Not if you’re smart. Since the beginning of the 19th century, incumbent Presidents have sought re-election 21 times. They’ve won 16 times; a success ratio of 76%. But, even this doesn’t tell the entire story. Look at the exceptions: Taft in 12′, Hoover in 32′, Ford in 76′, Carter in 80′, and Bush in 92′. During 76′ the US was suffering through a recession, and the incumbent party was tarred with the worst public scandal in political history (at least in the view of the public). 80′ was even worse economically. In 32′ we were in the midst of a Depression. And in 12′, the incumbent was running against an enormously popular former President of his own party. Only 92′ was anything approaching “normalcy” and even then we were at the tail end of a mild recession. In other words, with very few exception, incumbents have been toppled only in times of extreme (and rare) stress, most of it economic.
What are the chances that we’ll be in a recession in 2012 if Barack Obama is elected President? Recessions are, as a rule, relatively infrequent occurrences. I believe the general rule of thumb assumes that a recession will occur something like every 10 years. Now, we’re currently approaching a recession, so in the ordinary course of things we wouldn’t expect the country to be in one in 2012. To be sure, we’re speaking of electing Barack Obama, a man who’s policies are decidedly anti-growth and anti-free markets. It’s quite likely that he’ll negatively impact the economy. Unfortunately, even relatively optimistic predictions expect this current recession to last well into 2009. In order for the country to be in another recession by 2012, it would need to follow no more then 2-3 years on all the heels of this one. It’s not at all clear that even Obama can manage that. And the other possibility is equally unlikely; that we stay in this recession UNTIL 2012. There are really only two precedents for that sort of sustained economic malaise over the last hundred years; the Great Depressions and the late 1970’s.
In short, if Barack Obama is elected in 2008′, he’s quite likely to get a second term. Those folks that are planning to sit home, allow Obama to become President, and then wait until 2012 to run [insert heretofore unknown conservative Messiah] are likely to be awfully disappointed. Incumbents and incumbent Presidents in particular are simply incredibly difficult to defeat. Certainly guys like Romney (with his 60+% unfavorable ratings) would fail miserably. Even the Palin’s, Jindal’s, and Pawlenty’s of the world would struggle to overcome the types of ingrained advantages Barack would have. There is no waiting. John McCain isn’t perfect, but he’s the only one that stands between us and a 2 more terms of Jimmy Carter.
There is one other occurrence that could propel us back into the White House; some sort of foreign policy disaster; Iran acquiring the bomb and using it on Israel; complete dissolution in the Middle East following a premature withdrawal from Iraq; perhaps even another attack on our soil, which is clearly linked to Obama’s policies (otherwise it would simply strengthen his position). We might well win in 2012 in those circumstances. But, when your political strategy requires America’s defeat, and in effect, the deaths of Americans, you’re in a morally reprehensible position.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Great argument.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
This is one of the major reasons why I support Sarah. Matt, do you really think Pawlenty can win in 2016? By that time, the U.S. is going to want some diversity in the White House. Sarah can solve McCain’s problems today (getting the female vote, which as you can see in the recent NJ poll is important), while possibly holding the White House in a historic bid in 2016–with Bobby as her VP.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Great argument. Besides, McCain would likely only serve 1 term, and we’ll have a wide open primary again in 4 years.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
IR-MN,
I think Pawlenty can potentially anywhere, anytime. As I’ve said before, I think he’s the best political talent in our party. And if required, Palin or Jindal can be added to the ticket for diversity (they’ll be plenty qualified by then).
June 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Despite your historical evidence, which is well thought out, I don’t think a B. Hussein Obama victory in 2008 guarantees a B. Hussein Obama victory in 2012. I think it is more likely, but by no means guaranteed, that B. Hussein Obama wins in 2008. It’s going to be a close election but IMO the MSM is more pro-Hussein Obama than they were anti-Bush. Senator McCain gives us the best chance to win we have but combining a PRO-Hussein Obama media, B. Hussein Obama’s charisma and general unhappiness with the GOP I think B. Hussein Obama has a better chance to win than not.
2012 on the other hand, there will be 2 factors that will determine the outcome of that election more than any other. As we all know, electing B. Hussein Obama is going to cause serious problems economic and foreign policy wise. The scenarios you outlined in your 3rd paragraph are all very likely with a President Hussein Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress, whether we can stomach admitting it or not, those are all very likely. But those are problems even the media will not be able to ignore. This works again a 2nd term for Obama.
But the GOP, after McCain’s loss, is likely to react to the loss by nominating an arch conservative who could very well be unelectable. The talk radio and cable news crowd will make the argument on a daily basis that “Conservatives win when they run as conservatives,” and their millions of sheep, I mean, listeners and viewers, are likely to listen and act accordingly. I can already hear the Romney supporters telling us that if we nominate him in 2012 we will beat Obama in a 1984 or 1972 fashion. Excuse my laughter. This works in favor of a second term for Obama.
Most 1st term presidents running for reelection are beatable however the out-of-power party usually makes a mistake in choosing their nominee. President Bush was very beatable had the Democrats chosen a nominee who wasn’t a French-speaking dilettante who tried to run on his (exaggerated) war heroisim. The GOP could have won in 1996 had they nominated someone like Colin Powell.
