The Candidates
1. Since the Democratic race is essentially over, what does Hillary do now? Try to get put on the ticket as VP, try to become Senate Majority Leader during next term, beg Obama to put her on the Supreme Court if he’s elected, or what?
2. Given the gaping holes that have been revealed in the Democratic Party, does Obama have a good chance of unifying the party by November or will the Reagan Democrats defect to McCain in mass?
3. Should it worry McCain and his campaign that even though he’s been the nominee of the Republican Party for two months, he only managed to win 73% in Pennsylvania, 77% in Indiana and 74% in North Carolina?
4. In the event that Barack Obama loses to McCain in November, who do the Democrats nominate in 2012? Do they nominate a centrist like Mark Warner or Ed Rendell or do the double down on a more liberal candidate and say that Obama lost because of Hillary’s tactics during the primary?
5. In the event that John McCain loses to Obama in November (God help us if that happens), who do the Republicans run in 2012? I figure both Huckabee and Romney will give it another go and Gov. Pawlenty will run as well.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
1. Regroup and try again in 2012
2. The Dems will be united, very united. Everyone talks about the republicans rallying behind McCain because they don’t want a liberal president like Obama. The Democrats will rally like crazy. They feel like they’ve been screwed the last 2 presidential elections. They’ve had eight years of despising Bush.
3. To some extent. I was planning on doing a post on it. Maybe not as much as some on TV are saying, but it should be a little worrying.
4. Evan Bayh
5. Jindal, Mark Sanford, Pawlenty, John Thune
May 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
1. Senate Majority run against McCain in 2012
2. Let’s wait until after KY and WV to decide
3. Maybe #2 should ask, “can McCain unify the Republican party by November”?
4. See #1. Hill proves she was more electable (which I agree)
5. Do we have to sit through another Mitt and Huck fest and the whole religion thing again? I think we only have room for one of them to try in 2012.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I’d say between Mitt,Huck and Pawlenty Mitt would have to be the favorite.Huckabee should have ran for Senate.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I agree with no. 3 that Huckabee should have run against Pryor for the Senate. He’s not pres. material in my ook, but a man who should remain in politics. I honestly think that the Democrats would be a hell of a lot more unified around Hillary…I think with Barack there are blue collar whites who just will not vote for him. I see liberals being more unified than moderates…and with the liberal candidate as the head of the ticket, moderates will break probably 60-40 for McCain (mod democrats probably 60-40 for Obama). This is what I see and hear at least. Hillary really would be a much stronger candidate, even if just for the fact that she’s liberal enough for the liberals (though they prefer a mondo lib like BarryO) and centrist enough for moderate dems. Obama just can’t bring in blue collar, centrist working class whites. He’ll max turnout for blacks, young people, and libs…but I don’t see him winning much out of that coalition. Just my thoughts on the race. And, btw, I’m for Romney in ‘12 just like I was for Romney in ‘08.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
LJ, very, very good questions. Here’s my stab at them:
1) She’d be foolish to try again in 2012; she’s smart, she knows this. The Democrats are the party of insurgent candidacies, not inevitable front runners - 2008 proved that once again, despite looking like it would turn out otherwise for a while there (and vice versa on the GOP side). She also will not play second fiddle to Obama as a member of his cabinet/Veep/etc. Instead, I’d look for her and Bill to consolidate their power in the Democratic Party somehow and remain some of the power players.
2) Of course Obama has a good chance of uniting his party - all these polls showing otherwise are taken in the midst of prolonged battles between Barack and Hillary. Into this summer, the primaries will long be forgotten and when the choice comes down to McCain (continually painted as Bush III by the Dems) and Obama, Democrats will overlook and forget about the perceived attacks on Hillary and line up for Obama. Now, if this had been Hillary’s victory, a unified party would be much more unlikely since she ran the “dirtier” campaign against Barack, and, well, because Barack is black.
3) Major problem. Those are pretty close to record low numbers for uncontested primaries.
