Well, I’m a little disappointed as he’s the only one of the bunch I thought ever had anything interesting to say. And no, I promise my disappointment doesn’t stem entirely from the fact this undoubtably means no more television interviews with his daughter(s).
His wifeisn’t exactly hard on the eyes, either.
I am still baffled by Huntsman’s decision to run to the left of Romney. It’s clear that all the enthusiasm this year was coming from the right and at the same the actual candidates of the right looked pretty dubious from the start. There was a space for a Republican somewhat to the right of Romney who was acceptable to the establishment. Pawlenty had first dibs on this space but after his campaign fizzled Hunstman could have made it his own and become a serious contender. As a former governor of Utah he had a good track record to run as someone more authentically conservative than Romney so why on earth didn’t he do that?
And while the conventional wisdom is that he is positioning himself up for 2016, I don’t know if he has done a good job of that either. He needed to be a strong loser preferably winning one primary or at least coming second. I guess he has learned the ropes of a primary campaign and figures that will help him next time. Perhaps he is angling for a major post in a potential Romney administration and wanted to show off his Chinese at a primary debate. Whatever it was, he never had a strategy to become the 2012 candidate.
No he didn’t. Romney came in second to McCain in NH. And carried eleven states in the primaries, second to McCain overall. That’s my point, he was the runner-up in '08, and is now the (probable) winner in '12. No one will consider Huntsman the runner up in this cycle, they’ll just remember he couldn’t even get ahead of a bunch of joke-candidates. He’s doing more damage to his brand then good.
He showed he can get hours of debate time with a bunch of crack-pots and still not have anyone want to vote for him, or even remember who he is.
And a good way to do this is to win elections. Huntsman showed he can put a lot of effort into an election and come in a distant third.
See the name recognition chart above. Its a stretch to say his run for office made Huntsman “famous”. He would’ve been better off sticking around in the State Dept. for another year or two.
Ah, I misread the wiki. My mistake.
A ton of people who presumably would’ve supported him went for Romney – the moderate Republican from four years earlier. I’m saying that, if Huntsman is the only moderate Republican with name recognition next time, he can do then what Romney’s doing now: repeatedly win 30+% of the vote while multiple hard-right candidates split the rest.
I think he’s more famous now than (a) he was before, or (b) if he’d stuck with State – and while the chart shows he was garnering less fame than Perry and Cain, you’d presumably agree he’s in a stronger position to run in '16 than either of 'em; they’re famous for how bad things got; he’s less famous, but as Romney Lite.
If Romney wins, perhaps Huntsman will be running the State Department.
Everyone ran to the right of Romney. There was no one on his left at all. Huntsman was betting that there were enough people on Romney’s left that he could snag easily, whereas if he ran to Romney’s right, he has to compete with that whole mess of other candidates who are really nutty. Huntsman’s bet didn’t pay off, of course, but he probably did better than he would have if he’d had to battle it out with all the nutcases running to Romney’s right.
Huntsman was incredibly conservative. He was a Republican Governor from a very conservative state. He even cut taxes. If offered a budget deal that was skewed 10-1 in favor of spending cuts vs. tax increases he indicated he would reject it. Nobody half-serious about the budget deficit would agree with that. So it’s not that his views weren’t extreme enough.
His problem was that he was far too neuro-typical for the Republican base. 1) He started his campaign advocating civility. Civility! That’s not the sort of advice tea party maniacs like to hear. 2) He tweeted that he agreed with the scientific consensus on both evolution and global warming. One of those could have capsized any Republican primary contender: Huntsman chose two. Here’s a hint: if you are a sane Republican politician, do everything you can to hide it like Mitt Romney does. Transparent insincerity isn’t a deal-killer: excessive sanity however is wholly unacceptable to all but around 5-10% of Republican primary voters. Independents are another matter, which is why Huntsman could rise to 3rd place in New Hampshire. 3) He seemed to think that qualifications, experience, policy knowledge and intelligence mattered. No: those are handicaps to overcome. This isn’t a Democratic primary.
Well, the last guy who stopped me from shoving chopsticks* into my ears during Republican debates is gone, so I have a lot more time in my viewing schedule. I liked how he had no problem with evolution or global warming and just said so, blithely. However, not only am I a Democrat, but I’m in NY, otherwise known as the “everybody’s dropped out by our primary” state.
- Get it? Because he speaks Chinese!! Is this on? <tap tap>
It’s amazing the difference having a billionaire dad makes.
