15 for 2012: A first set of ‘power rankings’ for GOP hopefuls
You knew it would be here before long. The momentum that Republicans gained last week means the talk about the 2012 GOP presidential primary is already well under way.
On Tuesday, National Journal’s Hotline released its inaugural “2012 Presidential Power Rankings.” There are 15 candidates in four descending tiers, based on money, campaign infrastructure, strengths and weaknesses:
The A-List Tier
1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. John Thune
4. Haley Barbour
The Fox News Tier
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Sarah Palin
7. Newt Gingrich
8. Mike Pence
The Governor/VP/’16 Tier
9. Mitch Daniels
10. Chris Christie
11. Rick Perry
12. Bobby Jindal
The Tea Party Tier
13. Rick Santorum
14. Jim DeMint
15. R. Paul (left ambiguous on purpose to leave an opening for Ron or his son, Rand)
What do I make of such a list? Beyond the fact that it’s way too long?
I think Romney is definitely in the top tier (for now, let’s ignore Hotline’s names for the tiers), and Pawlenty probably is as well. Where they’ll shake out in the end, I don’t know. I still think Romney’s five-minute explanation for how his health reform in Massachusetts is different from ObamaCare takes about four minutes, 55 seconds too long.
John Thune? I know some people in these parts who really like the guy; they have yet to convince me he’s something more than the right’s version of Barack Obama. I know that’s kind of the standard knock on the guy, but I think it’s pretty much true. The GOP has to nominate someone with significant executive experience to run against Obama.
Barbour: I know he’s one of the strongest in terms of organization and fund-raising prowess, and call me shallow, but I just don’t think it’s in the cards for a white man with a Southern drawl in 2012. At the very most, I’ll believe it when I see it. So, let’s go ahead and take Huckabee (who would delight social conservatives but make fiscal conservatives rather nervous) and Perry (anyone who’s used the S-word — secession — is not going to win the presidency imo) down a couple of pegs as well.
Palin: Obviously, she’s the wild card: Will she win? And what will that mean? For all the attempts to portray her as an intellectual lightweight, this week she had my very serious former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page praising her approach to monetary policy and the need for a sound dollar. In the end, I think she’s too polarizing; the GOP doesn’t need a candidate who fires up the Democratic base the way Nancy Pelosi fired up the Republican base this year.
Gingrich: He’s trying to position himself as a health-reform guru, which will prove either brilliant or a couple of years too late. A lot of people think he carries too much baggage from his time as speaker of the House, and that sounds about right to me.
Pence: He’d be a darling of the tea partiers, and he has had practice taking on Obama. But can he go straight from the House to the White House? I’m skeptical. But hey, I was skeptical that Obama could go from the Illinois legislature to the White House so quickly.
Daniels: He’s made a couple of perceived gaffes, talking about calling a truce on social issues and expressing a willingness to explore a value-added tax, or VAT. The good news for him: He made those statements very early in the process, which means he has time to make people forget them; and even though they are perceived as gaffes, he may be able to explain them in a way that brings people on board rather than turning them away. His track record as Indiana’s governor is impressive. I’ll be watching him.
Christie: He says he’s not running. The subsequent mini-scandal about his overpaying for travel expenses by about $2,000 while serving as a U.S. Attorney suggests not everyone believes him. He would be a stark contrast with Obama on dealings with public-sector unions, and he will probably have a leg up on him and most of this field in terms of dealing with our looming pensions disaster. He certainly needs a couple of more years in his track record to prove he’s the genuine article, and he’d probably benefit greatly from staying out of the national fray until 2016 or later. But as a VP candidate? Or if the front-runners fail to impress? We’ll see.
Jindal: He’d draw a strong contrast with Obama on the handling of the Gulf oil spill. Take everything I said about Christie, beginning with “He certainly needs a couple of more years,” and apply it here.
I don’t see anyone in the last tier as a serious challenger in 2012. The only omitted name I can think of at this time is Marco Rubio, whom I’d put alongside Christie and Jindal. Maybe Rep. Paul Ryan, although I think he’s probably better suited for the House.
