No way it's Huntsman. I doubt he wastes his time in 2016. The nature of the beast is serious nominees have to tow the orthodox line on the vast majority of issues. Sorry. The tea party will be far from extinct in 2016. It's demise is being greatly exaggerated here. Look for increased nastiness from GOP senators who face re-election in 2014 and want to avoid primary challenges from tea party candidates. Akin and Mourdock blowing seats this year won't deter them any more than O'Donnell or Angle did in 2010.
I'd vote for Huntsman, but as you said, he isn't getting out of the primary even if he pulls a Romney.
Sadly, moderate candidates or candidates who don't tow the party line have almost zero chance to win in the primaries - Dem or Repub. They must cater to their base. Thus, even though folks like Christie, Huntsman, etc. would do well in the general and (IMO) make good presidents...they have very little chance of success in the R primaries i.e. being nominated in the first place. If Hillary runs in 2016, she will very likely defeat any Republican candidate who actually has a decent shot of getting nominated. And it would probably be in a landslide. The best (as in who would make the best presidents and best appeal to independents and moderates) Repub candidates probably won't make it past the New Hampshire primary.
I don't really have anything to base this on, but I'll predict that Rand Paul will be the nominee for the Republicans. I think this will be the Republican Party's attempt to court the libertarian-leaning folk. As for the Democrats, I have no idea. I think (hope) Hillary's time has come and gone. So I'll go just say it'll be a woman.
Mitch, you need to start associating more with a few non-libertarians who makeup about 98% of the population. Rand is a nut job who will scare the crap out most folks who like social security, medicare, public education. In addition most GOP voters love foreign wars and Rand is sort of weak there, though being political he is no Ron Paul. Rand can of course count on big money from the usual tax avoiding billionaires, but he is sort of personally nerdy.
North Dakota, Montana and Indiana all elected moderate Democratic senators. You can win as a moderate in the Democratic Party. It's the Republicans that wont tolerate anyone except a die-hard conservative.
Rand is quite comfortable in hostile environments <div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:419755" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-3-2012/exclusive---rand-paul-extended-interview-pt--1">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
I can't deny that I am out of touch with the average American voter. But here's something I saw today that I thought was interesting. Battleground states Romney lost and by how much, then Ron Paul Primary vote total: New Hampshire by 33746; Ron Paul's Primary vote total - 56848 Florida by 46039; 117100 Ohio by 100763; 113256 Virginia by 106726; 107451 NH(4) + Florida(29) + Ohio(18) + Virginia(13) = 64 Romney (206 total) + 64 = 270 Not saying that Ron Paul would have won, but maybe there are more people who ally with his ideas more than you think. ::EDIT:: I don't want this to sound like I'm a fan of Rand. His support of Romney is, for me, unforgiveable.
Doesn't have to be. They just can't try to hide him away because he isn't afraid to speak his mind and express views that go against the Republican party. They need guys like that to be a part of the overall team.
Christie/Rubio if they're smart, Northerner and a minority could probably help in major cities and bluer states anywhere in the country. I don't know what Dems do, I think Hillary in 2016 is like McCain in '08; and as an ex-Secretary of State she's gonna have some awesome NGO opportunities for a grandmother in NYC. Honestly what a great payoff for easily the most disgustingly maligned (and legally persecuted) First Lady in history.
A little too marmy, would rather see her as liberal Condoleeza or on the Court; get her away from populist consumer finance and onto legal/international affairs as soon as possible.
Why would they try to hide him? Nobody gives a care what Huntsman says except a precious few internet posters. His support is negligible.
