These are my very loose rankings of the expected field of Republican primary candidates. It’s audaciously early, but interesting nonetheless. I thought it would be fun to do it before candidates starting officially announcing. While I’ve included the reasoning behind these rankings, they are essentially where my instinct puts them. I’ve almost entirely ignored polling data. This is also not about whether I like or don’t like a candidate, but how I see them faring in the primary.

 

A lot can happen between now and the primary. New issues could become relevant, others less so, other candidates could enter the field, someone could stick their foot in their mouth and behind the scenes factors could also play a huge, unseen role, especially on the ground in the primary states and with huge fundraising pushes. Therefore, I’ve tried to be as broad as possible and look at the big-picture.

 

Anyway, take a look and post your thoughts.

 

The first tier:

 

Mitch Daniels

 

It isn’t certain that he is running, though it is very likely. I think he’s the one to beat. He’s a very popular governor with conservative economic credentials. He’s known as a budget wonk in a year when the deficit and spending are getting top billing. However, he’s famous, or infamous, for saying conservatives should “declare a truce on social issues” in order to focus on the economy. While that won’t be extremely popular in a Republican primary, the budget issues will take precedent and there are several hard-right social conservatives to split the vote among those most concerned with social issues.

 

Additionally, his focus on the economy gives him an air of reasonableness in a charged climate where candidates and pundits are increasingly trying to outdo one another with wild rhetoric. He’s an accessible, engaging speaker who comes across as down-to-earth, as opposed to the greasier image other politicians sharing those traits seem to carry.

 

Daniels is also well regarded among influential members of the party. While this has been a knock against candidates for the Tea Party crowd, I don’t think Daniels has much of an image as a Washington elbow-rubber, allowing him to strike a good balance between big names supporting him and the independent image of being a governor (he was also a member of Bush’s budget staff, but it’s not a flashy enough of a title to stick).

 

I think he’s by far the most electable candidate out of those running, which is valuable as well. Voters take that into consideration whether they admit it or not. McCain won the last presidential primary almost wholly because he was the most electable, in my estimation. However, it’s tough to unseat an incumbent, so that may lessen the electability factor and favor a more extreme candidate to be more of an anti-Obama rhetorician than a serious electoral threat.

 

Newt Gingrich

 

Gingrich has several things going for him. He’s well known and lauded among conservatives, particularly for his roles as Speaker of the House during the Clinton years and for leading the conservative movement to take that position prior to that. He’s known as an intelligent person who is familiar with the way Washington works. He also has the biggest network of fundraisers and contacts. He has several very successful PACs and phone and email records he’s been collecting since the 90s. Those will be big boosts.

 

He’s been increasingly more vocal over the last few years and his rhetoric has been on par, if not more extreme, than Palin or Limbaugh. He’s been quick to jump on the president on nearly any and every issue, decision, or event and it’s often led to his already extreme rhetoric to sound forced and outlandish at times. This dooms him in the general election. However, it also increases his luster in conservative circles. There are several other candidates potentially running who are riding the anti-Obama wave as much as they can, but Gingrich has been just as good at it and his resume and established credibility somewhat ground it. Depending on the mood of the Republicans and their appetite for vitriol Gingrich could be dangerous.

 

Haley Barbour

 

Barbour is a conservative’s conservative. He’s a popular governor from a southern state. He says all the right things conservatives like to hear. He has a powerful position at the moment as the head of the Republican Governors Association and he’s well-connected beyond that, which definitely helps him in organization and outside help during the primary. He’s a forceful and believable speaker with a strong southern accent and the requisite southern charm, all helping him stand out on the stage.

 

His chief drawback is that he’s even better known as a lobbyist. However, he doesn’t try to run from it and often points out that the president has to lobby to get his policy objectives achieved, and who better than him? That’s definitely more effective than Romney’s attempt to defend himself from health care critics. On the other hand, there’s still a strong anti-Washington sentiment among Republicans and voters at large and Barbour is as backroom Washington as it comes. Barbour also has a race problem. He’s a confederate apologists and has a tin-ear when it comes to race and civil rights. I don’t think that will be a big issue in the primary, but it definitely clouds him in some controversy.

 

Jon Huntsman

 

Hunstman is a wild card. I’m not sure where he fits in.

 

Hunstman leads the field in foreign policy experience and credibility, being the ambassador to China during such an important time in its growth. He’s a likeable guy who seems to have a unique style. He also comes across as very pragmatic. Only time will allow for a better picture of his role in the field.

 

I’m also no sure about how his relationship with Obama will factor in the primary. On one hand, he’s serving under the president his opponents will be vilifying. He’s tacitly complicit with Obama by the nature of his job, and it would be difficult for him to criticize Obama terribly heavily as he was a part of the administration. On the other hand, his position might give him even more credibility to criticize Obama as he has worked directly with him.

