Current and '08 GOP Governors - Any With Hidden Star Potential?

[Lunar]

Alabama - Bob Riley - ok
Alaska - Sarah Palin - who?
California - Arnold - disqualified
Connecticut - Jodi Rell - ok
Florida - Charlie Crist - Doesn't have it in him
Georgia - Sonny Perdue - Maybe praying for rain isn't enough
Guam - Felix Perez Camacho - lol
Hawaii - Linda Lingle - No connections as far as I know
Idaho - Butch Otter - Hilarious name
Indiana - Mitch Daniels - skeletons
Louisiana - Bobby Jindal - yup
Minnesota - Tim Pawlenty - maybe, probably doesn't have it in him
Mississippi - Haley Barbour - too lobbyist-ish?
Missouri - Matt Blunt - I don't think he's liked in MO right now even
Nebraska - Dave Heineman  - no clue, doubt he aspires for anything
Nevada - Jim Gibbons - a bit too scandal-plagued for the national scene
North Dakota - John Hoeven - maybe, quite popular and conservative, maybe too small of a state to make a star out of himself.
Rhode Island - Donald Carcieri - you have to win the primaries
South Carolina - Mark Sanford - used to have potential, he probably doesn't have it in him
South Dakota - Mike Rounds - some potential, some people thought he'd run in '08
Texas - Rick Perry - potential?
Utah John Huntsman - some solid potential.  Could raise millions out of his home state most likely.
Vermont - Jim Douglas - gotta win a primary first.


And two potential future ones:

Washington - Rossi - Some star power here.
North Carolina - McCory - no clue on this guy.

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, I totally agree with one of the names on that list. Things would look pretty amazing...

[DownWithTheLeft]

Jindal is really the only one that jumps out, followed by Rossi and then possibly Huntsman (although we saw the Mormon thing hurt Romney)

[Josh/Devilman88]

If Pat McCrory win in NC, he will be a very big player in the GOP in the coming years. He is very moderate.

[Daniel Z]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

[Keystone Phil]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

2016 would make more sense because it gives Rossi more time but 2012 might be his only chance. If Obama wins and he's tanking in his first term, 2012 might be another 1980 meaning that 2016 will mean the re-election campaign for the sitting Republican President.

[Sensei]

of the people on this list, i'm willing to put money down that 2 of Christ, Jindal, and Rounds will be in the running in '12.

[phk]

Jindal, Huntsman

[Daniel Z]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

2016 would make more sense because it gives Rossi more time but 2012 might be his only chance. If Obama wins and he's tanking in his first term, 2012 might be another 1980 meaning that 2016 will mean the re-election campaign for the sitting Republican President.

Well obviously it all depends on how well Obama does as President. I think 2012 is too soon for Rossi, so in a way it would be better for his political career if Obama gets reelected.

[bgwah]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

2016 would make more sense because it gives Rossi more time but 2012 might be his only chance. If Obama wins and he's tanking in his first term, 2012 might be another 1980 meaning that 2016 will mean the re-election campaign for the sitting Republican President.

Well obviously it all depends on how well Obama does as President. I think 2012 is too soon for Rossi, so in a way it would be better for his political career if Obama gets reelected.

I'm finding 2012 very unlikely now that I think more about it. If Obama is a lousy President than many will probably blame his inexperience. I doubt the GOP will turn to someone with even less experience than Obama '08.

And considering Rossi has one-termer written all over him, 2016 might not be realistic either.

[Reaganfan]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

2016 would make more sense because it gives Rossi more time but 2012 might be his only chance. If Obama wins and he's tanking in his first term, 2012 might be another 1980 meaning that 2016 will mean the re-election campaign for the sitting Republican President.

Well obviously it all depends on how well Obama does as President. I think 2012 is too soon for Rossi, so in a way it would be better for his political career if Obama gets reelected.

I'm finding 2012 very unlikely now that I think more about it. If Obama is a lousy President than many will probably blame his inexperience. I doubt the GOP will turn to someone with even less experience than Obama '08.

And considering Rossi has one-termer written all over him, 2016 might not be realistic either.

If John McCain were four years younger...

