“Fine if you don’t want to nominate Daniels - just giving my perspective.”
Giving your perspective is OK. This has been a civil discourse, just as I like ‘em!
Finding a candidate who can win, as you point out, is problematical in some states. I was surprised when Reagan won back in 1980. (I’ve been voting since 1971.) Years afterwards, I had a chance to review how it happened.
Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. He was elected despite the bashing he took from the MSM. Why? Because he convinced a broad swath of the public that he loved this nation, had a positive vision of our future, and told people what he was going to do and then did it.
Reagan was honest and straightforward, and more importantly, he radiated those traits to the extent that even if a person didn’t agree 100% with Reagan’s politics, they voted for him nevertheless.
Conservatism and moral values travel hand-in-hand. Others on Free Republic have stated why much better than I ever will, so I’ll not say more on the issue.
Daniels made a statement about social values that alarmed conservative voters. I doubt he’ll receive much support from strong conservatives if he seeks to be President - just giving my perspective.
It’s hard to argue with anything you say. My strategy is trying to figure out what the country will go for - I think Daniels has positioned himself well to clean up with the independents and conservatives will turn out for him, no matter what they say Of course, my opinion is subject to change. Either way, I think he would be a gamble - I don’t know of any other candidates talking about entitlement reform, which could either carry us or kill us, depending on the mood of the country and how effectively he can overcome the MSM smear machine and get buy-in from the voters on his ideas. I hope (pray) voters are ready to get serious about entitlement reform.
Thune just just chimed in today seems to want to fill the void on the social issues front, saying today there will be no truce. He seems mainstream enough so that I think he can win independent voters, but he’s had a pretty unremarkable career and isn’t a big draw like Chris Christie. It’s also hard to call Obama a do-nothing loser if you’ve just nominated your own junior senator, but maybe that’s not so important.
Christie’s RINO proclivities on some issues aside, I think he’s our best shot but seems intent on not running (though he could be posturing). He’s really the opposite of Obama in EVERY way - most importantly, he speaks directly and frankly, which will go a long way with voters. If he can hold a 51% approval rate in NJ, he would be lethal to Obama. He would be a fund raising machine. I’m going to go on record and say he will at least be our VP nominee, no matter who we pick.
I kind of wish I could take Gingrich’s wit and expertise, give him Daniels’ record, Christie’s magnetism, and Jim DeMint’s conservatism and combine them into a can’t-lose super-candidate. Stinks we have to choose from what we’ve got, but hopefully we can scrape together enough votes to end this nightmare!