Erick Erikson thinks that Bobby Jindal is the man to step in and save the Republicans from the horror of Mitt Romney. Forgive me, but I don’t see how Jindal is much different from Tim Pawlenty. He’s a fairly popular governor, but he isn’t ready for primetime. He doesn’t excite anyone. The GOP is going to win Louisiana anyway, at least if they have any chance of winning the general election. I don’t think Jindal would shift the demographics of the vote much. It’s just a stupid idea to put your hopes in Bobby Jindal. He reminds me of the Kenneth character on 30 Rock more than he strikes me as a plausible president.
However, I can’t disagree too much with this:
When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d’etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving.
Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don’t like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you’re going to go with the guy you like.
My only questions are, what would Bobby Jindal say differently and why would people like him? Is Jindal going to say that the economy is great and doesn’t need fixing? Is he going to become charismatic overnight?
Erikson identifies the problem. He doesn’t’ realize that it’s a problem without a solution. See you in Tampa!!
