In OTL, Former United States Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman suspended his campaign after earning third place in the New Hampshire Republican Primary. I'm interested in what a Huntsman presidency would have looked like because unlike Romney, Huntsman seemed centrist and like a unifier (Another user once suggested that Huntsman was one of the most right-wing candidates of 2012. If so, could he beat Romney by referencing Romney's Senate campaign of 1994?). Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina suggested that the Obama campaign believed Huntsman would have been a particularly difficult candidate to face in the general election.
2012: President Jon Huntsman
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
I think you need to keep Romney out of the 2012 race and also have Pawlenty implode as he did OTL for Huntsman to get the nomination, and I think even then he'd have the same problems Romney did in a sense that he would've won the nomination after all the "anti Huntsman" candidates imploded and got out, and all the attacks thrown at him in the primary would be used against him in the general by the Obama campaign. Huntsman winning isn't impossible, Obama was pretty vulnerable going into 2012, but it would be difficult unless Obama's 1st term went worse than it did.
As for Huntsman as President, he'd probably be a one termer, as the Tea Party wouldn't fall in line behind him and would probably primary him if he did anything other than being a rubber stamp to their agenda. Plus, foreign policy would more or less go as OTL, as I don't see Huntsman as a "shoot from the hip first and ask questions later" type like the vast majority of his party is.
As for Huntsman as President, he'd probably be a one termer, as the Tea Party wouldn't fall in line behind him and would probably primary him if he did anything other than being a rubber stamp to their agenda. Plus, foreign policy would more or less go as OTL, as I don't see Huntsman as a "shoot from the hip first and ask questions later" type like the vast majority of his party is.
As much as I would've loved to have seen a Moderate like myself secure the nomination in 2012, the Tea Party would've never allowed it. They would've found a way around nominating Huntsman. Hell, Romney had to make a major shift to the right before he was taken seriously by the Tea Party and Ultra-Right base. Huntsman isn't going to stray from his Center-Right just to get the nomination. Even if he was the most difficult to defeat in the eyes of the Obama Camp, the GOP and Tea Party are going to point to John McCain's candidacy in 2008, and preach the theory that "Moderates can't win." They're especially going to hit him hard because he has ties to Obama.
I think the Tea Party and the Far Right base use all their resources to stop Huntsman. They're most likely going to annoint one of their puppets. I can see it being Perry or Santorum. The in-party fighting is going to give the GOP a sounder ass kicking than it did in OTL.
I think the Tea Party and the Far Right base use all their resources to stop Huntsman. They're most likely going to annoint one of their puppets. I can see it being Perry or Santorum. The in-party fighting is going to give the GOP a sounder ass kicking than it did in OTL.
Hoping this doesn't tread too much into "Chat" territory; Glen, please feel free to move this thread if you think it does.
But here goes:
Although I think Double J is mostly right, OTL's current election is pretty instructive. Right now I'd say there's a non-zero -- but fractionally small -- chance that John Kasich will be the Republican nominee. Kasich has essentially run Huntsman's 2012 campaign as the "Republican most favored by MSNBC," but if the GOP convention results in a total collapse, it's conceivable that he might emerge as the last man standing and become the pragmatic choice for nominee.
So if you replicate 2016's craziness in 2012 -- hell, you could even do it with Trump, who flirted with a run four years ago -- you just might be able to get Huntsman the nomination despite the fact that all of the energy will be on the Tea Party side.
One caveat: Kasich's delegate math and position are strengthened by the likelihood that he's going to win delegate-rich Ohio tonight, and Huntsman's home state is... Utah. So that's a problem you'd have to figure out.
But here goes:
Although I think Double J is mostly right, OTL's current election is pretty instructive. Right now I'd say there's a non-zero -- but fractionally small -- chance that John Kasich will be the Republican nominee. Kasich has essentially run Huntsman's 2012 campaign as the "Republican most favored by MSNBC," but if the GOP convention results in a total collapse, it's conceivable that he might emerge as the last man standing and become the pragmatic choice for nominee.
So if you replicate 2016's craziness in 2012 -- hell, you could even do it with Trump, who flirted with a run four years ago -- you just might be able to get Huntsman the nomination despite the fact that all of the energy will be on the Tea Party side.
