The real problem is that the Republican base has a lot of nonsensical views, and expect those views to be present in their candidate. They’re also angry, so they expect their candidate to come out swinging. That’s why know-nothings like Cain and Perry took a turn as front-runner.
It was only after they held up the loons to the light they they grudgingly accepted Romney as a lesser evil.
Guys like Carson are just the next round of ideologically comfortable goofballs. After they burn themselves out, it’ll end up being Romney or Bush. At least that’s my guess.
No he hasn’t. He got re-elected by a strong margin, after winning a recall election by a larger margin than that by which he was originally elected.
You are mistaking “self-destruction” for “reasons why the hard left hates him”. They aren’t opposites - that is, there could be reasons why the left hates him that have nothing to do with his electability - but they aren’t the same.
He stared down the public unions, which is a net positive for him (except with the hard left). He survived a particularly nasty election, full of lies and mud-slinging from the same left wing. This is also a net positive, since the left will suffer (if he runs) from the same disadvantage they think applies to Republicans and Hillary Clinton - recycling failed smears of the past doesn’t resonate with normal people.
As previously mentioned, at this point he looks like a viable VP candidate, especially if Ryan is out. Romney-Walker would be as good for the country (if elected) as Romney-Ryan would have been.
Yes, I know the SDMB hates him. That’s usually a good indication that there must be something to him.
Self destruction in politics involves self-inflicted wounds that damage or ruin your political career. Walker has actually only gotten stronger. Huck has already had a Presidential campaign in which he lost, but made a very respectable showing, and the guy knows how to talk and carry himself. Huck will lose because he can’t raise money, not because he’ll destroy himself. Which you’re as genial and articulate as Huck, you can say all sorts of crazy things and sound reasonable and unthreatening.
They are the MOST electable, but I think Jindal, Walker, and Huck are also electable, especially Huck. I’ve never heard of a two-man Presidential race where the friendliest most down to earth guy loses. Huck would be dynamite in a one-on-one race with the plastic Hillary. And his record is actually the most liberal of the field, which is another problem he’d have in the primary. But if he got past that point it would be very easy for him to move to the center. All Democrats would really have on him is his devout religious beliefs, and even when that causes you to have unacceptable positions on some social issues, the electorate tends to forgive that as long as you’re not a dick about it. And Huck is not Robertson or Santorum.
McGovern was the MORE congenial candidate, but not particularly congenial. He came off as more of an aloof intellectual. That never goes over well, and Democrats should know that by now having run those types in a whole bunch of losing efforts.
Clinton is just not all the warm. Huckabee has a huge advantage in that department and it goes straight to how well voters relate to the candidates. I suppose she could cry again. She probably will. It got her back in the race in 2008 and I can’t see her not repeating what works.
Obama won twice, and “aloof intellectual” is one of the nicer things I’ve heard RWs call him, and McCain and Romney certainly are nothing of the kind. (Romney is an aloof patrician, not an aloof intellectual.)
Obama has a unique coalition that breaks the rules of politics a bit. Your generic Democrat isn’t going to win as many young or minority voters. Plus he never ran against anyone charismatic. All three of his major opponents(Clinton, McCain, Romney) were awkward(McCain) or came off as too fake(Clinton, Romney).
The election will be decided by which way the white working class swings and few are better positioned to win a landslide among such voters as Huckabee. Clinton would probably win that group against either Bush or Romney.
Mind you, I’m not a supporter of Huck. I don’t go in for religious conservatism and his brand of it is more anti-libertarian than the usual strain. But being a former pastor, I think he understands what people are looking for better than your average politician and knows how to talk to people better than your average politician. His weaknesses(lack of ability to raise money and lack of support outside his evangelical base within the GOP) will probably prevent him from winning the nomination, but if he did, I think he’d probably win the general.
