Why I think John Thune is the GOP's best chance in 2012

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He's basically Obama in a Republican's body.

Yes, like Barack Obama, John Thune is a clone of George W. Bush. I think America has had enough of the disastrous policies of Bush/Obama/Thune.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I still think a lot of you underestimate Obama.  He's seen as very likeable and among a lot of voters, "he can do no wrong".  Reagan was the same way, as was JFK.

Charisma buys a ton of votes.  That's why I think Thune helps us in that he has a lot of positive energy/charisma too.

What's "positive" about Thune?

There's absolutely nothing special about him. He's boring and horrible. Thune sucks.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I still think a lot of you underestimate Obama.  He's seen as very likeable and among a lot of voters, "he can do no wrong".  Reagan was the same way, as was JFK.

Charisma buys a ton of votes.  That's why I think Thune helps us in that he has a lot of positive energy/charisma too.

What's "positive" about Thune?

There's absolutely nothing special about him. He's boring and horrible. Thune sucks.

Are you just a miserable human being?  Move to Canada.  Maybe you'll feel better.

No, I think this country has had enough of being governed by your style of politics.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This thread is pretty indicative of how clueless the Republicans are. If they really think nominating George W. Bush III is their "best chance", Obama might as well just go on vacation for Campaign 2012.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This thread is pretty indicative of how clueless the Republicans are. If they really think nominating George W. Bush III is their "best chance", Obama might as well just go on vacation for Campaign 2012.

George W. Bush's political views are somewhat in line with Republican voters. The ideal candidate you have, which is much more libertarian, has little to no chance. I doubt even a moderate will be able to win. In 2012, Republicans will try as hard as possible to get a conservative candidate nominated.

John Thune is even more out-of-touch with Americans than John McCain was. He doesn't appeal to conservatives, he doesn't appeal to liberals, he doesn't appeal to moderates, he doesn't appeal to libertarians, he doesn't appeal to the tea parties.

In fact, a guy who voted for TARP is liable to incite a third-party tea party challenge. And remember, this won't be like 2008 again: the tea parties have infiltrated the GOP itself in many places.

 The only people who seem to support Thune are those in his strange and unwarranted personality cult.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This thread is pretty indicative of how clueless the Republicans are. If they really think nominating George W. Bush III is their "best chance", Obama might as well just go on vacation for Campaign 2012.

George W. Bush's political views are somewhat in line with Republican voters. The ideal candidate you have, which is much more libertarian, has little to no chance. I doubt even a moderate will be able to win. In 2012, Republicans will try as hard as possible to get a conservative candidate nominated.

John Thune is even more out-of-touch with Americans than John McCain was. He doesn't appeal to conservatives, he doesn't appeal to liberals, he doesn't appeal to moderates, he doesn't appeal to libertarians, he doesn't appeal to the tea parties.

In fact, a guy who voted for TARP is liable to incite a third-party tea party challenge. And remember, this won't be like 2008 again: the tea parties have infiltrated the GOP itself in many places.

 The only people who seem to support Thune are those in his strange and unwarranted personality cult.

Right because a libertarian would definitely be a better option for the GOP
lolololololololololololololololoolololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, indeed, a libertarian is our only option.

It's Ron Paul or ruin in 2012- for the country, not the GOP.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I think Thune will come across likable to the American people, and doesn't have the baggage that other candidates have. However, he has a major flaw - South Dakota is not a major air hub. That could prevent him from winning the nomination over Gingrich, who has Atlanta, and Romney, who has Boston.

Can someone please explain this air-hub theory to me?

Apparently it's easier to campaign if there is an air hub near you because you have easier access to flying. Pbrower can explain it better. After all, he came up with it.

It's logistics, and it can explain why it is not advantageous to be from a state that doesn't have a big air hub. Since about 1960 all strong campaigns have been done by air, and even if the candidate has a private jet, not everyone in the campaign can so travel. Such staff get stuck with commercial travel.

The air hubs closest to South Dakota are Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Denver -- and that's where some critical campaign staff will need to go through to get to places like Indianapolis, Cleveland, Richmond, Charlotte, Orlando, and Albuquerque.  At that Obama has an obvious advantage with staff located in greater Chicago, which has O'Hare International Airport. Airline transfers are always tricky, and if campaign staff must get to such a location as Charlottesville, Virginia from Sioux Falls, South Dakota one must make transfers in Minneapolis and Washington.

John Thune had better locate his campaign somewhere other than South Dakota. Like Chicago.

It was incredibly severe with Sarah Palin.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with this hypothesis of yours which has long-been debunked? Even ardent Democratic hacks find your "air hub theory" ridiculous.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I think Thune will come across likable to the American people, and doesn't have the baggage that other candidates have. However, he has a major flaw - South Dakota is not a major air hub. That could prevent him from winning the nomination over Gingrich, who has Atlanta, and Romney, who has Boston.