I think he could have positioned himself as a conservative who was both consistent (unlike Romney and Gingrich) and electable (unlike Perry, Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann). Reading FreeRepublic one would think Huntsman was a clone of Nelson Rockefeller.
He also advocates banking reform, cutting military spending, withdrawing from Afghanistan, true tax reform, and other things other candidates are too afraid to advocate.
Bush has no problem with evolution, neither does Romney.
Gingrich has many of those traits also which is why he rose against Romney although he has large amounts of baggage.
Banking reform deserves special mention, as his proposals were reasonably serious.
George Bush on evolution, 2004: “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” Terrific, but warmed-over theology has no place in a junior high school science class: history is another matter. SFGATE: San Francisco Bay Area News, Sports, Culture, Travel, Food and Drink - SFGATE
GWB, 2000 as reported by Kristof: Characteristically, he does not believe in evolution–he says the jury is still out–but he does not actively disbelieve in it either; as a friend puts it, “he doesn’t really care about that kind of thing.”
That’s a far cry from simply accepting the scientific consensus, which Huntsman did.
I see that Romney blurs the evolution issue pretty well though. Romney Elaborates on Evolution - The New York Times As I’ve stated in another thread, a modern Republican Presidential candidate can explicitly accept the scientific consensus on global warming or evolution, but not both.
Nice point. But let’s not forget: Gingrich is also a crank. He floats nutty ideas with frequency and abandon. He constantly reminds his audience of his credentials, sees everything to do with Newt as having world-historical significance and generally is a dumb person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like. Contrast Gingrich’s unvetted and at times unconstitutional policy balloons with Huntsman’s conservative but sober proposals on banking reform. My thesis stands: excessive sanity killed the Huntsman candidacy.
Well, Obama gave him a job once; I guess he can do it again…
Why? I mean, he already knew that they disagreed on many political issues when he gave him the first one. And that hasn’t really changed. Sure, he’s saying that he’d do a better job than Obama (running against an incumbent president implicitly makes that claim), but he hasn’t really called him the Antichrist, or anything, like the other Republican candidates have.
What he should have realized was that all the nutcases were going to flame out leaving him to position himself as the reasonable Republican who was also an authentic conservative, someone accetable to the establishment and tolerable to the base. It’s hard to see how he could have done worse than what he actually achieved which was basically nothing. There was just no energy to the left of Romney and his campaign never took off at all ; something entirely predictable given the current mood of the Republican party.
I think a lot of people not on the right had convinced themselves of that too.
I watched the Gingrich/Huntsman debate a few weeks ago, and that was the first time I’d ever actually seen the man. Despite anything he’d say about kicking Iran’s ass or whatever, I couldn’t help but feel like it was Mr. Rogers saying the words.
While I’d gladly have Huntsman in over anyone else, I don’t think that it’s plausible that he will ever take the role. The man seems to combine the worst parts of Jimmy Carter and George Bush the Elder (from an electability standpoint), he sounds like a nice and amiable man, and he’s willing to do the research and act based on reality. That’s just not the “Presidential Model”. He would have to be someone’s VP and for the President to die midway through the term, to get in office.
This was his big problem, IMO. He doesn’t seem to have an ounce of charisma in his persona.
No, he was not as nasty in his criticism of Obama. I just find it hard to believe that one can leave the tent with the intention of tearing it down and be welcome to re-enter it. He had his chance to serve in this administration and then walked away from it.
Oh and Michelle Bachmann was charismatic? Perry? Look, I’m not surprised that Huntsman didn’t win the election. But his shtick was perfectly adequate to give him a transient bump in the polls. But he never broke 15%. Sorry: what killed Huntsman was his sanity. If he acted like a nutcase and kept attacking Romney for being a flip-flopper he would have broken 30%, before getting savaged by attack ads. Huntsman’s web attacks on Romney were devastating and yet they didn’t even warrant notice from the Romney campaign. Political professionals agree: excessive sanity disqualifies you from a GOP nomination.
To repeat: it’s not enough to show why Huntsman didn’t win in 2012. You have to explain why he never had his day in the sun. McCain did in 2000: Tsongas did in 1992, Perot shot up in 1988 and Anderson achieved cult status in 1980. But Huntsman was a wet firecracker.
BobLibDem: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I trust Huntsman could obtain another Ambassadorship from Obama if he felt like it. That would foreclose a 2016 run though.