Interesting that Dr. K. thinks that Sarah Palin will not run as he believes that she knows that she has little chance of getting the nomination and even a smaller one at winning the whole thing. I am glad to see Dr. K. (a trained psychiatrist by the way) agrees with me that the Republican “bench” (for 2016) with Rubio, Haley, Ryan and Christie is super strong! Keep in mind that Dr. K. is not analyzing or advocating for anyone.
by Charles Krauthammer
Unified Field Theory of 2012, Axiom One: The more the Republicans can make the 2012 election like 2010, the better their chances of winning.
The 2010 Democratic shellacking had the distinction of being the most ideological election in 30 years. It was driven by one central argument in its several parts: the size and reach of government, spending and debt and, most fundamentally, the nature of the American social contract. The 2010 election was a referendum on President Obama‘s experiment in hyper-liberalism. It lost resoundingly.
Of course, presidential elections are not arguments in the abstract but arguments with a face. Hence, Axiom Two: The less attention the Republican candidate draws to him/herself, the better the chances of winning. To the extent that 2012 is about ideas, about the case for smaller government, Republicans have a decided edge. If it’s a referendum on the fitness and soundness of the Republican candidate – advantage Obama.
Which suggests Axiom Three: No baggage and no need for flash. Having tried charisma in 2008, the electorate is not looking for a thrill up the leg in 2012. It’s looking for solid, stable, sober and, above all, not scary.
Given these Euclidean truths, here’s the early line. (Remember: This is analysis, not advocacy.)
Long shots
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party favorite. Appeals to Palinites. Could do well in Iowa. Hard to see how she makes her way through the rest of the primaries. A strong showing in debates and a respectable finish would increase her stature for 2016. But for now: 20-1 to win the nomination.
Donald Trump: He’s not a candidate, he’s a spectacle. He’s also not a conservative. With a wink and a smile, Muhammad Ali showed that self-promoting obnoxiousness could be charming. Trump shows that it can be merely vulgar. A provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton.
The major candidates
Mitt Romney: Serious guy. Pre-vetted (2008). Tons of private- and public-sector executive experience. If not for one thing, he’d be the prohibitive front-runner. Unfortunately, the one thing is a big thing: Massachusetts‘ Romneycare. For an election in which the main issue is excessive government (see Axiom One), that’s a huge liability. Every sentient Republican has been trying to figure out how to explain it away. I’ve heard no reports of any success. Romney is Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats. He goes out at 5-1.
Newt Gingrich: Smart guy. A fountain of ideas. No, a Vesuvius of ideas. Some brilliance, lots of lava. Architect of a historic Republican victory in 1994. Rocky speakership. Unfortunate personal baggage. 12-1.
[…]
Likely not running
Mike Huckabee: Has a good life – hosting a popular TV show, making money, building his dream house in Florida. He’d be crazy to run. Doesn’t look crazy to me.
Sarah Palin: Same deal. Showed her power in 2010 as kingmaker and opinion shaper. Must know (I think) she has little chance at the nomination and none in the general election. Why risk it, and the inevitable diminishment defeat would bring?
Even less likely to run – the 2016 bench
A remarkable class of up-and-comers includes Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley.
[…]
One problem: Ryan has zero inclination to run. Wants to continue what he’s doing right now. Would have to be drafted. That would require persuasion. Can anyone rustle up a posse?
Read the rest here: Will it be Pawlentey or Palin? Romney or Trump? Handicapping the 2012 presidential odds.
Tags: Sarah Palin