There’s my very, very early handicap of the race. Your thoughts?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
96 comments Add your comment
paleo-neo-Carlinist
November 10th, 2010
11:13 am
Romney is a re-tread, and he cannot overcome the MA healthcare issue and his Mormon faith. Palin and Gingerich are staking horses or rabbits, who set a demanding pace in order to weed out weak (centrists) competitors. both are more powerful/useful as cheerleaders and fundraisers, and each will get their “15 minutes” at the podium, but neither has ANY CHANCE of winning. ditto Huckabee. his connection to Fox News nulifies him as anything more than a cheerleader or pundit. Christie is interesting, but as stated, I don’t think he has “national office” gravitas (not yet, anyway), and there are some skeletons being looked at in his closet. Ron Paul would be nice, but I think he is too much of an anti-cheerleader (as far as neo-con/GOP goes) and Rand’s reverse epiphany re: earmarks won’t help. don’t know enough about the others, but if the GOP doesn’t watch out, it could be ‘96 all over, which may or may not be a bad thing.
markie mark
November 10th, 2010
11:13 am
uh, skydog…..we havent taken our seats yet….you are a little early. Oh, and by the way, happy birthday on the 20th….
markie mark
November 10th, 2010
11:16 am
dang Grimlock….I didnt even think about Condi….she would make one hell of a candidate. And not only would she be able to see Russia from Alaska, she is a subject matter expert on ‘em….
CJ
November 10th, 2010
11:16 am
By the way, when states’ rights (i.e., we don’t need any help from the federal government) proponent Bobby Jindal was screaming for help from the federal government, he only deployed about one out of every six national guard troops allocated by the Department of Defense. Obama: “I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible,..”
Anybody who thinks that Jindal’s handling of the Gulf oil spill would help his chances in a presidential campaign should think again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/24/eveningnews/main6615414.shtml
carlosgvv
November 10th, 2010
11:20 am
It goes without saying America could come up with a vastly better list than that. It is also obvious politics has gotten so expense and dirty that only the most common candidates will run for office.
mike
November 10th, 2010
11:20 am
Who cares. I say let any of these repub morons win the national office. When they continue the 8 years before Obama was in office then you idots will realize what you have done. I really like they will be repealing the health care since those in office will have some of the best health care available and the rest of the citizens will not. But I guess it is always good to vote against your best interests.
j
November 10th, 2010
11:26 am
wow kyle compiled a list of 15 prostitutes. yipee.
Ayn Rant
November 10th, 2010
11:56 am
God save America if any on your lists gets elected to public office! Can’t the Republican Party find anything better than that bunch of retreads, has-beens, and dummies?
Whacks Eloquent
November 10th, 2010
12:09 pm
Gary Johnson would be an interesting candidate, but I am still hoping for Herman Cain!
ByteMe
November 10th, 2010
12:15 pm
CJ: the WSJ editorial page editors were talking not about tweets, but about an editorial that was ghostwritten under her name that alluded to the Fed’s actions of monetizing the debt to improve the money supply as possibly causing hyperinflation. It was factually incorrect and certainly not anything where she’s a subject-matter expert or even interested for that matter. But the Fox-owned WSJ editorial editors love what an article from her does for their circulation, so there you go.
Waldo
November 10th, 2010
12:18 pm
Interesting list. A few thoughts, Palin certainly brings the star power, but she’s too much of a polarizing figure to win. Gingrich is right on all the issues, but also unelectable. I actually believe Christie when he says he’s not interested in running, he also does not seem the type who would want to languish in (basically) a ceremonial role as someone’s VP. Jindel would probably make the best president, but he’s probably not a flashy enough candidate to win.
In the end, it has to be someone who will appeal to conservatives & independents AND can drag some electorial votes to the GOP side of the ledger. My guess is a Romney/Huckabee ticket. Huck will help draw the evangelicals who might be uncomfortable voting for a Mormon…
retiredds
November 10th, 2010
12:27 pm
It wasn’t too long ago that the country was saying that the Republican party was dead. It only took two years to prove the pundits wrong. I, for one, am happy to see that so many, in the media and elsewhere, are already proclaiming the Democrats as dead. As is the case over the last couple of years, the pendulum can swing rather rapidly as voters have short memories and need instant gratification. Long term planning in the US of A is what appears to be defunct these days. Sort of like I want to have my cake and eat it too.
Jefferson
November 10th, 2010
12:40 pm
You betcha.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
November 10th, 2010
12:41 pm
Dear CJ @ Byte, so you will know what you are talking about for a change, the WSJ analysis of Ms. Palin’s critique of the loopy Bernanke money bomb is at online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602231815453378.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2 , assuming you really want to know what you are talking about.
Also, dear CJ @ 11:16, I cannot imagine that you perceive Chauncey’s non-response to the BP leak showed as much intelligence than Gov Jindal’s. Certainly all of the unemployed oil workers in Louisiana would dispute your perspective,
ByteMe
November 10th, 2010
12:43 pm
To win a nationwide election, you have to appeal to your base and then entice enough of the middle to tag along.
