• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Huntsman running a 2016 campaign?

HoverBoarder

Graduate Poster
HoverBoarder
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,667
There has been a lot of talk about Jon Huntsman running a 2016 campaign.

The basic logic is that Republicans will have to get more realistic about electing a serious candidate if the current crop is not elected in 2012. In essence, this is more of an issue about the Republicans inability to address the major problems in their own positions. Instead of addressing the problems in their own positions, the Republicans keep trying to prop up a new messenger (Santorum, Cain, Pawlenty, Palin, Bachman, Gingrich, Perry...). Only to tear that messenger down when people decide that the message the messenger is giving is crazy. At some point, they will have to come to grips with the fact that the problem is not with their continuing list of messengers, it is with the message itself.

In that sense, Huntsman, a more rational and level headed Republican, may be betting that Republicans will have to get more rational and level headed themselves if they want to win the presidency and actually help to solve our economic problems.

For instance;

- Advocating for a "fair tax," i.e. a tax increase on the vast majority of Americans, would be the worst economic idea in a long time. Huntsman is fiscally conservative, but not economically radical.

- Global warming. Like it or not, Republicans are going to have to come to grips with science. It is an issue that we will have to deal with. Huntsman is at odds with his party on this, but the science is clear on this, and just like evolution, many conservatives can be shown to come around to accepting scientific fact.

- Gay rights. Gay discrimination is becoming less and less popular, and history has shown that it is never a good idea to be on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. Huntsman is definitely on a smart political side on this one.

- Foreign affairs. Cain's famous acceptance of his ignorance of world affairs as being a candidate who would "lead not read," and Newt's bomb throwing may have some minor support, but in the end they do not appeal to a large majority of voters who want a reasoned and rational approach to world affairs. Huntsman has the ability to do that.


The real issue is not whether Huntsman has more qualifications to lead over the other Republican candidates in the field in 2012 and 2016, but whether the Republicans are willing to seriously address the problems in their own positions.
 
MG1962 said:
I had feeling he is maneuvering for the VP position
Click to expand...

This.

However, if Romney is the GOP candidate, then tapping Huntsman as VP is going to freak out the Christian evangelicals like you wouldn't believe. Not just because they're both Mormon, but because Huntsman is openly moderate about many social issues.

That said, I hope that - assuming the GOP loses in 2012 - Huntsman runs again in 2016, because by then he'll have had a chance to beef up his campaign skills and have a decent chance to fight back against the loons who have hijacked the Republican party.
 
It seems like an awful lot of time and money to spend on such a long game, which isn't to say it isn't true, but I'm guessing that he was running for 2012 and now that he's probably pretty aware that 2012 isn't going to happen, he's going to try to look as good as possible for next time.
 
If he plans switching parties and running as a Democrat, he has a chance. The way the GOP is right now, he will never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, even if he was a good bet to win the general election.
 
Tricky said:
If he plans switching parties and running as a Democrat, he has a chance. The way the GOP is right now, he will never stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, even if he was a good bet to win the general election.
Click to expand...

He's really quite conservative. He looks sane next to the rest of the field, but he's not really a moderate. At all.
 
jcp said:
He's really quite conservative. He looks sane next to the rest of the field, but he's not really a moderate. At all.
Click to expand...
Well, moderate "for a Republican" anyway. Hell, Obama would be a pretty good Moderate Republican. If the GOP weren't dedicated to demonizing him, they'd find him pretty close to their other (admittedly rare) moderates.
 
If I were voting in the next presidential election, I'd probably write-in for Barry Goldwater's mouldering bones, but only because Dwight Eisenhower's ghost would be ineligible for constitutional reasons.
 
Tricky said:
Well, moderate "for a Republican" anyway. Hell, Obama would be a pretty good Moderate Republican. If the GOP weren't dedicated to demonizing him, they'd find him pretty close to their other (admittedly rare) moderates.
Click to expand...

On many issues yes. The ironic thing is that even on the areas that Republicans are most critical of him on, like health care, Obama incorporated many Republican ideas in the reform.

Calm rational analysis of the issues is just not the Republicans Forte. Which is probably why there are so few Republican moderates left.
 
HoverBoarder said:
It's a possibility, I don't think it is the most likely possibility, but it is a possibility.
Click to expand...

In the sense that Huntsman had no chance this time around, but had to introduce himself on the national stage, it is pretty obvious. The GOP does not give new candidates their nomination for the presidency; as I have pointed out over and over again, Barry Goldwater in 1964 is arguably the most recent exception. Huntsman makes Goldwater back then look like a household name.

As to whether it's a 2016 or 2020 campaign he's angling for, it's all on the outcome of this year's election. Obama looks like a loser to me, but YRMV. If Romney wins, he's the GOP candidate in 2016.

