| 0 |
Subject: Is it too early?
Posted by: Pancho Villa
- [547131311] Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 12:16
It's been less than a year since Barack Obama came from relative obscurity to the highest office in the land to give us a Democratic president along with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.
Generally, an incumbent president is rarely challenged for a second term, although Reagan in '76 and Ted Kennedy in '80 are notable recent exceptions. Barring a complete meltdown by Obama, it's safe to say he will be the 2012 Democratic nominee.
The real fun will be handicapping the Republicans.
It's possible that a dark horse(as Obama was in 2005, three years before his victory) could emerge from what currently looks to be a rather weak field of candidates, as evidenced by the possibility that Rick Santorum might be considering a run. Other longshots like Pawlenty and Crist are possibilities, with the likelihood of early exits after a couple primaries.
Right now I see three candidates, should they decide to run, that will garner the most attention and , at least at this point, have the best possibility for the nomination.
Mike Huckabee - Huckabee showed in 2008 that he was capable of putting together a competent organization, raise money, appeal to both conservative Christians and moderates, and has broadened his exposure with his show on Fox. He may not be conservative enough for the fringe, but he should be considered a player.
Mitt Romney - Excellent fund-raiser and organizational skills, excellent resume, and excellent appeal to the business community is probably not enough to counter the lack of support in the South and with Christian bigotry against Mormons. Winner-take-all primaries could possibly elevate his chances, as California, New York and several upper Midwest states would likely vote his way. Possibly even Florida. Poor economic conditions could sway voters his way.
Sarah Palin - She's a rock star, like Obama. And like Obama, many will overlook her inexperience and her baggage because they are transfixed with her personality and image. She's a novelty candidate, but this country just elected a novelty candidate as president.
She has solid support from many components of the Republican party, and can probably deny Huckabee the conservative Christian vote in most primaries. Fund raising will not be a problem.
Her biggest problem would appear to be her tendency to melt down into periods of incoherent blabber as well as vague attacks on the media and Hollywood as enemies of the nation. But these are recurring themes with conservatives, who have visions of Reagan dancing in their heads.
IMO, Sarah Palin is probably the frontrunner at this juncture, should she decide to run. |
| 1 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 12:47
|
If Palen were to win the nomination would Obama win by the largest majority ever? And who would be her VP i think most respected candidates would turn her down.
|
| 2 | Seattle Zen
ID: 40701312
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 13:01
|
Sorry, Ponch, but you are out of your mind if you think Palin is the current front runner. Obama inspired independents not because he was a "rock star", but because he had substance, he could calmly, coolly answer policy questions with graceful answers that people respected. Palin doesn't answer questions, that's for dead fish. I do not believe that she will run in 2012, she stands no chance. I could envision her becoming a veteran of the rubber chicken circuit, raising millions and thinking about a run in 2016 when no incumbent is running.
You lost any respect in your handicapping abilities by claiming that Obama was a "novelty candidate". WTF are you talking about? You have to go back to 1952 to find a non-incumbent candidate who garnered as high a percentage of votes as Obama. Americans don't elect novelties.
|
| 3 | Pancho Villa
ID: 487361312
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 13:37
|
Perhaps "novelty candidate" was a poor choice of words. The intent is to illustrate that with virtually no track record of administrative successes or political victories on a level commensurate with most presidential candidates, he was able to win the presidency because he had substance, he could calmly, coolly answer policy questions with graceful answers that people respected.
Regardless, SZ, if Palin isn't one of the leading candidates to garner the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, who is and why? That's the crux of the thread.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 13:47
|
Palin and Obama are both rock stars in the same way Miley Cyrus is to Eric Clapton.
|
| 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 13:52
|
Rasmussen's July poll shows Palin and Romney right up there. Palin's numbers have dropped since then (can't find the link right now), most as a result of the realization among Republicans that her resignation of her governorship hurts her politically.
I realize it is early, but this jumped out at me:
Nearly one-third of Republicans (32%) say Palin should run as an independent if she fails to get the party’s nomination.
Safe to say that these are all Palin supporters. Also safe to say that people will say about anything when there are no consequences ("We'll leave the party!").
|
| 6 | Seattle Zen
ID: 40701312
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 14:18
|
if Palin isn't one of the leading candidates to garner the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, who is and why? That's the crux of the thread.
Well, the past few elections have shown that the eventual candidates came out of no where or were written off 3-4 years before the election. So, I don't think guessing who is the front runner today is an exercise of much value.
That said, the Republicans have a recent history of giving a former failed candidate a second shot - John McCain and Bob Dole. But both of those guys were senior, long term senators with great national recognition and respect. I don't think Huckabee or Romney meet those qualifications.
Santorum doesn't stand a chance. Right now, I have no idea who it will be. Chist? Is he too blown dry, looks too much like a weatherman?
I'm sure Baldwin will suggest it will be some brown-shirt Marxist, ACORN felon. We should heed his foresight!
|
| 7 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 14:50
|
My guess is that anyone with any serious chance of winning, absent a complete Obama melt-down of some variety, will wait until 2016.
So yeah, I could see a joke candidate like Palin getting the nomination. It will reflect poorly on her electorate, but I am learning not to over-estimate the Republican base.
If I had to money on it, however, I would have to say none-of-the-above, and take the field. My guess would be single-issue darkhorse out of nowhere that finds the red-meat that the rabid base will devour. Palin could do that, but she's such a joke in my mind, I'm having trouble imagining her with any credibility left in anyone's eyes in 2 years.
|
| 8 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 14:57
|
I'm having trouble imagining her with any credibility left in anyone's eyes in 2 years.