4) Ritter, Sebelius, Schweitzer, Easley, Strickland, Bredesen, and one of either Kaine or Warner. My guess would be a more moderate candidate (as nearly all of those possibilities are), but who really knows with the Dems?
5) Romney comes in as frontrunner, Huckabee tries again and plays only in Iowa - again. Pawlenty enters the race as McCain’s failed VP candidate and thusly goes nowhere, but he tries nonetheless. Also running: Sanford, Pence (if he moves from the House), Steele (if he finds a way to stay relevant outside being a pundit), Gingrich, and a few assorted Senators.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
You are misreading the distaste the Clinton voters have for Obama, Tommy. I know of at least 15 who will register unaffiliated, or independent, in just a short time from now.
They will not vote for him. Whether they vote for McCain is a stretch for some, not others.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
If Obama wins, then Bobby Jindal is the 2012 nominee.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Let look at the past open Republican primary elections: 2008- McCain who came in second in 2000 primary against the overwhelming favorite wins the primary, 2000 - Bush son of a former president wins, 1996 - Dole who came in second in 1988 against overwhelming favorite and VP ( and who also ran for president in 1980) wins the primary, 1980 - Reagan who came in second against overwhelming and favorite and presidential candidate in 1976 wins the nomination, 1968 - former Republican nominee Richard Nixon wins the nomination. So in the last four open elections the candidate that came in second to an overwhelming favorite in the previous primary won the nomination three out of four times. In all the other elections it was a current president or Vice president that won. Republicans seem to love to pick people that have run before. Considering this Romney and Huckabee would seem to be front - runners.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Here’s how I see it.
I don’t see her doing anything just yet. She is going to fight to count FL and MI. If she gets her way then she might come back from the dead yet. Otherwise she is still in campaign mode at least until June 3. I don’t think she wants to be governor of New York (There isn’t anything inherently appealing about living in Albany. The weather sucks.)
I think THIS is a bigger problem for Obama than your number 3 is for McCain. Ever since WrightGate and BitterCling and Wright 2.0, Obama’s numbers have been steadily declining with white voters. In the Potomac Primary on 2/12 Obama won 52 percent of whites in Virginia. Last night he won only 37 percent of whites in North Carolina. 37 percent! That’s pitiful. Even as Obama claims these big wins in high AA states and caucus states - they’re just masking a very real and very big electoral problem. Obama has shown no evidence that he can win over any kinds of voters in respectable numbers other than (to steal from Paul Begala) blacks and eggheads. Blacks and eggheads aren’t enough of a coalition to win in a general election. Unless Obama demonstrates some ability to broaden his base, and he should have been able to do that by now, Democrats should have heartburn.
I frankly don’t see it. Let’s put it this way - If Hillary Clinton were to drop out of the race TODAY, Obama would probably LOSE the next two states - nevermind having to worry about being held “only” to 74 percent. Republicans, aside from the die-hard Ronulans, have rightly concluded that the primaries don’t matter - and they haven’t since Texas and Ohio. So Obama’s inability to win necessary parts of the coalition he needs is a much bigger problem than McCain’s is with his base.
If they’re smart. But I don’t know. I don’t understand these Democrats. It’s like they have a deathwish or something. They had any number of candidates that probably could have had a MUCH easier time holding the entire base. Instead they go with an untested rookie with skeletons periodically sneaking out of the closet. They have been in the wilderness for too long to take that kind of risk - and yet here we are. Who the hell knows what they’ll do in 2012 if they lose this year?
Sorry Rombots but I think Romney’s chance has come and gone. He never connected with enough people to convey the sense that he would be a formidable general election candidate. The clips on YouTube aren’t going away. They never will. If we lose this year, the GOP will have had to suffer through 4 years of a very liberal president and probably 4 years of a very liberal congress. Electability will matter. Romney will never again be viewed as a centrist because of his lurch to the right. The media will see to it. And the Mormon thing will (unfairly) again be an issue. Power-hungry Republicans will never take that risk after years of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Also, there’s no way that the party goes with anyone other than a moderate conservative caucasion that can win the votes of centrists (think George W and ‘compassionate conservative’) and capitalize off of any and all sentiment or evidence that paints a president Obama as too cozy with black liberation theologists or other radicals. Who? I don’t know. Perhaps Pawlenty or Hoeven or some of our more popular governors.
Just my two cents.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
1. Senate majority leader.
2. No. He has a chance of winning nonetheless, since the Democratic party is like 30-40% bigger then it was in 2004, relatively speaking. But, Obama simply can’t win blue-collar whites or Catholics. They won’t vote for him. It’s an absolute weakness, not a relative one.
3. No.
4. They probably run to the left to Feingold, who’s a pure populist progressive.
5. It depends on who McCain’s veep is. If Mac loses, it’s unlikely that his Veep will our 2012 nominee. Regardless, I’m betting on a final four of Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin, and Romney. Jindal can try to become the youngest president, which is too big of an opportunity to pass up. But, I think Pawlenty wins the nomination, if he’s not McCain’s VP. Romney gets into the top bracket by sheer force of resources, but fails in a much stronger field.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
For the record, as much as I love Pawlenty, I can’t say who I’d support if Pawlenty and Jindal were both running. They’ve been my two favorite politicians for over a year now. I think Pawlenty is the better political talent, but Jindal is outlandishly intelligent, and might make up for his somewhat frenetic personality with a much more compelling narrative (first generation Indian American, who’d be the youngest president ever). I might support Pawlenty, in the hopes of an orgasmic Pawlenty/Jindal ticket (Pawlenty makes more sense at the top).
May 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Matthew,
After many, including myself, have dogged Obama for not having enough experience, how would Jindal play in this field? He will only be a 1 term governor in ‘12. Unless he has other significant accomplishments outside of politics or earlier in politics I am not sure he would be viable.
Even though I didn’t think Huck was presidential material he still had 10+ years as governer.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
1. Hillary will just be another Senator after this. Dems don’t seem to have the Republicans tradition of giving canidates second chances. I don’t think she would want Supreme Court as she doesn’t strike me as being that into law, but is more into policy - of course for liberals I guess that’s not always a big difference. She’ll have to wait in line awhile to be majority leader. She may get put on the VP ticket.
2. Obama will significantly unify the Democratic party, which is scary with John McCain running even with him now.
3. the only people who would care to show up to vote in a primary that doesn’t matter and in which there isn’t a race, are the really really hardcore, that 20 - 30% of such a group wouldn’t go for McCain shouldn’t be worried about.
4. Don’t know, I hope someday we force them to move to the right, because they will win someday.
5. Like I said we have a tradition of electing second place winners in previous primaries. This puts both Romney and Huckabee in a good place. Expect Jindal, Palin, and Pawlentry to also run, and maybe Sanford. Unless Sanford runs Huckabee will do overwhelmingly well in the south, he will do even better in the primaries than this year. Unless there’s a sitting VP running expect the next Republican primary to be as wild as this one only more so.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Try for VP, firstly. If she doesn’t get that, she could try for majority leader, and if she doesn’t get that, well, I don’t think she has a chance in 2012 anyway…
He has a chance, but he has had trouble closing the deal thusfar, and if Hillary doesn’t get onto the ticket, he could severely alienate many of her supporters.
It shouldn’t worry him, but it should pressure him to pick a Conservative VP (I prefer Romney, but, we’ve had that discussion). McCain is such a poor fit for the party that its an accomplishment just to get that high of amounts.
It could go either way, and it will depend largely on who runs, the situation in the country, who is running on the GOP side, who controls congress, and how Obama is viewed ideologically.
Well, as I’ve said before, I don’t think McCain will be on the ballot in four years anyway, so its not just if he loses. In addition, if he does lose, his Veep can’t automatically be written off. If McCain loses, it will likely be because of poorer than usual support from conservatives - which leaves his VP free to run caliming (correctly) that McCain simply wasn’t Conservative enough.
