May: A Better Republican Candidate Assessment Predictions And Preferences

There’s a lot to talk about here. Mitch Daniels, whom I thought would enter the race and was going to discuss, bowed out over the weekend, saying he loved his family even more than he loved his country. I thought Daniels would have been a strong candidate with an established record of taming the fiscal situation and having won reelection in Indiana, a Republican-leaning state that Obama did win, however. And I think he could have gotten beyond conservative reflexes against his verbal formulations that have called for “a truce on social issues,” and the “need to be liked,” which some conservatives take as a red flag of compromise. Daniels is pro-life, but thinks Republicans should not repel Independents but focus on appealing to them on the extremely precarious fiscal situation. And in terms of needing to be liked, that’s just a fact, and does not necessarily imply compromise. Even the Biblical instruction for spreading “the good news,” advised seeking first the fruit of the spirit; that is, a decent an unimpeachable character in the messenger. But the truth is not compromised. For instance, Daniels was detaching public unions from the power of legal coercion before it was cool. But Daniels’ competent record and clarity of speech might have been adequate if Obama were still in trouble by fall 2012. But what if unemployment has trickled down even to the low 8 range, and the money and media parade are in high gear? Competent and clear, Daniels is. Electric, he is not. Is it not plain that the 2008 election was decided on almost 100% electricity and practically zero substance? That now looms as a huge consideration with the field that remains, which I will discuss.

There are two candidates that I have already discussed who need to be mentioned in the context of potentially winning the nomination. I mentioned Herman Cain as one who could possibly win, but probably wouldn’t. He has now announced his candidacy, and I had said that Cain is one who has that potential of becoming a phenomenon that inspires the people. And in the past few days, a Zogby poll showed Cain trailing only NJ Governor Chris Christie as a Republican favorite. Similar to the matter of Daniels’ questioned verbiage, I don’t have much time for the hand-wringing about Cain’s failure to jump on the question this weekend about a Palestinian “right of return.” We geeks know exactly what that refers to and why there’s no way Israel can absorb all descendants of Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine before ’49. Herman Cain has been doing more with his life than being glued to the language of Middle East tensions. Nor am I troubled by his explanation that he would consider the counsel of a president’s advisers who know what he doesn’t about Afghanistan. What executives do is make a decision on information from people who have paid more attention to operational details than he has. Cain is an executive. Critics are policy nerds. In fact, Monday on Hannity, Cain addressed the “right of return” question head on, saying yes, he was caught by surprise by Chris Wallace, not expecting the question, but still thought it was not for Americans but Israelis to answer. And he said as chief executive he would have the counsel of competent advisors. Christie by the way, has only been governor for 2 years and has consistently repeated that he will not be a candidate. But Cain could quickly show that political “experts” might prove to be not so expert after all.

Speaking of that, talk-show host Michael Medved has already declared it a 2-man contest. Medved is extraordinarily informed on history and is truly a free-enterprise conservative. But, he’s another longtime political observer that I think may not have adjusted to some new realities. I listen to him regularly but he’s pretty quick to mock people he regards as too unconventional. But one of Medved’s Big Two is Mitt Romney, whom I have also discussed, as one I would strongly oppose. As I said, it’s true that such a state mandate as in RomneyCare is constitutional while ObamaCare is not. But, even in a domain the size of Massachusetts, he should have resisted the bad consequences of restricting both personal and commercial liberty, and foreseen the problems for cost and medical practitioners. It’s hard to count out someone with a standing campaign infrastructure, tens of millions of dollars, and a barrel of ambition. He’s been tame so far, but I’m not sure if Romney can resist going very negative to the point of deception, about his rivals. He might assure that Republicans have a battered nominee. And, I think he would be a big target for Democrat smearing as an out-of-touch rich guy. I think Romney can build from a 20% floor of people who (wrongly) think he’d be a genius for the economy. But he may also have a ceiling of around 30%. He won’t be bringing the electricity either, in a conservative environment that is desperately looking for it. The conservatives must avoid splitting up the conservative vote so that Romney might win with 25%.

