Let the race for 2012 begin...

[ryanm]

Ok, for all my fellow politics junkies: since the 2010 midterms are over (and my party got its ass kicked), all focus will soon be on 2012.  The GOP hopefuls will probably announce their candidacies within the next 6 or 7 months.  Trust me, that's not early.  Obama announced his candidacy in February of 2007, just 3 months after the 2006 midterms and 21 months before the Presidential election in 2008.  So my question to all of you interested is: who's going to be the GOP nominee for President in 2012?  Here are my thoughts:

Sarah Palin - The darling of the tea party movement and a favorite amongst conservatives.  She will run for President.  She already has national ads running on TV for her political action committee.  She has a very good shot at winning the Republican nomination, but she will get TROUNCED by Obama in the general election.

Mitt Romney - A very wealthy and practical conservative.  He was a Republican Governor in a VERY blue state.  The Massachusetts health care law that he signed into law was the model for national health care reform bill that was signed into law by President Obama last year.  He's loathed by many religious conservatives, but is a favorite of establishment and corporate Republicans.  Right now, I'd say he has more than a slim chance to win the nomination (he'll do very well in the New Hampshire primary), but he has an uphill battle to win primary states with more conservative bases.  If he does get the nomination, he could give President Obama a huge run for his money.

Mike Huckabee - A very likable former Governor from Arkansas.  He has that southern charm and seems like a very honorable man.  He won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, but couldn't carry momentum passed that.  He has a better shot than Romney to win the nomination and he could be a likable candidate to some moderates.  He is another candidate that could give Obama trouble in the general election.

John Thune - A dashingly good-looking and young conservative Senator from South Dakota.  He's very popular amongst a vast array of Republicans and is my choice for a dark horse candidate.

Newt Gingrich - He's going nowhere.  He'll run, but I think a lot of primary voters will see right through his hypocracy.  Tom Coburn, a very conservative Senator from Oklahoma, has stated publicly that Gingrich would be the last person he'd vote for.

Tim Pawlenty - He'll run, but he'll suffer from the "who's he?" problem.  He was a successful 2-term governor of Minnesota, but he doesn't have the charisma to stand out in the crowd.  Look for him to be top tier VP choice.

Ron Paul - The only true conservative I can think of.  He'll run again, but his commitment to small government in all circumstances will piss off the religious right and the neo-cons.

There will probably be other candidates, but I can't see any other names in the Republican party going that far.

[Tumbling Dice]

I don't think it makes much difference who's in the White House.

But I think a Republican challenger has a good chance in defeating President Obama since he hasn't been a very good leader and so it's worth a punt.





 

[#AP]

if Hillary, Palin, or Obama wins i'm moving to North Korea.

[Miami66]

if Hillary or Obama wins i'm staying in the USA 

[jackofhearts]

Doesn't matter to me who runs as the GOP nominee - whoever it is I want them to lose.

[The Promenade]

If Palin wins I'm moving to the USA

[JTBaby]

No one's moving anywhere.

I hope Palin at least runs, she's hysterical, and so are her "followers".

[ryanm]

I don't think it makes much difference who's in the White House.

But I think a Republican challenger has a good chance in defeating President Obama since he hasn't been a very good leader and so it's worth a punt.

I was thinking the exact opposite.  Keep in mind that Obama's approval ratings are still around 50%, which is much higher than President Clinton's were after his first midterms and higher than President Reagan's after his first midterms.  Furthermore, Obama now has an easier shot at re-election because he now has a Republican House to run against.  In 1995, the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40+ years and Newt Gingrich became Speaker.  He butted heads with Clinton on the budget which led to a temporary shutdown of the federal government.  President Clinton came out looking very good after that battle as Gingrich got all the blame.

Republicans have to actually govern now, which is something they have not done well in the House since the 1950's.  It's easy being the minority party because you don't have to come to a consensus and govern, you just have to oppose.  John Boehner will have a very difficult task keeping the freshman class in line and he will have to compromise with Democrats and accomplish something if he wants the GOP to keep their majority in the House in 2012.

Keep in mind the electorate in this year's midterms was smaller than 2006.  Republicans didn't get a huge sway of moderates to vote for them: a lot of the moderates and and liberals stayed home and just didn't vote.  The people that turned out ended up being overwhelmingly old, white, and conservative.  If Obama can find a way to inspire his base and those moderates again (which I think is likely), he'll cruise to re-election in 2012 regardless of who the Republicans put up.

[The Promenade]

No one's moving anywhere.

I hope Palin at least runs, she's hysterical, and so are her "followers".

.  Are you calling me hysterical?

[Tumbling Dice]

What I was getting at is that in truth the president doesn't have much power or control over the economy regardless of who's in the job, and yet the American people will blame that person come 2012 if the economic difficulties haven't improved much by then.  They won't blame a challenger.

[ryanm]

What I was getting at is that in truth the president doesn't have much power or control over the economy regardless of who's in the job, and yet the American people will blame that person come 2012 if the economic difficulties haven't improved much by then.  They won't blame a challenger.

Truth. But the chances of the unemployment rate still being at 9.5% in two years time is highly unlikely.

[ryanm]

What I was getting at is that in truth the president doesn't have much power or control over the economy regardless of who's in the job, and yet the American people will blame that person come 2012 if the economic difficulties haven't improved much by then.  They won't blame a challenger.

But I disagree that it doesn't matter who's in the white house.  The President cannot control the economy, but he/she can sign bills into law that help regulate it which does have an influence on the economy.  I'm convinced that if the Wall Street reform bill that was signed into law earlier this year had been signed into law by President Bush 3 or 4 years ago, the economic recession wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it was.

[Tumbling Dice]

What I was getting at is that in truth the president doesn't have much power or control over the economy regardless of who's in the job, and yet the American people will blame that person come 2012 if the economic difficulties haven't improved much by then.  They won't blame a challenger.

Truth. But the chances of the unemployment rate still being at 9.5% in two years time is highly unlikely.

It could well be higher.  We are going to a new age in western industrialized economies, where the economic or social certainties of the past can't be relied on.

The problems and challenges the US face are mirrored in the UK and other European states.

 

[ryanm]

What I was getting at is that in truth the president doesn't have much power or control over the economy regardless of who's in the job, and yet the American people will blame that person come 2012 if the economic difficulties haven't improved much by then.  They won't blame a challenger.

Truth. But the chances of the unemployment rate still being at 9.5% in two years time is highly unlikely.

It could well be higher.  We are going to a new age in western industrialized economies, where the economic or social certainties of the past can't be relied on.

The problems and challenges the US face are mirrored in the UK and other European states.

 

I disagree that the recession could have been worse if reform was passed years ago.  This recession was caused directly by big banks selling predatory loans that people couldn't possibly pay and wall street gambling big time without having to back up any investments with actual capital that they stood to lose if they failed (which they did, miserably).  Wall Street reform tackled those issues head on.  If it had been passed years ago, those things would have come to an end before the recession hit and the impact of the recession would have been lessened.  Unemployment would still be high, but it wouldn't have skyrocketed as much as it did in early-mid 2009.

[Tumbling Dice]

What I was getting at is that in truth the president doesn't have much power or control over the economy regardless of who's in the job, and yet the American people will blame that person come 2012 if the economic difficulties haven't improved much by then.  They won't blame a challenger.

But I disagree that it doesn't matter who's in the white house.  The President cannot control the economy, but he/she can sign bills into law that help regulate it which does have an influence on the economy.  I'm convinced that if the Wall Street reform bill that was signed into law earlier this year had been signed into law by President Bush 3 or 4 years ago, the economic recession wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it was.

Government's haven't done a very good job at 'regulating' the economy in recent years and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The party is over and people are going to have to get used to it.  And the next several generations, I'm sorry to say, are going to have to pay for that party.