 

My initial guess is he replaces Pawlenty as the field’s credible pragmatist. I think his chief competitor will be Daniels. If the party wants a right-wing candidate, they won’t find it in Daniels or Hunstman, but if policy is more important than rhetoric or electability is important, they have to be among the favorites.

 

The second tier:

 

Mitt Romney

 

Romney’s key advantages are his strong business background, money, and name-recognition. While this propelled him to the top of the primary last election, he ultimately failed. Now he’s warming over his candidacy in a more heated field. Despite Romney’s image as a businessman and his ability to fund his campaign, I think one of his biggest problems is that he’s an ineffectual communicator. He’s too much of a politician and without any panache to overcome it. I think he comes across as tepid and even his biggest supporters find it difficult to rally behind him. He’s leading most polls right now, but they are almost entirely meaningless at this point and he’s leading simply because he ran last election.

 

Romney’s biggest problems are his health care plan when he was the governor of Massachusetts and his Mormonism. This is an election where “Obamacare” will be a constant and heated topic and Romney essentially implemented the same thing as governor. Conservatives are simply not going to get behind that. His states’ rights defense might make sense academically, but it’s not going to be enough to defend himself. Being a Mormon nominally hurts him among Christian conservatives (social conservatives guided by their religion, not conservatives who are also Christian) even if they share some of the same values. Even though most polls show that his religion isn’t that big of an issue, I think there’s an implicit bias that emerges at the ballot box anyway.

 

Romney is also tacking has hard to the right as he can on foreign policy, toeing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld neoconservative line. He’s trying to carve out a conservative niche here and to give himself some conservative credentials to help with his health care problem, but I think it’s a failure already. The electorate, and Republicans included, are wary of massive military intervention after Iraq and Afghanistan and it’s becoming less of a partisan issue. The Tea Party and conservatives in general are moving toward a more isolationist approach, I believe, as well. Romney is going in the complete opposite direction and he’s not good at it.

 

This isn’t Romney’s year. His best chance was in 2008. He’s neither the most reasonable, wonkish candidate or able to keep up in the rhetorical fray with all of the other candidates. He’s only ranked this high because of his name recognition and financing.

 

Tim Pawlenty

 

Pawlenty is a popular governor who could be best described as a pragmatic conservative. He got things done because he worked with the other side, chose the right issues at the right time, and presented his policy aims as reasonably as possible. He’s shown a willingness to opine on a diverse range of issues and present plausible solutions, sometimes at the expense of toeing the party line or, at the least, not demonizing the opposing side. He’s often chastised as a sell-out for this. However, his chief appeal has been his pragmatism. His soft-spoken style matches well with his approach to policy.

 

Since entering the fray, he’s attempted to do things he doesn’t do well. He has begun ratcheting up his rhetoric to criticize Obama and stay on pace with the Gingrichs and Palins. This detracts from his pragmatic style and he’s simply not charismatic enough to effectively deliver that style. I think this causes him to be lost in the field. He needs to play to his strengths, but he's currently trying to be someone he isn't.

 

 

Rick Santorum

 

I think Santorum’s hopes are grim. He’s farther right on social issues than anyone else in the field, but he may be too conservative, even for the primaries. On top of that, this is going to be a huge year for budget hawks and deficit slashers and Santorum doesn’t have the most credibility on the matter. He also has a knack for drawing a lot of controversy and criticism for his views and he’s already a polarizing figure. He’ll clean up with the values voters, but that won’t be enough to win the whole thing. If he has any chance he has to win Iowa and South Carolina right out of the gate.

 

Mike Huckabee

 

I don’t think Huckabee is going to run. He’s got a nice gig at Fox News, he’s been tepid about the primary, and he’s admittedly in need of a job, not another year with no time or income. He’s an also-ran from 2008 who’s going to be splitting Christian-conservative votes with Santorum (and Palin), which essentially removes his novelty. Even if he joins the race, which is unlikely, he’ll fare worse than he did in 2008.

 

Sarah Palin

 

The jury is still out on whether she is actually going to run or not. There’s plenty of evidence for either side. On one hand, she’s kept a strong, close-knit staff, hired a chief of staff to replace her husband, has a popular national PAC, and is knee deep in the political fray – including not only commentary, but visiting relevant states and beefing up her foreign policy credentials. On the other hand, she hasn’t hired any local staff (to my knowledge) to navigate the primaries. Most of the other candidates are already setting up shop in early primary states and building staff there. She also has a lot to lose if she goes through with it. My feeling is that she will run, but if so she will be crushed and damage her celebrity status and her future value. If she does she would have to wait until the last possible second to join and peel off a lot of votes from the other candidates.

