To: techno
I wanted to keep the focus on Mitt and Sarah. Until further notice they are still the two main characters in this drama.
I believe that Romney is long finished. He has no upside potential. As of now, the nomination is Palin's if she wants it. There will be an anti-Palin. That anti-Palin will get the bulk of present Romney supporters.While Romney could still New Hampshire as things stand, he'll get zip-nada-zilch in the south, low teens in the heartland, and high teens in the west (except heavy Mormon states like Utah and Idaho).
Palin bombs in the northeast, scores wins in the south, performs solid in non-Mormon mountain states (Colorado, Arizona) and will pull Reagan Democrats to big wins in midwest.
As of now, if Daniels gets a Christie endorsement, I believe that he will ultimately displace Romney in the northeast. Pawlenty seems to be running for VP, as one does not back into the nomination at this level.
I have NO idea of what Gingrich is up to. He can't be VP, he won't break 10% in any state outside maybe Georgia. I could see Romney as Sec. of Commerce (keep friends close, enemies closer) in a Palin admin., Santorum at HHS (ideal fit).
Huck would probably accept VP slot from anti-Palin nominee (Daniels or whoever)
33 posted on
05/16/2011 6:16:01 AM PDT by
Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: Dr. Sivana
I have NO idea of what Gingrich is up to. The only thing that makes sense to me is to squeeze out Romney so that Daniels can be the establishment flag-bearer.
Thing is, I've got no real animosity to Daniels -- I just think he's not what the country needs right now. We need someone dynamic and aggressive, not just quiet competence.
A Palin/Daniels ticket might actually make some sense, however. It would repair some of the establishment vs. tea-party divisions sure to come up in the primary. Daniels has a solid resume. If I thought that Indiana would even be in play for Obama to get again, that would be the clincher -- but if it is in 2012, then the election's already lost.
38 posted on
05/16/2011 8:45:03 AM PDT by
kevkrom
("Winning The Future" = WTF = What The F*** / "Kinetic Military Action" = KMA = Kiss My A**)
To: Dr. Sivana; techno
Since 1900, only one Republican became president by defeating an incumbent. That was Ronald Reagan, in 1980. He had these four traits that might have helped him:
1. He was conservative.
2. He was a governor.
3. He sought the nomination, in a previous election.
4. He was from the West.
These Republicans, who might run, have at least three of those four traits: Sarah Palin, Dirk Kempthorne, and Mitt Romney. I hope that all of them will run, and I hope that Tim Pawlenty and Buddy Roemer will run. I hope that at least four of them will continue campaigning until the convention. If that happens, no one will get the majority of the delegates before the convention. The convention will be more suspenseful and exciting, causing more people to watch and hear the great republican ideas. That happened in 1980, and Reagan won about 40 states.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson