Jon Huntsman is going to be the next president of the United States

Denerick

The more I see of Jon Huntsman, the more convinced I am that he will emerge as the Republican frontrunner, secure the nomination, and go on to beat Obama in a tightly fought general election. Provided he doesn't drift to the wingnut right I think he would be unbeatable come November. He is exactly where the majority of Americans are; largely fiscally conservative (Though with some sanity thrown in) generally socially progressive (Doesn't like the culture wars or the homophobia that permeates the Republican Party) and generally seems like a nice, intelligent and thoughtful guy. America could do worse, and has done much worse in the past.

Republicans tend to nominate someone who could win, not someone they want to have ideological sex with. I would be very surprised if Jon Huntsman didn't win the nomination. His nearest contender is Mitt Romney, who as everyone knows is an utter slimeball who wriggles his way out of anything approaching a veneer of tolerance or principle and does and says exactly what he thinks people want him to do and say. He is reprehensible as a human being and is not fit to take the office of President. Behind him is the Texan governer, who although would make a strong candidate is simply too conservative to win a general election. In third place is Michelle Bachmann, who would almost certainly deliver Barack Obama a stunning landslide if the Republicans nominated such an obviously unhinged idiot on the American people. (Though at least she is capable of stringing a coherent sentance together, which is more than can be said for Sarah Palin)

Any thoughts on how the race is shaping up? Its beginning to get exciting. I hope the Republicans nominate someone so stupid, bigoted and conservative that they haven't a chance of beating Barack Obama, who is one of the greatest individuals to have ever graced the Oval Office.

mikemac

Had a quick look, he seems impressive.
Quite young too at 51 and he'll look good on TV

Just on religion, he is a Mormon which is hardly surprising being from Utah

I had a quick search and couldn't find a single Mormon US President.
He could be the first

Well it shouldn't matter but it's something that will be raised

matthew8

Useless John Huntsman, he would be the republicans' Obama, ie useless and more or less the same as the last guy.

Amerika

Ten reasons why any of the Republican candidates should easily beat Obama in 2012: The Declaration of Independents, A Redder America, The Issues Have Changed, The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore, Demoralized Liberals, Energized Conservatives, The Political Ground Has Shifted Beneath the President’s Feet, Historic Turnouts Aren’t an Every-Four-Year Occurrence, A Low Ceiling of Support, It’s Still the Economy Stupid. Unfortunately, I sometimes question whether the American voting population is smarter than a bag of turnips.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Ten reasons why any of the Republican candidates should easily beat Obama in 2012: The Declaration of Independents, A Redder America, The Issues Have Changed, The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore, Demoralized Liberals, Energized Conservatives, The Political Ground Has Shifted Beneath the President’s Feet, Historic Turnouts Aren’t an Every-Four-Year Occurrence, A Low Ceiling of Support, It’s Still the Economy Stupid. Unfortunately, I sometimes question whether the American voting population is smarter than a bag of turnips.

What do you mean by that.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Ten reasons why any of the Republican candidates should easily beat Obama in 2012: The Declaration of Independents, A Redder America, The Issues Have Changed, The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore, Demoralized Liberals, Energized Conservatives, The Political Ground Has Shifted Beneath the President’s Feet, Historic Turnouts Aren’t an Every-Four-Year Occurrence, A Low Ceiling of Support, It’s Still the Economy Stupid. Unfortunately, I sometimes question whether the American voting population is smarter than a bag of turnips.

Strange post PJ. Most people when looking at the GOP candidates would recongise that they are a pretty so so bunch. The fact that some of them have a chance of winning says it all about about the economy and Obama's lack of vision to lead them out. That is the problem with Obama, he doesnt connect like say Clinton or Reagan. Americans love that type of president.

When Mitt Romney is the sure fire favourite to win the nomination then you know something is up!

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

What do you mean by that.

The Declaration of Independents
His shift of support from independents has gone into the crapper. In 2008, Obama the candidate attracted them, and had a 62% approval rating from them entering office. But they do not like Obama the president, as the latest Gallup poll now has only a 42% support form independents. Many of the independents have declared their independence from the presidents’ policies, with the election of 2010 as quite a telling sign. The loss of independents and moderates is evident in the polls. You can’t deny that. Unless things change greatly between now and the election, I can’t see him winning with losing so much support.

