Is a Rough Primary as Bad as We Think? Pt. 2

So looking back on it, I did not really provide any relation between my old college research paper, and the 2012 election.  So here is my take based on research I did back in College.
Plain and simple, in my opinion the Republicans want this primary to go on a little bit longer.  Not to the point where they are out of cash, but to the point where winning it looks like a big deal.  Where the winner has overcome obstacles, worked most of the kinks out of the campaign strategy, and is ready for Obama.  However, the odds on favorite to win the Nomination (Romney in my opinion) keeps trying to cut the primary season short.  And while I understand his goal is to eventually beat Obama, saying that the primaries should end early to help him focus on Obama is a two fold problem.  One Mitt is losing out on being seen as the winner that overcame a tough Primary.  For a candidate who has already lost before, looking like a winner is huge.  Secondly, he sounded really egotistical saying that.
There are two other reasons why I think the Republicans should let this primary season go on.  The first is the press.  With all of these early primaries and debates there is tons of press.  And all press is good press.  The second one was the debates.  I really liked the debates, because they were true head to head match ups of candidates.  It helped to negate all of the money that the PAC's are throwing it the race by putting the candidates up in front of people, against one another.
In my opinion this primary, while hotly contested, and growing more negative by the day, should be good for the Republican Party if they pick a candidate who can match up well in the general election.

Is a Rough Primary as Bad as We Think?

A lot of people and political pundits have been discussing how this protracted Republican Primary Season is bad for the eventual nominee for the Republican Party.  The claim is that with all of the mud slinging that is going on, it will ruin the eventual nominee's chances in the general election.  This would seem to make sense, but based on a research paper that I wrote senior year of college and some common knowledge this might not be the case.
Simply put my research found that the divisive primary was good for a challenger, but detrimental to an incumbent.  The logic behind this is pretty simple.  When a challenger to an incumbent has a tightly contested primary, then they come out already battle tested.  There would not be much new dirt to use against them, and the candidate already looks successful as he or she has won a tough fought primary.  While candidates that feel like they are winning want to end campaigns early to save money, or to avoid more bad publicity, many times the divisive primary can have good affects.
While these results were mostly based on primaries and general elections for the US Congress, it could easily be seen that if a good candidate were to win a divisive primary it would be beneficial for a candidate rather than detrimental.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

So the Republican Presidential race is down to four candidates.  (Okay, so the title may be a bit on the over-dramatic side, but I thought it was funny)  Unfortunately my favorite candidate does not happen to be still in the running.  Which leaves Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul.  I think each one of these candidates has a glaring problem that could ultimately cost them the nomination or even the Presidency.

Romney- I think Romney has a couple of glaring weaknesses, but I think his biggest problem is the apparent lack of faith in Romney by the Republican establishment.  I think this encompasses all of his other problems ranging from his apparent flip-flopping on issues to his reported millions he has stashed over seas.  Romney is the candidate that polls the best against Obama.  Yet he continues to lose primaries and not have apparent support from the national party.

Gingrich- I think hypocrisy is Gingrich's biggest problem.  Gingrich is a great debater and appears to be able to recover from a near campaign end at one point.  I think his problem lies with his apparent hypocrisy.  I do not have any problems with Gingrich running on a platform of Family Values because that is a valid platform.  I think his problem lies in the multiple affairs, divorces, and a reported request for an open marriage.  How this coincides with his repeated statements on Family Values is beyond me.

Santorum- I like to call this problem the Google problem.  Simply google Santorum and look at the number one result.  In a fast paced country where people rely on Google and rapid searches for immediate answers, I think this could be a major problem.  Granted self inflicted, but still problematic.

Paul- Paul's problems lie in his extremism.  Paul has many ideas that are worth debating, including the role of the Fed and goal of American Foreign Policy, but his ideas go to far for most Americans.  In this globally connected world, American cannot afford to withdraw into extreme isolationism, and Paul's isolationist ideas scare off too many people for him to be able to win the election.

Those are the big problems that I see confronting each candidate.  While these problems are can be over come, I could also see these problems costing the candidates the election.

My Favorite Republican Nominee

So it may seem a little weird that I have a favorite Republican Presidential candidate given that I in all likelihood will vote for President Obama.  That not withstanding I still have a Republican Nominee that I think would be the best for their party and for the country should he win the election.
I can easily say that my favorite nominee is John Huntsman.  I think that Huntsman has not gotten the amount of press that he has deserved up until very recently.  I believe that Huntsman has not gotten the press because he is not catering to the Evangelical Christian vote that makes up a large chuck of the Iowa Primary vote.  (My questioning on why does Iowa hold so much power is another blog for another day)  By being a social moderate, possibly even social liberal, he has caused himself to not get the attention he deserves for thoughtful conservative economic policies, and his detailed foreign policies.  His other major flaw from getting press I believe was his time spent in China.  While some candidates (Romney, Mitt) have been campaigning since November of 2008, Huntsman was working in China for the Obama administration.  I think his late entry into the race and his affiliation with the Obama administration helped put him behind the press power curve.
Needless to say Huntsman did not fare very well in the Iowa Caucus.  I believe that he knew it was out of his reach given his moderate social stances and is rightly focusing on New Hampshire, a state with a much larger group of moderates.  The only question remains can he gain enough ground in New Hampshire to make sticking around in the campaign worth while?  New Hampshire is Mitt Romney's primary to lose, but I think a solid second place finish by Huntsman could keep him in the race for a bit longer.  This would allow for a larger number of Americans to get to know him, and maybe him win the Republican race.