Medved thinks the other contender is Tim Pawlenty. And Monday, Charles Krauthammer also narrowed the competition to the same two men. I like Pawlenty all right. And I think his instincts are conservative, though he’s dipped a toe in some liberal ideas that he has since disavowed. But some conservatives call him a RINO or even a liberal. It seems that, like liberals, some conservatives won’t deal with reality. Pawlenty was the 2-term governor of MINNESOTA. I like to shorten the reality of Minnesota to words like “Jesse Ventura” and “AL FRANKEN.” Really: need I say more? Pawlenty wouldn’t be a danger with a Republican US Congress. But today, we don’t need to avoid danger. We need an executive to lead us out of big trouble. And if I think he’s a nice guy, Pawlenty won’t be that electric leader, either. Can you imagine how deflated the ardent voters who brought the big victory of 2010 (by the way, a strong conservative narrowly lost the MN governor’s race) will be if we emerge with Romney or Pawlenty as a Republican nominee? To me, that has the smell of defeat, for both the election in the short term, and for America soon after. Someone must come on with sparks flying to overrun them. Talk about Christie persists, along with Paul Ryan, who has also ruled out a run. So has Rick Perry, who says the real action is in Texas. But…hold that thought.

I’ve said that Cain could catch fire. And so could Michele Bachmann, even though only James Garfield in 1880 was elected President directly from The House of Representatives. But Bachman chairs the new Tea Party Caucus in The House, has opposed many of the “compromises” in The House, and is an evangelical Christian in neighboring Minnesota who could make an impact in Iowa. She has 5 biological children and with her husband took in 23 foster children. Sure, she’ll be violently attacked by the left. Chris Matthews is sure she’s a bubble-head wing-nut. And Bill Maher said she’s “for people who find Sarah Palin too intellectual.” Don’t you love Bill Maher? But Bachman has two law degrees and is a lot more intellectual than Bill Maher. And such criticism can and should be played as an advantage; certainly in the primaries and even the general election. She would be a strong and assertive candidate and President.

Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann could provide that electricity that Republicans need. But only Sarah Palin would bring an ardent established following and name-recognition. Besides being more capable than Maher, I’d make her better than 50-50 in a fist fight with him. Now, that would be fun. I’ve never ever seen a Republican candidate draw fervent crowds like Palin did in 2008 and since at book-signings and campaigning for others. She was an assertive executive in Alaska. I point to her profit-sharing plan for oil leases in Alaska, which shared profits with taxpayers. When she laid out the plan, ExxonMobil, one of the largest corporations in the world, objected. Like Reagan with Gorbachev in Reykjavik, she told them to take it or leave it. And like the Soviets, when they saw she meant business, they took it. I ask you: who do you want negotiating with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others? It seems like a no-brainer to me, though the media have disabled a lot of brains. She has effectively campaigned for candidates around the country, including Governor Rick Perry in the Republican delegate treasure of Texas, and also for Governor Terry Branstad, Senator Kelly Ayotte, and Governor Nikki Haley, In IOWA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND SOUTH CAROLINA. Hmmm. For anyone who isn’t aware, those are the first three delegate selection contests. It’s all lined up for her and she says she has the fire in the belly. And someone is buying a nice new digs in Arizona; a base of operations?

Palin has been effectively beaten up in the media, and has high negatives along with her high positives. It would be her job to change that. But I think she can. She should favor public exchanges over private interviews that can be manipulated and edited. She should be their strongest candidate, if she runs and only family concerns should be able to hold her back. She and Bachmann should coordinate to not hand the race to another. Republicans booted the chance to nominate the first black presidential candidate. Though there is ever more melding, blacks are now between 12 and 13% of the population. If Republicans could win even 15-20% of that vote, they’d be hard to beat. Women are over half of the population. Very roughly speaking, men vote around 60-40 Republican-Democrat and women around 60-40 Democrat-Republican. If Republicans gained even a 50-50 split among women, they would win in a landslide. In 2012, the most inspiring Republican candidates are one black and two women. And the “experts” write them off with little discussion; often none in the case of Palin. If Republicans don’t surprise the experts, they may once again be proven “The Stupid Party.” I said to hold the thought of Rick Perry: if he could be convinced to run as VP, he might make any of these three almost unbeatable.

I don't care who it is. I am ready right now to get it on, and fight the Democrats ... I figure, whatever I decide personally, I could be wrong, and what I think I am going to do this time around is listen to all my fellow Republicans, Tea Party, et all, and listen to their consensus. While in the past, this may not have been the way to go about this - I mean last time around I was for Romney, and McCain got it, and I then jumped with him because of our lady Sarah so I got excited then. My thoughts on this in the past was, I needed to decide on my own and then try to win over everyone else because maybe the others would make a mistake.

But this time around, because of this extreme awareness that I find among active politicos from the Party and from the grass roots, this time it really feels different for me.

This time, I think everyone is going to come to the high noon event, and then a candidate, the best one, is going to emerge. And, I think this time we are all going to get together, sharp as knives, fast draw experts, we are going win in 2012. In fact, it won't even be that hard.

So you all pick who it is. Then it's going to be fun. I trust your judgement. This time.

