Two “Power Rankings” of the 2012 GOP hopeful nominees have come our way in the last 24 hours. The Washington Post‘s “The Fix” has had Romney at the top of the line for a long time running. I’m predicting he stays there until Mitt actually wins the nomination! The top 7 are listed below:
- Romney
- Pawlenty
- Palin
- Gingrich
- Huckabee
- Daniels
- Barbour
Seperately, The Economist provided their, admittedly, rough rankings in the graphic below:
Two things initially stick out when reviewing these rankings:
- Romney and Pawlenty are #1 and #2 in both (and I like Mitt’s chances against a charisma-challenged candidate who still does not break above 5% in any national or early state poll).
- The other “big name” candidates, namely, Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich have relatively low rankings at an average of 3.5, 5, and 5 respectively.
Although there’s a certain target that comes with being the front-runner, Mitt’s been leading the pack and wearing that target for some time now. He’s shown that he can handle the attention and fire that comes with holding the “Pole Position.”
Jeff has been blogging for Romney since living in Iowa in 2006, when, as a physician, he was drawn to study Romney’s MA healthcare reform plan. A native of California, Jeff now claims to be a proud southern transplant (he currently lives and practices as a vitreoretinal surgeon in Birmingham with his wife and six kids) having lived in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana for nearly all of the last 15 years. His recent hobby is doing triathlons, having completed his first (and only) Ironman Triathlon this past May.
While I still don’t see Newt Gingrich as a strong contender for the nomination or the presidency, I’d put him ahead of either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. The pros and cons that The Economist lists are amusing but not all that instructive. Other points are worth making.
Newt Gingrich has a couple of factors that put him ahead of either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee. The first is that he has some degree of “my turn” claim to the nomination. The GOP has a horrible habit of nominating a candidate because “it’s his turn.” Of the candidates in most of these lists, Newt Gingrich has been around the longest serving the party. That factor will help him, particularly in South Carolina. The second is that he has legitimate intellectual credentials. While I don’t think of either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee as stupid, the media has hammered that story so hard that many independents believe that story. Because Newt Gingrich hasn’t been tagged with that accusation, he will scare independents less and will appeal to Republican primary voters who don’t want to spend the fall fighting that perception.
That Mr. Romney has been considered a front-runner for so long but doesn’t have a huge lead in GOP polls suggests that many Republicans are still hoping for someone else to step forward and lead the party. The negative side of that attitude is that a lack of enthusiasm could translate into less effort made to win the election. The positive side is that the support that develops between now and the GOP convention may have more depth than the support given to someone that everyone assumes will automatically win. At this time four years ago, Rudy Giuliani was riding high on support, but that support had no depth.
Republican primary voters will continue looking for someone who is not Mitt Romney because of the health care issue and to some extent because they’d like a candidate who does not represent long-time Republican political dynasty. From 1976 to 2004, every GOP ticket included a Bush or a Dole. To some extent, the search for a fresh face goes against the “his turn” tendency, but someone who has earned his stripes in party service but isn’t from an old GOP family is appealing. They will want someone who is not as much of a media target as Sarah Palin has been. Primary voters will want someone who has not been a southern governor because the South should be fairly solid for the GOP and too much identification with the South hurts the chances of winning in other places.
Right now, the candidates who seem to fit that description the most closely are Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and Newt Gingrich. Mitch Daniels lacks charisma and has irritated too many people in the Christian right. Newt Gingrich has his personal baggage but does fit the “his turn” mold without being from a prominent GOP family. If no other strong candidate enters the race, the primary may come down to a question of whether Tim Pawlenty is better than Mitt Romney. Rather than trying to bring up negatives about either, we’d do better if we compared positives. Both seem to be good men, but Mr. Romney’s accomplishments are a little better.
Bill, you HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. Couldn’t agree more.
Also, look at this tough vid about Huckabee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nmTsDX8-Sk&feature=feedu
This will be a marathon race, Mitt is playing it well, he has created more jobs in the privite sector than all the other contenders combined Including Donald trump.the GOP never nominates on the first try.
Doesn’t stand a chance in NH however.
I have seen and heard Huckabee called a frontrunner as often as Mitt. But after this week, I have a feeling Huck’s frontrunner days are over .
@Lori
Lori, I strongly hope that this week is the end of anyone seriously considering Mike Huckabee for any elected office.
I think it’s been great that Huckabee has been labeled recently as “the” (or at least one of them) frontrunner. He can’t claim underdog status anymore and he also can’t claim he’s broke. I’m sure he’s made some good money working for Fox. He played up those two disadvantages so much in 2008 that the press loved him and hung on every ignorant word he said. Then he started talking too much and even the press started to smell a weasel.
I hope that Huckabee goes on a new book tour every week! He’s made a complete fool of himself, but because he has a higher profile starting out this time he’s actually being held to account for his silly statements and dishonest cover-ups.
Like’d Bill’s comment at the top . . . it could come down to T-Paw and Romney as many are predicting. I like Mitt’s chances there.
And I don’t think that his relatively low national polling despite being the “frontrunner” is more of a rejection of “The Establishment” than of Mitt. That and a good amount of “fan worship” that many of the Palin and (less so) Huckabee supporters engage in.
It’s not about national polling . . . it’s about a “path to the nomination” and I know Romney’s got a more clear one than anyone else.
And I just LOVED “No Mittens” comment that ROmney hasn’t got a chance in NH. That’s simply hilarious since Mitt is KILLING it in the Granite state in poll after poll after poll. Get a better argument than THAT if you don’t want to appear a fool.
I’d add that Mike Huckabee has at times worn something of a “frontrunner” mantle, and his inability to break out in the polls suggests that voters are looking for a “not Mike Huckabee” candidate in addition to a “not Mitt Romney” candidate. Mike Huckabee has an excellent record on the Second Amendment, but as Jeff mentioned, he’s developed a real gun control problem over the past week or so. Specifically, he keeps shooting himself in the foot.
I agree that much of what is driving the search for a “not Mitt Romney” candidate may be about “the Establishment” more than about Mr. Romney himself. Not long ago, a Republican with conservative values but a demonstrated ability to work with liberals would have seemed to be a great candidate. The challenges of the last ten or twelve years have eroded Americans’ confidence in “the system.” That erosion makes people suspicious of anyone who has shown too much ability to work within the system. The rush to Obama in ’08 as a messiah figure for so many people was a rejection of the system. People are coming to realize that Obama isn’t the answer. He’s just a guy who wants to apply different failed systems to our problems. However, Mr. Romney’s image as a reasonable man who works within the system leaves people feeling that Mr. Romney only takes us back to the status quo. Some of the fascination with Chris Christie may be a search for someone who is willing to break the status quo.
As I’ve read through “No Apology,” I’ve run across some things that Mr. Romney says that I believe miss the point on some issues. Certain parts make him sound like another Republican economic conservative who will mostly stick the Republican version of the status quo. Within the last day or so, I’ve hit the parts where he talks about doing what is necessary to break entitlement spending. If he could really do that, he could break the status quo. I just don’t know whether the country is willing to embrace this necessary course of action. When he talks about these ideas, he sounds more like a Tea Party guy who is willing to say “NO” to the mistakes that we’ve made over the past fifty to eighty years.