If he doesn't, expect the supposed GOP big names to be gearing up for 2016, when presumably it will be a wide-open contest on the Democratic side as well (Joe Biden's fantasies notwithstanding). Huntsman will have to face probable candidates like Huckabee, Palin and whomever gets the VP nomination this time around, not to mention possibles like Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, who could spend the next four years working on his debate skills.
 
It has occurred to me too that Huntsman could be doing all this to set up 2016. I can't tell if it's true or if I just want it to be true because nominating a guy like Huntsman in 2016 would mean the GOP has decided to shed the nuts. Just because I want it to be true though doesn't mean it is.

Of course, it's not entirely a set up for 2016 since Huntsman wants to win now if possible but after all this time and after him getting so little traction he must realize it's not going to happen for him. He's putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket but even if he does well there is it going to translate elsewhere? I don't see it.

It is a bit scary that someone that in general talks so rationally...I mean, doesn't take nutcase positions and even when he takes positions you disagree with he expresses them in rational terms...it's a bit scary that someone like that gets absolutely nowhere in the GOP polls.
 
Upchurch said:
Yeah, but you also once thought "Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party."
Click to expand...

He was right. In 2008 she was the future of the Republican party. In 2011, she is the past, which has contributed to the present situation of "there's no such thing as being too inept (Rick Perry), too stupid (Michele Bachmann), too crazy (Ron Paul), too unprepared (Herman Cain) or having too much baggage (Newt Gingrich) to be considered a viable GOP candidate".
 
Brainster said:
In the sense that Huntsman had no chance this time around, but had to introduce himself on the national stage, it is pretty obvious. The GOP does not give new candidates their nomination for the presidency; as I have pointed out over and over again, Barry Goldwater in 1964 is arguably the most recent exception. Huntsman makes Goldwater back then look like a household name.

As to whether it's a 2016 or 2020 campaign he's angling for, it's all on the outcome of this year's election. Obama looks like a loser to me, but YRMV. If Romney wins, he's the GOP candidate in 2016.

If he doesn't, expect the supposed GOP big names to be gearing up for 2016, when presumably it will be a wide-open contest on the Democratic side as well (Joe Biden's fantasies notwithstanding). Huntsman will have to face probable candidates like Huckabee, Palin and whomever gets the VP nomination this time around, not to mention possibles like Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, who could spend the next four years working on his debate skills.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the possibility of Mitch Daniels. He bowed out this time around, claiming his family was more important. It is very much possible that he also saw the writing on the walls for this election season and had no desire to damage his status by battling the Tea Partiers in the primary.
 
Number Six said:
It has occurred to me too that Huntsman could be doing all this to set up 2016. I can't tell if it's true or if I just want it to be true because nominating a guy like Huntsman in 2016 would mean the GOP has decided to shed the nuts. Just because I want it to be true though doesn't mean it is.

Of course, it's not entirely a set up for 2016 since Huntsman wants to win now if possible but after all this time and after him getting so little traction he must realize it's not going to happen for him. He's putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket but even if he does well there is it going to translate elsewhere? I don't see it.

It is a bit scary that someone that in general talks so rationally...I mean, doesn't take nutcase positions and even when he takes positions you disagree with he expresses them in rational terms...it's a bit scary that someone like that gets absolutely nowhere in the GOP polls.
Click to expand...

Huntsman would like to be President, and he is not very fond of either Newt or Romney, which would hurt his chances for VP, but the sad thing for me is that his insistence on being rational and not taking nutcase positions is considered so radical for the GOP.

For a Country that is run on basically a two party system, it would be nice to have more sensible choices.
 
jcp said:
He's really quite conservative. He looks sane next to the rest of the field, but he's not really a moderate. At all.
Click to expand...

Amen!

I've said it elsewhere, but in any other age, his economic proposals would be seen as wildly radical. Remember how big a risk Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $200K was? Huntsman's campaign plans wrt to reforming the tax code makes that look like absolutely nothing.

And oh yeah he wants to repeal Obamacare and repeal a bunch of regulations.

I suppose he's less insane in that he doesn't reject scientific consensus on evolution, global warming, and so on. But that doesn't make him sane or moderate by any stretch of the imagination!
 

DISCLAIMER: while I lean left, I have voted for Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians in my life. Furthermore, I fear unbridled liberalism as much as I do unbridled conservatism.

HoverBoarder said:
In that sense, Huntsman, a more rational and level headed Republican, may be betting that Republicans will have to get more rational and level headed themselves if they want to win the presidency and actually help to solve our economic problems.
Click to expand...


Yeah, about that. I would need to see some pretty long odds before I put my own money down on a bet involving the Republicans getting more rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom