Sassenach wrote:I don't agree. Having just re-read it to see if there was something I missed, I can say that all I see is criticism of the Republican candidates and the US media that builds them up.

Sassenach wrote:Face it Russ, this is a very poor field of candidates. I can't remember a weaker field for either party since I've been following US politics.

No President has ever been re-elected with approval numbers as low as Obama has a year out.

More than 70 percent of likely caucusgoers are still up for grabs. Eleven percent aren’t yet ready to name a first choice, and 60 percent say they could be persuaded to support another candidate.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I think it is too early to make predictions about Iowa. This article from Monday's De Moines Register discusses how up in the air the race is right now. I think the key part of the article is this factoid

More than 70 percent of likely caucusgoers are still up for grabs. Eleven percent aren’t yet ready to name a first choice, and 60 percent say they could be persuaded to support another candidate.

Considering how nasty the ad war is about to get up there, if Paul's ad linked to above is any indication, I think there is a real possibility that a Gephardt-Dean result happens to Gingrinch, Paul and Romney.

And yet — as Will noted from the outset — there is Huntsman’s bizarre campaign positioning, which Ross Douthat recently described well:

Huntsman’s campaign was always destined to be hobbled by the two years he spent as President Obama’s ambassador to China. But he compounded the handicap by introducing himself to the Republican electorate with a series of symbolic jabs at the party’s base.

He picked high-profile fights on two hot-button issues — evolution and global warming — that were completely irrelevant to his candidacy’s rationale. He let his campaign manager define his candidacy as a fight to save the Republican Party from a “bunch of cranks.” And he embraced his identity as the media’s favorite Republican by letting the liberal journalist Jacob Weisberg write a fawning profile for Vogue.

This was political malpractice at its worst. Voters don’t necessarily need to like a candidate to vote for him, but they need to think that he likes them.

This is a large part of why the arguments for Huntsman are generally met with derision from the grassroots. (Note: I don’t generally assume blog commenters to be representative of any larger population, but Huntsman’s standing in most polls suggest they may be representative here.)

While I agree with Douthat about the gross political malpractice of the Huntsman campaign, I also think there was a not-completely-insane theory behind it. The theory is the ideal GOP candidate would be a solid conservative who appeals to the mushy middle. The successful model here would be Reagan, the seemingly non-threatening, happy warrior who could disarm Carter with a chuckle while advocating massive tax cuts and eliminating cabinet departments.

It is Team Huntsman’s execution of this theory that is jaw-droppingly bad. Huntsman has all the condescension and snark of Newt Gingrich, but almost always directed at the wrong targets. Indeed, Huntsman’s campaign has tended to embrace the targets Gingrich has attacked all the way to his current front-running status (This is what happens when you hire Jon Weaver). Consequently, Huntsman, who is as articulate as Romney or Gingrich, gives debate performances that manage to be as off-putting as those of Rick Perry at his lowest.

Huntsman is the Bizarro candidate, a Frankenstein monster seemingly assembled out of the worst features of his major rivals. If you squint hard enough, what he is doing is recognizable as a political campaign, just not one you would expect to see on this planet. If the GOP grassroots were willing to go along with his charade, he might get somewhere — but he hasn’t managed that feat, and time is running out.

Ray Jay wrote:I wonder if Huntsman will get a 2nd look if Gingrich self destructs (which I'm guessing is 50/50). On economic issues (and in particular government spending), I think Huntsman is more conservative than Romney.

Sassenach wrote:Ok, here's a genuine question guys. It seems from every poll I've seen that Romney has a ceiling on his primary support of about 20% or so, which makes him the frontrunner . . .

. . .but clearly indicates that there's a lack of enthusiasm for him because despite almost all his rivals imploding he's still polling the same numbers. With this in mind, do you think that Hunstman's strategy may ultimately prove to be a very good one ?

rickyp wrote:huntsman's polling in the teens in new hampshire ad thats the key for himIi think. Pandering to Trump demonstrates the insipid nature of these candidates. The ass has already said if the republicans don't nominate the right candidate he'll consider an independent run. apparently he doesn't remember his last poll numbers, or understand that village idiots often draw crows to listen to the crowing...
and apparently thats also lost on the pack of republican candidates attempting to curry favour with the Donald and his hair.