३ डिसेंबर, २०११
Christine Todd Whitman encourages Jon Huntsman to run as a 3rd party candidate — but wouldn't it hurt Obama?
Although Huntsman and Whitman are nominally Republicans, I can't read this without assuming their agenda is to help President Obama win reelection. If you're with me this far, then, consider whether they've got a good strategy. Would Huntsman, running as a 3d party candidate, draw more voters away from the Republican (presumably Romney) or from Obama? I'm picturing dissatisfied Democrats going for Huntsman in protest... people who feel that Obama has abandoned their segment of the "Obama Coalition." It's harder to picture voters who'd be thinking of voting for Romney who'd get the idea of switching to Huntsman. Why would anyone do that?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
Huntsman isn't drawing Republican votes as a Republican. He won't as a third party candidate either.
He gave up being ambassador to China for this?
Lucky he's rich, because his touch with political reality is tenuous.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Man this this chaps my @rse! We on the Right are CONSTANTLY told to be “Team Players.” But RINO's they don't seem to think that it works that way for THEM!
Frankly I don't think Huntsman can draw flies--from either party.
His daughters love their Daddy and will campaign--and vote--for him, but once you're past the "family vote", his pickins are going to be slim.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. huntsman is a shill candidate for Obama.
I'm picturing dissatisfied Democrats going for Huntsman in protest... people who feel that Obama has abandoned their segment of the "Obama Coalition."
I see what you did there. You're already laying the groundwork for your blog posting about (a) why I'm supporting Huntsman or he doesn't run (b) why I'm sticking with Obama because there is no better option. The comment thread on that one will be golden.
It's harder to picture voters who'd be thinking of voting for Romney who'd get the idea of switching to Huntsman. Nor anyone who doesn't like the "liberal" Romney to vote for Obama's ambassador; nor any "typical Republican" racist xenophobe for a guy who could speak rudimentary Chinese; nor conservatives,...
Mayhaps, CTW believes Gingrich would be the nominee?
RINOFest '12!!!!
Think of the last minute agonizing in faculty lounges all over America: "Do I vote for Obama, the blatant statist, or Huntsman, the coy statist?" Oh the humanity!
My son told me he dreams of a Hillary (D) v Huntsman (R) election.
Neither Obama nor Romney can win with just the votes from their own party. Both need to attract independents to win. A third-party run would help Obama if it gave independents who might otherwise vote for Romney another way to express their dissatisfaction with Obama without the "risk" of voting for Romney. If Huntsman were to attract only 1%-2% of the vote in key states, he might give Obama the election.
Romney was more conservative than McCain in 2008, people. He understands economics and knows how to revive large, moribund economic entities. He's the best candidate who is running by several country miles.
Suck it up. Admit it. Support him.
The conventional wisdom is that Huntsman, being marginally closer to Romney than Obama, would draw votes away from Romney.
The trouble with that logic, though, is that Romney appears to dominate Huntsman, in the sense of winning any head-to-head matchup. Where is Huntsman's edge? What bloc of voters will systematically choose Huntsman over Romney, in numbers large enough to make it worth Huntsman's while?
Huntsman is intelligent and conservative, but see this article in Forbes as to why he has been over-looked so far-- because Republicans and Democrats it seems embrace simpletons:http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-embrace-simpletons-hurts-america-192501947.html
If Romney gets the nomination, then I think Huntsman would draw more votes from Obama than from the Republican. If Gingrich is the nominee then Huntsman would probably draw more votes from the Republican side than from Obama's side.
Here is my reasoning: I am not making any claim about who is more conservative, but I think the perception is that Romney is moderate and Gingrich is conservative. Why throw a vote to moderate Huntsman when Romney is available if you are a Republican leaning voter? On the other hand, if you are a disenchanted moderate Democrat, Huntsman looks like a pretty good choice next to Obama.
Romney was more conservative than McCain in 2008
Really? Did McCain campaign for national health care? I don't remember that being part of his package.
If Romney would have the balls to admit that a large, bureaucratic state-run health system was a bad idea, then I'd reconsider. Until then, I won't vote for him.
The democrats ought to be more worried about a third party candidate from the left. Huntsman isn't going to be a Perot handing a victory to the democrats.
Did McCain campaign for national health care? I don't remember that being part of his package.
Do you remember Romney campaigning for national health care? If so, your memory is incompetent.
Romney was and is more conservative on immigration and on social issues. He also knows something about economics, which no other candidate in the race including Obama can say.
As far as Romneycare, he was facing a left-liberal legislature. Further, states and communities must be free to enact laws that they see fit, at a level at which voters have much more real say in the democratic process. If Vermont or Berkeley wants single-payer health care, great. It's going to fail, but that's their prerogative as free people.
Florida and Ohio is about all that matters. Would Huntsman pull more Dem or GOP votes in either state? I don't know, and I doubt that anyone else does, either.
I think that Huntsman would trounce Obama in the general election, but I doubt that he'd get the GOP nomination prior to 2016.
I think that Huntsman would trounce Obama in the general election
Just like Democrats thought McCain was going to be a great Republican candidate in 2008! Awesome.
I think Zell Miller would trounce Romney in the general election in 2012. How you like them apples? Make sense? And is Zell Miller still with us?
He'd be a John Anderson type.
Well, if it's any consolation to your three Hunstman supporters in the world, my parents -- lower-class hicks who would today be called the white working class -- voted for Anderson in 1980. They were Democrats, as would be expected. I imagine they just couldn't vote for Carter but couldn't pull the trigger on Reagan, either.
Different times then.
MayBee said...
My son told me he dreams of a Hillary (D) v Huntsman (R) election.
=============
Is your son gay?
A third party candidate doesn't have to draw much support to have an impact, as was the case with Nader in 2000. But that only happens in a close election. It's hard to believe that this one will be all that close. I'm expecting a replay of 1980 and for the same reason as in 1980 - failed incumbent with a lousy record no one other than a partisan Dem would want to have four more years of. That race included a nominally Rep third party candidate who (I suspect but without going back to look at polling data) drew from both sides, thus having no impact even if the race had been close.
Seven, Obama can go negative on any GOP nominee except Huntsman.
Obama will be able to split independents with Romney, who has had to run much further to the right in order to secure the nomination.
Against Gingrich, Obama will run away with independents.
Huntsman makes it very hard for Obama to compete for independent voters.
Richard Dolan -- Bush would have won in 1992 without that putrid little bitch Ross Perot.
But as so often happens in this country, we got a very good president in Clinton. The grand luck of United States is the best proof that God exists.
Huntsman makes it very hard for Obama to compete for independent voters.
No, Huntsman makes it very hard for Huntsman to compete for conservative voters.
Of more concern would be the more whack job parts of the right wing and Ayn Rand libertarian crowd lured to vote for their cult favorite, Ron Paul, in an independent run.
Huntsman wouldn't draw from Romney. He would make a fine protest vote for Obama.
Meanwhile, the whack jobs in the Republican Party have a pretty basic choice - once they are past their delusion that Obama is so hated by everyone in the nation they can run a purist who passes all religious right litmus tests and beat him.
1. Run an electable candidate that is not 100% morally pure, perhaps has past purity apostasies.
2. Go with someone unelectable to general public voters. Console yourselves as Obama's 2nd Inaugural happens and he says he has hs short list ready for the next 3 SCOTUS nominations and the carbon tax ready - that at least y'all shure done Sent Him A Message!
There's seems to be little limit on Huntsman's delusional hubris.
Republicans just don't seem to care for the man. And for good reason, as I've posted before in this forum, and will post again here: he seems to have a real problem with follow-through. Look at how short his tenures have been at his positions.
Huntsman is Romney-lite in every sense of the term. He gets little support because he has no unique selling-proposition in this slate of Republican candidates.
Time to start working for the VP position, Jon.
Richard Dolan, don't forget 2004. Vulnerable incumbent wins reelection thanks to the opposition party nominating an unlikable Massachusetts flip-flopper.
As to Anderson, his run in 1980 didn't affect the outcome of that race. Nader's run in 2000 only had an impact because Gore and Bush ran so close in Florida.
Seven, I realize that Huntsman would make a lousy right-wing radio host, but as a governor, he was a rather effective conservative.
I have a great deal of trouble believing that conservative voters would sit out rather than vote for Huntsman, were he to gain the nomination.
Sure, it's unlikely, but Gingrich went from single-digits to front-runner pretty fast when it became clear that Cain was flaming out. If Gingrich stumbles, Huntsman is the best non-Romney standing.
