Buzzfeed: Jon Huntsman Trashes GOP, Expresses Campaign Regrets

[SkinsHokieFan]

The McCain of 2000 was not the McCain of 2008. McCain of 2008 was someone even McCain admitted he wasn't proud of. Then, you add in Palin and whoo-boy. Besides, after eight years of GOP and Bush, McCain had no chance.

I mean even McCain was running against the GOP record. That's why he was a "maverick" if you can call someone a maverick who voted with the party 93% of the time a maverick.

See, I think that is mostly bunk

The post Palin McCain wasn't the McCain of 2000. But up to that point, he was the McCain of 2000 yet was behind double digits to Senator Obama.

I simply don't believe Dems would vote for a Huntsman, nor would the media be in the tank for him had he been the nominee. McCain proves that being down double digits to, at that point, a very inexeperienced Senator, which forced his desperation.

The fall '08 McCain campaign was laughable. However up until the Palin moment, he was the same John McCain as he always had been. Only now he was the presumptive nominee and behind by double digits to a first term Senator

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll point out that he said that their policies were incredible, and dangerous. He didn't say that their marketing department wasn't successful.

This 1,000 times this. And anyone who follows presidential election races knows that once a candidate is chosen then it is all about circling the wagons and voting for the party rather than the candidate. At which point the only thing left to determine is the independent voters who typically don't follow closely enough to know ahead of time and are thus more easily swayed by good marketing. Ergo...why Romney is the GOP candidate...more $$$ = better marketing. He bounced nearly every one of his opponents on sheer spending alone...heck just ask Newt.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Kilmer17]

Would you settle for "everybody loved him, before he did the things that he had to do, to become the GOP nominee"?

I'll settle for "everybody loved him until it suited their political interests to attack him"

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll settle for "everybody loved him until it suited their political interests to attack him"

But that's politics. One minute a friend and then when it is politically expedient....you're meat.

[Kilmer17]

But that's politics. One minute a friend and then when it is politically expedient....you're meat.

Absolutely. That's exactly my point.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Absolutely. That's exactly my point.

But Huntsman was never the GOP's choice. At what point was he seriously considered a contender. He was always considered by the GOP to be "too moderate." Note, he wasn't even labeled "liberal," he was just "too moderate."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Absolutely. That's exactly my point.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm so cynical about politics anymore, and I'll fully grant that it was my own blissful naiveté that Iived in for too long that really has resulted in what might be my over-reactive bitterness now. The game didn't change...I did.

[ixcuincle]

His daughter was on CNN Starting point a few days ago

Good-lookin

[Kilmer17]

But Huntsman was never the GOP's choice. At what point was he seriously considered a contender. He was always considered by the GOP to be "too moderate." Note, he wasn't even labeled "liberal," he was just "too moderate."

Not yet. But Huntsman ran this year KNOWING he couldnt win. He was getting his name in the hat for 2016.

[AsburySkinsFan]

But Huntsman was never the GOP's choice. At what point was he seriously considered a contender. He was always considered by the GOP to be "too moderate." Note, he wasn't even labeled "liberal," he was just "too moderate."

And he real irony is that their nominee is a moderate if not liberal flip-flopper. That's the funniest part is about this whole mess.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Not yet. But Huntsman ran this year KNOWING he couldnt win. He was getting his name in the hat for 2016.

I don't think that's how he looked at it. He is apparently pretty upset with what has happened.

I hope he does run again, but it sounds like if he does he will have less of a chance to win because he just said he went too far to the right in order to win some votes.

[Kilmer17]

And he real irony is that their nominee is a moderate if not liberal flip-flopper. That's the funniest part is about this whole mess.

Im glad to hear people say that.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Im glad to hear people say that.

LoL the one thing that the GOP had right was that Romney's track record shows that he is no conservative...however it also shows that he's pretty much an empty suit too, which honestly is IMO more dangerous.

[Kilmer17]

LoL the one thing that the GOP had right was that Romney's track record shows that he is no conservative...however it also shows that he's pretty much an empty suit too, which honestly is IMO more dangerous.

As we've seen over the past 12 years.........

[Madison Redskin]

See, I think that is mostly bunk

The post Palin McCain wasn't the McCain of 2000. But up to that point, he was the McCain of 2000 yet was behind double digits to Senator Obama.

There were a lot of differences between 2000 and 2008. First, the economy was imploding in 2008 and I think that likely accounted for a lot of Obama's lead. Second, whereas war was not an issue in 2000, it was a HUGE issue in 2008. Voters could overlook his hawkish views in 2000, but were a lot less apt to do so in 2008. Third, McCain was at odds with the Evangelical right in 2000, but was cozying up to them in the run up to the 2008 election (even before he picked Palin). Finally, picking an idiot wingnut as a running mate mattered to an awful lot of people like me who thought about voting for McCain. I'll grant you that many people praising Huntsman now would likely be critical of him if he were the frontrunner, but I wouldn't look to the changing attitudes towards McCain in 2000/2008 in support of that claim.

Also, a lot of people are praising Huntsman now because of the people he was running against. If you put an unpolished stone next to a bunch of turds, it might have a certain shine to it that it wouldn't have if it were placed next to a few diamonds.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

And he real irony is that their nominee is a moderate if not liberal flip-flopper. That's the funniest part is about this whole mess.

Is Romney a moderate/liberal pretending to be a conservative, or was he a conservative pretending to be a moderate/liberal to win in Massachusetts?

[Teller]

MR, that's the definitive post so far in this thread, IMO. Well said, sir.

[Prosperity]

there are a lot of unemployed Blue Dogs....maybe a viable anti GOP/Dem party is possible

Blue Dogs are just what Republicans used to be

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is Romney A) a moderate/liberal pretending to be a conservative, or was he a conservative pretending to be a moderate/liberal to win in Massachusetts?

C) An empty suit politician who will do or say whatever he feels he must to win.

[mjah]

Surely Democrats would battle Huntsman, were he the GOP nominee. And GOP operatives would battle Lieberman, were he ever to be the Democratic nominee (he won't). Everybody wants to win.

But it's hopelessly naive to suggest that Democrats would battle Huntsman with the same vigor they threw at '04 Bush, '08 McCain or will against '12 Romney, simply because each of them holds/held the GOP nomination. The man, his style, his story, and his substance are hugely important too. A relatable politician who balances principle with reason and doesn't cater hopelessly to his party's idiot wing gets additional consideration from the politically reasonable middle for free. (Of course it doesn't hurt to time one's candidacy with cycles in the economy, either.)

It's not purely partisan gamesmanship. There's a human element to candidates and a time-and-place element to their candidacies too. See McCain '00 vs. '08, two different candidates and campaigns. Otherwise, 100% of the voting public -- instead of the current 90% -- could just have their votes accurately simulated in November instead of actually voting.

Oversimplifying things to "Oh, they'll just do the same thing to anyone" ignores that candidates often matter, on both sides. Huntsman would be a real draw to independents, whose collective favor represents the biggest battlefield in Presidential politics.

[thebluefood]

C) An empty suit politician who will do or say whatever he feels he must to win.

[PeterMP]

See, I think that is mostly bunk

The post Palin McCain wasn't the McCain of 2000. But up to that point, he was the McCain of 2000 yet was behind double digits to Senator Obama.

I simply don't believe Dems would vote for a Huntsman, nor would the media be in the tank for him had he been the nominee. McCain proves that being down double digits to, at that point, a very inexeperienced Senator, which forced his desperation.

The fall '08 McCain campaign was laughable. However up until the Palin moment, he was the same John McCain as he always had been. Only now he was the presumptive nominee and behind by double digits to a first term Senator

On, Aug. 29th, the day that McCain put forward Palin's name, and after the Democratic Convention, but before the Republican convention, McCain was fewer than 4 points behind Obama.

The day before that it was even closer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart

I was heavily involved in analyzing poll data for that election. I remember being on here after the Democratic Convention saying that McCain has a good chance.

And then a few days after the Palin nomination coming back and saying he had really hurt his chances unless there was a historical crossover of women voting agaisnt their party because of Palin and that I didn't think that would happen.

I don't know if he could have won the election as it became more clear the trouble that the economy was in, and it was clear that the McCain economic strategy was similar to Bush's (at least before the economic collapse).

(As a note, the 2000 McCain was actually different than the 2008 McCain. The 2000 McCain was much more of a balanced budget person vs. the 2008 McCain (and realistically even before that) had very much embraced Bush-like tax cuts. The real difference between Bush and McCain in the 2000 election really was cutting taxes/balancing the budget w/ the (presumed) surplus (but that's a different topic). If McCain wouldn't have tied himself to Bush's economic approach and stayed more of a balanced budget Republican, it seems to me that he would have still had a very good chance of winning the 2008 election, but then he probably wouldn't have won the nomination.)

But the fact of the matter is that if you look historically at people that are with in percentage points of their opponent in between conventions where they've had theirs and you haven't had yours, that's not a bad place to be.

And certainly isn't a double digit deficet.

McCain lost that election because he'd tied himself to an economic strategy that had resulted in a historical economic collpase and Palin.

[Corcaigh]

See, I think that is mostly bunk

The post Palin McCain wasn't the McCain of 2000. But up to that point, he was the McCain of 2000 yet was behind double digits to Senator Obama.

I simply don't believe Dems would vote for a Huntsman, nor would the media be in the tank for him had he been the nominee. McCain proves that being down double digits to, at that point, a very inexeperienced Senator, which forced his desperation.

The fall '08 McCain campaign was laughable. However up until the Palin moment, he was the same John McCain as he always had been. Only now he was the presumptive nominee and behind by double digits to a first term Senator

See, I think that is mostly bunk.

Partisans will always vote for their own, so the die-hard Dem will likely turn on any opponent

But in 2008 McCain and Obama were quite close. With independents, the knocks on McCain were:

(1) what appeared to be eagerness to go to war with Iran

(2) his inability to differentiate himself from the now unpopular GWB and his policies.

But as a result of McCain's long positive history, these weren't going to make him lose outright. He was in the race. What cost him the middle ground was his nomination of Palin.

[alexey]

I liked Huntsman.

When Obama and Romney debate, it would be really cool if somebody asked about Evolution. Would anybody have the courage to saw that they really think? Probably not. I could be fun watching them squirm.