 

If she does run she has little hope. Her polling negatives are huge, even among Republicans. She is able to stay relevant and in demand by constantly playing the victim and by insulating herself from criticism or counterpoints with facebook and Fox News. Both of those things will be impossible if she is running against Republicans as she can’t claim she’s the victim of smears from the left or the media. Her opponents will have more than enough conservative credibility to tear her down. After that, she has little to stand on. As cliché as it is to say she isn’t smart, she simply hasn’t demonstrated any ability to debate or talk at length on important issues, even though her interviews have been friendly and designed for her to succeed. She would need a perfect storm to win. Or even be relevant, really.

 

Michelle Bachmann

 

I don’t know that Bachmann is actually going to go through with running or if she is just testing the waters, but essentially the same said about Palin could be said about her. She’s more willing to do interviews and debates, but she’s not much better than Palin would be. I think she’s trying to carve out a niche as the Tea Party candidate, but I don’t think that will work. I don’t think her candidacy gets off the ground.

 

Donald Trump

 

He assures us that this isn’t a joke, but it might as well be.

 

Ron Paul

 

He’s the token libertarian candidate. At least he’s honest.

I was in the Chicagoland area this week and Gov Daniels was on a radio show. I can certainly see where he can be a legit candidate. Comes across well. I think he would appeal to the middle better than Newt or Haley. Palin simply can't win .

 

I think the early leader would be Gov Daniels.

Michelle Bachmann is not smart enough to be POTUS. She would get killed in a debate.

Interesting. Now as to a running mate for VP, do you see that person coming from the same list? Or would someone like Bobby Jindal be a possibility?

Interesting. Now as to a running mate for VP, do you see that person coming from the same list? Or would someone like Bobby Jindal be a possibility?

 

That's a good question. My guess is that it would depend on how close the general election is expected to be. I think Jindal and Christie are both passing on this election and waiting until 2016 when they won't have to face an incumbent, which is assuming the Republicans won't win in 2012. But, if it looks close I think a big name like one of those two or another popular one from that list would definitely be in play. Other than that it's unpredictable. I definitely think an also-ran from the primary would be at the top of the list, though, especially if they match each other's strengths and weaknesses.

I could cast a vote for Mitch Daniels. The others … no chance.

 

Good analysis, Habib.

I could vote for Mitch Daniels. I know everyone considers me a flaming liberal, but Chris Christie completely captivates me as well. But he's said he's not running.

I could vote for Mitch Daniels. I know everyone considers me a flaming liberal, but Chris Christie completely captivates me as well. But he's said he's not running.

 

I won't believe it until I see it!

I really think Daniels and Romney are the only two that would have a chance against Obama in the general election. I know I could vote for Romney, and while I didn't think so not too long ago, I'm starting to see myself being able to vote for Daniels as well. Of course, I would prefer Ron Paul, and if it appears that the election is decided before voting begins (like in 2008), I will most definitely cast my vote in his direction.

I won't believe it until I see it!

 

I could have voted for McCain, but then he made the bonehead move of trying to pander to the female voter...and well, I couldn't vote for Palin. :lol: I was truly on the fence despite what most think.

I could vote for Mitch Daniels. I know everyone considers me a flaming liberal, but Chris Christie completely captivates me as well. But he's said he's not running.

So, you would vote for Daniels over Obama?

So, you would vote for Daniels over Obama?

 

Well, you know, it depends on what Daniels would present as his platform. I'm not making a decision now on a hypothetical. However, if his platform was as reasonable and socially conscious as he seems to be economically conscious, then yes...I could see myself voting for him. But, the caveat is that he doesn't present an ultra-conservative platform, a la the Tea Party platform. If that happened, and he didn't pick up Palin as his running mate, than he has a good chance for my vote. Oh, and also if Obama's progress doesn't seem to be in line with those issues which I find important going forward. To date, I'm pretty pleased overall with Obama's progress. But there's a long time between now and the next election, and as we all know, lots can happen.

The ones I know about represent one big old yawner group. Wasn't there some talk about Jindal (sp?) a while back?

Very thorough analysis, Habib! Thanks for the info!

 

As a disillusioned Republican, nobody on the list makes me jump out of my seat in order to organize a block party to raise funds for them. Mitt Romney has always come across to me as a slimy used car salesman. The man will never get my vote. Gingrich is a Republican of the old, old guard & we really don't need him. He has too much baggage & I doubt I would vote for him. Palin has zero chance.

 

Every time the woman opens her mouth, she only inflicts more damage to an already bruised & battered image. Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing that lovely face on television for 4 years. :sssh:

 

Huckabee is a guy I could rally behind, assuming he hasn't changed many of his positions from 2008.

 

I honestly know very little about Daniels, so this thread has motivated me to learn more. Ultimately, it won't matter, because Barry & Company are going to steamroll the Republican nominee, whomever that may be.

I find Mitch Daniels interesting. He likes to brag about lower than average unemployment and all of the infrastructure construction he has done while keeping a balanced budget. Funny thing though, he sold the states toll roads (essentially taking future revenue now, sounds lot like borrowing against the future) and has run around the state giving out highway projects. Almost sounds like stimulus spending.