Replies

Without talking about who SHOULD be the nominee, I think who the GOP nominee is depends greatly on how bad things are in min 2011.

If things are portrayed as stagnant, but not horrific, Romney has the best chance. Romney might be able to overcome the Wall Street label and seem like a reasonable choice compared to Obama.

If things are labeled as a “depression” or similar to late Jimmy Carter, and the mood is desperation, Huckabee’s comforting minister will play a lot better with moderates and he is just conservative enough to get a lot of the base to come along if things are bad.

If the mood shifts to bloodless revolution, and people get ANGRY and ready to make a statement, Palin will be the beneficiary of that.

Romney represents a tweak of the status quo, Huckabee represents comfort, Palin represents sweeping change/bloodless revolution. Ron Paul is too old now, but his economic message would play very well as things break down.

Obviously if the media can spin a recovery, Obama will win.

This is also PERCEPTION...this doesn’t mean what the candidates say they are, are what they are.

In my view, winning the House is paramount. You can uplug a lot of the agenda with the House...IF the GOP shifts right. Big if.

Decent and well-reasoned analysis, but I would forget about Huck in any case because of his religious bigotry baggage.

Mormons find him highly offensive. Sure, they're only 2% of the population, but they vote Republican/Conservative by a 10-1 margin at the national level.
Catholics find him only slightly less offensive and they are a HUGE demographic, particularly in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.