• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Huntsman Announcement

Huntsman is my current candidate I guess. With Daniels not running I'd prefer him over anybody else.
 
Just got back. I drove up there to see the announcement in person. He is the real deal, the first Republican candidate I have been legitimately excited about in a long, long time.

Also, I would just like to address the comment that he is left of Romney. This is in no way true. Romney is definitely left of Huntsman, but he has just flip flopped in recent years. He used to be pro-choice. He introduced the predecessor to Obamacare in his state. There is no way Romney is more conservative than Huntsman.
 
TheShot said:
Romney (if it ends up being him) may be flawed, but he's a long way from being Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle or even Ken Buck--the 2010 candidates that potentially cost the GOP senate seats.

stylistically, the difference between wmr and that set is measured in light years.
Click to expand...

True, but let's see what he gets forced into adopting on the record in order to gain Tea Party support in the GOP primaries. You can't flip-flop a position from primary to general. If Romney adopts hard-right stances to attract Tea Party votes in the primary, he'll bleed votes from the middle in the general. McCain wasn't going to win anyway, but this happened to him in 2008. That's why people discuss 2000 McCain and 2008 McCain as different guys. Romney faces the same crucible, because of several formerly moderate positions that he's likely to reverse in order to pander for Tea Party votes.

IMO, and contrary to the belief of some on here, both bases are going to show up in force for the presidential election. The moderate vote will once again determine the winner. The GOP needs to get a candidate through that isn't beholden to the Tea Party, or that ship will sail.
 
Yeah, two straight elections with moderates who were forced hard right into to appease the party just doesn't bode well long term for the Republicans. But neither does a Perry or Bachmann.
 
only 2 straight, Ph? The Pub nominee always has to cater to the right, just as the Dem nominee always has to cater to the center.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
True, but let's see what he gets forced into adopting on the record in order to gain Tea Party support in the GOP primaries. You can't flip-flop a position from primary to general. If Romney adopts hard-right stances to attract Tea Party votes in the primary, he'll bleed votes from the middle in the general. McCain wasn't going to win anyway, but this happened to him in 2008. That's why people discuss 2000 McCain and 2008 McCain as different guys. Romney faces the same crucible, because of several formerly moderate positions that he's likely to reverse in order to pander for Tea Party votes.

IMO, and contrary to the belief of some on here, both bases are going to show up in force for the presidential election. The moderate vote will once again determine the winner. The GOP needs to get a candidate through that isn't beholden to the Tea Party, or that ship will sail.
Click to expand...

2000 McCain would have lost by a much larger margin to Obama than 2008 did.
 
i actually don't think specific issue positions are all that important in national elections, particularly among the indies .:couch:

think themes play a bigger role in defining candidates: HW Bush was an extension of RR; Dukakis week and elite; Kerry a flip-flopper and elite; Obama untested and unknown (or fresh and "change"); McCain too old and grumpy and more of the same GOP, etc.

i don't think Huntsman or wmr will be forced to adopt too many positions that strike people as too far out there, and their respective personas--while not terribly electrifying--are not "scary conservative."
 
Kerry was the Rock of Gibraltor compared to Romney in the flip-flop league.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
only 2 straight, Ph? The Pub nominee always has to cater to the right, just as the Dem nominee always has to cater to the center.
Click to expand...

I don't remember W having a history as a moderate Republican.
 
Saw Huntsman on Morning Joe this morning. Saw nothing to change my mind about three things:
1. Very impressive guy who has a good presidential resume and would appeal to a good portion of the populace.
2. Kinda cheesy, but not sure if it will hurt him or not.
3. No chance to win the nomination in 2012 for reasons I've stated before that are both positive (to me) and related to timing and his current status.

If he had served out the term as ambassador and basically started running in 2013 for 2016, he'd be a strong contender for the nomination and the presidency in 2016.
 
Huntsman is also the best fundraiser in the field, and he is already oozing money to begin with. And as Arlington will tell you, money spent correlates strongly to votes gained.
 
Actually that leads to a good question. Money isn't a problem for him. Why wait so long to start getting his name out?

Pitiful tag by the way. Not funny.
 
I think a big part of it was that he didn't want to be seen as "one of the others". If he had come out at the same time as all the other Republicans, he would have been quickly grouped into what everyone was calling a very weak Republican field.

Also, he had to wait for the Weiner thing and all the other big stories to resolve themselves so he could have an entire news cycle to himself. The worst case scenario for him would have been if he had slipped into the race unnoticed. If that had happened, he would have had a really hard time differentiating himself from the rest of the candidates.
 
I think Huntsman's waiting--up to and including skipping the debate when everyone knew he was "in"--was designed to exploit the sense of anxiety among Republicans about the strength and depth of the current field.

he was able to generate more buzz about his candidacy among the DC chattering classes by holding out--by being the guy who was always around the bend. the subsequent coverage of him is intense. (huge Matt Bai NYT mag profile, heavy cable news coverage this week, etc.)

it helps him with some of the more grassroots people, in that they heard weeks of coverage lamenting the state of the GOP field--and so naturally pay Huntsman heed when he arrives. holding out helped create the perception that there was a need for someone like him.

even the fred davis motorcross ads were delivering a form of that message--just wait, he's coming...

pretty clear strategy--may or may not work. obviously didn't work out for Fred Thompson, though i think Huntsman is on a far superior level when it comes to desire, discipline, staff, etc.
 
But Huntsman never said,"Russians don't take a crap without a plan."
 
in spite of everything i just said, it sounds like there was a lot of sloppy staff work at the announcement. which is not really important in the grand scheme, but you'd rather not see it.
 
I understand those reasons. But that logic didn't work for Fred Thompson and Wesley Clark and their campaigns stalled. I'm not saying Huntsman is the same as them and he's not entering as late as they did. I'm saying that a latecomer to the race doesn't necessarily come across as being the cavalry no matter how weak the field is. And I'm curious what kind of buzz there is about Huntsman that doesn't come from the media excited to see another person to talk about in an uninteresting field or the Republican elites and "DC chattering classes" (great term).
 
Reminds me of the Dems getting excited about Kerry because he'd sway right wing voters with his military history and his moderate positions.

Huntsman won't win the nomination because the brutal truth is that being a kinda-sorta lefty doesn't actually win any left votes when the real deal is already in office. And it costs you votes from the far right. Combine that with the Christian versus Mormon vote problem and he's just not electable in this system.

Which is a shame because he's certainly got a lot going for him. I listened to him talk about how he's pro gay civil unions while leaving the term marriage out of it as a separation of the religious side versus compete equality from a legal perspective - it was well said. He talked seriously about his own moral compass telling him devoted same sex relationships deserved all that rights that others do. He was also fairly candid about how much he liked Obama and how well he's doing in certain areas.

But either his campaign will have to change drastically or he'll never get the nomination. A lot of his quotes are basically poison to the staunch right wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top