Obama won't be in the election, as millions are aware of his ineligibility (born a British subject of a British subject father), and will use the standing granted by State election statutes to challenge him. That's why his nervous handlers just released a lie ridden new 53 page CRA regarding his supposed eliginility.
Peter -- I disagree. Conservatives will stay home. Hunstman can't get any traction because Republicans don't like him. Only people who aren't Republicans, like you, like him.
All this is academic. Huntsman won't be the nominee.
I do worry about Gingrich. He will never win a national election. But let Republicans test out all the other candidates. Fine with me, as long as they don't pick Gingrich (or Cain or Bachmann, or...)
MICK! How is your secret plan coming along? When are you going to tell us about your plan to eliminate Obama? How are your court cases going? How is it going with that lawyer who lives in his parents' basement who keeps filing goofy court documents?
Fill us in!
And has the Secret Service visited yet?
Do you remember Romney campaigning for national health care? If so, your memory is incompetent.
No, but he instituted in the state he was governor, and hasn't backtracked his view of that since. Obamacare was modeled after Mitt's centerpiece legislation. My memory is just fine.
Romney was and is more conservative on immigration and on social issues. He also knows something about economics, which no other candidate in the race including Obama can say.
How is Romney's views on immigration any different than McCain's? And I couldn't care less about the social issues. He was a hostile takeover specialist - good at dismantling dying businesses and making money on that.
As far as Romneycare, he was facing a left-liberal legislature. Further, states and communities must be free to enact laws that they see fit, at a level at which voters have much more real say in the democratic process.
That doesn't excuse the fact that the idea was bad (it's lost money since it was enacted), and he hasn't backtracked it. If the man were the principled conservative you seem to think he was, he wouldn't have enacted the legislation in the first place. So stop making excuses.
If Vermont or Berkeley wants single-payer health care, great. It's going to fail, but that's their prerogative as free people.
Great. But I wouldn't want a RINO governor of Vermont running the country any more than a RINO governor of Massachusetts. So I'd be voting the same way if Romney were from Vermont.
The man is not a conservative. He's a "which way is the wind blowing" politician, and I'm tired of being sent these swishes each time I vote. When the 'Pubs send someone worth voting for, I'll vote for him/her.
Callahan -- If you don't understand that Romney was a more conservative candidate in 2008, you just don't understand the politics. You need to read more.
Incidentally, though, where is it that you think that charges of flip-flopping come from? You think about it. Get back to me.
But as so often happens in this country, we got a very good president in Clinton
Dear God, why did I engage? Clinton was a good politician, and a horrible president. He had a Republican congress for 6 of his 8 years (which kept him in check), and he was helped by an internet/IT boom that just happened to fall during his tenure. The man was lucky and slimy, and was NOT a good president.
You seem to like those guys who change with the prevailing winds. I can see a pattern now.
Incidentally, though, where is it that you think that charges of flip-flopping come from? You think about it. Get back to me.
Nice straw man. I never brought up flip-flopping. I'd be happy if he flip-flopped about government run healthcare.
Flip-flopping and changing when the wind blows are not the same.
Seven, Romney is Huntsman with the mantle of inevitability, establishment backing, and a well-deserved reputation for changing his positions.
As many conservatives here point out, Romney has the same problem as Huntsman when it comes to winning over the true believers.
If the party wants to nominate the guy they most want as a talk radio host, they'll go with Gingrich.
You know better, and I'm sure you are counting on Newt doing something stupid between now and April that will cost him the nomination.
But what happens if he gets lucky for six months?
Callahan -- I didn't call Clinton great and I don't particularly want to debate why Clinton did what he did. Motives are always suspect, including yours.
Clinton brought us NAFTA. Clinton brought us substantive welfare reform. Clinton presided over a roaring economy. If that's luck, so be it. I'll take a luck.
It took me a long time to understand that Clinton is a great man and was a good president. You'll never see it if you remain ideologically blinded, as you obviously are.
I pity you.
He's a "which way is the wind blowing" politician
-- Callahan, about 15 minutes ago. I apologize for not reading your words for what you intended to mean, instead of what they mean.
Peter -- If we nominate Gingrich, we lose. I will conclude that, like David, Obama is favored by God.
Seven Machos said...
