Michael Tomasky is at it again. Last week he was ripping Rick Perry. Now he’s praising Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is every liberal’s favorite GOP nominee because he’s a loser. Liberals love losers. That’s precisely the reason the Democrats have had one two-term president since FDR. That president was, of course, William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton managed a good economy throughout his last term, but his party still lost in 2000. That’s what makes Tomasky’s prediction so bold:
The more likely long-term scenario is that Huntsman will have negligible impact on his party. Unless the GOP does something truly self-immolating next year, like nominating a Bachmann who goes on to win 120 electoral votes, the current trajectory will likely continue for the foreseeable future. I think the Republicans, a stubborn bunch, will have to endure eight years of Obama and then eight years of some other Democrat (Hillary?) before they finally acknowledge certain realities, and even that seems iffy. So that’s 2024 at the earliest. Huntsman will be 64 then. But Sarah Palin will be just 60.
That’s the more likely scenario? President Obama was the first Democrat to get over 50 percent of the vote in national election since 1976 and now the Democratic party is ready for 12 more years of executive branch success? It’s much more likely that Obama loses in a landslide next year than Tomasky’s fantasy scenario.
Liberals have always seemed to suffer from the “GOP is too extreme” delusion. Here’s an article from Time Magazine from March, 1980 about Ronald Reagan’s election chances.
G.O.P. Front Runner Ronald Reagan relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if he wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign. Ex-President Gerald Ford left no doubt about his views when he warned last month: “A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election.”