Could Jon Huntsman have won?

[MrMittens]

Could Huntsman have won. I would say yes, but very narrowly.

[Franzl]

More likely than Romney, I suppose....but I still consider it improbable. This election was very much a referendum on Obama, and Romney got all the anti-Obama votes he could. That makes me think that Obama would get 50% or more in his own right against basically anyone in the 2012 Republican field.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not a chance.

[Simfan34]

453-85. No doubt a landslide. Huntsman would have made MASSIVE inroads with Hispanics and the wealthy educated urban classes. It would have been a realigning election. The 2016 map would have looked like this, no joke.

+ 

Huntsman would be like Reagan x2, without any fault or flaw. The 23rd Amendment might be repealed on the grounds of sheer stupidity.

[You kip if you want to...]

Huntsman would've won, definitely.

I remember this time 4 years ago and he was being touted as the only possible winner against Obama, that's why Obama was so quick to make sure he'd never be nominated.

[Simfan34]

This timeline accurately conveys what would have happened under a Huntsman presidency, sub-4% unemployment (aka full employment), trillion dollar surpluses, falling debt, rising power, 3/4+ approval ratings, and people angry unemployment is above the horrid rate of 5%. But Americans aren't that stupid, and wouldn't be so idiotic as to give us the map Maxwell presents us with. It would have been a 51-state sweep. But we were stupid enough to reject our chance at 24-year plus political dominance and mass prosperity.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=159110.75

[Badger]

Not a chance.

Really? Why so sure, George?

I say yes, but very narrowly (and wouldn't take even that to the bank).

[All Along The Watchtower]

Maybe, but probably not.The problem is/was the Republican brand, not the Romney candidacy.

[Eraserhead]

No. He wouldn't have been able to inspire Republicans to come out in the numbers that they did for Romney and I don't see any reason why he would have done much better with minorities either. He would have lost as badly as Romney did, if not slightly worse.

[You kip if you want to...]

Maybe, but probably not.The problem is/was the Republican brand, not the Romney candidacy.

And what did Romney do to try and detoxify? Did he or did he not just further their poor image?

And out of like 20 GOP debates, he was the only one who said anything worth remembering (remembering for positive reasons anyway).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt_XlYEcTkY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprkNSKF5Ks

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I said about the same as Romney, although I think Huntsman would have actually done worse than Romney.  I don't think it would be a landslide, though.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Oh, he could have, if he ran a good campaign and dissociated himself from Akin &ilk.
He certainly wouldn't have had the Ohio deficit of Romney.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hmm...

1. Obama camp would destroy him as a shameless opportunist and flopper who just a few months before worked for the President and kissed his butt for number of occassions.
2. Base would be less enthusiastic.

No, he'd lose.

[Stirring Wolf🥣🐺]

Based on a good campaign; narrow loss.

[Simfan34]

Hmm...

1. Obama camp would destroy him as a shameless opportunist and flopper who just a few months before worked for the President and kissed his butt for number of occassions.
2. Base would be less enthusiastic.

No, he'd lose.

But Jon Huntsman wasn't a flip flopper.

[afleitch]

Maybe. Another 50/50 race. He would have got the hardcore anti-Obama vote no matter what; the idea that a moderate Republican would cause hardcore GOPers to stay at home was nonsense. He would probably have won Colorado and New Hampshire and challenged in Florida and Ohio (given how close Ohio eventually was)

But here's another nugget; he may have got 30-45% of the LGBT vote. May have tipped him over the winning margin in some states.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hmm...

1. Obama camp would destroy him as a shameless opportunist and flopper who just a few months before worked for the President and kissed his butt for number of occassions.
2. Base would be less enthusiastic.

No, he'd lose.

But Jon Huntsman wasn't a flip flopper.

Accepting a job from Obama, praising him and then running against him wouldn't be viewed as very consistent.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Akin must be a god. He has the power, alone, to defeat Obama and move the earth. I can't wait until his cult develops.

[Psychic Octopus]

He basically threw away his career when he accepted the ambassador post. If we are talking about a Huntsman who stayed as Utah Governor, he could have easily won, I think.

I'm not sure as some you that he would have won. He certainly wouldn't have gotten what Simfan is saying. In terms of wealth, he's basically Romney x4. And he didn't make his money, either. It's all Huntsman Sr. No private-sector experience, which was Romney's biggest selling card. His primary campaign wasn't very good, too. I mean, yeah, Republicans were extremely hesitant to support him, but he didn't figure out how to pitch himself until late December. Obama would have had a bunch of ads of him as a "silver-spooned traitor" running on "daddy's money." Not a good look.

But here's another nugget; he may have got 30-45% of the LGBT vote. May have tipped him over the winning margin in some states.

What's your reasoning here? As far as I remember, he supported civil unions, but wasn't willing to go any further on it. He appears more moderate on other issues, though (even though his economic plan was VERY conservative), which might've won him some votes.

[Simfan34]

Don't forget the Asian American vote.

[Sound + Vision]

In order for Jon Huntsman to challenge the President in the general election, he first would have had to have won the primary. In order for him to have won the primary, he likely would have had to have started the primary campaign with a victory over Romney in New Hampshire. When you write it like that, it becomes clear that the premise of the scenario necessitates a dramatically better Huntsman campaign. With that in mind, I think that the following would be the most plausible Huntsman victory map:

[Antonio the Sixth]

If the GOP base didn't decide to walk out of the election (and I think they wouldn't, because even RINO librul Huntsman would be better than a Kenyan Muslim Soshuliszt) I think he would probably have won indeed, by a small but clear margin. Swing voters (who are fundamentally idiots) where salivating at the prospect of a center-right alternative to Obama's "failed economic policies" and were only turned off when Romney was continually exposed as a slimy, out-of-touch plutocrat devoid of any conviction from the primaries onward.

[GMantis]

Huntsman would do worse than Romney with the conservative base and that may overcome his better performance among independents. Also, he can be easily attacked as a flip flopper. So while he has better chances than Romney, probably a narrow Obama victory, with Huntsman winning Ohio and Florida and perhaps New Hampshire and Colorado.

[America™]

Hmm...

1. Obama camp would destroy him as a shameless opportunist and flopper who just a few months before worked for the President and kissed his butt for number of occassions.
2. Base would be less enthusiastic.

No, he'd lose.

But Jon Huntsman wasn't a flip flopper.

Accepting a job from Obama, praising him and then running against him wouldn't be viewed as very consistent.

Him accepting the job was him manning up and serving his country. Why should that matter at all? I didn't see any other Republican candidate who had the ability to reach across the aisle and solve problems.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hmm...

1. Obama camp would destroy him as a shameless opportunist and flopper who just a few months before worked for the President and kissed his butt for number of occassions.
2. Base would be less enthusiastic.

No, he'd lose.

But Jon Huntsman wasn't a flip flopper.

Accepting a job from Obama, praising him and then running against him wouldn't be viewed as very consistent.

Him accepting the job was him manning up and serving his country. Why should that matter at all? I didn't see any other Republican candidate who had the ability to reach across the aisle and solve problems.

Tell this to the conservative voters.

This is kind of ironic, since Huntman's image as a great moderate is badly overhyped.