"MICK! How is your secret plan coming along? When are you going to tell us about your plan to eliminate Obama? How are your court cases going? How is it going with that lawyer who lives in his parents' basement who keeps filing goofy court documents?
Fill us in!
And has the Secret Service visited yet?"
Not time yet, you'll know it when you see it. Why do you think Justia.com would mangle cites to Minor v. Happersett in SCOTUS cases? Why would Maskell put out another 53 page lie riddled CRA? Obama's handlers know what's coming.
And you STILL can't answer:
If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence into the oval office, then how is it possible that Obama, born British, of a British subject father, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS?
Seven, Romney is Huntsman with the mantle of inevitability...
Eh? Romney isn't the front runner any more.
If we nominate Gingrich, we lose. I will conclude that, like David, Obama is favored by God.
Why do you think that? I think he has an excellent shot at winning if he's nominated. I don't know how I feel about that, other than just about anybody would make a better president than Obama.
Eric -- I disagree that anybody would make a better president than anybody. No, only most people would.
I think Gingrich falls into that broad category. However, he's really only good at talking. He was waxed by Clinton in political terms. He lost every battle. Moreover, he was vilified effectively. The very skills that make him a great debater have and will make him an easy target for propaganda.
So, to review: I like Gingrich enough, but I think he isn't that great at actually doing politics (as opposed to talking about doing politics, where I agree h does shine). I also think he will be crucified effectively by Obama and his press lapdogs.
Callahan -- I didn't call Clinton great and I don't particularly want to debate why Clinton did what he did. Motives are always suspect, including yours.
It took me a long time to understand that Clinton is a great man and was a good president.
Good president, great president. Distinction without a difference. My original statements stand.
Clinton brought us NAFTA. Clinton brought us substantive welfare reform. Clinton presided over a roaring economy. If that's luck, so be it. I'll take a luck.
And NONE of that would have happened unless a republican congress forced it. We'd have Hillarycare if during his first term, the 'Pubs hadn't taken back Congress. Clinton deserves NO credit here, though he sure had no problem taking it. Rubes like you can't seem to see that.
You'll never see it if you remain ideologically blinded, as you obviously are.
Not ideologically blind; it's called consistency. Being principled. If you're changing your mind whenever the wind changes direction, it's the opposite of that. It's being a swish. Waffling. Like Romney.
Like I said before - I'm starting to see a pattern...
We'd have Hillarycare if during his first term, the 'Pubs hadn't taken back Congress.
Clinton abandoned his awful push for single-payer health care long before the 1994 election. Moreover, his primary problem was that he couldn't generate enough support from Democrats, primarily Southern Democrats and others in more conservative districts. Many were ousted in 1994.
I think your fundamental problem is that you don't actually understand politics. Any relationship involving just two people is going to require a lot of compromise and innovative thinking. A relationship involving well over 300 million people is going to involve much, much more.
Nevertheless, I urge you to enjoy your ideological purity. It has worked well for Christians for a long time. Of course, the guy who started that movement advised that His followers shun politics. Unto Caesar and all that.
I was quite eager to hear Christie Todd Whitman's take on this. Thanks for posting!
/s
If Vermont or Berkeley wants single-payer health care, great. It's going to fail, but that's their prerogative as free people.
I Callahan - "Great. But I wouldn't want a RINO governor of Vermont running the country any more than a RINO governor of Massachusetts. So I'd be voting the same way if Romney were from Vermont."
By your logic, since Reagan was Governor of California and had to work with that constituency as much as Romney had to deal with his own states high percentile of liberal people and pols - Reagan was an unfit RINO Traitor of no ideological consistency. He raised taxes to support Dems reckless social spending on Great Society initiatives. He signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation. He praised openly gay public figures.
RINO Traitor Reagan! Serving his stinking Lotus Land constituency!
Callahan seems to apply a purity test that only governors from the South or small Rocky Mountain states maintain adequate purity to be President. Even Goddess Palin fails, because her popularity there was based on her assaulting the hard-working noble businessmen of Alaska's oil and gas industry, stealing their hard earned money to give to Alaskans who didn't earn it.
7 Machos - "Incidentally, though, where is it that you think that charges of flip-flopping come from?"
I Callahan may not grasp the "irony and nuance"...but it was the relentless talking point of Teddy Kennedy that the NY Times annex, the Boston Globe dutifully parrotted as much as brain-dead Religious Righters do these days.