Palin doesn’t have that and really has no real interest in being more than a cheerleader for the crazy right.
Barbour is a nice guy and a good governor and could do that, but he doesn’t have national recognition, so he has a lot of ground work to do to be considered a top-tier candidate.
Romney has what it takes in spades… except the base doesn’t trust him, so he doesn’t get out of the primaries again.
Pawlenty is not having a fun time of it right now in Minnesota and he’s also got some positions that won’t endear him to the base, so he’s likely not going to get out of the primaries either.
Newt will do what he’s always done, which is flit around on the outskirts claiming he’s going to make a decision eventually… and it’s only a ploy to sell more books.
Huck is truly one of the decent politicians out there, but evangelism for Christianity is not going to capture the middle. Even if he wins the primaries, he gets smoked in the general.
The Tea Partiers are going to find out it was only the 30% that are Republicans who are angry that they lost in 2006 and 2008. They might win the primaries, but also get smoked then served cold in the general.
Rick Perry keeps talking about trying to get Texas to secede. Not exactly Presidential material and the middle won’t have that.
Bobby Jindal has an image problem, and if he can get past that, he has a chance against Obama.
Pence is a fool with lots of talk and no real answers. He doesn’t get out of the primaries once the old folks realize that what he’s proposing will endanger their entitlements.
Daniels is smart, has a grasp of what it will take to fix the debt, but he violates GOP orthodoxy by bringing up additional taxes. If he makes it out of the primaries, he’ll lose in the general because he’s not exactly Mr. Dynamic, which works in Indiana, but not in the places with lots of electoral votes.
Christie has skeletons. They’ll come out before he gets far. He doesn’t get out of the primaries, regadless of how smart he is.
It’s going to be hard to get the GOP base during the primaries and the middle during the general if the loud part of the base doesn’t accept the idea of compromise.
ByteMe
November 10th, 2010
12:48 pm
Raggy: I do know what I’m talking about when it comes to economics. The Fed QE2 isn’t going to help much, but it certainly isn’t going to trigger Weimar-like hyperinflation in an environment where inflation is currently running less than 2% and assets and wages aren’t appreciating at all. The money is going to go to the banks who are then going to do what they’ve been doing for the past year or so: park it back at the Fed for safe-keeping and to help offset the bad debt still on their books. It’s not going to get lent in quantities large enough to trigger any change. Velocity continues to fall, and what the Fed’s doing is not going to work, but not for the reasons Palin’s ghostwriters came up with.
Only an idiot would look to a has-been-politician/newshound to explain Fed policy.
Ryan
November 10th, 2010
1:15 pm
I think it’s very telling that there is a FOX tier… I guess they are not even pretending anymore. They AE the PR wing of the GOP. So much for journalistic integrity in the US.
jconservative
November 10th, 2010
1:21 pm
“Marco Antonio Rubio born May 28, 1971 in Miami Florida”
Sure he was!
Anybody out there seen his birth certificate? And I do not mean that “long form” that anyone with an IQ of 80 can counterfeit. I mean the form generated by the governing Birth Certificate authority in the state of Florida.
Just asking.
Rockerbabe
November 10th, 2010
1:36 pm
The biggest bunch of women hating folks I’ve ever seen. And, not all that great on civil rights for other minorities either. Then there is the fiscal issues of which most haven’t a clue. Just a few of the war-mongering repugs who didn’t go to either of the two current wars and didn’t send their kids. Who needs such cowards in public office.
Another Handicap Perspective
November 10th, 2010
1:44 pm
First, lets just dimiss the whole ludicrous idea of Sonny Perdue running for President. This is the guy whose solution to the draught a few years back was to hold a prayer session on steps of State Cap. While I am a staunch Christian, I do think God expects his earthly “leaders” so show a little more “leaderships” and not always just dump on him. The rest of the country thought he was nuts. As for Palin, totally agree, she is too polarizing and I am Republican. John Thune, nice smart guy. He is definitely the R’s white male version of Obama. Romney, strong, yes. Can overcome Mass healthcase issue as polls show people not as opposed as a year ago. Barbour, nope. I am also native Georgian (i.e. very southern) and I dont’ see a “pleasantly plump” white haired southern guy winning the Presidency in 2012. His day has come and gone like Newt’s on that one. Then….lets come to Newt. Sorry, “right” conversative Christians have a problem with a guy with how many wives?? My father is prime example. He thinks he is smart but utlimately always asks “how many times has he been married?” He is just keeping his profile out there to keep those speaking engagements going and fees up. Good for him. On Pawlenty…..good candidate from a Gov’s seat. Has done a good job in MN. My two thoughts on Wingfields thoughts, and yes, I have personally met many of the of candidates listed above.
