Let the race for 2012 begin...

[Tumbling Dice]

I know this has gone on a bit of a tangent about the economy, but I am still interested to hear what people think about the potential GOP nominees for President in 2012.

What I'd say to you and any other students of politics is, if I may paraphrase Bill Clinton, that it's all about the economy, stupid.

That's the overriding concern to the American people right now, and it is that and solely that which is going to determine whether Obama gets a second term or not.  The people will blame or praise the president and not the challenger.  Mark my words.

Not if the challenger is a complete buffon. Voters can be simplistic, but they aren't stupid. They've also been very reluctant to throw out sitting presidents lately.

Well, George W. Bush didn't know the name of a leader of a nuclear power when he ran for president and he was elected to two terms.  Besides, I wouldn't count on the GOP nominating a lightweight in any case.  You've not had a sitting president during the deepest recession in 70 years lately, either.

Is there not a highly respected military figure with a good understanding of economics that the Republicans could nominate?

[ryanm]

We had 'full employment' in the UK for about 30 years in the post war era due to Keynesian demand management with a mixed economy of private business and state owned industries, but that failed in the 1970's with stagflation - a period of slow economic growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation and the underlying process of de-industrialization.

I'm not that familiar with US politics but it doesn't appear to me that there is an obvious Republican 'star' emerging in the Obama mould, that could really ignite the election campaign.  That's why I think it will all depend on the state of the economy in 2012.

You know what we need in the U.S.? Questions Time. Not only would there be actual substantive dialogue between the parties about governing, but C-SPAN would be so much more fun to watch.

I try to watch PM Questions Time online every Wednesday.  I love the thought of real democracy in action where the leader of the gov't and the leader of the opposition butt heads in dialog with the whole country watching.  It just doesn't happen in the U.S.  I loved watching Tony Blair and David Cameron go at it cause they were both phenomenal at their roles.  I love watching David Cameron as PM now cause he hasn't lost his stride transitioning from leader of the opposition to leader of the government.

I would love to see President Obama have an actual debate with the Majority and Minority leaders in the House.  Maybe substantive dialog could lead to compromise (*gasp!*) and a way forward.

P.S. Ed Miliband looks like a bit of a tool as leader of the opposition during QT.  I don't really favor any of the (3 major) British political parties over each other because they're all more liberal than either of our parties here in the U.S. (*sigh* it sort of makes me wish I lived in the U.K.).  But seriously, Ed Miliband does not look very comfortable as leader of Labour during QT.

[The Unknown Caller]

Interesting. My personal take on the GOP's candidates;

Palin- Probably won't run. She has an excellent gig going around spouting platitudes and appearing on TV for huge fees. If she runs and loses, the magic is destroyed. If she does run, she's got a GREAT chance at the nomination and the only way she avoids utter obliteration in the General is if the economic gets substantially worse- yes, worse than even now. There is literally no precedent of a candidate with remotely close to the awfulness of her numbers winning even a state-wide election let alone a national.

Romney- Will definitely run, will almost certainly lose because he's too "moderate" (He's not really but he is for the modern GOP because Romneycare was almost the same as Obamacare) and is a Mormon

Huckabee- Will probably run, probably too little appeal outside Christian conservative base to win the nomination

Gringrich- Will probably run if Palin doesn't, FAR too extreme in recent statements to do well in the General

So I think all four front-runners will have MASSIVE handicaps in either General or the nomination. Obama will be somewhat weak in 2012- but the GOP has a shockingly terrible field of front-runners. I think their best shot at victory in the 2012 General is an outsider with more credibility- someone like Mitch Daniels would be an EXTREMELY significent threat. The problem is that 2010's Senate elections showed time and time again that if you're conservative enough for the GOP base, you are almost certainly FAR too right wing for a mainstream electorate anywhere outside the Deep South. So those candidates with the best shot at beating Obama will have the hardest time winning the primaries.

I would love to see President Obama have an actual debate with the Majority and Minority leaders in the House.  Maybe substantive dialog could lead to compromise (*gasp!*) and a way forward.

