Who will win the Republican nomination?

  • News
  • Thread starter BobG
  • Start date

Who will win the Republican nomination?

  • Michele Bachman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Haley Barbour

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Herman Cain

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Mitch Daniels

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Mike Huckabee

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • John Huntsman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sarah Palin

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Tim Pawlenty

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • #1
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
It's time for candidates to lay the ground work for the 2012 primaries if they want to have a shot in 2012. Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

My top ten (which is why they made the poll):

1. Tim Pawlenty. Pros: Actually laying the organizational groundwork for a campaign, which puts him ahead of all but Romney. Can appeal to Tea Partiers, as well as establishment Republicans. Cons: Lacks name recognition of other top contenders, but that may not be such a flaw. Very strong candidate that's actually putting in the work.

2. Mitt Romney. Pros: In 5 of the last 8 non-incumbent nomination races, the runner-up from the previous non-incumbent nomination has won and Romney was the popular runner-up. Most money and best campaign organization. Cons: Actually, he was only 'co-runner-up' and 2 of 3 exceptions to the runner-up rule involved 'co-runner-up' situations. Romney wasn't credible running as a social conservative in '08, but can Romney withstand Tea Partiers if he runs as himself?

3. Mike Huckabee. Pros: Finished as 'co-runner-up' in spite of starting campaign with virtually no money. Best personality on campaign trail in '08. As former Baptist minister, should appeal to social conservatives. Cons: Not laying any groundwork for a campaign - one wonders if he'll even run.

4. Mitch Daniels. Pros: Conservative enough to win Republican nomination, but, as a governor, few enough positions to appear as a moderate in a general election. Cons: Needs to wear a hat to look Presidential and that could be a problem at formal events. Actually, a pretty strong candidate.

5. John Huntsman. Pros: If Romney uses the chameleon strategy again, then Huntsman is the only moderate in the race, which could give him a route to the nomination. Cons: Huntsman is the only moderate in the race because there are no moderates left in the Republican Party.

6. Herman Cain. Pros: Would be the charismatic Tea Party darling that comes from nowhere - in other words, the Huckabee of the '12 nomination race. Would be popular with the business crowd. Eliminates any race issues. Cons: He's never, ever held political office.

7. Sarah Palin. Pros: It takes a long time to evacuate from a sinking ship, especially when half the occupants refuse to abandon ship. Cons: She's the clueless type of person that all but the most die-hard supporters eventually get tired of defending.

8. Newt Gingrich. Pros: At least people know his name. Cons: He's had 20 years to make his move and hasn't.

9. Haley Barbour. Pros: A successful governor. Cons: Just do a google search on his name. A Barbour/Cain ticket or a Cain/Barbour ticket would make an interesting combo.

10. Michele Bachman. Pros: Someone has to take Palin's place and annoy us all. Cons: She may not even be sane.

(And, I know Ron Paul will generate quite a few other votes, but, seriously, he really doesn't have a chance of winning any election involving people that aren't internet addicts.)
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
14
I'm going to cast my vote, here, for Tim Pawlenty. Sure, he doesn't have name recognition now, but I think he will.
 
  • #3
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
46
I pretty much agree with your rankings, Bob. If the GOP wants to absolutely crash and burn in 2012, they should run Bachman or Palin, or better yet, Bachman AND Palin. That ticket might get 5% of the popular vote. I'd put Barbour above either of them, and Newt just above him on the list.
 
  • #4
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Bachman AND Palin
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
  • #5
100
1
i think i might need to look into Pawlenty et al a bit before i actually vote. but currently, i think Romney is a no-go. he's as bland as sodium free saltines, and whoever goes up against Obama will need a certain amount of charisma and people-skills. for this reason, and others, i do like Huckabee, but i certainly don't trust him on middle-east issues. i think Huckabee will be blinded by religious prophesies and give the israelis everything they ask for, making things even worse for us down the road. i'm also not sure the rich elite of the republican party will feel like they can control a Huckabee. a Romney they can capture, but Romney can't win. 7-down are not serious candidates.
 
  • #6
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291
Some UK commentators are suggesting this is a contest the serious candidates don't want to win, or even take part in. Better to keep their powder dry till 2016 and let a B or C list candidate get trashed by a sitting president who can outspend them without even trying, and blame negative GOP tactics for everything that might go wrong since the mid-term elections.
 
  • #7
180
1
i think i might need to look into Pawlenty et al a bit before i actually vote.
I wish I had before I'd answered this poll! He's got a solid track record.
 
  • #8
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
Name recognition doesn't mean much at this point, IMO. Had anyone heard of some guy named "Barack Obama" this far out from the last presidential election? Certainly people who follow politics (like PFers who frequent P&WA :biggrin:), but not your average Joe Sixpack.
 
  • #9
MATLABdude
Science Advisor
1,655
4
Name recognition doesn't mean much at this point, IMO. Had anyone heard of some guy named "Barack Obama" this far out from the last presidential election? Certainly people who follow politics (like PFers who frequent P&WA :biggrin:), but not your average Joe Sixpack.
Yes, and that's why there was so much excitement going in. His keynote speech at the 2008 DNC greatly enhanced his national profile and the "skinny kid with a funny name" became a legitimate contender despite having held national office for only two years. I think it was around this far out from the past election that he announced that he was running (and this go-around, only Newt Gingrich has done that). My point is that while Clinton was the presumptive candidate (along with Edwards), Obama didn't completely come out of nowhere.

Despite his own youth and come-out-of-nowhere status, Bill Clinton remarked to Ted Kennedy that "this kid should be bringing us coffee!" And maybe he was channeling his brother, but that was the tipping point for Ted and a few weeks later (about 8 or 9 months out), he endorsed Obama.

For his whole political career, stronger and more recognizable candidates running against Obama have shot themselves in their own feet, or screwed up so royally as to basically kill their chances (John Edwards, Jack Ryan, Alan Keyes, and arguably even John McCain with his choice of VP). So I agree, there's plenty of time yet for some of the lesser-knowns and not-listeds to maybe wait out the demise of the stronger candidates there.

Given that today is St. Patrick's, perhaps Obama's success was due to the luck of the Irish? :biggrin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplZ_taHXLM

EDIT: Ooops, I meant the 2004 DNC!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_National_Convention
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Didn't know about the coffee remark!

PS: Alan Keyes didn't shoot himself in the foot. He never really had any feet to stand on in the first place.
 
  • #11
MATLABdude
Science Advisor
1,655
4
Didn't know about the coffee remark!

PS: Alan Keyes didn't shoot himself in the foot. He never really had any feet to stand on in the first place.
It came out in Halperin and Heilemann's Game Change:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31302.html

I wish it would've had more from the McCain camp, but you go with what you've got. The revealed extent and duration of the Edwards mess was truly frightening (in that he kept on campaigning for months even as his family life and campaign were melting down).

You're right that Alan Keyes didn't have a chance, but I thought that he'd started foot-mouthing even before running (i.e. how hard he harped on Hillary Clinton for carpetbagging, and then proceeding to do the same). I recall an interview I read where he came off diplomatic and centrist. Had he kept on doing that throughout the campaign, it might've been closer--it wouldn't have been Alan Keyes, but it might've been closer.

Unlike Keyes, Bachmann doesn't seem to have enough self-awareness to tone things down. And unlike Huckabee, no conciliatory tones or middle-ground. If the Republicans keep on squeezing out moderates and traitors-du-jour, maybe she *will* end up the nominee?
 

Related Threads on Who will win the Republican nomination?

Replies
64
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
7
Replies
168
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
51
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Top