The incumbent is usually beatable, but the opposing party usually makes the mistake when decided whom to nominate.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Here’s the problem – you talk about the current war as a reason to support McCain, like it is a must win situation, and, while it is important, the problem is that, in four years, even if the war was over, you would just find some other reason, if not this war, than some other military thing, if not that, then an economic situation, if not that, you would just retreat to the SCOTUS argument. Can you honestly tell me that you would have, at any point between 1960 and now, you would have seen an election that it was ok to lose?
I doubt it.
…and, at some point, a Democrat is going to win the White House. It might be this year, it might be 2012, it might be 2016, it might not be until 2020, but it is going to happen, and chances are that, just like this election, the Republican sheep would find a way to say how we MUST support the nominee, no matter who it was.
I agree that Obama would have undesirable consequences for the country, but I believe that virtually any Democrat would do that. And yet somehow, we have survived Democratic Presidents before, and we will again. We survived Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, etc.
At this point, I want McCain to win, but if he doesn’t reach out to Conservatives, particularly through his Veep pick, I have no problem not supporting him. The amount of damage that four to eight years of moderate/liberal Republican could do to the Conservative movement is considerable. A Democrat poses no such risk.
So if my options come down to having a Democratic President now, instead of eight or twelve years from now, or allowing a McCain/Leftist ticket to do considerable damage to the conservative cause, I have no problem choosing the first option.
You have to look at the bigger picture. Yes, four years of a Democrat is bad, and so is eight years, but I think the damage that could be done to the Conservative movement by having 4-8 years of a Republican who completely shuts us out of the process would be much worse.
Thats why McCain needs to pick a strong, unquestionably qualified Conservative as VP, someone who can cover for his flaws, and who can be a good Conservative nominee in four years – when I do not beleive McCain will be on the ballot.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
ITs also worth pointing out that the recent track record of Presidents serving two full terms isn’t that strong.
Since 1960, there have only been three eight-year Presidents:
Ronald Reagan 1980-88
Bill Clinton 1992-00
George W. Bush 2000-08
So, in the last 48 years, 24 have been under full-term Prezs.
Others have served less than eight years:
John Kennedy 1960-63
Lyndon Johnson 1963-68
Richard Nixon 1968-74
Gerald Ford 1974-76
Jimmy Carter 1976-1980
George H.W. Bush 1988-92
Using that statistic, only 1/3 of recent Presidents have served two full terms.
Since 1952, there has only been one Democrat elected to two terms in a row.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
act-blog,
I wouldn’t have been “happy” to lose at any time, but I think 1992, 1996, and possibly even 2000 were elections where I might have found the “it’s ok to lose now, to preserve our cause for the future” argument compelling. Certainly tons of conservatives felt that way in 1992 after Bush’s no-new taxes debacle. But, there is simply no compelling analogous argument this cycle. The Democrats will have all three Houses of Congress. With even a modicum of competence, they’ll be able to perpetuate the illusion that they got us out of a recession. In absence of a major international crisis, their position on foreign will be immeasurably stronger. And if there is a major international crisis, we’ll have essentially sold our country down the river, because we wanted to win with a purer conservative in 4 or (more likely) 8 years.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
The current state of the Iraq war makes all the difference, otherwise I’d be open to a sabotage movement.
The short-term results of pulling out of Iraq would be horrific, to our own interests. And the long-term effects even worse, as there would be no doubt among our present and future enemies that we truly are a paper tiger, unable to finish any war for the better part of a century.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“I believe the general rule of thumb assumes that a recession will occur something like every 10 years.”
Not true. I think you’re going on the past few decades, when we’ve been unusually blessed (not just lucky, though — we’ve had reasonably free trade and a decline in government regulation).
Historically, though, recessions have come much more frequently. From Wikipedia: “According to economists, since 1854, the U.S.A. has encountered 32 cycles of expansions and contractions, with an average of 17 months of contraction and 38 months of expansion.”
June 10th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
act-blog,
What in the world does it matter if someone’s an “8-year president” or not, if they’ve been re-elected? That’s the salient statistic; the number of times incumbents have managed to win re-election, because it’s indicative of the difficulties challengers face in unseating incumbents. It’s nonsensical to exclude Johnson and Nixon from that first group, and it’s flatly dishonest to stop, oh so conveniently, at 1960.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Metro,
Indeed. And it will have profound effects on our own willingness to engage in future necessary conflicts. I was recently watching an interview with Niall Ferguson from late 2003, where he pointed out that, though he supported the Iraq invasion, he doubted very much that we’d be able to finish it, because it was bound to be a considerably longer project then the Bush administration was predicting. And he pointed out that it took something like 40k American deaths and 3-4 years for some Americans to agitate for leaving Vietnam, and it took considerably longer for the political class to break on the issue. This was 2003, he said, and we’d had something like 350 deaths, and already some folks were ready to leave. Iraq has been a comparatively minor conflict, yet it has utterly sapped all our political will. I’m afraid that if we withdraw from Iraq in defeat, not only won’t our enemies fear us, but they’ll be right to feel this way.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
perhaps even another attack on our soil, which is clearly linked to Obama’s policies
What are you talking about Matthew? The federal government’s policies never provoke terrorist attacks against us. Terrorists attack us because they hate our freedoms and our way of life. You must be an unpatriotic, America-hatin’ liberal.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
#7. Kennedy and Nixon were not voted out of office, in fact Nixon actually won his second term. He just blew it in terms of serving it out. Johnson would have probably lost, but quit before defeat.
With that metric only
Ford, Carter and Bush were denied a second term via election defeat or about 50% success rate. A little less if you add Johnson.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Alright, fine, just the ones who lost re-election.
Johnson: did not run
Nixon: won reelection
Ford: Beaten
Carter: Beaten
Reagan: won reelection
Bush 1: Beaten
Clinton: won relection
Bush 2: won relection
you’re still at about 50%.
—-
I’ll agree that 2008 is important, but I also think that, if McCain picks a moderate/leftist VP, it would be a seriosu threat to Conservatism, not only in America, but also in the GOP itself.
If McCain doesn’t pick a Conservative, then the base needs to look long and hard at supporting him.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that they do not believe that a McCain administration dominated by two moderate/leftists would not be a serious threat to the position of Conservatism in the party and the country?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I’m with act-blog (#15) on this one. You know, I’d venture to guess that there would be enough conservatives willing to vote against McCain to put Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin in office, if only we’d just be willing to vote our conscience. Obama and McCain are not the only candidates for President this year, after all.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
act-blog,
And you’ve still arbitrarily decided to begin with 1960. Could that be because Eisenhower and Truman and Roosevelt all won as incumbents (Roosevelt 3 times), and this ruins your argument?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Josiah,
Policies or absence of policies (i.e, he twiddles his thumbs with Iran).
June 10th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Matthew,
No, I still don’t think you understand the mainstream Republican position. At home, the federal government is an inefficient, spendthrift, depraved, monster of power that must be restrained by the Constitution at all times, but overseas, it has no need for constitutional limits, it becomes the source of all wisdom and benevolence, and it can do no wrong (well, the only wrong it can do overseas is the wrong of not doing enough).
June 10th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
#3 makes a great point. Will McCain be a one term president? I believe he will be 76 when his first term is up. Does anyone see him serving a second term?- if elected.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
17 — Or because of the TV era…
June 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
It’s just dumb to talk about re-election rates throughout history because of the way that the media available have changed. Conditions with the candidates are also different; it’s not as if it’s a game of chance with an 80% chance of losing or something.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Mr. Miller is 100% correct, but we must stress one big point regarding Iraq and Obama. By mid-summer trop levels in Iraq will be brought down to pre-surge levels. The orders have already gone out from the regional commander. Gates has also hinted at further reductions. The surge has become so successful, that even McCain (his 2013 speech) commented on bringing most of the rest home by the end of the first term.
If Obama is elected and he is able to take credit for ending the war (although Bush and McCain have taken the hits over the surge/entending the war), it will be near impossible to defeat him in 4 years. Just impossible.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I’m surprised none of the Rombots here on are on this, but Mitt and Ann just bought a $12 million house in La Jolla, CA. Could he be eyeing the governorship of the nation’s largest state in 2010?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Obama + Huge Dem Majority in Congress = DISASTER
June 10th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Josiah,
I very much doubt this in the mainstream Republican position. Perhaps in 2002, but certainly not now. The US can do a good deal wrong abroad. They did so in the 70’s and 80’s propping up dictatorial regimes in the Middle East under the guise of realism. They did so when they failed to support the shah of Iran in 79′. And I’m even willing to concede that some American policies have…wait for it…increased instability in the Middle East, which has intensified the radical Islam brewing beneath the surface. All of these ideas would be accepted by a good number of “mainstream” Republicans. We just draw different conclusions about the implications these mistakes (and some of our successes) have for American power, American security, and the American role in the world.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“I’m surprised none of the Rombots here on are on this, but Mitt and Ann just bought a $12 million house in La Jolla, CA. Could he be eyeing the governorship of the nation’s largest state in 2010?”
I doubt it. If Romney was really looking to be Gov. again, I suspect he would have picked MI – a state where he has ties, and where the Democratic incumbent isn’t popular.
More likely is that they want to be closer to family.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Also, is politics in 1940 really comparable to politics today?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Alex,
Again, I’m not sure that’s true. The reasons incumbents have historically had advantages are, in large part, institutional. They have easier access to resources (money for instance). They shore up their base early, and no large intra-party divisions are created. They have more advanced organizational apparatus. And then there’s the tendency of voters to prefer the status quo, barring major instability (economic, social, or foreign). These are conditions which extend throughout history, and they’ve only shown very minor signs of weakening in the modern era. Incumbents everywhere still have an ungodly rate of re-election.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Matthew,
Yes, propping up those dictatorial regimes in the 70’s and the 80’s was a mistake, but the feds have got that whole propping-up-dictators thing together now and they know what they’re doing. Propping up Musharraf and the Saudi Royals and all the other corrupt Gulf sheiks these days is completely necessary. Right??
Oh, and the federal government did wrong when it “failed to support the Shah”? Please Google “Operation Ajax.”
I mean, apart from the “Not doing enough” cop-out, can any mainstream Republican admit to and show me a single wrong the US federal government has committed in foreign policy during George W. Bush’s administration? Do so, and I’ll show you how the Bush administration and the mainstream GOP hasn’t learned a single thing from those mistakes.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I don’t envy the next president to take office. Events occurring now and soon will conspire to make this upcoming term EXTREMELY challenging economically, politically and socially. Only a strong, gifted leader that rose to a Lincoln-ian level could probably handle it and win a second term. Otherwise I could see the 2008 pres getting booted out in 2012. WHy? Here is a list of “challenges” that the “winner” will face:
1. Our energy situation. Quite simply we have run out of the ability to increase oil supply to meet our demand as well as China, India (et al.) Even if we agree to tap our own reserves, which I expect the next president to agree to at some point, we’re still gonna be short and our collective fuel bill will increase ever higher. Guaranteed… Plus add in our natural gas, electricity and even coal problems and we have a real big problem. Next president has to fess up to our decades of energy negligence and practically propose the “Man on the Moon” or Marshall Plan equivelent or were majorly screwed. We get one shot at getting this right.
