consistently below 50%, he’ll lose. No incumbent has ever won with sub 50 approval.
Any scenario where one nominee would win is one where any would win. Just as any dem would have won in 2008. Hillary would have won, probably with a larger margin than Obama. Kerry would have won in 2008. Gore would have won. Edwards would have won. Once the economy melted down in September the Republicans were finished.
Assuming Obama is unpopular enough in 2012 that he’d lose reelection(sonsistent sub 50 approval, and possibly sub 40), I don’t see a scenario where he’d lose to Romney, but not someone else or vice versa. What states in that scenario would vote for only one potential opponent but not the other?
When an incumbent loses, he loses big, no doubt about it. It’s because the public has rejected him and is throwing him out. See Bush ’92, Carter ’80, even Hoover ’32 if you go back.
January 9, 2010, 3:33 amspirit says:
If Palin runs, she wins the nomination easily. If, as I suspect, the American people decide to fire Obama, then she is the 45th President. This poppycock about the base (or 20% of it) not supporting her is early poll nonsense. There were oodles of polls in 1977, 1978 and even as late as December of 1979 showing Carter defeating Reagan by more than 20 points. Why don’t one of you genius lib Palin haters remind me how that one turned out? Palin is one of the best forensic politicians in my lifetime, and the White House knows it. It is precisely why they and their minions are in overdrive trying to destroy her. It won’t work. She will win with 40+ states.
No amount of wishful thinking by a bunch of elitist, left wing lawyers is going to change that. Try reading the history of the 1980 election. Anyone one who can’t see the remarkable parallels between that cycle and this one is as obtuse as a sack of hammers.
January 9, 2010, 4:06 amleo marvin says:
If unemployment is at 15% and terrorist attacks are happening every other week Bernie Madoff would beat Obama, but back on planet Earth I’d suggest looking for a candidate who might win an election under remotely plausible circumstances. Don’t get me wrong, if you guys do go the Sarah Palin route I won’t be disappointed, but hey, it’s your party.
January 9, 2010, 4:48 amerp says:
Will Spencer said,
Barry Obama proved that you don’t need any job experience to become president.
What Obama proved is that while you may not need experience to become president, you need a lot of experience, knowledge, integrity, judgement and maturity to be president.
January 9, 2010, 9:12 amSarcastro says:
[IMO, General Bradley wins the thread.]
January 9, 2010, 11:09 amG. May says:
I’d say leo wins it. People are already polarized over Palin, just like they were Hillary. The right may love Palin, but they’re not going to get the swing vote with her and the media will continue their rabid quest to bring her down.
January 9, 2010, 2:35 pmtarun says:
Since Palin is making sure she has no centrist appeal, and even without the pressure of a campaign her handlers can’t manage to make her sound competent, I’d say she is out unless the party has really gone to the rabid dogs.
If you stick Romney up against Obama in a debate, you would probably actually get a decent one, hell, I’d like them to get rid of the moderators and just see them chat about different topics. I’d pay to watch that. But since Obama has been sold on his intellectualism (rather than his pragmatism which is why his numbers are dropping IMO), I suspect that any rejection of Obama will be a repudiation of intelligence as well – so perhaps then Palin does have a shot.
Sadly, Palin will be another big government Republican led around by her handlers with no real political power and no acumen or heartfelt agenda. Rather than strip down governmental power, she will undoubtedly continue the expansion apace and keep breaking down checks and balances as well. Even if Ron Paul is batshit crazy, I’d rather have him than Palin.
January 9, 2010, 3:19 pmNat Whilk says:
So the contrapositive of a statement isn’t logically equivalent to it after all?
January 9, 2010, 3:20 pmyankee says:
I don’t think so either. She’s not looking to win high office, just to rake in six-figure speaking fees and $10 million book deals.
January 9, 2010, 5:22 pmmisanthropicus says:
Probably so – however, Romney should tone down a bit the ‘libertarian/ capitalistic” tone of his discourse. Remember Phil Gramm? Well – that’s the corner where Romney should carefullly avoid being painted in – and his speech at McCain’s nomimation will probably much quoted around -
January 9, 2010, 6:10 pm(I have to confess that I hope for him and I voted McCain with the solid feeling that he doesn’t want to win).
Sammy Finkelman says:
What is it with some people that they like Romney so much?
I think the problem with this poll, is that ti could only be the most famous names that come out on top. Romney is not really likely as a nominee.
It’s an extremely open field, molre so than 1968 or the year 2000, or 2008. There is literally no obvious candidate, except sarah palin, and losing vice-presidential candidates often run for the presidency, but don’t get the nomination (Muskie, Shriver, Dole in 1980 and 1988, Lieberman)
You would think it would have to be somebody who has starteed a campaign committee by July, 2011.
January 10, 2010, 1:57 pmSammy Finkelman says:
What is it with some people that they like Romney so much?
I think the problem with this poll, is that ti could only be the most famous names that come out on top. Romney is not really likely as a nominee.
It’s an extremely open field, molre so than 1968 or the year 2000, or 2008. There is literally no obvious candidate, except sarah palin, and losing vice-presidential candidates often run for the presidency, but don’t get the nomination (Muskie, Shriver, Dole in 1980 and 1988, Lieberman)
You would think it would have to be somebody who has starteed a campaign committee by July, 2011.
January 10, 2010, 1:57 pmJustin says:
Doesn’t make sense to me and seems a bit simplistic. I was hoping for a more thoughtful response from commentators, especially since this was really a question posed in response to several comments with similar points. For some examples of what I was thinking, Massachusetts doesn’t have to worry about some of the negative consequences of having universal coverage for their state. They get a free ride off of the rest of the nation such that they won’t cause things like decreased innovation in the medical field, etc. Or that if some mild reforms were enacted, RomneyCare wouldn’t be the best they could achieve because the national rules were changed. I think the comparison of RomneyCare and ObamaCare is problematic and equating Massachusetts to the US is sort of ridiculous. I think the economics and the policy implications and consequences to the medical field could all be vastly different.
January 11, 2010, 3:02 am