Thank you, Cedarford.
The bigger question is why is anyone still supporting Obama?
What makes seven macho's point so absurd is that for all the talk of a Hilary/Bill co-presidency in 1992, the real co-presidency throughout Clinton's term was Bill and Newt. Arguably, at no other point in our nations history has divided government produced the profound changes that characterized the confrontation of Bill and Newt's vision for America.
As such it becomes difficult to separate the achievements of Bill from Newt's achievements in any domain except political ability. I callahan is absolutely right, to the extent that you award Bill any kind of greatness that you deny Gingrich, it can only be that Clinton was the savvier politician.
And yet, the supposedly un-slick Newt did get the President of the United States, on videotape, to lie under oath. Likewise, Newt did orchestrate the most seismic political change of the 20th century effectively single-handedly with the Contract of America. So my question is if you long for the Clinton presidency why would you not support the man who along with Clinton was most responsible for it. Indeed, the only reason that we can even talk about a potentially moderate Mitt being kept in check by a conservative congress is that Newt demonstated that the legislative branch was not permanently in Democratic hands. I apologize for the length of this post.
What parts of the Contract with America were fulfilled?
Probably 30 percent. Honestly, not to be polemical but how much of the New Deal was fulfilled? Keep in mind the center piece of the CoA, welfare reform, is with us to this day. The center piece of the New Deal, the NRA, lasted less than three years; the Wagner Acts less than 20. When Democrats talk about protecting the New Deal what they really mean is Social Security which at the time was a decidedly second tier program.
Arguably, as a function of percentage fulfilled, the Great Society was the most successful political program in American history. The real question could be what part of the 1992 Democratic Platform was fulfilled 5%-6% maybe? No president in history has gotten more personally from the presidency than President Clinton. Arguably no party has gotten less from electing their candidate.
It's harder to picture voters who'd be thinking of voting for Romney who'd get the idea of switching to Huntsman.
Uhhh... maybe they'll switch to Huntsman because it'll be an unequivocal vote against the status quo?
Unless, of course, you can't see this option.
You might, for instance, be as plugged into the status quo as Althouse is, drawing her $200K-ish annual salary + generous benefits from the government.
I understand that if you are paid so well by THE MAN, you might want to trash the idea of the public expressing their discontent with DA SYSTEM via the voting booth.
Yes let Huntsman, Nader, Bloomberg and Trump all form third party candidacies. So Newt can walk away with the election.
Am I missing something here? Did Huntsman say anything? If not, then how does someone who he has no connection with, floating random ideas he has no connection with, make him politically stupid?
Julius -- Get a job, dude. I also recommend hip-hop and rap to help you understand the revenue-seeking lifestyle. Experiencing it musically may allow it to sink in.
Do you have a tag 'who cares?'
I'm a moderate and at times a RINO and there are things about Huntsman I like but
c'mon!! His campaign is awful. He and inspiration are not on speaking terms.
And NONE of that would have happened unless a republican congress forced it
To an extent, but I credit Clinton with resisting his worst urges to fight the Congress rather than co-opt the policies.
Am I the only person that thinks Huntsman is more Romney then Romney?
wv-remorse...haha LUV it
No remorse, no reprent, we dont care what it ment.
Another day, another death...
Another sorrow... Another breath....
NO REMORSEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cedarford,
Why do you think that "whackjob" Paul would run as a 3rd party? Has he given any indication that he would?
He has not firmly ruled it out but then neither have Romney, Perry, Bachman, Gingrich or any of the others.
Paul is actually the most Republican candidate.
Small govt? Yup.
Strong defense? Yup.
Balanced budget? Yup.
Sound money? Yup.
Cut spending? Yup.
Conform to the Constitution? Yup.
And so on
All those things that the other Repos *say* they are for (with lots of caveats)Paul has been for for the past 30 years or more.
Paul is the most Repo of all the Repos.
His numbers seem to show it. 4-5 points ahead of Romney in Iowa today. Tied for 1st with the despicable Newt.
I think the thing that drives many nuts is that Paul is not a conservative.
I hope he wins the primaries and is the nominee. If he wins the primaries and is cheated out of the nomination, I would fully support him for a 3rd party run.
If he loses in the primaries, I will be very, very, surprised if he runs.
He is not a Lieberman or a Merkowsky.
John Henry
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा