But Can The Guy Win The Iowa Caucuses?

[Lunar]

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/but_can_the_guy_with_the_iowa_caucuses.php

So Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. is emerging as the choice of the Great Mentioners, the latest of which is Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, who admits that Huntsman seems to understand (gasp!) the real challenges facing the Republican Party. In another time, you'd wonder whether Plouffe was trying to build Huntsman up in order to avoid a tougher opponent, but Plouffe, while occasionally cagey, isn't that cynical.  Huntsman has made the rounds as of late. He's in Washington, D.C. fairly often and has touched base the heavy hitters of the political journalism world. He's traveled to South Carolina and gotten friendly with one of the state's political power brokers, Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Henry McMaster.  Most recently, Huntsman spent some time in Michigan, where his stance on civil unions -- he's for 'em -- drew lots of attention, and some ire. Because so many Republican primary voters don't care for gay people, and because these Republicans are more important to the make-up of the GOP primary electorate than, say, activist liberals are to the Democratic electorate,  the political gadfly's first instinct is to dismiss the Huntsman case outright.

How in the heck can he possibly compete in Iowa?  That's always the first instinct. It's a bad instinct, because Republican presidential nominees often do not win Iowa -- McCain and Dole and Bush (Sr.) and Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon (and Ike, Dewey and Wendell Willkie.)

I'm speculating here about facts not yet in evidence -- the 2012 GOP calendar -- but we do know one thing: independents won't be distracted by a Democratic race in New Hampshire. There will be a big enough pool of pro-gay civil union moderate voters who are happy to make Huntsman their Mormon -- assuming that another Mormon, Mitt Romney, is also in the race and is by 2012 a dedicated social conservative.

Why mention Mormonism?  South Carolina. A divided field, though, could be to any candidate's benefit, and depending upon the press dynamics, a win by a Huntsman rival there might not mean much.

Given the king-making role Florida played in 2008, the state will almost certainly schedule its primary in January of 2012. Huntsman could win Florida. He could do well in Michigan.... you see where this is heading.

IF -- and a big IF -- 2012 turns out to be a referendum primary for the GOP, Huntsman could do very well, perhaps as a bridge candidate.  He has plenty of conservative credentials and he has just as many reformist credentials. (He told me that his biggest policy goal for 2009 is to make sure every child in his state had health insurance.)  He's not very compelling on the stump, and he needs something other than his stance on gay rights to distinguish himself from other Republican governors with solid resumes.

Quietly, Huntsman is lining up commitments from some of the GOP's top fundraisers, and he is popular among his fellow Republican governors.  He has not decided whether he'll run yet, but if he does, he probably ought to be taken seriously... at least until the Republican primary calendar tells us otherwise.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Perhaps the biggest obstacle for Huntsman isn't his semi-moderate stance on social issues but the Republican Party's reluctance to choose ''untested'' nominees. They always seem to go with the previous runner up.

[Old Man Willow]

Hopefully that means Romney not Huckabee. In a Romney vs. Obama race I'm undecided.

[Mr. Morden]

How in the heck can he possibly compete in Iowa?  That's always the first instinct. It's a bad instinct, because Republican presidential nominees often do not win Iowa -- McCain and Dole and Bush (Sr.) and Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon (and Ike, Dewey and Wendell Willkie.)

Actually, Ford and Dole *did* win Iowa in the respective years that they won the nomination.  And you can't go back to Nixon and Ike on counting this because I don't think the Iowa caucuses existed in anything like their present form before the 1970s.  Certainly, no one paid any attention to them back then.

But it's a fair point that the winner of Iowa only goes on to win the nomination about half the time.  Iowa and NH are *collectively* very important, but it's impossible to predict which will be more important in advance.

[Mr. Morden]

Huntsman is now being advised by former McCain political guru John Weaver (who resigned/was fired from the McCain campaign in the summer of 2007, when the campaign was melting down).  Weaver was a big advocate of the "maverick" persona for McCain:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/john_weaver_advising_jon_huntsman.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edit: The Desert News also says that Huntsman has met with GOP pollster/strategist Frank Luntz, something he probably wouldn't do if he wasn't contemplating a future run for elected office:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705301546/Huntsman-gets-presidential-publicity.html

[Lunar]

Why not?  Luntz is insanely brilliant at political marketing, and just meeting with him is no poor move at all.

Luntz is also keenly aware of the problems the GOP faces and is forward-thinking much like Huntsman.  Just a couple weeks ago he came into my smallish class and, as part of his presentation, he did something like this for one of his slides, talking to the GOP


IF YOU CAN'T WIN HER VOTE

YOU WON'T REGAIN THE MAJORITY

[Landslide Lyndon]

IF YOU CAN'T WIN HER VOTE

YOU WON'T REGAIN THE MAJORITY

I definately would like to know how to win her vote.

[paul718]

He's not very compelling on the stump,

This is my only real problem with the guy.

Huntsman Speech at 2009 RNC

[Lunar]

His voice isn't always scratchy, right?

Eric Cantor has spent, what, two thousand dollars recently for a voice coach?

Luntz is willing to be blunt and suggest that sort of thing, if someone hasn't already [which I would be surprised]. 

That video is bad for so many reasons.  Did they really have to include the cuts to people checking their watches?  Haha.

[Alcon]

Nah, he's usually not that bad.

[paul718]

Nah, he's usually not that bad.

He's not "on the stump" there.  But I haven't seen him give any other speeches besides the RNC one, so I could be wrong.

His voice isn't always scratchy, right?

Well, I figured he might've had a cold or something.  But his voice wasn't what was primarily lacking, it was his whole delivery, IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Cantor_spent_3k_on_speech_coach.html

I'd bet a trillion dollars that Palin has one too.

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Luntzs_memo.html

"You simply MUST be vocally and passionately on the side of REFORM. ... The status quo is no longer acceptable. If the dynamic becomes ‘President Obama is on the side of reform and Republicans are against it,’ then the battle is lost and every word in this document is useless," Luntz writes.

[WalterMitty]

wasnt bill owens the favorite of the gop internets people (and mike naso) in 2005?

dont get a divorce, huntsman.