Well...
|
| 9 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:07
|
Forget the anger and divisiveness, Palin just isn't smart enough to be President. Her name will hover around and she may even get nominated once, but she'll never come close to winning. Many Americans believe their President should be smarter than they are. Palin fails to fulfill that criterion with a larger percentage of the public than anyone she would be running against.
|
| 10 | Pancho Villa
ID: 487361312
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:30
|
she may even get nominated once, but she'll never come close to winning.
I never said anything about Palin winning. And no one has brought up a single name as a serious challenger. A successful presidential nominee needs tons of money, a competent and aggressive national organization, media exposure, and passionate followers willing to volunteer incredible time and energy on behalf of their candidate.
Palin has all these, or access to them, and enough time for the resignation to subside in the nation's memory.
Let's be clear, I'm not promoting Palin. I have been one of her major detractors on this board. But in pragmatic terms, there is more than enough evidence to consider her a major candidate for the nomination in 2012, if not the current front runner. Of course, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic front runner into 2008, so a lot can happen. But I've yet to see any names and reasons why these names should be taken any more seriously than Sarah Palin.
|
| 11 | holt
ID: 457331314
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:34
|
Palin is damaged goods, republicans should be able to see that. Even if a lot of republicans claim to like her in the polls, I doubt they want an auto-loss in a Presidential election. At this point, to me, Huckabee seems like their best candidate, by far.
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:37
|
At this point you might be right. But I don't know that any serious candidate would be running for the 2012 nomination at this point. Only the two unemployed ones are, it seems.
|
| 13 | holt
ID: 457331314
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:37
|
Actually, it seems to me that there are more democrats wanting Palin to run than republicans. It's like they're drooling over the chance at an easy victory. I just can't see it happening.
|
| 14 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:44
|
Operation Chaos, The Revenge?
|
| 15 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Aug 13, 2009, 15:56
|
Actually, it seems to me that there are more democrats wanting Palin to run than republicans. It's like they're drooling over the chance at an easy victory. I just can't see it happening.
the problem for Republicans is that as long as they allow the radical parts of their party to control it, they're going to end up with a Palin or Santorum as their presidential candidate in 2012. Palin has shown herself to be foolish time and time again, much like Santorum did a half-decade ago when his railing against homosexuality actually managed to get his last name added to the lexicon in a rather ummm...unattractive way...
the problem as i see it is that if a moderate Republican is selected to run for their party, the loudmouths will shout down their own candidate, much like they did against McCain - a principled man who was forced to change his principles in the face of fury from the wing nuts.
only for the next candidate, i think it'll be 100 times worse.
|
| 16 | Frick
ID: 4945458
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 08:52
|
At the 1 year mark of their first terms who had higher ratings Bush the Elder or Obama? If the recession continues to drag out, Obama could have a real fight on his hands in 2012.
32% of Republicans support Palin. Isn't it generally accepted that 40% of the population is 1 of the 2 major parties and the rest are Independent. So 10-15% of the population would vote for her? That sounds about right, but that would be it.
I think Tree is correct that any moderate Republican will be bashed more by his or her own party then they will by their opponent.
|
| 17 | Dunkin
ID: 222182212
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 08:59
|
When does Bloomberg make his run?
|
| 18 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 09:28
|
32% of Republicans support Palin
even if that number is accurate, how does that number stack up against her numbers when she was first announced as the VP Candidate?
as soon as she gets out on the campaign trail, those numbers will slide significantly.
|
| 19 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 10:22
|
I don't know that I agree, Tree. The extremist vocal minority looks like a pretty stubborn bunch to me, eager to distort facts however necessary to fit the narrative that Palin = Ronald Reagan in pumps.
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 10:24
|
#16: Actually, those who self-identify as Republicans are down to 32%.
|
| 21 | Boldwin
ID: 577151413
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 14:15
|
PD
Please post the entertaining poll results for those who think Republicans/Democrats can be trusted on healthcare.
Personally I blame it on guys like you PD pointing to perfectly average constituents and calling them plants. Messes with your credibility.
|
| 22 | Boldwin
ID: 107451413
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 14:45
|
For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%. Que PD triumphalist rant.
|
| 23 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 14:52
|
Rasmussen asks with a conservative slant
Helpful for wingnuts who like to rant
|
| 24 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 10:37
|
Newsmax/Zogby Poll: Scott Brown Could Defeat Obama in Presidential Race
link
Given that it's a Newsmax poll, there is some natural skepticism, but they do offer some stark realities.
"I think it’s fair to say Scott Brown is the flavor of the month. He’s had a very positive introduction to the American public with almost no critical scrutiny. That won’t be the case in a GOP primary or a general election.
"Brown’s positions on abortion and gay rights are quite liberal. It’s highly unlikely the national GOP would actually nominate him for president. Most Republicans are unaware of those positions, or they were willing to overlook them because it was Massachusetts," he said.
Sabato said he expects new contenders for the GOP nomination to emerge from November's midterm elections.
|
| 25 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 10:56
|
Sabato said he expects new contenders for the GOP nomination to emerge from November's midterm elections
I hope so. Particularly if they are moderate Republicans. The GOP needs to get its soul back.
|
| 26 | Boldwin
ID: 6052820
Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 21:45
|
We've already got one Democrat party. Why would we need some milktoast, Democrat-lite, 'me too' party? That's soul?
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 22:11
|
It is all about political effectiveness (and, by "effectiveness," I mean generating and implementing ideas to solve problems).
It is less about insisting upon purity tests and more about the pragmatism necessary to implement party platforms whenever possible. Even if that means negotiating some of those things into laws rather than playing solider in the hopes of cramming it through at some point in the future when "your side" is in the majority.
The vast, vast majority of Americans are moderates. It isn't a bad thing to use that as the basis for policy, particularly if you are going to pretend you speak for those people in Washington.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|