The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore
In 2008 Barack Obama was an unknown, with a meager record as both a state and US senator, and probably the thinnest resume of any major party presidential choice in almost a century. But as president he can't vote “present.” Face it, the $3.3 trillion 10-year real cost of his stimulus package, his adding of almost $4 trillion to the national debt, ObamaCare, and most recent defiance of Congress regarding the War Powers Act, are all unpopular to the masses. Those are owned by this presidency. He is no longer a blank slate, and has pretty much fulfilled the warning call conservatives made about him. And don't forget, he owns the economy... just ask DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz .

kev9100

He would be a good candidate in the general but he's no where near right-wing enough to get the nomination. However, it would be good for the future of American politics if the GOP would nominate someone sane like Huntsman. Sadly, it won't happen.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

The Declaration of Independents
His shift of support from independents has gone into the crapper. In 2008, Obama the candidate attracted them, and had a 62% approval rating from them entering office. But they do not like Obama the president, as the latest Gallup poll now has only a 42% support form independents. Many of the independents have declared their independence from the presidents’ policies, with the election of 2010 as quite a telling sign. The loss of independents and moderates is evident in the polls. You can’t deny that. Unless things change greatly between now and the election, I can’t see him winning with losing so much support.

The Blank Canvass Isn’t Anymore
In 2008 Barack Obama was an unknown, with a meager record as both a state and US senator, and probably the thinnest resume of any major party presidential choice in almost a century. But as president he can't vote “present.” Face it, the $3.3 trillion 10-year real cost of his stimulus package, his adding of almost $4 trillion to the national debt, ObamaCare, and most recent defiance of Congress regarding the War Powers Act, are all unpopular to the masses. Those are owned by this presidency. He is no longer a blank slate, and has pretty much fulfilled the warning call conservatives made about him. And don't forget, he owns the economy... just ask DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz .

I hate it when you copy paste from right wing rags.

southsiderosie

kev9100 wrote: »

He would be a good candidate in the general but he's no where near right-wing enough to get the nomination. However, it would be good for the future of American politics if the GOP would nominate someone sane like Huntsman. Sadly, it won't happen.

Yes, the conservative political activists I know are pretty horrified by this guy, especially since Harry Reid apparently has nice things to say about him. I really think a lot of these people would rather lose with a 'pure' conservative than won with a moderate RINO.

Also, his campaign did not get off to an auspicious start...from the looks of it, he has several staffers who need to be fired.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Denerick wrote: »

I hate it when you copy paste from right wing rags.

you got any links to back that up?

MickShamrock

mikemac wrote: »

Had a quick look, he seems impressive.
Quite young too at 51 and he'll look good on TV

Just on religion, he is a Mormon which is hardly surprising being from Utah

I had a quick search and couldn't find a single Mormon US President.
He could be the first

Well it shouldn't matter but it's something that will be raised

Mitt Romney is a Mormon too.

kev9100

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, the conservative political activists I know are pretty horrified by this guy, especially since Harry Reid apparently has nice things to say about him. I really think a lot of these people would rather lose with a 'pure' conservative than won with a moderate RINO.

The problem as I see it is that the far-right is so out there that they think everyone is somehow conspiring against them and think every republican ho doesn't prescribe completely to their ideolodgy is a traitor and a RINO.

Even though I strongly support Obama, I really would like Huntsman to win the nomination so both parties could say yeah I disagree with the other guy but no, I don't think he's evil or wants to destroy America.

pajunior

MickShamrock wrote: »

Mitt Romney is a Mormon too.

I read an article on the mormon angle actually. Apparently it is possible that it is a hinderance.
Supposedly some people don't trust mormons but if they can elect a black guy I'm sure they can elect a mormon.

FreudianSlippers

IMO Obama will get re-elected. Anyone running for the Republicans this year will either be a burner candidate or will have to have full support of the base which I don't think can happen. The Tea Party is really hurting the Republicans this year and they will have to distance themselves with someone like Jon Huntsman to gain credibility back, but I don't think it can or should be done this election cycle.

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Tea Party is really hurting the Republicans this year and they will have to distance themselves with someone like Jon Huntsman to gain credibility back, but I don't think it can or should be done this election cycle.

I believe the results of the US November 2010 elections, when Tea Party activism was at it highest, sorta disproves that type of thinking.

And why do those on the Left always want the Republicans to nominate a moderate, when they wouldn’t vote for a Republican anyway? If you could, would you vote for Huntsman over Obama?

FreudianSlippers

Of nine candidates for Senate, five won their races, giving the Tea Party Senate candidates a win rate of 55.6%. Of 129 House candidates, 42 won, giving the Tea Party House candidates a win rate of just 32.5%.

All the major "heads" of the party lost pretty spectacularly.

Also, of those seats the vast majority were taken away from other GOP candidates, not Democrats (I believe it was only 8 seats taken from Dems in all)

matthew8

kev9100 wrote: »

The problem as I see it is that the far-right is so out there that they think everyone is somehow conspiring against them and think every republican ho doesn't prescribe completely to their ideolodgy is a traitor and a RINO.