Linda
November 10th, 2010
2:22 pm
I hope the Reps. won’t make the same mistake the Dems. did. None of the people on the list have been vetted enough to earn my vote. Who were their parents, mentors, friends & ministers? Have they ever run a state or a business? Do they know the difference between our allies & our enemies & between voters & our enemies? How do they feel about the country, the Constitution, capitalism, taxes, free trade, securing our borders, our energy policy, czars, executive orders, union bosses, network neutrality, etc.? Do they know the agenda of the progressives? Who is entitled & why? How to they plan to cut the size of the fed. govt. & deficit & pay off the debt?
Jefferson
November 10th, 2010
4:26 pm
Linda, you are looking for Jesus.
fred
November 10th, 2010
4:38 pm
tancredo wears man-pants
Intown
November 10th, 2010
4:41 pm
They’re all douchebags. But your analysis of them seems pretty sound for an early early early read.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 10th, 2010
4:56 pm
Palin.
Romney isn’t even on my list, he could be a dummycrat by 2012 anyway.
Hickabee didn’t make it either.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 10th, 2010
4:59 pm
WASHINGTON — The leaders of President Barack Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission launched a daring assault on mushrooming federal deficits on Wednesday, proposing reducing annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security, gradually raising the retirement age to 69 and taking aim at popular tax breaks such as the mortgage interest deduction.
Notice how when the bureaucrats look to making spending cuts they always stick it to YOU and not to themselves?
Cutting obozo’s kommision would be a great start to reducing the deficit.
Logical Dude
November 10th, 2010
5:05 pm
Rubio was born to immigrant parents?
So he’s an “anchor baby” that many so-called Republicans want to deny citizenship to?
You see how this makes the “send the anchor babies back home!” argument a lot weaker, right?
Welcome immigrants!
Linda
November 10th, 2010
5:09 pm
Jefferson @ 4:26, I’ve already found Jesus.
I’m just asking questions of Rep. candidates that voters should have asked of Obama. I’m holding Rep. candidates up to a higher standard.
Jefferson
November 10th, 2010
5:15 pm
Linda, I figured you would take it the wrong way.
Those type of people don’t run for office.
Linda
November 10th, 2010
5:29 pm
Logical Dude @ 5:05, Unless you are an American Indian, you were also born to parents from immigrants. Do you know the difference between illegal & legal immigration? Do you think it’s fair to legal immigrants, who waited 5 yrs. to enter the US, for the Dems. to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants who did not wait their turn?
Logical Dude
November 10th, 2010
5:29 pm
Report says “Notice how when the bureaucrats look to making spending cuts they always stick it to YOU and not to themselves?”
Okay, where would you start cutting spending and not affect YOU?
There is WAY too much to be cut for it to keep everybody happy. Otherwise, don’t you think the Republicans could have done it while they were in power in most of the 2000’s? Why haven’t the democrats done it for the past 2 years?
Yes, because SOME PEOPLE WILL BE UNHAPPY.
Logical Dude
November 10th, 2010
5:34 pm
Linda,
I’m American.
I was born to Americans who had parents born in the United States.
Those are all good questions about immigration, and the answer is not going to be “fair”.
Either many will need to become citizens (even if they do not currently have “papers”) so that we can legally collect taxes on them; or else we need to start sending millions of people back to their own country. Well, we could do what we’ve been doing, and look the other way, but that doesn’t progress the situation.
I think Reagan’s solution of legalizing many who have been here is a good idea, and have a long “path” for those who are more recent. And send all the rest back, since they’ll be the ones who work under the table, causing someone to lose a good paying job.
Linda
November 10th, 2010
5:35 pm
Jefferson @ 5:15, What type of people? I’m just asking questions. My husband of almost 35 yrs. was not perfect, but he is getting really close, & I knew exactly who he was, where he was coming from & what to expect. I was one lucky duck.
Linda
November 10th, 2010
5:48 pm
Logical @ 5:34, I stand by my earlier statement. You “were born to parents from immigrants.” The third option is for illegal immigrants to go home on their own. There are some states that have few illegal immigrants & we need to adopt their policies. Reagan made a mistake granting amnesty. It became an enticement.