[Daniel Z]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

2016 would make more sense because it gives Rossi more time but 2012 might be his only chance. If Obama wins and he's tanking in his first term, 2012 might be another 1980 meaning that 2016 will mean the re-election campaign for the sitting Republican President.

Well obviously it all depends on how well Obama does as President. I think 2012 is too soon for Rossi, so in a way it would be better for his political career if Obama gets reelected.

I'm finding 2012 very unlikely now that I think more about it. If Obama is a lousy President than many will probably blame his inexperience. I doubt the GOP will turn to someone with even less experience than Obama '08.

And considering Rossi has one-termer written all over him, 2016 might not be realistic either.

Exactly, although if Rossi does manage to win reelection I think he could be a major candidate for the republican nomination.

[Lunar]

President Butch Otter

Yeah, the political cartoons write themselves.  I really regret not having my image safe search on when I googled "gay otter" but here you go:

 

[Bacon King]

I've heard Rick Perry has higher ambitions.

[pragmatic liberal]

I've heard Rick Perry has higher ambitions.

If Perry had higher ambitions why didn't he run this year? He'd probably have won the nomination as an orthodox Southern Republican governor. (Of course, he'd be crushed in November.)

Was it just because it was a bad year?

Besides, isn't Perry pretty unpopular?

[Lunar]

No way that this was the year for another Texas Governor.  He'd be slaughtered.

[Workers' Friend]

For some reason, I feel that most of the next Presidents will be Senators, why is that?

[pragmatic liberal]

Anyway...

Jindal and Huntsman are the two with really strong credentials. And both (even Huntsman) may be likely candidates -- you can usually gauge these things by connections with the national party and Huntsman and Jindal both have them. Huntsman got a fair amount of VP buzz in the spring.

Rossi and McCrory would be solid, but 2016 is probably a more likely year for them. Despite Obama, it isn't at all typical these days for someone to run for president two years after getting elected to the Senate or the governorship.

Frankly, though, I expect 2012 to be a bad year for the Republicans -- if this year is a big defeat for them (as it's shaping up to be), they'll *probably* (and I stress: "probably") be in disarray and ideologically divided in 2012, even if Obama has only had a moderately-successful term. 2016 is the next best year to bet on a Republican win, since there tends to be an eight-year pattern in presidential politics. The top contenders that year will likely be a slew of governors who haven't even been elected yet.

Honestly, take a look at the 2010 crop of governors. 2010 may mark some Republican gains in the House but the Senate picture in '10 looks brutal for them. The governorships are the likeliest areas for Republicans to pick up ground, so if Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan get Republican governors in 2010 (which are real possibilities), then at least one of them may well be a major contender for the 2016 Republican nomination.

[Keystone Phil]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

2016 would make more sense because it gives Rossi more time but 2012 might be his only chance. If Obama wins and he's tanking in his first term, 2012 might be another 1980 meaning that 2016 will mean the re-election campaign for the sitting Republican President.

Well obviously it all depends on how well Obama does as President. I think 2012 is too soon for Rossi, so in a way it would be better for his political career if Obama gets reelected.

I'm finding 2012 very unlikely now that I think more about it. If Obama is a lousy President than many will probably blame his inexperience. I doubt the GOP will turn to someone with even less experience than Obama '08.

And considering Rossi has one-termer written all over him, 2016 might not be realistic either.

How does he have "one termer" written all over him?

I really think people need to learn to stop talking in definites so much in politics.

[pragmatic liberal]

For some reason, I feel that most of the next Presidents will be Senators, why is that?

I wonder if it goes in cycles -- maybe during eras with heightened concern with foreign policy and more federal government activism, senators dominate? We went through a period between 1945 and 1977 when not a single ex-governor occupied the White House. Instead, we had four senators or former senators (three of whom had been VP), one general and one House member-turned VP (Ford). Both the last two Democratic nominees were senators, and Al Gore was a former senator. Had Bush lost in 2000, the '04 Republican nominee would probably have been a senator (McCain or maybe Bill Frist).

Besides, the whole senator vs. governor thing is overblown. Pundits always declare that "we don't elect senators." Except that after this year, five U.S. presidents will have last occupied the Senate at the time of their election (Jackson, Harrison, Harding, Kennedy, and Obama or McCain). And numerous other presidents served as senators before serving as cabinet secretaries or VP's.