2. Our health care system. Not actually a system per say, but each year more people wind up uninsured increasing the rates for everyone else. After a decade of double digit increases in premiums and bills, the system will reach a tipping point where huge numbers of people become uninsured and the private model of health coverage that has served this country so inefficiently goes belly up. Rate of decline sped up because of job losses related to problem number 1 above.
3. Entitlements. Speaking of unhealthy, that is a pleasant way to describe our social security, medicare, medicaid and even private pension plans. As the baby boomers march off into retirement (or forced into it by job cuts) they’re gonna start drawing on the federal government. Big time. And since none of our entitlement plans actually HAVE real funds in reserve, more people will draw on fewer workers, again affected by retirements, and effects of factors 1 and 2. Either we raise payroll taxes (decreasing worker’s incomes) or we cut entitlements (decreasing retiree incomes). Either way we’re screwed. Or we do neither and run the printing presses, setting off a lovely bout of inflation to go with our energy and food and health care price hikes. Btw, think 401(k)s are going to be ok? Forget about it. When more people are draining them than investing in our markets, guess which direction the stock market will go? Hint it rhymes with “frown”.
4. Military. Put it simply we are not going to be able to afford it all. Simply keeping our military fueled is expensive then add all of those stupid pork military contract projects, some of which were designed to fight the Soviets. Guess what. We won that one. We’re going to have a hard discussion on those projects first, then we’re going to have to start funding the Iraq War out of Iraq Oil Sales. Or we are going to go home. A half a trillion a year in addition to factors 1-3 above are going to bankrupt the US or set of inflation somewhere north of 25% per year.
5. Debt. By this, I mean all of it. Government, corporate, and private. We face a real hard problem here…as defaults keep rising, more debt becomes seen as risky and banks will continue to hoard cash, killing off growth. Add in our unfunded pensions and social security entitlements and our collective debt obligations exceed the GDP probably one-hundred fold. Letting banks address this issue alone will kill the economy in a depression rivaling the 30s. That may not happen if the Fed keeps flooding the market with currency and low low interest rates. Of course then you have inflation, and a lot of it, exacerbated by points 1 and 2.
This doesnt even include the “unknown unknowns” as Rummy put it such as minor or major wars elsewhere in the world, natural disasters in this country, terrorism or home-grown civil unrest here. Factor in a dependence on bumper crops to fuel our cars and nourish our bellies (and our animal’s bellies) and you could also see something having to give if we suffer a crop failure somewhere in the next 4 years. Does anyone think something like this wont happen anywhere on the planet before Nov of 2012?
Quite simply, our ship is heading into some mighty choppy waters with a number of “bills” that we put off till tomorrow start to come due. Are they unsolvable? Hardly. But it will take an unconventional leader willing to make some very unconventional decisions to address these problems. The next 20 years are NOT going to look like the last 20.
Somewhat positively for us, our two remaining candidates are probably the most unconventional ones left if left to their own devices, though I am not sure yet if they have what it takes to “get it done”
June 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Again, I’m not sure that’s true. The reasons incumbents have historically had advantages are, in large part, institutional. They have easier access to resources (money for instance). They shore up their base early, and no large intra-party divisions are created. They have more advanced organizational apparatus. And then there’s the tendency of voters to prefer the status quo, barring major instability (economic, social, or foreign). These are conditions which extend throughout history, and they’ve only shown very minor signs of weakening in the modern era. Incumbents everywhere still have an ungodly rate of re-election.
Incumbent presidents in the modern media era have a very even rate of re-election. And Bush almost blew it, don’t forget.
Incumbent Congressmen have an ungodly re-election rate due to gerrymandering.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Josiah,
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “wrong”. If you mean a “moral” wrong, since libertarians seem to be obsessed with this concept, then I can’t think of anything in particular. I think there were a number of strategic mistakes;, but I suppose those don’t count. I supported an illegal war of aggression, ergo all my opinions on strategy, tactics, etc are irrelevant. This is the difficulty of arguing with libertarians; we have entirely different premises, but it’s precisely the premises which are at issue.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Matthew,
No, we don’t even have to go to the whole morality or constitutionality thing, since that’s so unimportant to non-libertarian Republicans. Let’s just stick to the practicality thing. Can you, as a mainstream Republican, honestly name one significant strategic wrong the executive branch of the federal government has committed overseas (other than “Not doing enough”) during the Bush administration?