It's not quite that but might I recommend Obama's performance with the Republican Senate Caucus in around January or February of this year? A barnstorming performance, and definitely worth a view.

P.S. Ed Miliband looks like a bit of a tool as leader of the opposition during QT.

It's interesting that you say that because Miliband has gotten an extremely positive press reaction - and a surprised one- for his performance at PMQs, clearly knocking Cameron off his guard quite a bit. I think Cameron has lost steam in the transition; he still instinctively asks questions and dodges rather than answering.

[ryanm]

Well, George W. Bush didn't know the name of a leader of a nuclear power when he ran for president and he was elected to two terms.  Besides, I wouldn't count on the GOP nominating a lightweight in any case.  You've not had a sitting president during the deepest recession in 70 years lately, either.

Is there not a highly respected military figure with a good understanding of economics that the Republicans could nominate?

Colin Powell, but he voted for Obama in 2008 and has stated he does not want to run for President.  The only other military Republican that has enough political weight to challenge Obama: John McCain.  And he's definitely not running again.

The problem with the GOP (besides what they stand for, imo) is that there is not a single GOP heavyweight that is on the same level with President Obama.  When Obama spoke at the national convention in 2004, there was a collective "Wow!" from everyone in politics.  He stepped up the "game" in 2008 and the Republicans don't have anyone thus far that can "play" at the same caliber that Obama can.

This sort of reminds me of 1984 when the Democrats had NOBODY to run against Reagan.  Unemployment could have been 10% in 1984 and Reagan still would have won.

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  A ton of Americans were still shaken from 9/11 and the intelligence about Iraq had yet to be proven false.  It was a very unique elections because people voted out of fear in 2004, which is something they had not done since 1964 when President Johnson massacred Barry Goldwater.

[The Unknown Caller]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

[ryanm]

Well, George W. Bush didn't know the name of a leader of a nuclear power when he ran for president and he was elected to two terms.  Besides, I wouldn't count on the GOP nominating a lightweight in any case.  You've not had a sitting president during the deepest recession in 70 years lately, either.

Is there not a highly respected military figure with a good understanding of economics that the Republicans could nominate?

Colin Powell, but he voted for Obama in 2008 and has stated he does not want to run for President.  The only other military Republican that has enough political weight to challenge Obama: John McCain.  And he's definitely not running again.

The problem with the GOP (besides what they stand for, imo) is that there is not a single GOP heavyweight that is on the same level with President Obama.  When Obama spoke at the national convention in 2004, there was a collective "Wow!" from everyone in politics.  He stepped up the "game" in 2008 and the Republicans don't have anyone thus far that can "play" at the same caliber that Obama can.

This sort of reminds me of 1984 when the Democrats had NOBODY to run against Reagan.  Unemployment could have been 10% in 1984 and Reagan still would have won.

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  A ton of Americans were still shaken from 9/11 and the intelligence about Iraq had yet to be proven false.  It was a very unique elections because people voted out of fear in 2004, which is something they had not done since 1964 when President Johnson massacred Barry Goldwater.

Furthermore, don't forget that Al Gore actually received more votes than Bush in 2000.  But with our oh so wonderful electoral college system, Bush won the right states and became President.

[Tumbling Dice]

We had 'full employment' in the UK for about 30 years in the post war era due to Keynesian demand management with a mixed economy of private business and state owned industries, but that failed in the 1970's with stagflation - a period of slow economic growth, rising unemployment and rising inflation and the underlying process of de-industrialization.

I'm not that familiar with US politics but it doesn't appear to me that there is an obvious Republican 'star' emerging in the Obama mould, that could really ignite the election campaign.  That's why I think it will all depend on the state of the economy in 2012.

You know what we need in the U.S.? Questions Time. Not only would there be actual substantive dialogue between the parties about governing, but C-SPAN would be so much more fun to watch.

