2012 GOP, who's it going to be?

Timex · 2012-01-30T09:30:42.000Z

You had the upstart Howard Dean getting off to a good start, sort of like Newt, but then getting flattened by the party establishment who embraced the souless guy.

Also, crazy scream.

Papageno · 2012-01-30T10:03:04.000Z

Let’s not forget that Cheney was going around in 2004 basically saying that if we didn’t re-elect Bush Jr. we’d have another 9/11 for sure. That won over a lot of swing voters, and the Christian fundie base was reliably turned out with all the usual hatemongering about teh gheys and about how we’d have fire and brimstone rained down on us if we let them have full civil rights.

Scuzz · 2012-01-30T10:12:30.000Z

Papageno:

Let’s not forget that Cheney was going around in 2004 basically saying that if we didn’t re-elect Bush Jr. we’d have another 9/11 for sure. That won over a lot of swing voters, and the Christian fundie base was reliably turned out with all the usual hatemongering about teh gheys and about how we’d have fire and brimstone rained down on us if we let them have full civil rights.

I don’t think people feared another 9-11 without Bush, but I do think most people felt Bush and America were a victim of 9-11 and therefore many of the bad things weren’t his fault. He was basically given carte blanch for several years…too many years.

Jason_McCullough · 2012-01-30T10:20:57.000Z

FYI, Norquist is now talking about impeachment.

Hugin · 2012-01-30T10:37:26.000Z

As I noted before, Obama’s “Right direction/wrong direction” numbers actually look okay. And his fundraising is apparently quite robust. I don’t think he’s as weak as people think.

Scuzz · 2012-01-30T10:40:49.000Z

Jason McCullough:

FYI, Norquist is now talking about impeachment.

I just don’t see a president having to go through an impeachment over legislative differences. Maybe I am wrong, but I would sure like to think most would be more intelligent than that.

Can you imagine what kind of precedent that would set? Any president whose party did not control both houses would be constantly looking at impeachment?

Lorini · 2012-01-30T10:46:03.000Z

Hugin:

As I noted before, Obama’s “Right direction/wrong direction” numbers actually look okay. And his fundraising is apparently quite robust. I don’t think he’s as weak as people think.

My thoughts as well. I’m not saying he can’t be beat, but unless something changes seriously, he won’t be beat by who they have running now.

charmtrap · 2012-01-30T10:57:15.000Z

Even Rasmussen has Obama above water now, and Rasmussen mostly polls ancient white people:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

jeffd · 2012-01-30T11:54:15.000Z

Scuzz:

I just don’t see a president having to go through an impeachment over legislative differences. Maybe I am wrong, but I would sure like to think most would be more intelligent than that.

Can you imagine what kind of precedent that would set? Any president whose party did not control both houses would be constantly looking at impeachment?

I’m pretty sure that ship has sailed.

JeffL · 2012-01-30T13:11:54.000Z

Valentine:

What yab…yib…yip…fuck…ydejin said.

I forget, what’s the reelection rate for Presidents? Bush’s approval rating for the 2004 election was about the same as Obama’s is now and he wasn’t nearly as good a campaigner.

But again. Who are these great candidates that someone held back from running? We’ve seen the gop try to come up with.alternatives and the best they could come up with was Christie.

JeffL · 2012-01-30T13:18:27.000Z

Murbella:

While I know people have short memories, we also have republicans running exclusively on returning to the policies that got us here in the first place and gutting consumer protection. Obama might not have swerved the car off the train tracks fully, but these guys want to go right back on them with the train coming at us.

Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result is the definition of being a modern Republican.

That is a logical point but a lot of voters are going to say Obama has been in charge for the last four years and thus he owns the current economy. That puts him in the campaign position of either saying he was not in charge or that he was ineffective with excuses or that things really aren’t so bad. From a pure campaign strategy point of view it’s a challenge.

MikeJ · 2012-01-30T13:38:10.000Z

JeffL:

That puts him in the campaign position of either saying he was not in charge or that he was ineffective with excuses or that things really aren’t so bad.

It’s amazing to contrast the degree to which Obama is ‘in charge’ of the American federal government on domestic matters with the degree that, say, Stephen Harper is in charge of the Canadian federal government. Harper announced in a speech last week that the government was going to be making changes to Canada’s Old Age Security system. There’s basically no doubt that he will be able to do what he wants, within reason.

People seem to intuitively believe that the President is in control and presidents, not wanting to look weak (and thereby undermine what power they do have), usually go along with the illusion. I like the idea of lots of checks and balances in the abstract, but in practice it can create a lot of confusion about who is responsible for policy.