I have a feeling that even if you can, I can show you how the mainstream GOP hasn’t learned a single thing from it.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
#25 has it completely right. The years when it’s relatively ok for the GOP to lose (never something I relish) are years when we control Congress. Period. That’s why things weren’t worse under Clinton – we had some legislative pushback. With Congress poised to expand its Democratic majorities, this is not the time to anoint as liberal a president as Obama. Even though I’ve been a McCain backer for a good while now, I’d be ok with him taking a dive as long as we still controlled Congress – a little government gridlock isn’t the worst thing that can happen, as we’ve learned the hard way the last seven years. This ain’t the year to roll over and let a liberal Democrat in the WH.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I find Matthew’s post very instructive. I’d totally forgotten just how rare it is for an incumbent president to lose. Basically, Americans kick out a president for one of two reasons. The first is that they’re pocketbooks are hurting. As much as the activist base cares about any and every issue from gay marriage to ethanol subsidies, your average American cares about one thing: his standard of living. If it’s going down, so is the president. It’s as simple as that.
Thare’s one other time that Americans kick out incumbent presidents, and that’s when their winning coalition is split thanks to a third party candidate who garners double-digit support. This happened in 1912, when former GOP POTUS Teddy Roosevelt split the vote with President Taft and elected Wilson. And this also occurred in 1992, when former Republican and right-of-center candidate Ross Perot split the vote with Bush 41, electing Bill Clinton. As a former Perotista, I remember Perot’s campaign quite well. He was basically a Mitt Romney who didn’t care about social issues. In fact, Ross backed Romney for president this year. A lot of history has been rewritten to call Perot a centrist candidate, but he was actually a good-government Republican without the (R) next to his name, and without the Religious Right. The point is, we would’ve won in 1992 too had there not been another right-of-center candidate taking nearly 20 percent of the vote.
Point is, unless Hillary or someone runs third party in ‘12, or Americans are living in Hoovervilles by then (Obamavilles?), Barack will be elected to a second term.
If you do anything other than vote for McCain on Election Day, you’re voting for eight years of Barack Obama.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Matthew E. Miller makes a compelling argument, but there is an even more compelling argument against the 2012 “insert heretofore unknown conservative Messiah]” argument.
What will happen during 4 years of an Obama POTUS with a Democratic controlled Congress and Senate (with very large majorities)? Please keep in mind that the all entitlement programs Liberal Presidents implemented have never been reversed, even though the Conservative cause has promised to “change the game”, such as the Department of Education.
For those who have suggested they will not vote for McCain, this is what 2013 will look like if Barry is elected;
- The border fence remains unbuilt.
- Illegal aliens apply and receive driver’s licenses
- Doctor shortages and long waiting periods for surgery due to Gov’t run socialized health care
- Major defense programs cancelled, F/A-22 and JSF, missile defense and Mars program, DD(X), LPD
- In retaliation, the Canadian Government sells oil to China, after NAFTA is re-opened
(Canucks are #1 source for US market, and estimated to be as much as %25 of imports by 2012)
- $6 – $8 gas prices + new carbon tax
- Majority of Latin American countries turn to China and Russia for trade
- 2 week waiting period for gun owners, and national database registration program
- US currency substantially devalued
- Highest debt to GDP ratio in the western world
- National pedophile databases closed down, as they are ruled unconstitutional
- Shall I go on?
Please do not tell me this will not happen, because history has proven, it will!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“This ain’t the year to roll over and let a liberal Democrat in the WH.”
thats a fair argument, but I’m also not sure its the time to allow McCain to pick a moderate/liberal VP and do significant, potentially irreversible damage to the Conservative movement.
Again, this is only an issue if McCain doesn’t pick a Conservative VP. If he does, there is no problem.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I want to add something to this discussion. People like ACT talk about the “long term damage” done to conservatism by McCain and his “leftist” buddies. Obviously, I disagree with the basic premise, but let’s say it’s true up to a point.
The fact is, the country should trump party politics every single time. The well-being of the United States is more important than the well-being of the Republican Party. The election to two terms of Barack Obama would cause such long-term “change” (i.e. damage) to our nation as to make any realistic and intelligent person seriously question allowing it to happen.
Obama must not become President. It doesn’t even matter about the Republican Party or “conservatism” – it’s about our country here.
So get with the program.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
DaveG,
If you do anything other than vote for a constitutionalist on Election Day, you’re voting for eight years of bigger government, more spending, more borrowing, centralization of power, negligence on the entitlements issue, a weaker dollar, more inflation, open borders, more debt, and less liberties.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Did anyone actually stop to consider what (President) John McCain would be like a the leader of the GOP, instead of a (Maverick) Senator.
Most of his history reads as a James Dean storey, but not when McCain is in positions of leadership. I recommend everyone review his military leadership positions, including his role as the Hanoi Hilton Chaplan to his POW’s. This, and many of his other leadership assignments show him to be an effective leader, who takes care of his men and their families. Have we ever heard a negative thing about McCain from one of his former military brothers or those who he commanded?
There is nothing in his history that would show McCain to exclude so called “Conservatives” from his inner circle, along with their ideas. Let us focus less on Senator McCain, and more on his inclusive leadership experiences.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Did anyone actually stop to consider what (President) John McCain would be like a the leader of the GOP, instead of a (Maverick) Senator.
Most of his history reads as a James Dean storey, but not when McCain is in positions of leadership. I recommend everyone review his military leadership positions, including his role as the Hanoi Hilton Chaplan to his POW’s. This, and many of his other leadership assignments show him to be an effective leader, who takes care of his men and their families. Have we ever heard a negative thing about McCain from one of his former military brothers or those who he commanded?