One caveat: Kasich's delegate math and position are strengthened by the likelihood that he's going to win delegate-rich Ohio tonight, and Huntsman's home state is... Utah. So that's a problem you'd have to figure out.
Thank you for bringing in my fellow graduate of THE Ohio State University.
Seriously, having listened a little bit to conservative talk radio over the years, that wing of the party is convinced that the reason they don't win is because their candidates are not conservative enough and they point to nice solid moderates like Gerry Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney as examples. I imagine that absent some serious PODs that really undermine Obama going into 2012, John Hunstman would simply be another name on that list.
BTW, where in Maryland do you live?
What that wing of the party doesn't understand is that a majority of those moderates ran in bad years for the GOP. Ford had Watergate, his Pardon of Nixon (which was necessary to heal the country), the Fall of Saigon, and a bad economy (which was arguably Nixon's and to some extent LBJ's fault) on his record, and despite that he almost beat Carter.
Bush 41 had a bad economy (arguably the long term effects of Reagan combined with the business cycle as usual), and right wingers turning on him for doing what needed to be done with taxes and a strong third party candidate (who, contrary to right wing belief, was not a spoiler). Plus voter fatigue and the most skilled politician of the late 20th century as the Democratic nominee.
Dole was the Walter Mondale of the Republicans, in a sense that the GOP knew they were going to lose and that Dole was going to retire, so they gave him the nomination as a sacrificial lamb. Baring a major scandal coming as an October surprise or foreign policy blunder, no one (except maybe Powell who had no political ambitions) was going to beat Slick Willy in '96. The economy was strong and things were for all intense and purposes stable abroad.
McCain had 8 years of Dubya to run on and answer for, had a campaign that didn't properly vet his dunce of a running mate, with a financial crisis as the icing on the cake. Factor that with the fact that he was running against the first African American nominee for President of either major party.
Romney was the only one of those moderate Republicans that lost a winnable election, and did so because he spent more time pandering to wing nuts that were already (although reluctantly) going to vote for him, thus failing to broaden his appeal and alienating moderates. Let's not forget the "corporations are people my friend," "I like being able to fire people," and the infamous 47% remark. Romney's loss was of his own doing, not because he was a moderate.
There is also the fact that the party base has created a mythological version of Ronald Reagan that is in many ways not in line with the real person. I've read a number of articles by people who worked for Reagan and they have all said the real Reagan could not get nominated in today's party. As long as they continue to measure every candidate against a mythological creation, they will have a hard time putting someone in the White House.
He did portray himself as one though and compared to the rest of his party at that time (Including Romney in many ways) and especially compared to the GOP of today, Huntsman was a moderate.
Agreed, although Reagan, with a little help from Nixon's southern strategy, and Jerry Falwell, did create the beast that is the GOP of today.
His Ecconomic policy was aligned with the rest of the party, he was just nice to people who are LGBT and immigrants.
I disagree about Huntsman not being a Moderate. He's Center-Right in his political ideology with his most Conservative positions being fiscally and Pro-Life. He supported military cuts, Gay Marriage, Green Energy and Obama Care.
I'd say he's to the right of Nelson Rockefeller and to the left of Howard Baker.
I'd say he's to the right of Nelson Rockefeller and to the left of Howard Baker.
Supporting military cuts is arguable a far right as in libertarian or isolationist position.
For all of the grief that Democrats get for being weak on defense, plenty of Democratic presidents have increased defense spending including Carter while Bill Clinton cut defense less than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush 41 (that's factoring everything into current year $$$$).
For all of the grief that Democrats get for being weak on defense, plenty of Democratic presidents have increased defense spending including Carter while Bill Clinton cut defense less than Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush 41 (that's factoring everything into current year $$$$).
Very true, however I still feel that Huntsman is still Center-Right on the political scale. He fits the category of Fiscally Conservative and Socially Moderate and I feel that he'd take a more Centrist approach as President.
I'd be interested in seeing what he would've done as President and if there would've been any radical change o or if he'd somewhat stay the course of Obama.
I'd be interested in seeing what he would've done as President and if there would've been any radical change o or if he'd somewhat stay the course of Obama.