Is it me or....

[Phony Moderate]

....is this board turning into a Mitch Daniels lovefest?

[redcommander]

....is this board turning into a Mitch Daniels lovefest?

It is and he is overrated. Republicans need someone with charisma in 2012.

[AndrewTX]

Yeah... its just you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I thought people love Buddy Roemer.

[Bull Moose Base]

....is this board turning into a Mitch Daniels lovefest?

It is and he is overrated. Republicans need someone with charisma in 2012.

I'd argue his charisma is underrated and everything else about him is overrated.

[jbgator]

Mitch Daniels in 2011 = Mark Warner in 2007.  Bloggers' favorite

[Bull Moose Base]

Mitch Daniels in 2011 = Mark Warner in 2007.  Bloggers' favorite

And they could both be passes, citing family concerns.

[milhouse24]

Who will win SC?  That's who usually wins the GOP nom.  I don't think it will be Mitch.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Who will win SC?  That's who usually wins the GOP nom.  I don't think it will be Mitch.

     I recall reading that the winner of South Carolina always wins the GOP nomination, actually, but there's no real reason that has to be the case. Usually a victory in SC, a later early state, functions as a means of driving home the inevitability of the nominee-apparent. If there is no nominee-apparent (which is a rare event in the Republican primaries), then winning without SC wouldn't be that much of a problem. Bear in mind that McCain only won the state in 2008 because Mike Huckabee & Fred Thompson split the ultraconservative vote.

     That said, I don't expect Mitch Daniels to win, but it won't be for lack of winning South Carolina. If he runs, I expect him to be out after Iowa. He is not a terribly weak candidate, but I don't see any real base of support for him to gain hold of & be able to compete with the current big names.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

At least it isn't as much of a Gary Johnson love fest as in days past.

[SvenssonRS]

....is this board turning into a Mitch Daniels lovefest?

It is and he is overrated. Republicans need someone with charisma in 2012.

No, they need someone better than Obama as a leader. That is, someone who isn't Sarah Palin. Or Mitt "20% Approval Rating" "I Believe In Whatever Gets Me The Nomination" Romney.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We always go through these phases.  We had our Gary Johnson phase last year.

[Psychic Octopus]

Mitch Daniels in 2011 = Mark Warner in 2007.  Bloggers' favorite

IIRC, Warner had already opted out in 2006. Can't remember, though.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

We always go through these phases.  We had our Gary Johnson phase last year.

Don't forget John Thurne.

[exopolitician]

Its just you. It's still a Ron/Rand Paul/Gary Johnson lovefest here.

[Yelnoc]

Its just you. It's still a Ron/Rand Paul/Gary Johnson lovefest here.

Internetarians....

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Its just you. It's still a Ron/Rand Paul/Gary Johnson lovefest here.

Internetarians....

The Internet is for Libertarians, TV is for Democrats, the Radio is for Republicans, and Library magazine shelves are for Communist.

[Mechaman]

     I recall reading that the winner of South Carolina always wins the GOP nomination, actually, but there's no real reason that has to be the case.

Actually Reagan won the South Carolina Primary in 1976 but otherwise yeah it's true.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     I recall reading that the winner of South Carolina always wins the GOP nomination, actually, but there's no real reason that has to be the case.

Actually Reagan won the South Carolina Primary in 1976 but otherwise yeah it's true.

No democrat won the Presidency without South Carolina from 1844 till Clinton failed to win it in 1992. When it comes to actuall elections these little interesting bits of trivia mean little, and can be broken.

[milhouse24]

The winner of SC usually has the best chance of finishing strong. 

But in Romney's case, he wants a messy primary, because there is no way he will ever win SC.

[RI]

    I recall reading that the winner of South Carolina always wins the GOP nomination, actually, but there's no real reason that has to be the case.

Actually Reagan won the South Carolina Primary in 1976 but otherwise yeah it's true.

There wasn't a SC primary in 1976 (he won the caucus/convention thing they had, I do believe). He won the SC primary in 1980, though.

Every SC Republican primary winner has been the eventual nominee of the party, though there have only really been three competitive-ish SC Republican primaries (1980, 2000, and 2008).

[Mr. Morden]

The "SC winner always wins the GOP nomination" thing is largely a consequence of two things:

1) SC has always gone with the frontrunner, as of the time of their primary.
2) The candidate who's the frontrunner for the GOP nomination as of the time that SC votes always wins.

The GOP has tended to have nomination battles that wrap up pretty quickly, at least for the last 30 years.  The last really protracted contest was 1976.  If the 2012 race wraps up quickly, then sure, SC will probably go with the winner again.  If not, then it's more likely that the SC winner isn't going to be predictive of who wins the nomination.

[WillK]

     I recall reading that the winner of South Carolina always wins the GOP nomination, actually, but there's no real reason that has to be the case.

Actually Reagan won the South Carolina Primary in 1976 but otherwise yeah it's true.

No democrat won the Presidency without South Carolina from 1844 till Clinton failed to win it in 1992. When it comes to actuall elections these little interesting bits of trivia mean little, and can be broken.

Johnson in 1964?
Truman in 1948?