Even though I strongly support Obama, I really would like Huntsman to win the nomination so both parties could say yeah I disagree with the other guy but no, I don't think he's evil or wants to destroy America.

Hunstman would probably destroy the country as much as Obama does, if not more. We need Gary Johnson.

Also, a RINO is a republican who either holds views that would be more welcome in the democratic party or someone who is a hypocrite. Most people in politics right now are hypocrites, they say they'll do something to the people but they give in to vested interests, even when it loses them votes. Good examples of RINOs: Arlen Specter (A wishy-washy political flip-flopper if there ever was one) changes to democrat in 2008 because he felt it good for his electoral prospects. However lost democrat primary to Joe Sestak who lost a hotly contested seat to Pat Toomey. Charlie Crist went independent for the Florida senate after losing the primary to tea-partyer Marco Rubio (far far more intelligent than Angle and O'Donnell) and then he launched his independent campaign saying he would caucus democratic and he got thrashed, partly because the no hope dem refused to pull out (lots of pressure but he stayed to get the black vote out to help out a congressman in Florida). Lisa Murkowski on the other hand was no RINO. Joe Miller ie Sarah Palin mk II was nominated and people saw through him, Murkowski went with the write-in route and won and fair play to her.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of nine candidates for Senate, five won their races, giving the Tea Party Senate candidates a win rate of 55.6%. Of 129 House candidates, 42 won, giving the Tea Party House candidates a win rate of just 32.5%.

All the major "heads" of the party lost pretty spectacularly.

Also, of those seats the vast majority were taken away from other GOP candidates, not Democrats (I believe it was only 8 seats taken from Dems in all)

The tea party movement has been massively bastardized from what Ron Paul says. Sarah Palin became the figurehead of this small government group which destroyed it. What small government gets into needless wars, gives oil subsidies, bans freedom to marry, abort and smoke drugs? The tea party was also painted by the mass media as crazy, and while Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell are far from ideal candidates I don't think anything is more crazy than lowering 14 trillion dollars of debt with a 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit.

The term RINO in general is probably incorrect because republicans and democrats don't really stand for anything anymore.

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of nine candidates for Senate, five won their races, giving the Tea Party Senate candidates a win rate of 55.6%. Of 129 House candidates, 42 won, giving the Tea Party House candidates a win rate of just 32.5%.

All the major "heads" of the party lost pretty spectacularly.

Also, of those seats the vast majority were taken away from other GOP candidates, not Democrats (I believe it was only 8 seats taken from Dems in all)

I’m not really talking about Tea Party “candidates” but rather the Tea party’s activist influence in helping the Republicans to gain 59 seats (or was it 60) in the House of Representatives (the largest party switch in the House of Representatives since 1948), and while the GOP didn’t take back the Senate in 2010, they made significant gains. I don't think you can discount the Tea Party's influence in that shift from Dem to Rep.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

I believe the results of the US November 2010 elections, when Tea Party activism was at it highest, sorta disproves that type of thinking.

And why do those on the Left always want the Republicans to nominate a moderate, when they wouldn’t vote for a Republican anyway? If you could, would you vote for Huntsman over Obama?

There is no doubt that the Tea Party helped big time when it came to mobilising the base at the last election. however you can't deny that the Tea Party caused a lot of problems too. Just look at Harry Reid. He would have been finished if you guys hadn't nominated a Tea Party candidate. That was an incredibly bad move.

I don't want the GOP to nominate a moderate. I'd just like you to nominate someone sane. And by the way, I'll think you'll find most Democrats want you to nominate someone like Bachmann so we could have another 1964 style election.

matthew8

What do people on here like about John Huntsman rather than that he's not a tea partyer? Is it him being the same as Obama or seeming like a guy who'd do nothing about the budget deficit?

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

What do people on here like about John Huntsman rather than that he's not a tea partyer? Is it him being the same as Obama or seeming like a guy who'd do nothing about the budget deficit?

I don't expect much from my politicians (Or friends) All I want is a moderate level of curiosity, a little intelligence, some compassion, and a good sense of fair play. Jon Huntsman is the only Republican in the race (Besides Ron Paul, who although a true gentleman he is just a little nuts) who meets that criteria.

Maybe I expect too much.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

I don't expect much from my politicians (Or friends) All I want is a moderate level of curiosity, a little intelligence, some compassion, and a good sense of fair play. Jon Huntsman is the only Republican in the race (Besides Ron Paul, who although a true gentleman he is just a little nuts) who meets that criteria.

