Tom Dec

abitnippy:

Jon Huntsman has 72 hours to prevent a devastating loss in New Hampshire. In my view, he has three main problems:

1. He is perceived as Romney’s stunt double. People don’t really know the difference between them.

2. His name recognition isn’t high enough. A significant number of people in New Hampshire (let alone the rest of the country) still don’t know who he is. I know this from firsthand experience.

3. His campaign doesn’t have a clearly defined message. Huntsman is the “moderate” candidate, but also the “consistent conservative.” He comes out in favor of evolution and global warming but stops short of positioning himself as the most rational contender in the field. He’s just like Romney but doesn’t flip flop. Huntsman needs something more compelling than these confusing and contradictory points if he wants to win.

With so little time (and so little money) left in the race, he only has one option: Go viral. The #jon2012girls effort was a step in the right direction, but he needs something even bigger.

Here are a few ideas:

Read More

abitnippy is right in that Huntsman is a Romney stunt double. Their places on the ideological spectrum are similar, except that people know Romney better. Romney also has more money and arguably more experience in politics. Huntsman is having trouble beating Romney as his own game. If Huntsman wants a shot he definitely needs to be more aggressive and take calculated risks, but I some of these suggestions are extreme. 

Even better would be to make them snarky and appeal to younger voters: “Jon Huntsman. Because every other candidate sucks.”

This is a horrible, horrible idea. Jon Huntsman should not hope for younger voters to push him over the edge. He has a problem with older voters, and a snarky ad campaign would not help to attract them. In fact, it will only work to deter them from voting. 

Based on a Public Policy Poll conducted from December 16-18th, 64% of voters age 46-65 and 75% of voters over age 65 have a positive impression of Romney, whereas for Huntsman it is 51% and 46% respectively. This is a difference of 13% and 29% - huge.  

In 2008, only 14% of GOP Primary voters were under age 30, while 49% were over age 50. There’s no reason to expect that these youth numbers will top those set in 2008. Even on the Democratic side, where we experienced a high water mark for young voter engagement, voters under 30 were only 18% of the vote. 

Huntsman needs to attract senior votes. I think the idea of painting the other candidates as extreme and going with something along the lines of the “call me crazy” theme is good for New Hampshire. But if he tries to be “cool” and snarky, he’ll almost definitely lose. He needs seniors and he needs to show them the downsides of a Romney candidacy. 

I think Ezra Klein’s tweet summed it up well: 

Romney: Came in line with expectations, probably seemed the most presidential on the stage and had a commanding tenor and presence. He’s the guy to beat, and he was afraid to act it.

Pawlenty: Underperformed. Should have backed-up his claim about Obamneycare but didn’t do it well. 

Bachmann: Exceeded expectations. Seems like less of an extreme and definitely seems like she can capture and generate enthusiasm from the GOP base. Watch her. 

Paul: He’s Ron Paul. He did what Ron Paul does. Played to his base just fine, but he’s not going anywhere. 

Gingrich: I thought he left politics 15 years ago? 

Santorum and Cain: Afterthoughts of the debate. 

I’m not sure why the political universe isn’t giving Tim Pawlenty more attention.

Coming from my viewpoint as a stalwart Democrat, I think he’s been making strides that will make him the hardest GOP candidate to beat if he can make it to the general election. He is probably the most electable candidate in the GOP field so far.

Based on Pawlenty’s speech, he is definitely not positioning himself to be a champion of the right wing of the GOP establishment, and I think that’s a good move. The problem, of course, is that without the tea partiers and party activists he may not be able to make it through the primary. It’s going to be interesting to see how his campaign unfolds. 

Here are some excerpts and my corresponding commentary from his twenty-minute announcement speech earlier today: 

In my campaign I’m going to take a different approach, I’m going to tell you the truth. Washington D.C. is broken…President Obama doesn’t have an economic plan, he just has a campaign plan…We’ve tried President Obama’s way. And his way has failed…it’s time for a new approach. 

This isn’t particularly noteworthy. As an outsider candidate running against an incumbent, he has to build an argument that he would be better than the status quo, better than the existing Administration. This is the point that is probably going to be the hardest to argue since, in my opinion at least, the Obama Administration has achieved many successes and done a decent job. 

Later this week I’m going to New York City to tell Wall Street that the era of bailouts, handouts, and carve outs, are over. No more subsidies, special treatments, Fannie and Freddy, no more too big to fail.

This is a pretty appealing statement. The populist tone of this - and many of the other positions he established - will play well with virtually all voters. It’s particularly compelling because it seems to be in line with his outsider approach, which is distinct from some of the other potential candidates such as Gingrich or even Romney. 

People getting paid by the taxpayers shouldn’t be getting a better deal than the taxpayers themselves…freezing federal salaries…downsizing federal workforce…pay for results…making public employees more accountable. 

The way he is disguising this relatively conservative point is pretty attractive on paper. He’s not a firebrand conservative saying we need to eliminate large portions of the federal government, he’s coming across as a soft-spoken, practical, politician. This, of course, will be hard to argue in an election against the President seeing as the President already froze most federal salaries and has taken a relatively moderate position on the issue. 

No card check, not now and not ever. No more taxpayer bailouts just because you made big campaign contributions to politicians.

He wants to weaken the unions. This isn’t particularly surprising. 

America is facing a crushing debt crisis…we need to cut spending, and cut it big time…we need to phase out federal subsidies for ethanol…we need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries…we simply can’t afford them anymore. 

This was probably the most surprising part of his speech - coming out against subsidies for ethanol, big agriculture, and other industries (although he did not mention the oil industry - I’m curious how his energy platform will shake out). I agree with the Governor that subsidies to big agriculture need to be reevaluated and I thought it was interesting that he would come out with this in a state that disproportionately relies on those subsidies - perhaps a risky political move. I was maybe even a little bit impressed. 

Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street…someone has to lead. I will…I’ll unite our Party and I’ll unite our nation.

I’m not from Washington. I grew up in Minnesota. I grew up in the hard working, blue collar town of St. Paul.

This is the outsider, straight-talk approach that I think will be an effective message for Pawlenty in the GOP primary. My bet - and his bet, too - is that this will be salient in a field of contenders that is relatively stale and closely associated with Washington in the eyes of the public. 

During my eight years as governor I passed a budget that reduced state spending…I know how to do health care reform right. No mandates, no takeovers, and it’s the opposite of Obamacare…I took on the public employee unions before it was popular to do it…stood up to teacher’s unions…appointed new conservative justices…led a liberal state in a conservative direction.

He’s hitting all the notes necessary to be a realistic GOP contender - reducing spending, weakening unions, conservative SCOTUS justices. These are all litmus tests to becoming the GOP nominee, and he seems to be satisfying them here. 

In 2008 President Obama told us he would change America, and he has. In 2012 we’ll change America again, and this time it will be for the better. 

Pawlenty’s double-edged sword is his lack of charisma. If he wants to generate excitement and the army of volunteers and dollars that follows it, he’s going to have to improve on this front. On the other hand, however, it may prove to be a benefit because it limits his ability to polarize the electorate. His soft-spoken attitude and campaign revolving around “truth” is a good contrast to make in the GOP field (at this point). 

The problem, of course, is I’m not sure the GOP electorate will buy it. I hope not, though, because I’d rather run a race against Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich anyways.

Here’s the full video, if you want to watch.