As for WHO, Jindal is probably still too young, I don’t think Palin has the resume to beat someone like Romney, Pawlenty, or Huckabee, all of whom could run. Romney would probably have the upper hand, following in the tradition of second-placers winning the next open contest. Huckabee could mount a challenge from the right, but it seems unlikely that he could play well outside of the south. Its hard to see where Pawlenty would fit in. Brownback might be back, and Thune could jump in, but I think both of them would be also-rans.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
concerning no. 5, if McCain loses in a rout and the Democrats get 60 seats in the senate in either 2009 or 2010, the Republican Party will be all but irrelevant in 2012. It will not matter who runs because they will zero chance of winning. The better quesiton is whether the Republicans will be so irrelevant by 2016 that the Democratic Primary will be the defacto presidential election.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Hobie,
Jindal has lots of experience INSIDE politics. He was the head of the multi-billion dollar (per year) Louisiana Health system for 2 years. He was the head of the massive Louisiana University system for a year or so. He was an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bush for a year or two. He was the head of a national bi-partisan health care commission. He was a congressman for 3 years. Add 5 years as Governor (assuming he gets re-elected), and he has a quite hefty. Some folks just assume he has minimal experience, because he’s so young, but he’s been involved in politics since he was 22. He’s arguably more experienced then Obama right now, or at least he has more relevant experience (6 or so years in the executive branch).
May 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
1. I suspect that if Hillary offered to throw in the towell now that her chances are only “Romney Over” in exchange for the VP pick, the same superdelegates pressuring Hillary out would pressure Obama to pick her as VP. However, if she waits until its “Huckabee Over” Obama won’t owe her anything and she’ll be a near-pariah at the convention. My guess is she will wait until its Huckabee Over and spoil her chances at being VP (or Senate Majority leader).
2. There is an opening for McCain, mainly because much of Obama’s supporters think that throwing the racist charge around will coax white working class voters into the fold, rather than alienate them further.
The flip side is that even if he does consilidate his support in the party, he will need to spend now until August doing so, so he won’t be able to fully pivot to the center until very, very late in the game. This leaves an additional opening for McCain among centrists/ moderates.
3. Somewhat. The fact that he has the nomination wrapped up gives some voters a free pass to vote against McCain and get it out of their system. I think he’ll have no problem pulling in the Huckabee and Romney votes in November. The Ron Paul votes, on the other hand, are probably lost to the party for at least the next election cycle (though I don’t see how nominating Romney would have improved matters).
4. By process of elimination, I’d say Mark Warner. Gore notwithstanding
2nd time nominees have a very poor track record in the Democratic
primary, so I’d say everyone who ran in 2000/ 2004 and 2008 have no
chance in 2012.
5. I hate to say this but I suspect McCain’s Republican critics will claim “I told you so” and blame the loss on McCain’s moderation, rather than the Bush albatross, and will fight hard for a primary candidate of their liking. Romney would be the most likely nominee, given Republican party history.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Jindal is way over-rated.
Ironic as we can see through Obama.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
#18 — He’s overrated today, true. But in 2012, he will have had more than
a full term as Governor of Louisianna, and if Jindal is successful in
cleaning up Louisiana he’ll have no trouble convincing me he’ll put
an end to business as usual in Washington.