There is nothing in his history that would show McCain to exclude so called “Conservatives” from his inner circle, along with their ideas. Let us focus less on Senator McCain, and more on his inclusive leadership experiences.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
sorry….key lock.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Josiah,
I think the extreme de-baathification was a strategic wrong, which wouldn’t fall under the heading of “not doing enough” (since it was clearly a case of doing too much). I think it was probably wrong to rush elections in Iraq and I think the Democratic Peace Theory ought to have been abandoned. If you’re not looking for these sorts of mistakes, and are instead looking for me to disavow some venture, then I’m going to come up empty.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
If you do anything other than vote for a constitutionalist on Election Day, you’re voting for eight years of bigger government, more spending, more borrowing, centralization of power, negligence on the entitlements issue, a weaker dollar, more inflation, open borders, more debt, and less liberties.
Ah, but it’s better to have the flu than to have malaria!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“- US currency substantially devalued”
Aren’t we doing this already?
“- $6 – $8 gas prices”
We’re going to see this regardless who gets elected, without carbon taxes
“- Doctor shortages and long waiting periods for surgery due to Gov’t run socialized health care”
We already have doctor shortages in some areas and our current system has long term sustainability questions
“- Major defense programs cancelled, F/A-22 and JSF, missile defense and Mars program, DD(X), LPD”
Some of these programs are boondoggles or worse. V22 osprey?? Missle defense–come’on. Who are we trying to protect our selves against. Name one defense program that would have stopped 19 islamo-fanatics with box cutters. WHich defense program caught Bin Laden? Which air force program was able to defend against Saddam’s top of line airforce fighter aircraft? What about Iran’s fearsome airforce or missile program? Oh yeah, I forgot. THEY DONT EXIST. Waste of money.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
“The fact is, the country should trump party politics every single time”
…and so it does, but I’ve said before that the only thing worse than the implementation of liberal policies is the destruction of the conservative opposition to those policies.
Sometimes it isn’t about winning, but living to fight another day.
—
As for John McCain excluding Conservatives – well, we’ll know when his VP pick is named. If he picks a moderate or liberal Republican, that tells us what direction he thinks the party should head, and exactly how much value he puts on the Conservative vote.
If he picks a Conservative – I’d prefer Romney, though Pawlenty, Palin, Jindal, etc. would all be o.k. – then there is no problem.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Anyone in this blog who says they are not voting for McCain, because he is not good for the Republican Party, should leave my country and move to Cuba, or as far away as possible.
Anyone who has the b___s to put party before country, while our brothers and sisters are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan (and where else the CIA doesn’t tell us about) is selfish and a unamerican. That includes Coulter, Dobson, etc…..
Clearly many of you do not understand what being an American is, but maybe I should cut you some slack and just chalk it up to ignoranced, based on your youth or fear of service or lack of understand of honor.
Vote for Barr or Nader because they motivate you and you want them as your next leader, because you support their policies, but please do not steal lines from Moveon.org or Susan Sarandon. We are better than that.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
“Aren’t we doing this already?”
Indeed, though as to why the dollar is so low, well, I don’t know. Its understandable that it would be low now, in an economic downturn, but it never really got strong, even though we spent the last five years in a period of economic growth.
“We’re going to see this regardless who gets elected, without carbon taxes”
Eh…don’t count on it. Commodities are high for a number of reasons, including the refusal of the Congress to allow drilling, but its mainly speculation. Prices would probably be half what they are now without the speculation factor. Oil and Gold have become the new housing bubble.
“Some of these programs are boondoggles or worse. V22 osprey?? Missle defense–come’on. Who are we trying to protect our selves against. Name one defense program that would have stopped 19 islamo-fanatics with box cutters. WHich defense program caught Bin Laden? Which air force program was able to defend against Saddam’s top of line airforce fighter aircraft? What about Iran’s fearsome airforce or missile program? Oh yeah, I forgot. THEY DONT EXIST. Waste of money.”
Well, the V22 is deffinately a funny looking bird, although America has an aging helicopter fleet that is going to need replaced. The missile defense program isn’t so much aimed at current enemies, but at countries like China and N. Korea that might cause problems at one point.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Anyone who has the b___s to put party before country, while our brothers and sisters are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan (and where else the CIA doesn’t tell us about) is selfish and a unamerican. That includes Coulter, Dobson, etc…..
Sounds like you’re the one putting party first.
I think a reasonable case can be made that things will be better, long-term, if we don’t vote for McCain.
For now, I’m sticking with him, but we’ll see.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I hate the country/party dichotomy –
I’m in the GOP because I think it’s the best party for the country.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Alex Knepper ,
Do you think this McCain hesitation will go away when he picks a Conservative VP candidate? That is the feeling I am getting.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
As unbelievable as it may sound right now, I truly believe that Senator McCain will ultimately be replaced as our nominee before November. The issue then will be who will we replace him with and this choice will define our party and conservatism for the next generation and it could open up an intra party battle among competing constituencies.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
JA Pruce, how would that come about?
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
even so, honest conservatives hafta say no to McCain.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Metro: “how would that come about?”
I hesitate to venture a guess as I am not a fortune teller but I see this scenario occurring (McCain being replaced as nominee prior to November)under the following circumstances:
1. McCain proves himself outmatched on the campaign trail, shows his age, alienates too much of the base, sees the writing on the wall and bows out quietly.
2. An inter part “coup” or “putsch” (don’t discount this) by disenfranchised constituents and the base — would have to be premised by scenario #1.
