Posted on 06/08/2010 1:09:17 PM PDT by pissant
The 2012 presidential election may be 29 months away, but the potential players are stalking each other like chess grandmasters. Tonight's round of gubernatorial and Senate primaries could provide early indicators of who is most shrewdly mobilizing their pieces into position. Three states with big races on Tuesday represent potential game-changers in 2012. Iowa and South Carolina occupy key early positions in the presidential-primary calendar, while California boasts a mother lode of winner-take-all delegates.
For presumed hopefuls like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee, the calculation is simple. Endorse a statewide candidate who wins (both tonight and in November's general election), and that person could repay the favor—and bring along their supporters and donors—or at worst remain neutral in 2012. But backing a loser means having your political savvy and star power called into question—at least for a day.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Hunter/DeMint 2012!
yeah i agree
none listed
i hear good things about Mitch Daniels and from what i see of Chris Christie he would be incredible at reigning in spending
Yes - when Romney and Huckabee get mentioned especially I get and uneasy feeling that the Republicans could manage to blow it.
Willard the rat as GOP nominee would cause me to write in Mickey Mouse!
:-)
(only kidding... do not hit reply and flood me! But if the MSM has their way, and we take our eye off the ball, it could happen.)
That’s 1% Hunter being pushed again (and again and again) by pissy. Some idiot fools just don’t get it.
He needs help.......so I indulge him with humor. Otherwise he'd croak.........
At some point, even an idiot savant would get it - supporting 1% Hunter for President is as futile as hoping Chairman MAO-bama improves the economy - ain’t gonna happen.
That said, I liked him, he was a good congressguy, one of the few.
Romney - more liberal than Bush II.
Huckabee??? I don’t know.
We need more youthful, younger, fresher faces.
I’d take Palin before either of them.
Is Mitt a conservative?
Romneycare is not a player anymore.
How in the heck could Hunter endorse the Big Liberal Huckster, a HUGE loser and far beyond even RINO status?
Does it matter? The establishment wants Mitt, badly. The establishement always gets their guy (one exception: Reagan in 1980). Only one other name is being floated by the establishment insiders as an alternative to Mitt, and he is expressing a desire to sit it out: Mitch Daniels.
The nomination will be won by one of two people: Palin or Romney. The only possible exception is if all the establishment guys defect en mass to Mitch Daniels. And he has to get serious soon to be a contender, which means changing all of the signals he's been sending about running.
Nobody else will win the nomination. It will be one of these two (three) candidates. Not even Huckabee can win the nod, much less a “none of the above” candidate.
The simple, painful, BRUTAL truth is that Mitt Romney stands as the likely 2012 GOP nominee, whether Freepers like us like it or not.
Mitt is playing neither - he is playing the game he always plays: Monopoly. Rich Uncle Pennybags buys properties and tries to buy votes.
He will again try to buy the nomination.
Because Huck was and is more conservative than flipper, and wasn’t a china kneepadder.
And for the record, you were chinslurping Mitt long before it was a 3 man race.
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.