Who will have a better showing?

[Sam Spade]

Well since I think Huntsman has some chance of becoming POTUS with odds a bit more than fanciful, and T-Paw does not ...

How would he win the nomination, Torie?

Mittens needs to stumble, and Huntsman needs to impress in the debates, and probably show substantially better than Mittens against Obama in the polls. I don't think the rest of the field is in the hunt. They are all losers - all of them. Give it time. T-Paw will be out in the near future. That leaves two candidates with some credibility. Yes, Perry will start out with some, but will fade in a hurry if he is foolish enough to get into this fray. With the klieg lights on him, it won't take long.

Torie, I've known you for many years now, and have always found your political analysis to be highly insightful, but you're smoking crack if you think Huntsman has more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.  His chance at the nomination could basically be killed with one sentence that I think we all know the content of.

Frankly, the only reason why Romney has to be considered the favorite is because of the strength with which he is polling nationally against Obama.  If the other "kookier" candidates with a chance either start polling ahead of Obama or start polling the same as Romney, he will no longer be considered the favorite, and may collapse, because they are where the vast majority of the GOP base (and its corresponding "Independent" cohort) are.  It's that simple, really.

[Sam Spade]

Yes, I know Huntsman is a long shot, Sam, but let's see how he does in the debates, OK?  By the way, even Hugh Hewitt admitted that Bachmann is unelectable against Obama, so in the end, it has to be somebody that really seems creditable to put their family pics on the Oval office desk. And it will be. And looking at the list, I don't see anyone creditable but the two Mormons (sorry, T-Paw means well, but he's a nebbish). Don't blame me!

I seem to recall that Huntsman was a willing part of the Obama administration.  If so, why do I need to see any debates?

At this point, anyone who can win the Republican nomination is electable as President because the potential for economic chaos is substantial, where anyone with a pulse can win.  I will certainly concede that if X cannot win the nomination, then they cannot win the Presidency, but you are counting far too many people as being "out" at this point - insurgency is a very powerful force right now.

Just as an FYI, Obama certainly was elected under similar conditions in 2008, but probably would have been elected anyway because of the legacy of Bush.  Without the legacy of Bush and economic chaos, the chances of Obama winning would have dropped dramatically, and honestly, he probably wouldn't have gotten out of the Democratic primary (which he barely did anyway, due to taking complete advantage of the weird system).

As for Hugh Hewitt, I generally find him to be a simple-minded idiot of the Republican/conservative persuasion.  There are a lot of those.