• 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

Cameron

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
6,273
Reaction score
5,787
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
The future of his campaign will be decided in the next five days. Right now he is polling an embarrassing 5th in New Hampshire.

I wonder if Huntsman has been specifically going after college students in New Hampshire. He really is a Millennial type of politician, IMO. The buzz about him seems to come mostly from younger and more educated voters. But I'm not sure I get the sense these are the demographics he's been going after.
 
I think he's positioning himself for '16.

He may be betting that the extremist fever will break in the GOP after the tea party gets done driving the party into the ditch. Besides, the Gingriches, Nordquists, Roves, etc are getting old.
 
Huntsman is a strategic thinker, has a strong record in governance and in diplomacy, and has confidence in science. Unfortunately, he is not a charismatic speaker or great campaigner. That makes his positioning challenge a difficult one. As a result, it is difficult for him to leverage his strengths, including what is an attractive governing record, to build support among Republican primary goers.

That difficulty won't be a barrier to the GOP's more intellectual voters who actively seek out candidates and their positions. Unfortunately for Huntsman, that won't be sufficient to get him the nomination. He also needs support among those who tend to be more passive, placing the burden on candidates or others to get them the information in very condensed form incompatible with Hunstman's complex and nuanced positions). The voters who rely largely on Talk Radio will be much less likely to support Huntsman, as a number of influential Talk Radio hosts typically caricature policy/issues/candidates, take overly simplistic "black-and-white" stances, provide "soundbite analysis," all of which are ill-suited for describing and conveying Huntsman's sophisticated positions and reasons for those positions.
 
Hat tip to Jon Huntsman for bringing his intelligent voice to the Republican table. Should the eventual Republican nominee go on to produce a miracle in November, he may want to keep Huntsman's contact info handy, because he's a bright rising star.
 
The ONLY good thing that may come out of a Santorum nomination would be that Huntsman may have a legitimate shot in 2016. Santorum won't beat Obama, and if he loses by a decent bit then the push for someone who won't make Social issues front and center all the time may have a shot. If Romney gets the nomination I have a feeling it would be harder to see Huntsman get the nod since he's percieved incorrectly as "moderate" and I'm not sure Primary voters would go for 3 straight "moderates"
 
TomFitz said:
I think he's positioning himself for '16.

He may be betting that the extremist fever will break in the GOP after the tea party gets done driving the party into the ditch. Besides, the Gingriches, Nordquists, Roves, etc are getting old.
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree, he's only in it to gain a foothold for the 2016 race. And to stick it to Romney.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Huntsman is a strategic thinker, has a strong record in governance and in diplomacy, and has confidence in science. Unfortunately, he is not a charismatic speaker or great campaigner. That makes his positioning challenge a difficult one. As a result, it is difficult for him to leverage his strengths, including what is an attractive governing record, to build support among Republican primary goers.

That difficulty won't be a barrier to the GOP's more intellectual voters who actively seek out candidates and their positions. Unfortunately for Huntsman, that won't be sufficient to get him the nomination. He also needs support among those who tend to be more passive, placing the burden on candidates or others to get them the information in very condensed form incompatible with Hunstman's complex and nuanced positions). The voters who rely largely on Talk Radio will be much less likely to support Huntsman, as a number of influential Talk Radio hosts typically caricature policy/issues/candidates, take overly simplistic "black-and-white" stances, provide "soundbite analysis," all of which are ill-suited for describing and conveying Huntsman's sophisticated positions and reasons for those positions.
Click to expand...

What other candidates in the race have charisma again? If you ask me, Huntsman actually has more charisma than most, if not all, of the other candidates. He at least has as much charisma as Obama, who really has no charisma (he talks too professionally), though I think Huntsman has quite a bit more. Romney talks smoothly, but not in a way that is inspiring or impactful. When Ron Paul gets really passionate he can be charismatic, but most of the time he is just analytical or reciting his policy positions. Gingrich talks too much like a political brain most of the time, though he probably comes second to Hunstman in terms of charisma. Rick Perry is just . . . . . Rick Perry, though he has some potential. Hunstman probably is the one with most of the qualities that lead to someone being a "great" president, but he at this point does not get a lot of attention because he is too close to Obama professionally and too similar to Romney's image. In 2016 I can see him being able to launch a more successful run at office presuming there is not a Republican in office at that time.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Huntsman is a strategic thinker, has a strong record in governance and in diplomacy, and has confidence in science. Unfortunately, he is not a charismatic speaker or great campaigner. That makes his positioning challenge a difficult one. As a result, it is difficult for him to leverage his strengths, including what is an attractive governing record, to build support among Republican primary goers.