Maybe I expect too much.

My problem is Obama came across as that but he's starting wars and running up debt and deficit and he robbed 20bn euro from Ireland and I fear Huntsman would do the same.

Have you heard about Gary Johnson? He seems to have a lot of integrity, a good track record, honesty and sensibility in him. He may meet your criteria if you look him up.

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

My problem is Obama came across as that but he's starting wars and running up debt and deficit and he robbed 20bn euro from Ireland and I fear Huntsman would do the same.

Have you heard about Gary Johnson? He seems to have a lot of integrity, a good track record, honesty and sensibility in him. He may meet your criteria if you look him up.

Obama didn't start any wars, he merely continued those left by his predecessor. The intervention in Libya is not a war, it is a humanitarian mission mandated by the United Nations. As for his stimulus spending and his belief that unemployment is a greater scourge to the national well being than a few wealthy people suffering tax increases, all I can say is that Obama is one of the few sane politicians left in the western hemisphere.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

Obama didn't start any wars, he merely continued those left by his predecessor. The intervention in Libya is not a war, it is a humanitarian mission mandated by the United Nations. As for his stimulus spending and his belief that unemployment is a greater scourge to the national well being than a few wealthy people suffering tax increases, all I can say is that Obama is one of the few sane politicians left in the western hemisphere.

The solution to 14 trillion dollar debt and 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit: spend, spend, spend, endorsed by all Obama's followers.

Also the intervention in Libya is a war in all but name. So many companies are reliant on the US starting wars that it's inevitable that people like Obama will keep starting them regardless of the morality. Obama has done fk all about unemployment, Johnson and Paul would do more. Also he hasn't done anything about taxes on the wealthy. You seem to think that he helped unemployed people, which he hasn't, increased taxes on the wealthy, which he hasn't. I don't know where you get these ideas from. He's more of the same with a few more horrendous bills.

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

The solution to 14 trillion dollar debt and 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit: spend, spend, spend, endorsed by all Obama's followers.

Also the intervention in Libya is a war in all but name. So many companies are reliant on the US starting wars that it's inevitable that people like Obama will keep starting them regardless of the morality. Obama has done fk all about unemployment, Johnson and Paul would do more. Also he hasn't done anything about taxes on the wealthy. You seem to think that he helped unemployed people, which he hasn't, increased taxes on the wealthy, which he hasn't. I don't know where you get these ideas from. He's more of the same with a few more horrendous bills.

Obama's stimulus deal certainly did help prevent unemployment reaching as high as it might have; if you dispute that you are denying some very basic things about demand and supply within an economy (At a time when the private sector was deleveraging the main source of fresh consumption came from the Federal government - which was still small relative to the size of the US economy) But whatever. I'm grimly aware that Obama hasn't raised taxes, entirely because of the insane obstinance and selfishness of the conservative movement, who's raison d'etre seems to be to defy reality and punish anyone not able to support themselves.

Suryavarman

Denerick wrote: »

Obama didn't start any wars, he merely continued those left by his predecessor. The intervention in Libya is not a war, it is a humanitarian mission mandated by the United Nations. As for his stimulus spending and his belief that unemployment is a greater scourge to the national well being than a few wealthy people suffering tax increases, all I can say is that Obama is one of the few sane politicians left in the western hemisphere.

Did Obama not promise in his election run to end the wars? How is bombing Libya not a war? and how is killing innocent people a "humanitarian mission"?

Considering Obamas stimulus spending has failed miserably and is causing inflation it isn't really helping the unemployed too much is it? Has Obama increased taxes on the wealthy yet? Sane he maybe but doing a good job he sure isn't!

SharpshooterTom

Obama's approval rating is only 43% on Gallup. Not great.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

Obama's stimulus deal certainly did help prevent unemployment reaching as high as it might have; if you dispute that you are denying some very basic things about demand and supply within an economy (At a time when the private sector was deleveraging the main source of fresh consumption came from the Federal government - which was still small relative to the size of the US economy) But whatever. I'm grimly aware that Obama hasn't raised taxes, entirely because of the insane obstinance and selfishness of the conservative movement, who's raison d'etre seems to be to defy reality and punish anyone not able to support themselves.

As the poster below me stated Obama's quantitative easing hurt the working class. Obama has a filibuster-proof senate for 2 years, he could've, but didn't, brought in new taxes. A stimulus is artificial and temporary and just delays bankruptcy and increases the debt.

Overheal

Gnobe wrote: »

Obama's approval rating is only 43% on Gallup. Not great.