I try to watch PM Questions Time online every Wednesday.  I love the thought of real democracy in action where the leader of the gov't and the leader of the opposition butt heads in dialog with the whole country watching.  It just doesn't happen in the U.S.  I loved watching Tony Blair and David Cameron go at it cause they were both phenomenal at their roles.  I love watching David Cameron as PM now cause he hasn't lost his stride transitioning from leader of the opposition to leader of the government.

I would love to see President Obama have an actual debate with the Majority and Minority leaders in the House.  Maybe substantive dialog could lead to compromise (*gasp!*) and a way forward.

P.S. Ed Miliband looks like a bit of a tool as leader of the opposition during QT.  I don't really favor any of the (3 major) British political parties over each other because they're all more liberal than either of our parties here in the U.S. (*sigh* it sort of makes me wish I lived in the U.K.).  But seriously, Ed Miliband does not look very comfortable as leader of Labour during QT.

It's very interesting that you should mention this because for many years I've tried to imagine what a US style question time would be like.  I think that Bill Clinton would have been an absolute natural and thrived at it, but both George W. Bush and Barack Obama I feel would have found it very difficult; Bush would have got all flustered and start stuttering his words, and Obama would just across as the humourless, anal retentive stiff that he really is.  Question time requires some witty repartee to lighten the mood.

The downside to PMQ's is that many ordinary British people find the spectacle of professional politicians trying to score points of each other, rather than trying to solve the very serious issues confronting our nation, to be highly grating and a turn-off.  Still, I wish the US did have that kind of thing, and if they did I'd watch it regularly.

[ryanm]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

I'm very impressed that a kid from Belfast knows this much about American politics and elections.  Bravo!

[Tumbling Dice]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

I'm very impressed that a kid from Belfast knows this much about American politics and elections.  Bravo!

This kid is a wannabe professional Labour politician, who's read a lot of books, but I don't know if he has the right answers to the very great problems confronting my country.

[Tumbling Dice]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

The main reason, other than Iraq and 9/11 (although one might have thought that the American people would have blamed the Bush administration for 9/11 given that it occured on his watch) was that the economy was ticking along smoothly at that time and the economy is what matters most to most voters.  Why fix what isn't broken?

[ryanm]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

The main reason, other than Iraq and 9/11 (although one might have thought that the American people would have blamed the Bush administration for 9/11 given that it occured on his watch) was that the economy was ticking along smoothly at that time and the economy is what matters most to most voters.  Why fix what isn't broken?

Yes, the economy is the main factor that drives voters when it is bad.  But when it is good, voters turn to other issues.  Even with a good economy in 2004, if 9/11 and Iraq didn't happen then George W. Bush would have had a much harder time getting re-elected.

The party in power only gets credit for the economy when it is good, but they don't always get rewarded for it.  The party in power almost always gets blamed when the economy is bad, and they almost always get punished for it.

The keyword is "almost."  The economy in 1936 was HORRENDOUS, but FDR won re-election in a landslide because it improved.

Even though the economy is a strong factor at what drives voters to the polls, it does matter WHO is on the ticket for President.  The economy will improve by 2012.  Even if it's not quite good yet, Republicans have NOBODY that can really challenge Obama.  Whomever the GOP nominates, I don't think they'll be a serious threat even if unemployment is still hovering around 8% or 9%.

[Tumbling Dice]

Well, I certainly admire your hope, ryanm.

btw, the New Deal got FDR re-elected in 1936.

[ryanm]

Well, I certainly admire your hope, ryanm.

btw, the New Deal got FDR re-elected in 1936.

I'm well aware.  The funny thing is that if Obama had a plan like the new deal in this current political atmosphere, it'd probably hurt his chances for re-election because it would be seen as a drastic turn toward Socialism and a dramatic overreach by the federal gov't.

My how times have changed.

[The Unknown Caller]

In fairness, the New Deal was essentially a mild form of social democracy and the building of a fledgling welfare state!

[Tumbling Dice]

In fairness, the New Deal was essentially a mild form of social democracy and the building of a fledgling welfare state!

It was bloody popular, more than the working man had been used to before.