That difficulty won't be a barrier to the GOP's more intellectual voters who actively seek out candidates and their positions. Unfortunately for Huntsman, that won't be sufficient to get him the nomination. He also needs support among those who tend to be more passive, placing the burden on candidates or others to get them the information in very condensed form incompatible with Hunstman's complex and nuanced positions). The voters who rely largely on Talk Radio will be much less likely to support Huntsman, as a number of influential Talk Radio hosts typically caricature policy/issues/candidates, take overly simplistic "black-and-white" stances, provide "soundbite analysis," all of which are ill-suited for describing and conveying Huntsman's sophisticated positions and reasons for those positions.
Click to expand...

What you're really saying is that the rank-and-file GOPer is too "unsophisticated" to get Huntsman's "nuance."

I don't agree. I think Huntsman waited way too long to jump into the fray. His problem was, I think, "Jon...who?"

Disclaimer: I am not a Republican.
 
Huntsman is dead meat. I can't imagine why he would continue after NH. He's been campaigning there almost exclusively for months and he still can't crack 10%. I can't imagine him doing better in SC or FL.
 
As I've said, I think he waited too late before really committing. During the last debate, I was impressed with what he said and also with the way he "talked directly to the American public" through the camera.

Maybe 2016?
 
nota bene said:
As I've said, I think he waited too late before really committing. During the last debate, I was impressed with what he said and also with the way he "talked directly to the American public" through the camera.

Maybe 2016?
Click to expand...

Maybe. To be honest it baffles me that he hasn't picked up more support.
 
I think Huntsman's biggest problem is he is going for practical, informed voters, and those types of people see Romney as the most logical pick.

He's put himself in good position for a cabinet appointment though. I doubt he'll have much of a shot in 2016 because some seriously big names seem certain to jump in then. He may do well to just stop spending money after NH until everybody else drops out and then try to mount a very late surge capturing the anti-Romney vote and taking advantage of any drama the Obama team throws out in the meantime.
 
Krhazy said:
I think Huntsman's biggest problem is he is going for practical, informed voters, and those types of people see Romney as the most logical pick.
Click to expand...

Besides, there aren't all that many practical, informed voters.

All too many are looking for flamboyance, more like this:

thumbnail.aspx


so, we see a progression of front runners who enjoy their 15 minutes of fame, then fade into the background. Meanwhile, a guy like Huntsman gets little attention.

Maybe in 2016, unless the Republicans actually do the practical and well informed thing and nominate Romney. In that case, Huntsman would have to go against an incumbent Republican president in 2016, and may have to wait until 2020.
 
Another reason I don't think he'll do well in 2016 is I think conservatives will use a Romney failure to argue that the party should be going more conservative (especially since the Tea Party is likely to do well even if Romney does not). Unless they are soundly trumped in 2014 under that strategy I worry this party is only going to get more extreme in the next few years.
 
Krhazy said:
Another reason I don't think he'll do well in 2016 is I think conservatives will use a Romney failure to argue that the party should be going more conservative (especially since the Tea Party is likely to do well even if Romney does not). Unless they are soundly trumped in 2014 under that strategy I worry this party is only going to get more extreme in the next few years.
Click to expand...

He's already a failure, and hasn't even been nominated yet?
Romney is the candidate most likely to beat Obama in the general election.
And if the Tea Party nominates its own candidate, it is virtually certain that the resulting split vote will result in a second term for Obama.
 
Dittohead not! said:
He's already a failure, and hasn't even been nominated yet?
Romney is the candidate most likely to beat Obama in the general election.
And if the Tea Party nominates its own candidate, it is virtually certain that the resulting split vote will result in a second term for Obama.
Click to expand...
I don't mean Tea Party as a third party candidate. I mean that their caucus in Congress will probably increase this year whether or not Romney wins. But if he loses and all the Tea Party congressional candidates win, conservatives will use that to argue that next time around they should nominate a true conservative.
 
Krhazy said:
I don't mean Tea Party as a third party candidate. I mean that their caucus in Congress will probably increase this year whether or not Romney wins. But if he loses and all the Tea Party congressional candidates win, conservatives will use that to argue that next time around they should nominate a true conservative.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

No doubt that is so. Now, to define the term "true conservative."

Ron Paul?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, I see.

No doubt that is so. Now, to define the term "true conservative."

Ron Paul?
Click to expand...
That will indeed be an interesting battle. I think Libertarianism is destined to become the new face of the Republican party, but as for the next 2-6 years, it's really hard to tell who is going to win that tug of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom