Allahpundit, one of my favorite right-of-center political bloggers, has this to say about the race for 2012:
We’ve been over this. Barring a catastrophic first term, The One will be heavily favored for reelection, leading young’uns like Jindal and Palin to bow out and bide their time until 2016. (Even Palinistas as devout as Coulter agree that she should wait, as do you guys.) Mitt might run since he’d be 69 and facing a crowded, charismatic field in 2016, but unless he stands a real chance to win, I figure he’ll pass too in the interest of avoiding further expense and aggravation. Result: A Huckabee-Pawlenty snoozefest, leading grassroots conservatives to tear at their hair in anguish and boredom until some dark horse like Mark Sanford jumps in to make things moderately more interesting. Exit question one: Can you feel the excitement? Exit question two: Might Mitt run, conceivably, out of some sense of party loyalty even if he thought he was likely to lose? If there’s a leadership vacuum at the top of the GOP and the frontrunners are all weak and southern, would he jump in to rebrand the party with a midwestern/northeastern face and a reputation for financial expertise? Dean Barnett always swore to me that Mitt was motivated by a true sense of civic duty more so than any personal ambition. We’ll see.
All of this is predicated, of course, on a popular President Obama. That’s possible, and maybe more likely than the alternative, but it’s far too early to place any bets on such things. In any case, if Obama is unpopular, pretty much every Republican in the country will run for president, so there’s no point in trying to handicap that complicated field. What’s interesting is what happens if 2012 begins to seem like sacrificial lamb territory for the Republicans.
I think AP is right that both Jindal and Romney will likely take a pass in that event. Romney is unlikely to spend yet more of his fortune simply to lose again, only this time in the general election. And Jindal is young enough to wait, and he knows it. I do quibble a bit about his Palin analysis though. I don’t see how Palin can wait until 2016 to run for president and remain relevant, especially given that she governs a state with few societal problems where major reforms aren’t really necessary. A poorly run state like, say, Louisiana or Michigan would make an excellent springboard for a politician of presidential timber to oversee a “Massachusetts Miracle” and gain national attention through a platform of economic and social reform and improvement (it is for that reason that, should I somehow become independently wealthy or perhaps meet a nice girl with a trust fund in the near future, I will immediately drop everything and relocate back to my native Michigan for a gubernatorial run). But Alaska isn’t particularly good fodder for such a task. But Palin wasn’t made popular by her accomplishments anyway. Palinmania is identity based and is largely rooted in the notion that people like Sarah Palin don’t have a “voice” in Washington, be it for reasons of class or region or religion or recreational preferences. That makes Palin a fad, and fads are fleeting. As such, 2012 is Palin’s “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” year, just as we probably would have elected President Giuliani in 2004 had the GOP nomination been up for grabs due to the proximity to 9/11.
That’s all a longwinded way of saying that Republican voters will have a choice between either Palin and Huckabee and a few unknowns or Huckabee and a few unknowns should Obama remain popular. Most of those unknowns are known to us, but not to the general public, and include names like Pawlenty, Crist, and Sanford. Throw in a Newt run for good measure. Then the question is who clinches the nomination in such a field.
It remains an open question whether Republicans will entrust either Newt or Palin with the nomination. Even if the nominee looks to be a sacrificial lamb, voters generally don’t think that way — they want someone who can win, and if the conventional wisdom is that the general public views Newt as a divisive relic and Palin as a cocktail waitress, there may be an opening for another candidate to run up the middle and take the nomination. Huckabee is a longshot; he is despised by two-thirds of the Republican Party and will eventually be eliminated from the field once things get down to two or three candidates. That’s where Pawlenty, Crist, Mitch Daniels, and so forth come in, but one has to wonder whether a Republican base that is even angrier than it is today (remember, this is all predicated on a popular Obama) will select a dull, pragmatic bean-counter to speak truth to power, in the view of GOP primary voters anyway. That’s why a Sanford or perhaps a candidate that we’re not thinking of, but one who excels at red-meat rhetoric, may be able to come out of nowhere and win the nomination in this scenario. If Obama’s popular, it won’t matter anyway, but still, a GOP McGovern isn’t really what the party needs right now if it’s going to re-emerge from the wilderness. Then again, Democrats followed their 1972 embarrassment with wins in 1974 and 1976, so who knows for sure.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Gary Johnson, 2012!