3. God forbid an “Ariel Sharon” moment or event wherein McCain become incapacitated or unfit to run.
4. Some scandal or secret surfaces that renders McCain unelectable where by Party elites drive him out and replace him ala Jack Ryan in Illinois’ 2004 Senate race.
This could all turn out to be hooey and I hope it is but I just have a feeling and I tend to be right about this sort of stuff…remember Thomas Eagleton? I called that one back in 72.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Scary rumor which I read — Obama will pick Jim Matheson of Utah as his Veep (he’s more conservative than McCain). Wow! That would suppress GOP turnout in 5 intermountain states and he could win Utah!!!!!!! Yikes!!!!!
June 10th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
#57, which means McCain would absolutely have to put Mitt on the ticket, or lose his butt!
June 10th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Act,
The reason this election is so crucial is that two huge issues are at a breaking point.
The Iraq War is the number one thing. If we finish and win terrorists and dictators around the world will hesitate before they test our resolve. If we withdraw then we really are the paper tiger and our enemies will be emboldened. It really is that simple.
Judges are also something that you can’t fix 4 years later. If a democrat wins they will almost certainly get 3 supreme court nominees (Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter). With the current Senate that means any conservative issue will be set back another generation which probably means they will be so engrained in our culture that they will never be fixed. I’m not just talking about Roe v. Wade and gay marriage. Kelo needs to be reversed. Campaign finance needs to be ruled unconstitutional. There are many more issues that will be fixed if we can replace just one of those three left-wing justices.
Healthcare won’t get far enough for anything major to happen. Immigration is also something that can be fixed later. Taxes can always be lowered again.
This election matters more than any election in a long time. Perhaps with the exception of 1980 and Reagan this matters more than any election in the last 100 years.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:05 am
#58, Even Mitt wouldn’t help that much Matheson is more popular than Mitt in the state of Utah. Obama takes Utah no matter what and Obama doesn’t suffer a Mormon backlash from Evangelicals because the more liberal ones will voter for him and they will have already overlooked the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue.
Nope, there ain’t a thing McCain can do if it is Matheson. The only hope is that Matheson thinks Obama is too liberal and may refuse to join that ticket. Let’s hope!!!!
June 11th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Could imagine Mormons voting for a Dem president? That’s insane. It would be like Gays voting for the GOP enmasse. It could happen though with Matheson whose Dad was EXTREMELY popular in Utah. Yikes! I think I am going to throw up — it feels like the worst possible political scenario for a conservative faithful LDS member.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:16 am
My gut says Obama is going to go with a VP pick that boosts his foreign policy / military credentials.
On the Matheson matter, I dont place a lot of stock in it…this is the time for trial balloon VP picks on both sides. #60 is correct though, liberal/dem voters (including evangelicals that already were going to vote D) are not going to be put off by a Mormon on the no. 2 spot. On the other hand, if Obama can secure most of the intermountain west, he’s pretty hard to beat. My mental map that gets Obama the victory does not color MT, WY, ID, or UT blue. Still, I think it is unlikely
June 11th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Does anyone know how Obama polls in the 18-34 demographic in Utah and how they vote in general? I’d have to think this demographic is larger than other states and most susceptible to the Obama message.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:21 am
It’s NV, UT, ID, WY, and CO that will go blue under the Matheson scenario. YES, Matheson would carry UT!! The Matheson name is the hugest political name in Utah–It’s goldena and it’s the biggest. He is winning his district by 70% AND he is MORE conservative than McCain, and he is a leader of the Conservative Blue Dog democrats. Yikes!
June 11th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Remember, when Mitt dropped out, McCain was virtually tied with Obama in Utah. It’s gotten much better, but with Matheson on the ticket (who really votes like a rank and file GOPer), McCain would lose the state by 5 points. Yikes!!!
June 11th, 2008 at 12:44 am
nowandlater…
Do you live in Utah?
If you do, shame on you for spreading this unfounded, factless rumor. Utah won’t vote for a pro-choice President, period.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I don’t live in Utah at all. Here’s empirical evidence. Matheson will give him a 25% boost too.
——————————————————–
The new poll taken for KSL-TV and the Deseret Morning News shows that, in a head to head race, John McCain has a five point lead over Senator Barack Obama in Utah. That is very bad news in itself. Utah is the Republican capital of the world, where president Bush has a nation-leading 66% approval rating. Republicans carry Utah in the general election by 30-40 points usually. However, the next question and response is even more mind boggling. Republicans were asked, now that Romney is out of the race, who they support. Less than half, 43%, said they support John McCain. In second among Republicans polled with 15% was Barack Obama. That’s right folks, these are Republicans responding! Of course, maybe Utahans aren’t representative of true republicans? A fringe group? Maybe they can be marginalized? Not. One thing is clear, if Utah is in play in November, or if John McCain has less than half of the Republican support in the general election, or if Barack Obama carries 15% of the Republican electorate, the Republicans will, with 100% certainty LOSE the election.. And when I say lose, I mean like Walter Mondale lose.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:10 am
nowandlater,
You are way, waaaaaaaaaay off here. Matheson only wins in Utah because he is one of the most conservative Democrats in the country, and the district is so gerrymandered that almost every democrat in Utah lives in his district. Even if Obama were a moderate Dem that ticket still would lose Utah by 20 points.
Of course Obama is not moderate so that pick would make absolutely no difference electorally except to piss off the left-wing base as much as picking Ridge would piss off social conservatives.