Scuzz · 2012-01-30T13:42:33.000Z

Presidents encourage that kind of thought by the things they “promise” during their campaigns. No one ever runs for office with an end of speech line saying “Of course none of this matters if my party doesn’t control both houses of congress”.

Hugin · 2012-01-30T14:03:10.000Z

JeffL:

That is a logical point but a lot of voters are going to say Obama has been in charge for the last four years and thus he owns the current economy. That puts him in the campaign position of either saying he was not in charge or that he was ineffective with excuses or that things really aren’t so bad. From a pure campaign strategy point of view it’s a challenge.

Actually, this isn’t so bad for Obama either. Yes, polling shows voters blame Obama (and the Democrats) for the economy. But they still blame Bush and the Republicans more. And when asked who they think is responsible for obstructive behavior that’s hurt the recovery, again they blame Republicans more.

CLWheeljack · 2012-01-30T15:04:42.000Z

Hugin:

Actually, this isn’t so bad for Obama either. Yes, polling shows voters blame Obama (and the Democrats) for the economy. But they still blame Bush and the Republicans more. And when asked who they think is responsible for obstructive behavior that’s hurt the recovery, again they blame Republicans more.

I’m actually wondering whether nationalism could become a factor in economic issues as they do in war. For instance, if the Euro imploded really hard, and everything was really in the shitter, if we could get a “don’t change horses mid-stream” sentiment due to economic turmoil instead of actual war.

Lorini · 2012-01-30T16:19:23.000Z

JeffL:

But again. Who are these great candidates that someone held back from running? We’ve seen the gop try to come up with.alternatives and the best they could come up with was Christie.

Wherever they are, they don’t want to face an incumbent with a $60M warchest before the national election even starts. And the GOP candidate has to spend millions before even getting to the national election. Why not wait until 2016 when the slate will be clean so to speak and they’ll have a much better chance of being elected?

I don’t see any reason for either party to bring out their big guns against a sitting president. It’s just too expensive and they are facing long odds. Ronald Reagan beat Carter with home mortgages at 16-17%. Elder Bush lied about not raising taxes. Both the single term Presidents faced a worse situation than what Obama is facing now.

Ed_Solomon · 2012-01-30T17:39:30.000Z

JeffL:

But again. Who are these great candidates that someone held back from running? We’ve seen the gop try to come up with.alternatives and the best they could come up with was Christie.

Jeb Bush and it’s his brother holding him back.

He is the only Republican that would worry me.

jeffd · 2012-01-30T17:42:10.000Z

Lorini:

Wherever they are, they don’t want to face an incumbent with a $60M warchest before the national election even starts. And the GOP candidate has to spend millions before even getting to the national election. Why not wait until 2016 when the slate will be clean so to speak and they’ll have a much better chance of being elected?

I don’t see any reason for either party to bring out their big guns against a sitting president. It’s just too expensive and they are facing long odds. Ronald Reagan beat Carter with home mortgages at 16-17%. Elder Bush lied about not raising taxes. Both the single term Presidents faced a worse situation than what Obama is facing now.

Lorini: the “wait for 2016” thing is sort of a good point, but on the other hand your odds of winning the nomination (much less the presidency) are so astronomical that you should go for it anyway. Strike while the iron is hot. After all, back in 2007 people were saying that a first term Senator from Illinois should wait a few cycles before running.

Lorini · 2012-01-30T17:56:13.000Z

Historically unseating a sitting president is more difficult than waiting until he/she has to spend as much money as you do. I agree with ‘strike while the iron is hot’ but I don’t think the ‘iron is hot’ now. I don’t see any benefit in being the losing candidate for President, do you? I mean that seriously, if there’s something to be gained, then maybe so, but I’ve not seen it.

Like I said, Obama has nearly $70M right now and he hasn’t even started real fundraising. Starting $70M behind is pretty daunting, particularly since the GOP candidates have probably already spent nearly that (combined) in the campaign so far.

Obama waited until he had a better chance to win the nomination. That’s the smart way to manage limited resources. It’s just as well Romney is the one running, at least he has the money to do so.

Valentine · 2012-01-30T18:04:46.000Z

Lorini:

Wherever they are, they don’t want to face an incumbent with a $60M warchest before the national election even starts. And the GOP candidate has to spend millions before even getting to the national election. Why not wait until 2016 when the slate will be clean so to speak and they’ll have a much better chance of being elected?

I don’t see any reason for either party to bring out their big guns against a sitting president. It’s just too expensive and they are facing long odds. Ronald Reagan beat Carter with home mortgages at 16-17%. Elder Bush lied about not raising taxes. Both the single term Presidents faced a worse situation than what Obama is facing now.

Exactly what I’ve been saying. 2016’s candidate will be given a prominent role and speech this year to start the buzz.