January 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Palin could run for re-election in 2010, than run for senate in 2014 + run for prez 2016+ so she isn’t totally MIA in the political world if she doesn’t run in 2012…also, if obama is looking tough, why would huckabee run in 2012? if his goal is to be president, why run in that cycle? than again, if his goal is facetime on the tv, maybe he runs…as for romney, if he wants to wait till 2016, i think he needs to get himself elected to either the house or senate in 2010…than serve till 2016 and run against hillary, could be a couple of 69 year olds in that race. Yet, his odds are probably better to get the nomination in 2012 but the ? is is that worth anything…if no, why run, ditto pawlenty, why would he run? This could lead to somebody like newt shocking everybody to win the gop nomination(doubtful) or a real dark horse…maybe condi rice should think about running.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Considering where the economy will be in four years (still tanking) even a massive Oldstream Media campaign will not be enough to keep President Obama popular. His ONLY savior will be Congressional overreach in his first year and Republican control of the legislature in 2010 — which is not likely.
President Obama might be able to blame the economy on President Bush for the first two years, but by year four even the American people will wake up to the fact that he does not have the answers the country needs.
Tax hikes and runaway unemployment, interest rates and inflation is not something I look forward to — but something I expect. Got sweaters? Welcome to President Carter’s second term.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The ideal position would be to run a strong, honorable second in 2012, including going out to campaign heartily for the winner as he/she plays out the sacrificial lamb role, thus setting oneself up as the next-in-line for 2016. No?
Gotta make sure that you come in second though….
January 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I was thinking the same about Palin’s route. Get re-elected for a 2nd term as governor and then challenge the democrat senator from Alaska in 2014. I’d rather see Palin become a senator and remain there. The Hill is where most of the reform needs to be done at. As far as the executive, that’s only a temp job. She’s young enough to serve a least a couple of terms in the senate before looking beyond to the next level.
Still think that Obama will be re-elected and princess Caroline will replace Biden for the Veep on the re-elect ticket. Caroline will be in a prime position to become the first woman POTUS.
If Caroline is elected in 2016, she will appoint Obama as ambassador to the United Nations. Obama will then become the Secretary General of the UN and with his Chicago political experience Obama will fit right in.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
This whole post is based on the premise that Romney would have to spend millions more of his own fortune to run in 2012, and that is simply not supported by the facts. Since you make no mention of the need of Palin or Huckabee or Pawlenty to spend millions in addition to their fundraising, you must either believe that Romney couldn’t raise as much as the others, or that it would take far more money to get Mitt elected.
I can’t answer for the second point, and, presumably, neither can you, so lets get back to the first issue.
The ONLY reason that Romney had to spend so much of his own money was because he was the only top tier candidate without near-universal name recognition. McCain was well-known, both from his 2000 run, and from his decades in the Senate. Giuliani, was, of course, well-known because of the 9/11 attacks, and Fred Thompson was recognized from his acting career. Huckabee was not well known, but had a network of Pastors to rely on. Romney entered the race with between 3-7% support, and ended with support closer to the 40% mark.
Even without the huge support, Mitt still managed to lead or virtually tie all the other GOP contestants in fundraising – not cash on hand – FUNDRAISING.
Going into 2012, Romney will enter the race with the kind of broad name recognition enjoyed by the likes of McCain, Clinton, and Giuliani this cycle, and with a fundraising base between 7x and 10x the size of his 2008 base.
There is simply no logic behind the idea that Romney would have to spend even close to the amount of money – if any at all – out of his own pocket that he did in 2008.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Dave G from, “What the Heck? Let’s just make up statistics department.”
Huckabee is a longshot; he is despised by two-thirds of the Republican Party
From a Rasmussen Reports survey: 11% of Republicans have a somewhat negative view of Huckabee, 5% have a very unfavorable view of Huckabee. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Adam, don’t cite a poll with such unusual results (that have not been backed up by any of the other polls conducted) as evidence.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Caroline Kennedy v. Sarah Palin in 2016? Oy. If that happens, *I* could run third party against those two and win in a walk. Hmm, that’s not a bad idea.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I also have to point out that its unlikely we will see popularity of Obama taken into account. Those hoping to run are going to have to establish exploratory committees around October or November of 2010 – more than two years from the actual election.
As history has shown, you simply cannot expect popularity of a President to remain constant for 2 years…
That is perhaps, the one disadvantage of the long campaign season: the situation at the end of the campaign is largely unknown at the beginning.
How many candidate at the start of the 2008 election were running on the concept of a major finanial meltdown?
January 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
#9:
What would be your platform DaveG? Something along the lines of “An optimist for a better America”?