Right down there with Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. All of whom could say the same thing about some point in each of their presidencies. But yes, if you look at Obama's trend, he's been going down since his election. Though to be fair, even Reagan had about the same trend in his approval rating at this point in his presidency. Whether Obama gets more approval though is, well, entirely up to Obama, and doing more things worth approving of.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Right down there with Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. All of whom could say the same thing about some point in each of their presidencies. But yes, if you look at Obama's trend, he's been going down since his election. Though to be fair, even Reagan had about the same trend in his approval rating at this point in his presidency. Whether Obama gets more approval though is, well, entirely up to Obama, and doing more things worth approving of.

Could you provide links substantiating your claims that all these past presidents had similar ratings. Thanks.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Could you provide links substantiating your claims that all these past presidents had similar ratings. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

Thanks, it will be interesting to see how Obama’s "Approval Average," once his reign ends, stacks up to the other presidents. And funny how Eisenhower with two terms, and was president during one of the greatest growth periods of American history, is almost never mentioned in political discussions.

matthew8

Amerika wrote: »

Thanks, it will be interesting to see how Obama’s "Approval Average," once his reign ends, stacks up to the other presidents. And funny how Eisenhower with two terms, and was president during one of the greatest growth periods of American history, is almost never mentioned in political discussions.

And he ended the Korean war, a truly great president. There's also the small matter of being a wartime hero.

Overheal

Eisenhower was wonderful apparently. So was Kennedy. Two exceptionals out of 13 Presidents and along 78 years.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Thanks, it will be interesting to see how Obama’s "Approval Average," once his reign ends, stacks up to the other presidents. And funny how Eisenhower with two terms, and was president during one of the greatest growth periods of American history, is almost never mentioned in political discussions.

As the economy and stock market continue to do badly it's very likely that the only way is down for his rating.

I think he tends to be forgotten about because of the lack of landmark events during his presidency in comparison to JFK.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Eisenhower was wonderful apparently. So was Kennedy. Two exceptionals out of 13 Presidents and along 78 years.

Both had excellent approval ratings, but keep in mind one had 8 years, the other less than 3, and JFK's involvement with Vietnam surely would have cost him as the military action increased.

Denerick

I've always admired Eisenhower, but I think people are leaving out Carter and Obama in their 'hallowed lists'. It is remarkable that two such intelligent and compassionate individuals could ever rise so high amid the customary slime of American politics.

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

Eisenhower was wonderful apparently. So was Kennedy. Two exceptionals out of 13 Presidents and along 78 years.

I wouldn't describe Kennedy as a wonderful president tbh. He had his good points but the bad ones outweighed them.

jank

Suryavarman wrote: »

As the economy and stock market continue to do badly it's very likely that the only way is down for his rating.

I think he tends to be forgotten about because of the lack of landmark events during his presidency in comparison to JFK.

The economy may not be the best but the Dow is up a lot since Jan 2009.

matthew8

jank wrote: »

The economy may not be the best but the Dow is up a lot since Jan 2009.

Are you serious man? The dow went up because Obama caused inflation with his quantitative easing and lowred the value of the common man's money.

Suryavarman

jank wrote: »

The economy may not be the best but the Dow is up a lot since Jan 2009.

It is down a lot in the last 2 months though.

smellslikeshoes

Suryavarman wrote: »

It is down a lot in the last 2 months though.

That's easily explained by high oil prices caused by and general concern over what's happening in MENA.

matthew8

Suryavarman wrote: »

It is down a lot in the last 2 months though.

Quantatative easing stopped.

jank

matthew8 wrote: »

Are you serious man? The dow went up because Obama caused inflation with his quantitative easing and lowred the value of the common man's money.

Well first of all lets get the facts straight. Inflation although up this year (3.6%) is still lower then the high of 2007 (4.1%). Lets not over react and think that we have double digit inflation ala the early 80's.....

2nd QE may be a factor in the rising Dow over the last two years but only a fool would think that is the only reason. Also let us remind ourselves that the man behind QE is someone called Ben Bernanke, a republican and Bush appointee..

It is down a lot in the last 2 months though.

The dow is up almost 100% since the low of March 2009. The last two months it is down about 6% from its high, so comparatively it is not alot as you would say. QE may be a factor but the situation in Greece and the slowdown of China are also factors.

Suryavarman

jank wrote: »

Well first of all lets get the facts straight. Inflation although up this year (3.6%) is still lower then the high of 2007 (4.1%). Lets not over react and think that we have double digit inflation ala the early 80's.....

Are those the inflation figures that don't count the double digit inflation in food and fuel?

jank

Suryavarman wrote: »

Are those the inflation figures that don't count the double digit inflation in food and fuel?

Em... No.