You have carried this idea so far off the cliff I don’t even know what to say. Even if McCain picked Huckabee and Obama picked Matheson the GOP would still win Utah without spending a dime in the state. There is no state in the country as safe as Utah. The only chance Utah could have of going blue would be for a conservative Mormon Democrat like Matheson to be the Dem nominee and for an anti-Mormon moderate like Huckabee to be the GOP nominee.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Nope, Utah would be in play. Polls have shown that Matheson would win as Governor against a conservative Republican. If he can win as Governor then he would win as a VP selection.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:17 am
P.S. He has parts of Utah County. Not exactly a Democrat haven.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:17 am
You seem sincere, so I won’t go after you too much here. Especially since I can’t imagine any thinking person believing any of your rumor or conjecture regardless of whatever poll you are citing.
I just want to make it very clear to everyone else that all of your conjecture, rumor and speculation is not even close to the reality on the ground in Utah. I used to live there. I still have many family and friends there and in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, (many of whom are young college age students) and what you are saying is just plain not even close to being possible.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Nowandlater. I used to live in his district. The only reason he has Utah county is because the state GOP redrew the districts to try to take him out. I have no idea what poll you think shows that he would beat Huntsman, especially since his brother lost to Huntsman in 2004.
And your idea that if a person can win as a governor that means they can win as a VP is almost as laughable as your speculation that Obama could beat McCain in Utah.
Really the lack of reason and sanity in your posting makes me wonder if you are just playing some kind of joke to see what you can get people to believe.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Also, he has never even gotten 60% in his district, let alone 70%. One more thing, Matheson is hardly the biggest name in Utah politics. Perhaps on the Dem side it is, but in the state as a whole that is not even close to being true.
Why do you think his brother got crushed in his run for Governor in 2004?
June 11th, 2008 at 1:41 am
#71 and #72.
I’m in total agreement with those comments.
Nowandlater is just up in the night on this one. While it is an interesting thought, Obama picking a blue dog democrat for his Veep, the conclusions are just wildly wrong.
Oh, well. Time to get some sleep.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Here is an article on Arizona
McCain Calls Arizona a Swing State
It’s the Senator’s Home Turf, but It’s Not Safe Ground in November
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/mccain-campaign
If McCain has to fight for his own state, this cannot be positive development. You don’t see stories about Illinois being a swing state. I’m not sure what is hurting McCain worse in AZ, the Republican base backlash against his immigration stance or the increasing numbers of Democrat-leaning Hispanic registrants. I dont think he’ll lose it in the fall unless his campaign or the national economy really tank between now and november.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:25 am
I asked a day or so ago when in the last time we’ve had three completed two termers in a row?
Mitt will beat Barack in 2012!
June 11th, 2008 at 6:15 am
nowandlater,
You appear to be at least mildly deranged. Don’t you recall talk about Josh Romney possibly running against Matheson this year? Don’t you recall lots of folks, including Democrats, suggesting that he could give Matheson a real run for his money? And yet he’s going to carry Utah as VP, heretofore the reddest state in the country? And Wyoming, heretofore the second reddest state in the union? I’d erupt into tears of laughter if Obama selected a 4-term congressman with no executive or national security experience in the hopes of carrying Utah and Wyoming.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am
You are correct, Matthew, with all due respect to Mr. Matheson, there is no way he will carry Utah or any other state.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Obama is about as likely to carry Utah as McCain is likely to carry the District of Columbia.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
The Congressional gap is closing,,,,,maybe McCain coat tails?
Generic Congressional Vote
Poll Date Republican Democrat Spread
Rasmussen 05/21 – 05/22 39 47 Democrat +8.0
Democracy Corps (D) 05/13 – 05/15 42 52 Democrat +10.0
Battleground 05/11 – 05/14 40 49 Democrat +9.0
CBS News/NY Times 04/25 – 04/29 32 50 Democrat +18.0
NBC/WSJ 04/25 – 04/28 34 49 Democrat +15.0
June 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I don’t have time to read the comments, but you ALWAYS take a victory when you can get one. You don’t wait four years. That’s why people are so off-base when they say we’re better off with the Democrats controlling Congress because we can blame them for spending. I think you are ALWAYS better off when conservative people win.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Heath, Mitt will not beat Barack in 2012. The Democrats won’t nominate Barack a second time after he loses this time. Mitt may beat someone else though.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
McCain will win in 2008, so this is a non conversation Clarenece.
Obama went to far to the left in the primary.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Conservative values are worth fighting for, and I’d rather have an opposition democrat in office than have our country left without a party that stands for conservative principles. The way I see it, conservative values lost out in the GOP nomination this year. If this doesn’t change, why should I support a party that allowed this to happen? I’m not into picking the lesser of 2 bad choices. I’m into standing up for good choices. So if that means allowing a democrat into the office for a while, so be it. And if the republicans don’t learn from that by 2012, then I suppose it will be time to just join the democarats and attack them with conservative values from within, since apparently attacking a party from within is the in thing with the GOP these days.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The only comment I have:
Apostrophes go *before* the 2 digits of a year. (19)’12, (19)’32; ‘76, ‘80, ‘92. And 2008 doesn’t need an apostrophe at all.
Usually I avoid nit-picking things like this, but it was rather a nuisance while reading.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:43 am
[...] you think you can bid your time for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to save the GOP in 2012… Stop dreaming. [...]