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

[Bo]

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."

[Bo]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thune is the most in touch candidate I can think of. He has 2 kids and a wife and is from rural South Dakota. Didn't you see the ads about his girls saying "vote for our dad" while his wife was making breakfast for everyone before they started their day? Now that's an American family.

Obama can make an ad like that as well.

[Bo]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thune is the most in touch candidate I can think of. He has 2 kids and a wife and is from rural South Dakota. Didn't you see the ads about his girls saying "vote for our dad" while his wife was making breakfast for everyone before they started their day? Now that's an American family.

Obama can make an ad like that as well.

Except that his wife doesn't know how to cook.

Proof?

[Bo]

John Thune would be a better VP. Senators don't usually win the presidency.

Warren G. Harding, JFK, and Obama did.

[Bo]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thune is the most in touch candidate I can think of. He has 2 kids and a wife and is from rural South Dakota. Didn't you see the ads about his girls saying "vote for our dad" while his wife was making breakfast for everyone before they started their day? Now that's an American family.

Obama can make an ad like that as well.

And no one would EVER believe that a family like his is like that. Oh yea that's right the first lady doesn't have maids and servants to wait on her hand and foot is what people will believe outside of your party. Plus he's from Chicago where the traditional and rural American family life style is looked down up and crime runs rampant alongside backroom political deals. Obama has never been seen as in touch or one of the regular people.

So you're saying that an African-American family isn't really American? Shame on you. And most Americans lived in urban areas for 90 years now. No one cares anymore whether a candidate is from an urban or rural area. There is a lot of crime and corruption in most cities in the U.S. What's your point? And Obama is more of an average guy than both Bushes ever were. Obama was born middle class and had to work his way up, while the Bushes just inherited a lot of money from their families and had everything given to them.

[Bo]

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."

Wow you're naive.  The economy will not continue to improve.  2011 will be an economic disaster thanks to Pres Obama

No, you're the naive one. Tell me exactly why Obama's policies will make 2011 a disaster? The economy will be sluggish and recover slowly, but it will continue recovering.

[Bo]

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

No winning candidate has been from that small of a state, but trends can be broken.

Actually, Franklin Pierce came from NH, which had 5 EVs in 1852 and now has 4 EVs. Also, Calvin Coolidge was born in VT, which now has 3 EVs.

[Bo]

Thune is a good idea because he is a WASP male, nice-looking at that. any 'views' can be superimposed on that template in a nonfunctioning democracy.

WASPs aren't as attractive as they used to be with the elections of Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Catholic).

[Bo]

I like Thune's young family man approach, but he's not ready yet. Someone with governing and military experience is needed for the job with us fighting 2 wars and being so far in debt.

Iraq is going to be over at the end of 2011, so we're only going to be fighting one war in 2012.

[Bo]

I like Thune's young family man approach, but he's not ready yet. Someone with governing and military experience is needed for the job with us fighting 2 wars and being so far in debt.

Iraq is going to be over at the end of 2011, so we're only going to be fighting one war in 2012.

I'm not sure how you already know this. Obama never said it would be over and only suggested that we'd be bringing some troops home. I hope we're not in any wars but until Al-Qaida is gone we will always be at war.

We have a timeline to leave Iraq in place.  By December 31, all US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq.  That doesn't mean that we are going to stop fighting Al-Qaeda, only that Iraq will no longer be our battlefield.  Most likely we will end up intervening in Yemen.

In late 2008, Bush and the Iraqi govt. negotiated an agreement which stated that all U.S. forces must withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011. And I doubt we will have a large-scale intervention in Yemen. Maybe some bombings here and there, but the American people would be wary of starting another full war. We'll probably just give more aid to the Yemeni dictator (who is pro-American) in fighting al-Qaeda.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

lol. The thing about Hillary being a co-President is just a myth and nothing more. The only thing Hillary did as First Lady was attempt to write a healthcare plan for the U.S., and she failed miserably at that. Afterwards Bill didn't give her any responsibilities for the last 6 years of his Presidency. Thus I stand by my statement that Hillary only had 8 years of political experience and thus was also a Senate newbie when she ran for President. Executive experience is important, but it isn't everything and I don't think it's that much of an issue for most voters. And I beg to differ about Barbour being more charismatic. Barbour is pretty boring. Thune, on the other hand, is very charismatic (and I watched both of them, so I know). And if Palin runs (and she probably will), Rush will probably support her over both Barbour and Thune (if they both decide to run).

[Bo]

Most Senators can't get traction without multiple terms.  They usually need at least 3 terms to be seen as "Presidential Material" amongst the washington elites and power brokers. 

Thune will be in his second term after his reelection this year.  Of the three presidents who were elected to the White House directly from the Senate (Harding, JFK, and Obama), all of them were in either their first or second term in the Senate at the time.

But my point is that JFK and Obama were "miracle" workers who barely won (JFK) or won despite his political inexperience.  Thune will need another Miracle to win the nomination and general.

What about Harding? Harding won in a landslide and he wasn't a "miracle worker" by any means. Also, JFK won despite the fact that Eisenhower had high approvals, so that means that he was a pretty good candidate. I think you overestimate how hard it is for a Senator to win the nomination and get elected President. Thune has charisma, is conservative, and will have some experience in 2012. That is good enough for many Republican primary voters.

Not too familiar with Harding, but was he a compromise candidate and won in an drawn out convention.  JFK barely beat LBJ in the primaries, and Obama barely beat Hillary in the primaries.  This re-instates my point that it is difficult for a newbie Senator to win the nomination when there are powerful established Senators also seeking the nomination or siding with older candidates. 
Trust me, Barbour has lots of friends and fundraisers in high places.  He will freeze out Thune and Romney.  Old White Guys in the GOP will vote for Old White Guys in the primaries.  The GOP is not a place for newbie candidates.

