Think about the last time an inexperienced governor was elected President.
How did that work out?
Better than the performance of the inexperienced Senator so far. But, with our opinions on the last two Presidents having now been stated, this is really a discussion for another thread. Though I do hate having to defend that miserable legacy idiot W.
I don’t share Jindal’s views—his aggressive pro-life stance and poor civil liberties voting record are anathema to me; I’m just finding it strange that he isn’t running, given the very weak, boring field so far.
Not much of a record, perhaps?
It’s always possible that someone like Jindal is worried that if the national media turns him into a national laughingstock because there really isn’t much ‘there’ there, it might hurt his chances to regain the governorship or win a Senate seat back in Louisiana after he loses.
For extremely weird values of ‘better,’ I assume. 
But you’re right - figuring out your yardstick for comparison is best left to a more appropriate thread.
Jindal fell on his face in his national coming out party delivering a Republican response to the Pres. He might be a VP pick, but I doubt even that. His odd and easily mockable manner of speaking leaves him with a lot of potential to be a punching bag for late night comedians.
Meh, it was one speech, and its not like he wet himself or anything. He certainly didn’t do himself any favors in his SOTU response, but its hardly bad enough to keep him from running for Prez if he wanted to.
He died that night (speech). His appeal outside of republican loyalists is about zero - they are going to win those votes anyway. Haley Barbour was a better choice due to more national presence and he wouldn’t win outside the same narrow demographic.
Plus, Barbour wouldn’t confuse racist voters.
You said that better than I was about to.
Contested candidacies are won by the people with the most money to spend who can also field the best organized and most comprehensive field staff. I don’t believe it has all that much to do with positions, or previous votes, or experience, or all the things that are much more fun to talk about. (Though a serious enough gaffe can remove you. and that’s always fun.) Clinton won the nomination that way and so did Obama. McCain won that way and so did Bush.
I can’t figure out who this person is among the Republican field this year, mostly because nobody ever talks about it. I’d guess that Romney and Gingrich have the advantage as far as money and connections in the state parties. If that’s the case, then next year’s primaries will start out with a bunch of values candidates who will eliminate one another and Romney and Gingrich will flail it out to the end.
Does anybody have some insight into this? Who is putting together good ground forces beside them? Who can line up the huge Republican donors? I read that a group of Iowans went to Chris Christie to get him to run and he seems to be a firm no. If they can’t get him, who will they turn to? If the answer is either Romney or Gingrich then it’s already all over.
My take on the race right now is that it’s Romney versus Pawlenty. Romney has the advantage in terms of money and establishment connections. He has more experience and gravitas and is therefore more electable. Many GOP primary voters will pick the man who they think can beat Obama even if they don’t like him much just like Democrats picked Kerry in 2004. Romney’s big problem is his health care plan which angers a large part of the conservative base. His Mormonism is also an issue with the RR.
Pawlenty has more space to work with; he could potentially appeal to the RR and Tea Party while still retaining some appeal with establishment/moderate types. His problem has been a lot of potential competition in that larger space including Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann and Gingrich. Now Huckabee is out and perhaps Palin won’t run either. He still has to worry about Bachmann and Gingrich if either or both of them run and do well they could potentially divide the conservative base which would only help Romney.
Romney has fewer competitors to worry about in his space;mainly Daniels who may not run. I don’t think Gingrich is a threat to Romney despite his leadership background. The establishment will pick someone who they think can win.Gingrich is too much of a loose cannon with high negatives and is close to being unelectable.
Romney’s one four-year term as Massachusetts governor is the sum total of his experience in public office.
Pawlenty’s been governor of Minnesota for two four-year terms, and served five terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives before that. He was Majority Leader of that body for his last four years there.
Sum total: Pawlenty’s way more experienced than Romney. People may perceive Romney as more experienced, though, because he’s been in the public eye nationally since his run for the 2008 GOP nomination.
Romney has a ton of high-level private sector experience as well and he also ran the 2002 Winter Olympics. And while Pawlenty may have been governor for longer, Massachusetts is a more important state and Romney’s health care plan, though it hurts him in the primary, gives him a national stature on a hugely important policy issue. So yes Pawlenty has more government experience but I don’t think he matches Romney when it comes to presidential gravitas.
Incidentally I think the Osama killing helps Romney a bit. It has increased Obama’s stature and Republicans will be aware that they need a candidate who can match that. I think Romney does that better than anyone else.
Private sector success doesn’t seem to translate well into votes.
How do you figure that? It’s got a few more Congresscritters, but it isn’t that much more populous.
It’s hard to regard either of them as having ‘gravitas.’ Romney looks the part, but he’s reinvented himself more times in fewer years than any politician around, though all of a sudden he’s got competition from Newt.
I remember asking the same question about Romney back in 2007: do Americans really want to put a guy in the White House whose purported core convictions have changed in just the past few years? How do you know what he’ll stand for after he’s been elected?
T-Paw will announce he is running for President in Monday, only 5 years after he actually started running. I guess he isn’t putting any faith in the May 21 rapture event.
I wonder what Bachmann will do to upstage him again.
You mean other than blather out a factually incorrect, incoherent statement?
Yeah but what will she do different to upstage Pawlenty?
And the herd just keeps getting thinner - Mitch Daniels is out.
According to the article in the New York Times linked above:
It’s beginning to really look more and more like this is Romney’s nomination to lose.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but it does generally contribute to someone being seen as a heavyweight which is what we are talking about. Romney's private sector achievements were outstanding and he can claim that they have given him an insight into how the US economy works. This argument will be especially be persuasive to the corporate wing which IMO still calls the shots in the GOP.
As for MA versus MN, again it is a matter of perception. MA simply receives greater attention on the national stage whether because of its history or its status as an education and technology powerhouse.
Romney will not necessarily make a good President. I think he will lose to Obama. However he does come across as presidential in a way that almost no one else in the field does and I think that will help him win the nomination.
Daniel's dropping out is great news for him and it pretty much sews up the establishment/moderate section of the party. OTOH Gingrinch's implosion is somewhat bad news because I suspect he would have attracted Pawlenty's voters more than Romney's . Overall though, I bet Romney is pretty happy with his position right now. If Bachmann enters the race and siphons off some of the Tea Party/RR voters away from Pawlenty he will be in a great position.