Or, he might flame out faster than you can say “Arnold Schwarzenegger”. But lets at least give him a chance to succeed or fail before judging his presidential prospects.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I agree, Sean #19. Let’s let Jindal get some seasoning before thrusting him onto the National stage.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
the 2012 field could be as follows for the republicans:
pawlenty
romney
huckabee
jindal
petraeus
if jindal continues his trends in LA, and the withdraw goes as badly as most of us think it would go, or if obama flips and doesnt withdraw, then petraeus and jindal would be the strongest candidates, mitt and huck would reknew their rivalry, and pawlenty, depending on the next few years, is the wildcard.
i wouldn’t mind a petreaus/jindal or jindal/pawlenty ticket. i think huck and mitt are finished and are one dimensional. they’re fight is now for the vp, they wont last 4 years as also rans.
think about it, obama will be the overstressed, graying 51 year old who didn’t match the hype against the 40 year old savior of louisiana. i think jindal is the ticket.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
i think hillary could run again. if not for overwhelming black support she would have won easily this time. i think against a field of white men she can still dominate a dem primary, especially if obama loses.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Isn’t this the same Huckabee that just fell flat on his face after it became a two man race?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“i think hillary could run again.”
Sure she could, but Democrats don’t seem to be very kind to their Primary losers in future elections. In any case, are Americans really going to want a 70 yr. old woman in the oval office?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I believe that the candidates for President in 2012 (if Nominee McCain were to lose) a re as follows:
1. Governor Mitt Romney (today’s voice of conservatism)
2. Fred Thompson (owns the Federalism issue and had a good test run albeit a late star in 08)
3. Bobby Jindall (the next Ronald Reagan if he can lower taxes and spending in LA)
4. Rudy Giuliani (if there is a terrorist attack or conflict with China)
5. Rick Santorum or George Allen (rehabilitated careers by 2012)
6. Haley Barbour (if he were able to distance himself from or denounce gambling in Miss.)
May 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I forgot:
7. A Tommy Franks/Petreaus ticket for when we need to deal with Iran.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Why do people think we need military men when we are confronted by major threats.
Roosevelt and Truman won WWII - military service? none, I believe.
Reagan won the Cold War - military experience? He did voice-overs for training videos.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Roosevelt was assistant Secretary of the Navy during WWI. Truman was an artillery officer during the war, and had served in the National Guard before the war.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
yeah, I thought there might have been something, hence the “I believe”.
Still though, our greatest global victory was the winning of the cold war, and it was Reagan, who probably faced more guns on the movie sets than he ever did in the military.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Yeah, but both examples are pre-Vietnam. All things being equal, I would prefer each and every Republican nominee be a military man, if for no other reason than I am sick to bloody death of the word chickenhawk.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I could also see John Bolton as an interesting candidate in 2012. He has a very impressive foreign policy record.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Unanswered Question 6:
Will McCain be a one term president? (not seek re-election)
May 7th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Brownback should stay out of presidential politics, finish out his term as senator and then run for governor of Kansas in 2010.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
1. Try to run again in 2012. Go for the Majority Leader position in the interim.
2. Reagan Dems will defect to McCain if he runs the correct center campaign.
3. No. The Republican race is over and the only voters still casting ballots are those who want to protest vote.
4. Warner or Rendell. If they lose in this environment — the best for Democrats in a generation — I think they’ll get it. The contrast between the 1992 and 1996 nominee and the 2000, 2004, and 2008 nominees will be clear. They’ll go with a centrist.
5. Republicans will blame McCain’s loss on the base staying home despite all of the evidence to the contrary. They’ll run a far-right candidate and lose again. Sorry, that’s just what I see happening if McCain loses. The Republican base is angry right now just like everyone else, but for different reasons. A loss will mean that the base will give us the candidate that they really want, i.e., someone unelectable.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Why do people think that if J/Mac loses his Veep nominee will be the fav in 2012.
We saw how great Kemp & Edwards did afterwards. Did Ferraro do anything ever again??
May 8th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I think Hillary will seek to become Gov of NY - and lose.
Obama will have a unified democratic party. Many of the voters who are angry right now are women who will easily return to the fold given their issues. The idea that any significant percentage of Clinton voters, after she has been running on universal healthcare and withdrawing troops from Iraq, would prefer McCain is just crazy.
2012 is a lifetime away.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
1-Hillary will not be on the ticket despite trying.
2 - no unity - se rev wright
3 - no worry - see past gop presidents
4 - centrist
5 - Pence