Can someone please explain this air-hub theory to me?

Apparently it's easier to campaign if there is an air hub near you because you have easier access to flying. Pbrower can explain it better. After all, he came up with it.

It's logistics, and it can explain why it is not advantageous to be from a state that doesn't have a big air hub. Since about 1960 all strong campaigns have been done by air, and even if the candidate has a private jet, not everyone in the campaign can so travel. Such staff get stuck with commercial travel.

The air hubs closest to South Dakota are Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Denver -- and that's where some critical campaign staff will need to go through to get to places like Indianapolis, Cleveland, Richmond, Charlotte, Orlando, and Albuquerque.  At that Obama has an obvious advantage with staff located in greater Chicago, which has O'Hare International Airport. Airline transfers are always tricky, and if campaign staff must get to such a location as Charlottesville, Virginia from Sioux Falls, South Dakota one must make transfers in Minneapolis and Washington.

John Thune had better locate his campaign somewhere other than South Dakota. Like Chicago.

It was incredibly severe with Sarah Palin.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with this hypothesis of yours which has long-been debunked? Even ardent Democratic hacks find your "air hub theory" ridiculous.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself by advocating for radical candidates and ideologies?

I embarrass myself by not associating with the criminals and ideologies that have destroyed this country? I think it's the other way around. I would be embarrassed to be a neocon.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Florida goes back to the GOP because of the oil spill?

The swift and effective response ensures that the spill is off people's minds long before November 2012.  The solution to the gusher in the Gulf was an engineering solution -- not a political solution.

The oil spill is the result of lax enforcement of safety and environmental laws that the previous Administration promoted on behalf of his oil buddies. The President may have had priorities other than purging a regulatory bureaucracy that did a bad job.

Florida remains a legitimate swing state.  

lol

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Your arguments are very valid and reasonable. However, I will state my opinion again: I think Obama will beat any GOPer in 2012 because the economy will continue to improve and many people will begin feeling the recovery. Thus, Obama could just say in 2012 "Bush screwed over our economy. I fixed it. Elect another Republican with Bush's policies and the economy will go down the drain again."

Obama's policies are the same as Bush's policies.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Has anyone ever won the presidency from a state lower than the six [6] electoral votes from Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

Obama was born in Hawaii (4); Eisenhower was brought up in Kansas (8 in the 1950s but 6 now), but Leip considers New York  his home state for political purposes. I don't think that what state Ike came from would have mattered, in view of his war record; he could have been elected from Guam in either 1952 or 1956.   (Leip considers Illinois Obama's home state).

At the least, Bill Clinton came from a region that was fairly homogeneous in its culture  -- the Inner Arc  of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia, one  that comprised 38 electoral votes, which is electorally about as big as Texas.

A conservative from South Dakota would get little advantage from being from South Dakota.  The Plains states north of Oklahoma have only seventeen electoral votes between them and sixteen are best described as sure things for any Republican nominee. (NE-02 is not a sure thing unless the State of Nebraska reapportions its Congressional seats to split Greater Omaha, which I think unlikely).  Several States themselves have 16 or more electoral votes.

Now contrast Mike Huckabee, should he run for President; he takes the Inner Arc and about 35 electoral votes completely out of contention for Obama. Thune might have to work to solidify those states for himself; Huckabee could expend his efforts elsewhere more profitably for his campaign. I am not saying that Thune doesn't eventually win those states, but such a benefit as Huckabee has in being from an electorally-important region of the country is that he can spend more time in places like Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia where neither Huckabee nor Thune  has no particular strength.

Recent polls showing 43%* approval ratings for the President in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee suggest that he has done a few things right for those states. The three states are fairly similar in being tough on crime and unsympathetic to misbehaving d@mnyankee financiers, and president Obama has shown himself anything but lenient on either street crime or on financial cheats. No Republican nominee has been able to win without them since at least 1956 (Eisenhower did win Tennessee twice, but didn't need it).

*A strong campaign and a good electoral apparatus is good for about a 6% gain for an incumbent President, Senator, or Governor, so my prediction of the 2012 Presidential election says that all three states would be close in 2012).

Huckabee or not, the states of the so-called 'Inner Arc" are already "completely out of contention for Obama".

43% is the absolute max Obama is getting in Tennessee or Kentucky, and that's likely overly favorable to Obama. No, you can't just "add six" to his approval rating. He's maxed out already. The GOP will probably break 60% in Arkansas (and maybe Louisiana) against Obama in 2012, even without Huckabee.