+1
The crazy thing about the Republican field is that in a relatively normal election cycle everything -- everything -- would point to Mitt Romney. Runner-up last time, strong fundraising advantage and existing organization, and his business acumen and all-around general level of personal competency would dovetail very well with the kinds of themes he'd probably be running against Obama with.
Except, of course, for RomneyCare. And that one thing -- the fact that he instituted a not-too-unlike-ObamaCare-health-plan as Governor of Massachusetts -- could be enough to counteract all the others. He's played this the only way he can, really: by suggesting that it's one thing to implement such a plan for a specific state, and another to impose it on an entire country. And that's true. But it's not enough, and I don't suspect he can make the case that Massachusetts is so fundamentally different from the rest of the nation to make an idea he finds terrible at the federal level hunky-dory at the state level. And even if he could, that's a pretty nuanced counter to a very straightforward charge, and those don't usually work very well.
Palin: I think there's a very good chance she doesn't even run, and if she does I don't think she wins. I like her just where she is: as a party firebrand and general lightning rod. And I think she risks hurting the eventual nominee if she runs and loses. The people who love her really love her, and I can easily see many of them having no second choice if she falls short, and thus sitting things out even though they're apt to align with the eventual nominee fairly well anyway.
I honestly don't know who I'd put money on if I were forced to. Probably Romney, but if not Romney, it'd definitely be Pawlenty. He's relatively inoffensive, which is both his strength and his weakness. At the moment he's not exciting too many people and is ill-defined, but the latter fact also means he could define himself, and having the flexibility to do that (something most of the other serious candidates do not have) could be very valuable. And there is some political theory to suggest that in a wide open race with no clear frontrunner, the blandest candidate tends to emerge (think: Kerry, 2004). That said, I wouldn't bet on this unless I could take "The Field" against any single candidate.
I'm also surprised at how little attention Haley Barbour's getting, though that's probably because of his civil rights gaffe a few months back. Outside of that he's a pretty attractive candidate; he's experienced and he's got a good fiscal track record. It would not shock me in the slightest if he won. Worth tossing Mitch Daniels' name in there. No idea if he's running, though: this seems like it should be the time, but he's made a few moves to the center recently, and that's not the kind of thing you do leading up to a primary. I could get behind him, though, for sure.
Last thought for now: there are lots of exciting candidates who aren't going to run this time around, which means that if Obama does win re-election, the Republicans should have a very, very good crop of candidates in 2016. Chris Christie is the obvious hypothetical frontrunner, and Marco Rubio could be awfully exciting after he's gotten some experience. Paul Ryan lives and breathes budget matters, and those aren't going to stop being relevant any time soon. Plenty of choices next time around...unless, of course, a Republican actually wins next year. And the smart bet is still against that happening.