Sanford-Huntsman 2012

Mark Sanford was seen as a 2012 GOP Frontrunner prior to the Appalachian Trail/Argentine Mistress fiasco. Other than the affair, he didn't really have a tendency to cheat on his wife.

Sanford basically had the Tea Party and the anti-war element as well as a certain amount of leadership support, having been Chairman of the Republican Governor's Association.

Huntsman, meanwhile, was comparably fiscally conservative but temperamentally moderate. Sanford was and is known for being very anti-war, and Huntsman supported Afghanistan withdrawal in 2012. Neither was particularly interested in championing conservative stances on social issues either. They complement each other pretty well (particularly given Huntsman's diplomatic experience and crossover appeal).

So what if the 2012 Republican ticket had been Mark Sanford and John Huntsman?
 
Depends on a lot of things.

Why it might do better: hitting Obama on broken antiwar promises, social moderation, less gaffes, Ron Paul likely to endorse which should lower the number of Johnson/stay-at-home Paulites

Why it might do worse: Sanford being overly Tea Party fiscally, alienating base on foreign affairs and social moderation
 
Anti-war sentiments get expressed in the GOP a cycle earlier, which probably makes the rhetoric less impactful in 2016, assuming it shapes up as OTL. There'd be a lot of push back from the war lobby within the Party though, and that split would probably be enough to result in a loss. Besides some changed ideological ground for 2016 I don't see much else happening.

Oh, but Paul Ryan's national profile would be smaller, but not tarnished by the loss. Romney may also be primed for a run in 2016, probably unsuccessful though.
 
Top