Quin (and others),
The post about Gilmore as a presidential candidate is interesting and it causes me to bring up something here that I've raised in other venues.
What exactly is the calculus that makes Romney a top tier candidate while guys like Gilmore, Huckabee, and Brownback are all considered longshots? Each of those men have won more statewide elections than Romney has.
Gilmore won twice in VA. Once as Attorney General and again as Governor. He was also head of the RNC.
Huckabee won two four year terms as Governor in Bill Clinton's home state, a state that is absolutely purple, electorally speaking. That means he demonstrated crossover appeal.
Brownback has won three times (once in a special election) statewide in Kansas.
Compare Mitt Romney. He won a single term in Massachusetts, running in the standard socially moderate Mass. GOP mold. He finished his term and declared himself done, having accomplished everything he needed to accomplish. The rationale is one I have found surprising, considering Romney had just passed a comprehensive health care scheme that might have benefitted from his managerial expertise. More transparently, it has appeared to me that Romney didn't run in Massachusetts because he knew he couldn't win. (Just how does that distinguish him from Rick Santorum, who went ahead and ran, but lost?)
Given all of the above, why is Mitt the major candidate, nearly on a par with Giuliani and McCain, while Gilmore, Brownback, and Huckabee are virtual sideshows?
Any explanations from you politicos?
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article