I’m not as concerned with the problem of illegal immigrants as I am with securing our borders. Our national security is in grave danger & another 9/11 is eminent.
barking frog
November 10th, 2010
8:04 pm
Waldo 12:18 You called it Romney/Huckabee. Obama has
neutralized Romney by stealing his health plan but he will
get the nomination and he will pick Huckabee for the reason
Waldo gave.
Randy W
November 10th, 2010
9:14 pm
The litmus test would be if candidates submitted a resume without their names. Evaluate them that way without bias. Hold the profile up to the light and see who’s the most qualified. That way it’s less subjective and more objective. The Pres. needs to be the best of the best, especially if we want to hold on to the White House and congress. Electable isn’t good enough, we’ve had 2 years of that! The American people feel like they want substance, world experience, gravitas, real vision, true leadership experience, know how experience not guess how promises like Obama or others that have been professional politicians; someone the world will respect, someone with schooled experience that really benefits the man on the street, someone who understands the gravity of the office, someone that will bring real dignity back to the office of the most important political leader in the world. Having not voted for him last time because I didn’t know him well, I went back and did a little homework on this guy and the others.
I was absolutely astounded by what I didn’t know. If I was hiring and this person submitted their resume I wouldn’t accept any more because I would think it would get any better. I realized that all the usual suspects were just that, usual suspects and the barbs thrown at this person were without substance and not applicable to the qualifications for the office of President of the United States of America. (Everyone has an opinion, with or without merit!) My opinion is that at this point it has to be obvious to the informed and unbiased that Mitt Romney is at the top of the list for overwhelming reasons. It seemed I could not find anything that impugned his qualifications, but rather more and more strengths to qualify him. This time around we’d better get the right man for the right reasons.
Da
November 10th, 2010
9:48 pm
MARCO RUBIO 2012!
No More Progressives!
November 11th, 2010
7:43 am
HDB
November 10th, 2010
7:14 am
Marco Rubio can’t be President….he is NOT native born…as is required by the Constitution.
An interesting remark this early in the process. I wonder why being native born could be an issue?
No More Progressives!
November 11th, 2010
7:50 am
lucy
November 10th, 2010
7:36 am
gop power rankings:
1) hate
2) fear
3) ignorance
Boy, Lucy. You really put a lot of thought into that remark.
Another undergraduate refugee from the Howard Dean School of Diplomacy.
Hatchers
November 11th, 2010
8:03 am
None of the people on the Kyle’s list of poll polarizers can be president. None of these reptiles were hatched on the contiguous continent. I’m starting the “Hatcher” movement to prevent these amped-fibians from ever running for prez.
Agnostic Hatchers 2012: You say Allah, and we say Blah Blah. You say Birther, and we say Hatcher. Allah. Blah Blah. Birther. Hatcher. Lets call the whole thing off.
Vote for Obama. History will never forgive us if we don’t; and he’s still so cute. He’s the only president besides Kennedy who got more attractive in office.
No More Progressives!
November 11th, 2010
8:12 am
HDB, where do you get your information? There are about 7 websites I just went to, and they all say Rubio was born in Miami in 1971 to immigrant parents.
You say you haven’t seen Rubio’s birth certificate. Have you seen Barry Sotoero’s??
Jefferson
November 11th, 2010
10:11 am
Linda, well sent hubby on the politcal trail, if he’s good he will run from the filthy machine it has become.
the mehlman rings twice
November 11th, 2010
10:44 pm
Hey Kyle,
Will you stop with that Newt stuff. The women of this country are not going to accept a First Lady who slept with someone else’s husband. Some taboo’s just can’t be overcome.
the mehlman rings twice
November 11th, 2010
10:59 pm
Kyle,
I say you add Joe “You Lie” Wilson from the “rape” state of South Carolina to the list. I’m sure he’ll capture the rapist vote since he believes, like he did with his ex-box Sen. Thurmond, that rapists should not have their “legacy” tarnished.
Intown
November 12th, 2010
3:18 pm
Obama 2012! the alternatives are just too scary to think about.
Dirk
November 14th, 2010
11:32 am
If unemployment doesn’t drop at least four to five points by 2012 it doesn’t matter who opposes Obama. He will lose.
Conversely….if the economy is going good and the unemployment situation has been significantly improved, Obama and the GOP both stand a very good chance of re-election.
Quite simple to understand.
Now back to more idiotic comments from more idiots.