The 2012 Republican Presidential nominee

Mitt Romney, barring catastrophe.

Yes, Mormon, perceived as flip-floppy, approved a health care plan for Massachussetts.  Won't matter.  He's got good staff, he's organized and diligent, and he's going to out-fundraise everyone by a comfortable margin -- he raised $10 million in a single night a couple of weeks ago.

There's a lot of cheerful noise in the left side of the blogosphere about how ridiculous this year's Republican candidates are.  True, but it misses the point: you only need one reasonably okay candidate.  The process weeds out the crazies and the gag candidates quickly enough.  Pause for a moment and think back to 2008.  Here, I'll help:  Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, John Edwards.  Yeah, suddenly the Domino's Pizza guy doesn't look so bad, am I right?  Okay, then there was Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.  But most of that field was bloody horrible. 

Anyway, Romney.  He won 11 primaries last time, including six -- Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Utah, and Alaska -- by 20 points or more.  He came in second in 11 more.   Meanwhile, nobody else in the race has ever run for President before. 

Oh, sure, he'll have problems.  Iowa hates him.  Whether or not to skip Iowa -- I'll bet he's sweated over that one.  South Carolina won't like him either.  And New Hampshire disappointed last time; it was supposed to be a sure thing for him, but in the event McCain took it 37 - 32.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's the weak spot -- losing Iowa and NH to the same guy.  (If it happens, it'll be a guy.)  But if he wins NH, or even if he loses Iowa and NH to two different rivals, he's fine.  He loses SC, takes Nevada, and then advances to Super Tuesday -- where his funding, experience, and staff advantages should enable him to crush any plausible opponent. 

Maybe I'll be wrong!  I've been wrong about stuff before, goodness knows.  (On the other hand, this post from a year and a half ago is still looking good.) But hey, it's a testable prediction.  Come next summer, one way or another, I'll link back to this.

 

 

 

Comments

[Ivan]

Minor point: Edwards looked terrible only in retrospect; and Richardson, also not-terrible.--IHH

[yankees jersey]

I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often

[knitted cap]

Duh, of course it'll be Romney. The only point of interest is who'll be on the ticket with him.

[David Tenner]

Well, Doug's post was from June, and two months can be a lifetime in politics. So I wonder if he is still so certain that Romney will win the nomination now that Perry seems set to announce...

[Doug M.]

Yeah, pretty much. Putting aside the whole gay thing, I have trouble seeing how Perry plays outside of Iowa and SC.

Doug M.

[David Tenner]

I think you are underestimating the conservatism of the GOP primary electorate--a conservatism that is not unique to Iowa and South Carolina. Yes, Romney will do well in the Northeast (especially New England) and in Mormon areas, but that is not where most of the GOP votes will be cast. A Mormon with a background as a moderate is not likely to be the favorite candidate in the South and border states and in much of the rural and small-town Midwest. And unlike, say, Pawlenty, Perry will have no trouble raising money.

As for the gay rumors, I don't think they will get much traction unless there's a lot more evidence than there is today.

[Ryan - Packer Backers]

I think Perry will indeed overtake Romney, even in the longer term - the conservative base will overwhelmingly support him over Mitt.

[Doug (not Muir)]

Less than two months to go until the first primaries and caucuses, prediction's looking good. In response to the latest boomlet, I will say that God does not love Democrats enough to give us Newt Gingrich as our opponent in a presidential election.