Thursday, January 20, 2011

Larry Sabato: A First Line-Up for 2012

According to Larry Sabato, The following is, A First Line-Up for 2012.
No one can be rated as having an “excellent” chance at winning the nomination (yet someone will eventually win). Mitt Romney, widely considered to be leading the early pack, starts out as a weak frontrunner. Six actual or possible contenders are placed in the First Tier; four more in the Second Tier: four in the Third Tier; and five in the Fourth Tier. Obviously, the nominee is likely to be found in Tiers 1 and 2.
Click on the chart below to read Sabato's analysis and rationale for his picks:


Right Wingnut said...

I don't have much to say about Sabato's piece. However, I am surprised to hear that Daniels is "everybody's 2nd or 3rd choice." I guess that what happens when you never leave the beltway.

Closer To Home said...

As I look at any list of candidates, I am reminded that the campaigns are pointed at winning 3 separate phases: to the final 2, the nomination, and the general. I try to imagine who can make it to the final 2, when the issues will really get defined. And being in the top 2 doesn't assure that you will be in the final 2. For example, are 2 socon/tp candidates going to both make it or will one cancel out the other?

And then, when it comes down to just 2, and when we factor in independents and crossovers, how much will electability in the general impact their choice as to who we put forward as a party to take on Obama, where winning is the only thing? (Sabato, one of the most noted political scientists in the country re: elections, seems to think it is a powerful driver.)

I'd like to see how people see the "race to 2" and who likely gets their. And then how they see the outcomes of the various pairings.

Ric Pugmire

Anonymous said...

Karl Rove today...

"If Mitt Romney recognizes that his answer on why on what they did in Massachusetts looks so much like what Obama tried to do to the country, if he recognizes that is a problem, then he’ll work his way out of the problem.

If he doesn’t, he doesn’t."

illinoisguy said...

Electability was a major factor last time also. Most people agree, if Mitt had won California, he would have stayed in and likely won the nomination. The exit polling in California, and one of the major things it found was that Mitt would have won Cali by 8% if it were not for the fact that he was running worse against the Demo candidate at the time than McCain. Instead he lost Cali by about that amount. It will be a factor.

Ann said...

I agree with his list for the most part.

I don't think Tim Pawlenty should be number 4.

Anonymous said...

I'd say that because Romney is not on TV 24/7 and STILL is always on top or tied for top in most polls, He is a STRONG front runner.


Anonymous said...

I agree on most points - including that Romney is a weak frontrunner. Where Sabato is wrong:

1. Romney’s good looks. Whenever people talk about his looks or his hair, they have not done their homework, are too lazy to think of something real to say, or they are trying to avoid mentioning real qualifications. (Romney's looks or hair are really no better than many of the other candidates, yet no one else gets the treatment - except Thune. What about Sarah's hair, etc?)

2. Ditto for “next-in-line/frontrunner” designation. Too lazy or unwilling to say what it is about Romney that makes him a viable candidate.

3. Mormonism is a weakness? Funny how no other candidate is subject to such nonsense.

4. He forgot the elephants in the room on Huck: TAXES and BIG GOV. This was the reason conservatives rejected him in 08.

5. He claims, as many others do, that Romney and Huck dislike each other. But there is no evidence that Romney dislikes Huck. It’s only one way folks, and Huck can’t seem to get over it. I challenge anyone to find something personal Romney has ever said about Huck that was not complimentary. On the other hand, you can find scads of Huck quotes dissing Romney personally. He has called him dishonest dozens of times.

On Palin he’s right on.

Anonymous said...

That was me.


OhioJOE said...

"Funny how no other candidate is subject to such nonsense." They are, which is why in part, Mr. Sabato is wrong.

hamaca said...

OJ...I think Sabato is referring specifically to nonsense about one's religion. If that's what he meant, I'd agree with him, even though both Huck and Sarah have been subject to religious nonsense as well. In Huck's case, he brings much of it on himself, but some is unfair.

If Sabato is referring more broadly to being subject to nonsense about one's personal life, then I'd certainly agree with you that he's wrong--Sarah has had to deal with far more than any prospective candidate.

OhioJOE said...

Well, to be sure, there are a few people that hold Mr. Romney's religion against him, but I believe that it is a small and shrinking minority. I do not think it was wise of Mr. Sabato to promote this; I also think it was unwise of him to say what he did about a few other candidate, but I guess he has his own interests.