Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?

Jon Huntsman, anyone?

If Romney wins the nomination (by default), we'll have four more years of Obama. It's not that I think Romney can't hold his own against Obama in a debate--I think he'd actually do pretty well--it's that he's used goods and too many conservatives will stay home.

One thing about a candidate who runs repeatedly is those who dislike him have more chances to become entrenched in their views, as well as sick of having him foisted on them by supporters. At least with a new candidate you don't have so many past grievances. It seems to me that Romney is still very divisive within the GOP from last time.

Would dislike of Obama and fear of a second term be enough to overcome that? It would be easier not have to deal with it.

Personally, I'm ready to vote for almost any likely GOP nominee against the Big 0. But I'm not too excited about most of the prospects.

Webb won't seek re-election

The photo is almost two years old, but he looks pretty good for his age.

New CNN poll says:

26 percent -> definitely for Obama 2012

23 percent -> probably for

16 percent -> probably not

35 percent -> definitely not

That's registered voters. Interesting in the demographic breakout is non-whites:

50 percent -> definitely for Obama 2012

26 percent -> probably for

9 percent -> probably not

11 percent -> definitely not

whites:

15 percent -> definitely for Obama 2012

21 percent -> probably for

18 percent -> probably not

44 percent -> definitely not

Whites went 55 to 43 for McCain in 2008 according to exit polls, so that's about a 9 point drop. Also, Obama split men and won women by 13 points. Most all of his popularity decline is among women--presumably then, white women.

(downloaded PDF, so not linking)

Campaigning and elections in the networked century

[quoted]

Estimates are that Barack Obama will initiate his 2012 re-election drive with a $1 billion war chest. The need to raise such massive funding to mount a credible campaign means candidates must likewise ramp up earlier and earlier in the election cycle, which in turn feeds on itself, especially in an era where professional consultants have supplanted unpaid volunteers. (Whitman spent $1 million to lure heavy hitter Mike Murphy before he did one thing for her campaign.)

The example of Brown, however, shows that a candidate can take advantage of the right circumstances to minimize wasteful excess and achieve better results with less money. Moreover, Sarah Palin’s rapid rise and fall in the 2008 election cycle highlights that a candidate need not even have widespread name recognition and immediate credibility because of a heavy resume to dominate an election for short–even critical– periods. Hence the conflicting vector of high-tech, high-dispersion information in the 21st century: if a candidate or a story about the candidate can exploit the viral vulnerabilities of new media, it will be much more effective–especially in terms of bang for buck–than any expensive TV ad.

That's what I said, too, same example of Thompson, but the day before. From my post (quoted):

The viral factor undermines the conventional assumption promoted especially by dinosaur media that the early start is, in fact, necessary. Foregoing the early campaign means a candidate will not have the big bank account–which will itself be a media story and indicate to mainstream eyes a quixotic campaign. Nevertheless, with the right hook (and a scrupulously self-vetted background) , the right candidate can wait until his or her opponents have bled themselves dry, other candidates have become tired and sickening to voters, and then spring into the fray.

This won’t work for someone like Rudolph Giuliani, who appeared to try a late-entry strategy in the 2008 GOP primaries, as he was not a surprise candidate at all. Nor did it work for Fred Thompson because he was unable to ignite any viral excitement and allowed the media to portray him as a lazy, stodgy joke. But it could very well work for a Palin-type other than Palin herself–who stands to gain little by a diffident strategy except to reinforce the notion of her unseriousness.

Stories about Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney as current front-runners for the GOP nod, therefore, are irrelevant.

[end quote]

I think it has to be someone who doesn't have a checkered past or even one big skeleton. And lots of innate charisma, especially a hook. And who can excite on the stump.

Palin as VP in 2008 had that initial effect, but her handlers botched the post-convention roll out, and the media did a hatchet job on her. But she had all the ingredients, including the hook of being a young (for politicians), conservative woman.