I think it is too early to analyze much of anything. The field is not set and there are too many variables that still need to work themselves out between now and this coming January.

If the current field is those announced and you throw in a Palin and some others then the nominee should be the one who can bring about the most energy and turnout among those who voted last fall in the GOP landslide.

Conventional wisdom would be Palin. But she is so damaged at the moment and unable to break out of her Dan Quayle persona that there is probably little hope for her.

Bachman and Cain are non starters in the long run because of lack of experience and record. The MSM will destroy them.

The DC and Bush crowd want Romney but it is unlikely the party makes the McCain mistake twice in a row given the hatred of Obama among conservatives. He will also be damaged by Rudy G of NYC apparent run in the early state of New Hampshire. If Romney money and old time GOP connection prevails then Obama wins even with double digit unemployment and inflation. Because Romney makes certain a third party/Tea Party type run. So now what?

Two chances currrently for victory in my opinion. First the candidate needs to be a governor. Someone who has used conservative principles in their states to buck the Obama trend of sending the nation down the tubes. Currently only two people meet that criteria and have not been defined negatively with any success and that is Chris Christie of New Jersey and Rick Perry of Texas. A long shot would also be Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Everything should be done to talk either Christie or Perry into running. The needs of the nation are to great for them to wait for a non-incumbent election in 2016, there may be no country left by then.

I can’t imagine that Obama will be re-elected, but lately I have wondered if we will have an election, seriously. So much going on against America that is actually succeeding that it’s stunning.

I too will be voting with the flow so we don’t balcanize over the conservative tier. This election has to be won. Even a RINO is better than a communist institutionaized. Scary times, huh?

Actually his numbers for women are incorrect. It's only single women who break strongly for Democrats, and a large part of that advantage is wiped out when you consider a +90% edge among black females is a huge part of that. In any case, it isn't anywhere near 60-40. The Democrats have a far larger gender gap problem than Republicans do.

Bachmann is the person I want to see. They will try to Quayle her as they have -- to some degree successfully -- with Palin, but her bona fides are pretty tough to decertify. Some borderline dull/average types can get a law degree if their families have enough money (John-John comes to mind) but nobody stupid becomes becomes an LL. M.

[Some] Texas FReepers appear not to care for Rick Perry. I actually hope he runs. Whatever his earlier career may have been he is making the right arguments over the last few years. The question is whether he can overcome some animosity from conservatives who don't think he's pure enough in the primaries, and whether Bush-fatigue can be attached to another Texas governor running so soon after 2008.

Contrary to weasel opinion, I don't think this field is weak. All of the announced candidates have stronger credentials than Barry-0 did.

“Everything should be done to talk either Christie or Perry into running. The needs of the nation are to great for them to wait for a non-incumbent election in 2016, there may be no country left by then.”

Why limit the field to either of them? Susana Martinez is a true conservative governor here in New Mexico with a beautiful resume.

Interesting.

This is starting to remind me of some of the ghosts of elections past.

Hermin Cain is the Steve Forbes/Alan Keyes candidate. (Popular with freepers, and doesn't do bad in the polls, can be competitive, won't win the primary).

Romney is the Bush/McCain/Dole (this is very very very bad).

Pawlenty is the Lamar Alexander/Orin Hatch (leans conservative, but not a bedrock guy)

Michelle Backman is the Phil Gramn and Fred Thompson (Very conservative, excites freepers, has experience, but is not the establishment pick).

Newt Gingrich is Harold Stassen/Liz Dole (Best chance has passed).

Ron Paul is Ron Paul (which means he is Ron Paul).

Gary Johnson is Ron Paul (except he doesn't look like him).

We'll see what happens with Palin, but the above don't look to good, my back up is Bachman, but outside of her, I can't say I could visualize Palin picking even one of these guys to even be VP.

Christie has no intention of giving up his job, he's only been at it for a couple of years, and to be blunt, every attempt was made, he seems to want to be a kingmaker more then a king right now.

I think Perry is testing the waters, but he doesn't seem to have the desire to go for the brass ring yet either.

These are 2 guys who simply don't want the job, and pushing them, isn't going to make them want it more.

But I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up having to go to the convention without a candidate, which, if we do, all bets are off, and look for a free for all, when suddenly, everyone would decide, why the hell not ?

People here don’t like anybody. And the odds are that Romney, whom they really don’t like, will get it. He has the money. So, folks, Romney vs. Obama? That’s not a choice? I beg to differ. You can barf all you want, but I’ll vote for Daffy Duck before I will vote for Obama. Besides, Romney could pull a surprise. How about a Romney-Rubio ticket? Now, there’s food for thought.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.