How would you ding Thune?

[Lunar]

Connect him to DC & C-Street scandals.

[Lunar]

Honestly, his best quality going into the primaries is that he doesn't have any major scandals against him, and just about every other candidate does. .

Every other candidate has had major scandals?  That just doesn't sound accurate.

Frankly, every other candidate isn't from Washington.  If it's an anti-Washington election cycle, Thune is going to be the only guy who hangs out in D.C. for his day job. 

And really, that's NOT his best qualities.  Thune has many great qualities.  Connection to money, a solidly conservative voting record and a moderate demeanor, and something like a decade of running ads in Western Iowa, where all of the Republican primary voters live, I don't think "lack of major scandals" is a huge plus on any candidate's resume.  

[Lunar]

Um, you're comparing Thune to the front runners.  That's not fair, considering that they're prominent figures in the media spotlight.   Thune is less of a candidate than Daniels and Santorum [although the latter has a bigger flaw obvioustown].  What's Daniels giant flaw?

Many say that Thune lacks the same charisma.  You can read about Tune's weaknesses and strengths here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html#more

And Thune is the only candidate who is a Congessman, which could have its strong flaws.  Thune has no real big weaknesses now because he's not in the spotlight.  When he comes out, he'll have his flaws get more attention.  Come on.  Being a relatively unflawed candidate isn't the biggest thing in the world.  Many thought McCain had his huge flaws too (his support for immigration reform, etc.).

Once the campaign begins, we'll see more.  Fred Thompson sounded like a lot better of a candidate on paper too. 

[Lunar]

Why would anyone start raising questions about Thune now though?  Neither the Democrats nor his Republican opponents want to raise his profile.

No candidate is flawless, it's just that second-tier candidates seem a lot more flawless than the frontrunners by the nature of their status.  Daniels also seems pretty flawless [outside of, again, the possibility of him not willing to commit to the 100/hr/week intense schedule, which Thune himself may not be willing to do].  

Don't bet the house on Thune entering the 2012 race.  He's going to start making moves in the next couple months if he's actually serious about it.

[Lunar]

Show him irrelevant to most of America. John Thune is from a very rural state that can solve most of its problems on the cheap and get away with it, and I doubt that he understands urban problems as city-dwellers and suburbanites do.

I'm sure understanding urban problems is a top line of attack in the GOP presidential primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.  

C'mon.  I've read through focus group reports and internal polling for GOP primaries in states far more urban than these states, with far more rural candidates, and nowhere does anyone think about making the GOP candidate seem too rural.  Perhaps it could be an avante-card attack, but you say these things so casually.  As if like this could be a serious line of attack when it's not.  Like zero percent chance.  Like, Sarah Palin would have a better chance at winning 40 states against Obama than "he doesn't understand city issues" being an effective attack against Thune in early GOP primaries.  

Thune has been running ads now in Western Iowa, where most of the GOP primary voters live, for like twelve years now, that's a pretty good base to start off the election with.

Your posts are like crazy theoretical to support predetermined conclusions dude.  It'd be like in 2008, making some argument about how people from the upper south don't win GOP primaries in Iowa, and how someone like Huckabee could never relate to the Iowan primary electorate...it's just throwing pasta against the wall, where just as much could be thrown supporting the completely opposite conclusion, and whatever can be justified with a coherent sentence structure is considered almost prophetic. 

[Lunar]

If he were able to swing Minnesota, he would win the election of 2012. But can he?

that's like so irrelevant

[Lunar]

So far, South Dakota is doing better than most of the rest of the country in economics -- but think of how well the "Massachusetts miracle" did for President electoral failure Mike Dukakis.

This too.  We're talking about the GOP primary.  McGovern won his Democratic primary, which is insanely more urban and city-based than the GOP primaries. 

Being a general election failure is only meaningful insofar as voters who vote strategically [an interesting phenomenon, and one worth considering, but probably not the dominant variable in any sort of election] and the money connections.  But, in considering general elections prospects, I'm pretty sure people consider his positions, his stature, his campaign, his staff, and so on, before they count the number of electoral votes his state has and other such meaningless variables. 

[Lunar]

Lunar, you just spent three posts arguing with someone who thinks "proximity to a major airline hub" is a major consideration in VP selection.  Were you just bored?  Or are you actually expecting to get somewhere with this?

What do you think?