Incredibly Dark Horses (R) - The Time Capsule

[Mr. Morden]

I think Rounds is the darkest of dark horses.  But I'm pretty sure Huntsman would count as a dark horse to the majority of the country and media, and at least Huntsman has shown some indication that he's interested.

I think Jindal is a "dark horse" but Huntsman is an "incredibly dark horse."  If you want a "black hole horse" maybe you could look at Hoeven

I agree with most of this.  I would go with Huntsman as the most likely dark horse, but Hoeven and Rounds rate higher than he does on the "obscure-o-meter", and they'd be next on my list if we're not counting Huntsman as a dark horse.....Rounds probably more likely than Hoeven.

Where I differ is that I don't think Jindal would count as a dark horse.  Or maybe he would, but it depends on how you define "dark horse".  I personally rate the chances of Jindal running in 2012 as fairly low.  (Though if he did run, I think he'd have a good shot at the nomination.)  However, for the political media, Jindal is probably the 4th most commonly mentioned potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, after Huckabee, Palin, and Romney.  So if we're going by media expectations, then Jindal is too strong a contender to count as a "dark horse" (unless everyone but Huck, Palin, and Romney is a dark horse).

Why is there virtually no one from the Senate in the mix for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, at least judging by who's being speculated about?

[Mr. Morden]

Speaking of Lamar Alexander, why wasn't he ever successful?  He ran in '96 and 2000, right?  '96 seemed to be entitled to Dole, but I would think he'd have been more competetive in 2000.  Was the support for Bush THAT strong?  (I wasn't really interested in politics in 2000)

One interesting counterfactual on 1996: What if Alexander had edged out Dole for 2nd place in the NH primary?  Would much of the establishment have rallied to Alexander instead of Dole, in order to stop the likes of Buchanan and Forbes?

Regarding the 2000 primary race, you have to understand that (largely just because of his name and the fact that being governor of Texas gives you a strong fundraising base) Bush was just an overwhelmingly strong frontrunner by the fall of 1999.  At one point, there were 12 candidates running for the GOP nomination, but 6 of them dropped out even before Iowa because they couldn't compete with Bush.  Bush had an enormous fundraising advantage, a lead in the national polls of something like 50 points, and an enormous lead in Iowa (NH was a different story).  The fact that McCain was able to make it as competitive as it was was seen as a minor miracle.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm a bit surprised nobody's mentioned John E. Sununu.

I know, I know, it's crazy... but I don't think it's as crazy as it sounds.

Why are you surprised nobody's mentioned him, if you admit that it sounds crazy?

I don't think there's any chance for Sununu to run for president in 2012, now that he's lost his most recent statewide race.  I do still think, though, that Sununu would have been an above average running mate option for McCain, and he should have been considered.  Sununu was going to lose that senate race anyway, so he might as well have just dropped out of it to run as McCain's running mate (if McCain had chosen him).

[Mr. Morden]

I once proudly declared on this forum that if Palin became the VP nominee I'd eat my own hat

....but that was kind of an empty threat, since your hat was made out of delicious waffles.