• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Huntsman boycotts debate

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
35,120
Reaction score
44,001
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tired of waiting for New Hampshire to make a decision, the Iowa Republican Party has gone ahead and set a date: The 2012 Iowa GOP caucuses will be held on January 3.

That leaves open the possibility (unlikely as we believe it to be) that New Hampshire could actually usurp Iowa’s customary first-in-the-nation status.
New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner has been threatening to set a mid-December date for the New Hampshire primary ever since Nevada moved its caucuses up to January 14. (Nevada, for its part, moved after Florida moved its date up to January 31, which then prompted South Carolina to reschedule its primary for January 28. Got all that?)
Here’s why. With Iowa’s caucuses now officially scheduled (as expected) for January 3, New Hampshire would have to hold its primary just one week later on January 10, only to be abruptly followed just four days after that by Nevada. New Hampshirites apparently feel that this might rob the Granite State of some of its stand-alone importance (and they say it would violate a state law that requires at least seven days between its primary and “any similar election” - though they could technically get around that by saying caucuses aren’t the same as primaries). As a result, the state is threatening to upend the whole process and move its primary to December.
In a massive show of support (sucking up?) for New Hampshire, several GOP candidates - Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain - have threatened to boycott the Nevada caucuses if the state doesn’t change its date. Huntsman went so far as topull out of tonight’s CNN debate, held in Las Vegas. (Of course, none of these candidates are believed to have much of a shot in Nevada, anyway.) And New Hampshire Republicans arepressuring Mitt Romney - who has a lead in the Silver State, which he won in 2008 and which is home to a sizeable Mormon population - to boycott Nevada as well. So far Romney has resisted.

Why Jon Huntsman will boycott the GOP debate tonight - CSMonitor.com
 
Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out, "Jon."
 
interesting take from another republican candidate:
... Huntsman, in particular, fascinates Gary. And in a weird way, gives him hope. The Utah zillionaire has Annie Leibovitz photographing him for Vogue ...

Gary was in New Hampshire when Huntsman rolled out a series of slick TV ads in which not a word was spoken. The ads showed a very cool-looking dude motorbiking through the desert. (In fact, the guy wasn't even Huntsman.) Gary found this hilarious ...
huntsman appears to follow the motto 'to seem, rather than to be'


Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate: Politics: GQ
 
This appears to be about states moving up primary dates - a move which many believe is the old-guard GOPs trying to get Romney nominated before he is usurped by 'outsider' candidates (those not hand-picked by the old guard)
link in OP said:
In a massive show of support (sucking up?) for New Hampshire, several GOP candidates - Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain - have threatened to boycott the Nevada caucuses if the state doesn’t change its date.

Here is an article that spells out the reasons: GOP candidates split on boycott of Nevada caucus – CNN Political Ticker
 
I don't think pulling out of the debate is sound strategy. I think Huntsman benefits more from being on TV rather than holding some town hall in New Hampshire.
 
I don't think pulling out of the debate is sound strategy. I think Huntsman benefits more from being on TV rather than holding some town hall in New Hampshire.

I don't know how Huntsman can be any more marginal than he already is. If his stock in New Hapmpshire goes up as a result, then the GOP should take the first primary the hell away from them.
 
I don't think pulling out of the debate is sound strategy. I think Huntsman benefits more from being on TV rather than holding some town hall in New Hampshire.
The OP proved otherwise. Huntsman is getting way more publicity from doing this than he would have gotten from attending the debate - and he is setting himself apart from the GOP old guard. Both savvy moves IMO. YMMV
 
Huntsman is a bottom feeder. There is no movement behind his candidacy.
 
Huntsman is all but done any way. He should have just bowed out.
 
I couldn't stand watching Huntsman say he was an ambassador to China one more time anyway. And what's with all his weird facial contortions and pursing of lips? That guy reminds me of Jimmy Carter. He is meek. With Obama you have bad foriegn policy. With Huntsman you would have bad foriegn policy and Ahmadinejad would probably come to the White House and slap Huntsman in the face personally.
 
Polls 0%...

Boycott Debate.
 
Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out, "Jon."
I have to say that except for death in the family, this has to be stupid.
 
My first gut instinct, even as a Huntsman fan, is this is stupid. You want all the exposure you can get when two of his big issues is exposure and getting his actual record out there and not what the Media has conjured up.

On the flip side, this could be more of a calculated gamble then an outright bad move. He doens't get a ton of attention in debates (rightly so, lower teir people shouldn't until they show they can move the dial with what little time they get) or a huge chance to be the focus. In a debate he's clearly matched up with the other candidates that take attention away. IF the story grows some legs, gets some reporting behind it, and spreads around a bit it actually likely gets Huntsman name out there far more than the debate would which could be beneficial. The problem of course is how its presented as to why he's boycotting. If it actually does help him get a strong showing in New Hampshire, and especially if it helps propell him to a win over Romney, then it'd absolutely be a pay off. But those are some long odds.

I think the safe smart thing to do would've been to attend the debate. Then again, when you're down that much in the polls the safe smart thing is likely to just keep you at that place in the polls. I will say that Huntsman is in the position to gamble right now. I'm not sure this is the smartest of gambles, but with further review I won't label it as entirely a dumb decision.
 
That's pretty sad. If the Republicans were smart, he'd be front and center.

better than mitt by a mile, but like mitt, too mormon to win a general election
 
Since all the others are too crazy to win a general election, I'd say the Teapublicans are in trouble.
 
Since all the others are too crazy to win a general election, I'd say the Teapublicans are in trouble.

oh hell no. they have saved the best for last
if the public could only get to know Gary Johnson, he would be a shoo in

the problem is, he is too honest to survive the republican primary
 
Since all the others are too crazy to win a general election, I'd say the Teapublicans are in trouble.
Hyperbole much?
 
Back
Top Bottom