Huntsman's Best Option

[Simfan34]

I'm not sure. Debate performances seem to be hit-or-miss. His campaign is a mess- if I had my way I'd probably be spending five hours a day campaigning for him, but I'm yet to hear back from them, even after I not-so-subtly mentioned that I had been quoted in The Economist singing his praises. His best try would be a consistent message that is well-fleshed out and demonstrates consistent mastery of the issues. He talks about having those, but I only see him speak of his record. As good as that record is, it becomes repetitive rather quickly.

He needs to also find a good way to attack his opponents. He needs to keep in mind his message of civility (or is it a pledge, which he swore off of??), and he's clearly out of his element when he called Perry treasonous (which sounded half-serious, joke or not). He needs again, to be insightful and capable of bringing something new to the discussion, pointing out flaws and inconsistencies with the others. He needs to be able to defend and attack his opponents with history- i.e., quoting Reagan on the role of government, Social Security, amnesty, etc.

I don't see his campaign telling him to do that, and so I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion there is no option.

[Simfan34]

Looking at 2016, if he can present himself as a principled, pragmatic, reasonable moderate, and if Perry wins, he could have credibility to stage a primary attempt.

[Simfan34]

Huntsman's best scenario is the GOP nominates someone other than Romney and loses in a blowout to a still unpopular Obama with a poor economy. Then he can make the claim that nominating a far right candidate is suicide. If Romney is nominated and loses, the base will say "look, we nominated 2 moderates in both 2008 and 2012 and we lost." He'd have no chance.

But 2016 will likely be Christie's year unless he suddenly becomes unpopular and loses reelection.

Chris Christie may have just lost my vote.