A Quick Thought on Media Coverage of Mitch Daniels Leaving the Race

I’ve been reading quite a bit of commentary about Mitch Daniels deciding not to run for the Presidency and I admit to some surprise at something. There is an awful lot of weeping, moaning and gnashing of teeth at his departure, which makes no sense to me because he had zero chance of winning the Republican nomination. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch.

He doesn’t have the fundraising prowess or organization of Romney. He doesn’t have the base bona fides of Bachmann. And to top it all off, he’s about as exciting as getting a pair of black socks for Christmas.

Why anyone thought he had a chance is beyond me.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Media, Politicians, Quick Takes, US Politics
Alex Knapp
About Alex Knapp
Alex Knapp is Associate Editor at Forbes for science and games. He was a longtime blogger elsewhere before joining the OTB team in June 2005 and contributed some 700 posts through January 2013. Follow him on Twitter @TheAlexKnapp.

Comments

  1. Chad S says:

    Is Andrew Sullivan off of suicide watch yet?

    Daniels wouldn’t be able to overcome being Dubya’s budget director during a time when the budget became a trainwreck.

  2. I don’t think fundraising would’ve been a problem given the people that were urging him to run.

  3. I think you are right about his chances.

    I think the pining for Daniels was a reflection of the deep dissatisfaction that many party elites have for the current crop of candidates/direction of the party.

    Romney is the flip-flopping retread whilst people like Palin and Bachmann are simply embarrassing. Seriously, what will someone like George Will (or even Charles Krauthammer) do if one of the more embarrassing candidates is nominated?

  4. Tommy says:

    Doesn’t have the fundraising prowess? Since last year his State-level PAC raised more cash than all the other potential candidates combined. And, as Doug said, with people like Haley Barbour willing to back him? I think he’d have been fine. Also, if “bona fides” are thinking, AFTER 9/11, that gay marriage is “probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that” you can keep them. Bachmann is a moron.

  5. Hey Norm says:

    When a guy with no chance of winning is your best chance of winning, and he bails on you, there is bound to be some teeth gnashing.

  6. A voice from another precinct says:

    “Seriously, what will someone like George Will (or even Charles Krauthammer) do if one of the more embarrassing candidates is nominated?”

    As to George Will, I don’t know because he may have some principles. Charles Krauthammer will climb aboard the Fox News Express and ride it to wherever it’s going at the moment, just like he does now.

  7. Kylopod says:

    >Seriously, what will someone like George Will (or even Charles Krauthammer) do if one of the more embarrassing candidates is nominated?

    Will has long found himself in situations like that. In 1992, he said he was refusing to vote for any of the three main candidates, and he wrote in Jack Kemp. In 2008, he didn’t say how or even whether he voted, but he basically admitted that Obama was more temperamentally fit for the office than McCain.

  8. michael reynolds says:

    Oh, sure: diss the black socks. Like white socks would be better.

  9. Franklin says:

    My white socks look perfectly good with brown shoes. No one has told me otherwise.