In the past 100 years, governors have been nominated for president 14 times: Wilson (D) in '12, Cox (D) in '20, Smith (D) in '28, FD Roosevelt (D) in '32, Landon (R) in '36, Dewey (R) in '44 and '48, Stevenson (D) in '52 and '56, Carter (D) in '76, Reagan (R) in '80, Dukakis (D) in '88, Clinton (D) in '92, and Bush (R) in '00.

6/14 or 3/7 have won.

In the same time frame, 8 senators have been nominated: Harding (R) in '20, Kennedy (D) in '60, Goldwater (R) in '64, McGovern (D) in '72, Dole (R) in '96, Kerry (D) in '04, and Obama (D) and McCain (R) in '08. At the end of this cycle, 3/8 will have won.

That's almost the same proportion. What that tells me is that most general-election voters don't give a damn whether the nominee is a senator or a governor or something else.

What I think you can argue is that governors may have an easier time getting nominated. But that doesn't mean that a senator can't get nominate and can't win.

Given that Dems are likely to dominate Washington for at least the next few years, perhaps we can predict that the '16 Dem nominee may well be a U.S. senator if the Dem government is popular, but that the Republicans, especially if they're looking to make a break with the past, will opt for an "outsider" -- a governor.

[Bacon King]

One of the main reasons so few Senators run/get elected/whatever is that they each have huge voting records that prevent them from subtly altering their less palatable views and that also provide ample attack ground for opponents.

[pragmatic liberal]

One of the main reasons so few Senators run/get elected/whatever is that they each have huge voting records that prevent them from subtly altering their less palatable views and that also provide ample attack ground for opponents.

See, people always point this out, but I don't see why governors don't have the same liability -- governors have to sign or veto every bill that crosses their desks. And plenty of campaigns have made issues of governors' signings. Remember Michael Dukakis and the pledge of allegiance?

I really don't think most voters care whether someone's a governor or a senator. And I think a lot of senatorial losses in general elections are explained by other factors -- I mean, really, would ANY opposition candidate have won in '64, '72 or '96? The fact that Goldwater, McGovern and Dole were senators seems completely irrelevant to their performances.

As I said, governors may have an easier time getting nominated, but I'm not sure why that is. Maybe that was actually a legacy of brokered conventions and smoke-filled rooms: as I mentioned, since '48, governors and senators have been nominated almost exactly as many times.

[auburntiger]

Anyway...

Jindal and Huntsman are the two with really strong credentials. And both (even Huntsman) may be likely candidates -- you can usually gauge these things by connections with the national party and Huntsman and Jindal both have them. Huntsman got a fair amount of VP buzz in the spring.

Rossi and McCrory would be solid, but 2016 is probably a more likely year for them. Despite Obama, it isn't at all typical these days for someone to run for president two years after getting elected to the Senate or the governorship.

Frankly, though, I expect 2012 to be a bad year for the Republicans -- if this year is a big defeat for them (as it's shaping up to be), they'll *probably* (and I stress: "probably") be in disarray and ideologically divided in 2012, even if Obama has only had a moderately-successful term. 2016 is the next best year to bet on a Republican win, since there tends to be an eight-year pattern in presidential politics. The top contenders that year will likely be a slew of governors who haven't even been elected yet.

Honestly, take a look at the 2010 crop of governors. 2010 may mark some Republican gains in the House but the Senate picture in '10 looks brutal for them. The governorships are the likeliest areas for Republicans to pick up ground, so if Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan get Republican governors in 2010 (which are real possibilities), then at least one of them may well be a major contender for the 2016 Republican nomination.

could you elaborate on the Senate picture in 2010 looking brutal for the GOP? How could it get any wider of a gap than it already will probably be (58-42), without at least one Dem seat falling in 2010.

[auburntiger]

If Rossi were to ever run for President 2016 would probably be his year. A conservative Governor from a left leaning state that was able to win reelection would be a serious resume. Plus he has some business experience which Republicans claim to like.

He has to defeat Gregorie first, and I'm not so sure that will happen. You have had a Dem governor for almost 30 years!

[DownWithTheLeft]

of the people on this list, i'm willing to put money down that 2 of Christ, Jindal, and Rounds will be in the running in '12.

The Messiah is already running this time around