Actually, JFK beat LBJ quite handily in the 1960 Democratic primaries. It wasn't close by any means. Hillary was also a newbie Senator. She was only in the Senate for 7 years when she lost to Obama. If a "newbie" Senator has charisma and good political skills (ability to fundraise a lot, run a good campaign, etc.), then that Senator typically would have a good chance at winning a party's nomination. I'm not so sure Barbour would be able to defeat Thune in the GOP primaries. Having a lot of establishment support doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is going to win a party's nomination. Muskie was the establishment pick for the Dems in 1972, Bush Sr. was the GOP establishment pick in 1980, and Hillary was the Democratic establishment pick in 2008, but all of them lost the nomination despite having the support of the party bigwigs. Having establishment support typically helps, but it is by no means a guarantee that a candidate is going to win a party's nomination.

Of course Hillary had the 8 years as co-president, so she really had 16 years as a political figure building up a network of voters.  I also think Barbour is better than Thune because Barbour has executive experience and is more charismatic.  Rush would support Barbour.

lol. The thing about Hillary being a co-President is just a myth and nothing more. The only thing Hillary did as First Lady was attempt to write a healthcare plan for the U.S., and she failed miserably at that. Afterwards Bill didn't give her any responsibilities for the last 6 years of his Presidency. Thus I stand by my statement that Hillary only had 8 years of political experience and thus was also a Senate newbie when she ran for President.

Executive experience is important, but it isn't everything and I don't think it's that much of an issue for most voters. And I beg to differ about Barbour being more charismatic. Barbour is pretty boring. Thune, on the other hand, is very charismatic (and I watched both of them, so I know). And if Palin runs (and she probably will), Rush will probably support her over both Barbour and Thune (if they both decide to run).

Hillary had 8 years of political experience as a national fundraiser and national celebrity, which helped her immensely in getting votes instead of just being a no-name 7 year senator.  Thune may be more flashy, youthful, and handsome, but I don't think GOP voters will go for that.

You forget that Obama was also a celebrity Senator. After giving his keynote address in 2004, Obama became an instant rock star throughout the Democratic Party. Thus, throughout his four years as Senator, Obama was treated like a celebrity instead of some no-namer. I think the fact that two Senate newbies together got over 95% of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 (and that's not counting John Edwards) shows that many voters are willing to nominate and elect Senate newbies for President. And if the GOP nominated GWB in 2000, who had only 6 years of political experience, then I think Thune has a decent chance of being nominated at the end. Thune also has more than a decade of political experience (counting his service in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that should help persuade many voters that he has what it takes to become President. And again, charisma also matters a lot in determining the nominee, and Thune has a lot of charisma. Thus, I stand by my point that Senate newbies can get nominated and elected President if they have a lot of political skills and know how to run a good campaign.

[Bo]

Hillary had 16 years of fundraising, campaigning, working the phones and chicken dinners on a national level.  She may have been a newbie in the Senate, but not in the presidential primaries.  She worked on Bill's campaigns and knew the district party leaders.  From a logistical operational standpoint, she had a very big advantage.  Edwards also had a strong network because of 2004. 
But that is why Obama won, because had the same one term experience as Edwards and Clinton, so Obama won by luck and charisma.  Obama also loaded up buses of volunteers from Chicago into Iowa that may or may not have voted in the Iowa caucuses.  From an operational standpoint, Hillary should have won.  But because all 3 of them were newbies, no one could respectively claim a 3 AM wake a call and not get laughed at.

The GOP nominated Dubya because of his last name, it didn't matter if he had experience.  So unless John Thune becomes John Bush-Reagan, then he will not have as easy a time.  The Grand Old Party will nominate a Grand Old Wrinkly Guy like Dole or McCain.

You forget that Obama was also a celebrity Senator. After giving his keynote address in 2004, Obama became an instant rock star throughout the Democratic Party. Thus, throughout his four years as Senator, Obama was treated like a celebrity instead of some no-namer. I think the fact that two Senate newbies together got over 95% of the Democratic primary vote in 2008 (and that's not counting John Edwards) shows that many voters are willing to nominate and elect Senate newbies for President.

And if the GOP nominated GWB in 2000, who had only 6 years of political experience, then I think Thune has a decent chance of being nominated at the end. Thune also has more than a decade of political experience (counting his service in the U.S. House of Representatives) and that should help persuade many voters that he has what it takes to become President. And again, charisma also matters a lot in determining the nominee, and Thune has a lot of charisma. Thus, I stand by my point that Senate newbies can get nominated and elected President if they have a lot of political skills and know how to run a good campaign.

I'm not sure how much Hillary helped on Bill's campaigns. And where is your source for Obama bringing in a lot of voters from Illinois to Iowa? That seems like a silly rumor started by the Hillary campaign to discredit Obama. And considering that the 2008 Democratic field had two Senate veterans (Biden and Dodd), it's very impressive that three Senate newbies (Obama, Hillary, and Edwards) got over 95% of the total primary vote. By your logic, Biden and Dodd should have done much better in the primaries since they were establishment figures. And John Thune will have 16 years of political experience in 2012. That's a lot and that might give him some establishment support. And historically, not all establishment candidates won the GOP presidential nomination. Goldwater won the nomination in 1964 and Reagan won the nomination in 1980 (and almost in 1976) despite the fact that the GOP establishment supported other candidates and considered Goldwater and Reagan to be extremists and unelectable. The GOP primary voters ultimately decide the nominee, not the GOP party bosses, and I think Thune has a decent chance to appeal to them. I mean, he did a good job appealing to the people of South Dakota, especially considering that he defeated the Senate Minority Leader (Daschle) in 2004.