Possible 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates: Part 2 (Slick/Mitch/TPaw/Thune)

My first piece on potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates focused on the big names that most Americans are familiar with. As I noted, it is very typical for these candidates to be out front two years away, when the campaigning is just beginning and that polls this early rarely coincide with what actually happens. I will note that I received far and away the most emails from supporters of Mike Huckabee who vehemently believe he will be the nominee.

It also leaked that same week, that White House staff asked off the record whom they felt they would be facing in 2012, unanimously responded that the former Arkansas governor was most likely to get the nod. Also, the most recent CNN poll puts Huckabee 1 point in front of Romney (21 percent) for the first time this year, so I will concede that he may be the one candidate of the four now polling (Romney, Palin and Gingrich) that has a chance at securing the nomination – assuming he runs, which now seems more likely.

This week, we'll take a look at the strongest candidates most Americans haven't heard of. It bears mentioning that there is a particularly strong field of potential candidates this time out. I don't remember a recent cycle where there were so many genuine prospects on either side and so few that you could sort of mentally cross off, right from the get go. There is also no clear front runner in this group. All of them have taken the initial steps to test the waters and all of them have found receptive pockets of support. How the rest of America perceives them when they get on the bigger stage will likely determine where the really big money goes,

Why do we have to go all the way back to JFK for an example of a senator winning the presidency?

We don't. Obama was a Senator. Since 1960, there have been 12 elections, and 24 major party candidates. Of those 12, eight featured a sitting president (64, 72, 76, 80, 84, 92, 96, 2004), with the sitting president winning five of those. Sitting or former vice presidents account for five more slots. (Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, Bush the Elder, Gore). Of the 11 remaining slots, six were Senators (Goldwater, McGovern, Dole, Kerry, McCain, Obama), with only Obama winning. Five remaining candidates were governors (Carter, Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, Bush the Younger), with four out of five winning.

On the surface, the results favor governors. The sample is too small, and too many other dynamics come into play to take that at face value.
In some years, good candidates may not run because the opposition looks too strong. In a year like '96, there weren't a lot of great candidates who wanted to volunteer to run against Clinton for re-election.

Also, these things tend to be cyclical. I remember in 1976, coming out of the Vietnam War, both Carter and Reagan weren't taken seriously in some quarters because neither had any foreign policy experience, having been governors. If you asked your hypothetical question in 1976, you would have had to go all the way back to FDR to find a governor who was elected president.

I'm of the opinion that with such small samples, and such differences in each race, that such a generalization is impossible. In the modern era, I believe that a business magnate, an author, a scientist or a cabinet officer could be president without necessarily padding the resume if the circumstances are right. And yes, I believe that a Sentaor or a high profile Rep (e.g. Mike Pence) could do so as well. The rules are changing, largley becausae of the Internet and ubiquitous news/politics media outlets.

pissant, this is a RomneyBOT blogger who ignores Romney's
backstabbing in 2008 and 2010,
and who now encourages more Romney antiGOP and antiPalin Backstabbing(TM).

This does not belong on FR, does it?

BRADENTON RomneyBOT:
"Mitt Romney kept his nose clean in the two-year interim
and avoided Huckabee and Palin's penchant for the kind
of self-promotion that sometimes seems
beneath a bona fide presidential candidate. ....
I think Romney's best chance is the most unorthodox route.
Rather than jumping into the race as the front runner,
he should hold out and weigh the national mood as the field thins.
He has enough name recognition and fund raising clout to be
a late entrant if times change, but if Republican voters look
similar to the group we saw last week, Mitt's better off
watching this one from the sidelines.
Getting beaten badly would be political suicide
for a second-time candidate."

The Palmetto Scoop reported:
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney's former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

Poor sport spoiler Romney doing what he does best:

Novak: "Fred Thompson drop-out rumors traced to Romney campaign"

Said Novak: "The rumors were traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign,
trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson."

"Despite outspending his rivals by huge margins throughout the primaries,
(Mitt Romney, Carpetbagger UT,CA,MA,NH,Mexico) lost Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and California.
The only primaries he won were in Michigan, where Dad was governor; LDS states;
and a few states on Super Tuesday in which his California-obsessed rivals
couldn't spare the cash to advertise.
Only John Connolly in 1968 had a worse cash-to-delegates ratio.
And John McCain rightly did not like Romney's tactics during the primaries.
(W)hen (Romney's early leads) started slipping away, he resorted to unfair,
distorted, scorched-earth negative ads, betting that his opponents couldn't
afford to spend enough for the truth to catch up to his charges."
[Romney: A Mistake for McCain, 7/23/2008, Dick Morris]

Pence is only high profile among serious insiders.

True, but that provides future potential to break out. Pence's experience in media certainly doesn't hurt. My main point was that simply being a Rep is no longer a bar to being a serious presidential candidate.

Obama was, after all, a rookie senator only part way into one term. (even JFK did several House terms and one FULL Senate term). I don't see any of the reaction against Obama being primarily over his lack of experience, so a fresh Republican face who is in other ways the "anti-Obama" could break out.

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.