January 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
#8:
Okay show me the poll that shows Huckabee with 66% very unfavorable ratings among Republicans. I’ve seen no poll that’s indicative of that. Indeed, polls have shown that more 60% of the party wants him to run for President.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Caroline Kennedy vs. Palin. Haha. I wonder which one will use that song from Garbage, “Stupid Girl” first – as their campaign song?
January 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
jeb bush, mark sanford, and john thune are the candidates who will emerge if obama is unpopular.
if obama is riding high, then expect another mccain-esque me-too repub like pawlenty or crist.
no also-rans will have a shot. romney at 65 with a wife with MS will not want to throw away another 40 + million on a lost cause
huck has no shot
and palin will never survive gop debates, she will be exposed and beaten soundly.
jeb will use his election to the senate as a first step to shed his brothers image and emerge as a solid candidate with inroads with hispanics. this new bush machine will register hispanics for the gop in big numbers, and he will easily win the fundraising race.
sanford will capture the hearts of the ron paul libertarians and hardcore fiscal cons, and will be in a strong position in the most important state of south carolina. however, he is not charismatic and may struggle to match some of the other candidates in broadening the message to the masses.
thune will emerge as the non-threatening, telegenic, young next generation evangelical candidate, who is not as polarizing as palin, and not the enemy of the fi-cons that huckabee is. he will become the repub obama in terms of looks, youth appeal, articulate speech making, etc.
my personal prediction:
obama is going to have a rougher 1st term then expected, and the gop is going to make bigger then expected gains in ‘10. i dont believe sec. clinton will remain in that post, and i think there is at least a 50/50 chance she challenges president obama in the primary. it may be her only and final chance.
i believe there will be bigger then expected support for jeb bush after his landslide election to the senate in a state that went for obama knocks away much of the ‘dubya’ stigma.
i believe john thune will start off as a long shot but eventually undercut and overtake the huckabees and palins as the champion of the values voters.
sanford will be ideal as the old school fi-con in the race.
in the end, jeb’s campaign advantages will overwhelm his opposition similar to his brother, and with the democrats once again in a divided primary, jeb will use the time far better then mccain to build an organization. he will also bypass public financing, and will easily out-raise his brother’s 30+ million per month. jeb with then select thune as his vp. clinton will do great damage to the president in the primary, putting the incumbent at a real disadvantage against the bush machine. obama’s failure in his first term proves more damaging then political attacks on george w. bush’s legacy. clinton supporters do not flock back to obama in the numbers they did in 08. hope and change is greatly diminished by the ‘4 more years’ mantra of this new obama campaign, and the bush machine’s ability to raise dollar for dollar with obama, puts the incumbent in a bad position.
in the end, bush/thune win back ohio, florida, nc, va, iowa, nevada, new mexico, colorado, indiana, after easily holding the rest of the mccain states.
john ellis bush is elected the 45th president of the united states, and somewhere kieth olbermann and arianna huffingtons’ heads explode.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“no also-rans will have a shot. romney at 65 with a wife with MS will not want to throw away another 40 + million on a lost cause”
Every GOP nominee since 1980 has won the nomination ONLY AFTER losing it in the previous race. Second-place doesn’t make you an also-ran in the GOP, it makes you next in line.
And again, can anyone present ANY evidence that Romney would have to spend more of his own fortune to win the nomination?
January 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I’m not sure, based on the suppositions in this post, that Romney would need to spend his fortune this next time around. In 2008 Romney spent (and raised) quite a bit in a crowded primary race. But assuming, as DaveG does, that Obama’s popularity convinces most credible GOP candidates to sit out 2012, then Romney wouldn’t need to spend his fortune next time.
And for what it’s worth. . .#1’s Gary Johnson suggestion would be, I think, the type of dark horse to emerge. Wait, how about Ron Paul! 2012 could be his year!
January 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
ron paul will be 77 years old in 2012
January 4th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Every year, people talk about dark horses, and, every year, the GOP nominates the next in line…
Two things seems pretty clear about American Primary elections – the Republican second-placer from the previous cycle WILL win the nomination, and the early favorite on the DNC side WILL NOT win the nomination.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
if romney couldnt beat moderates and social liberals like mccain and giuliani, how is he going to defeat a john thune, a mark sanford, or a jeb bush?
January 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
huckabee will be the nominee. Unless romney gets elected to somethinf in the near future and builds some type of record as a true conservative, he is finished.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
By the time he dropped out, Romney was ahead of every Republican candidate except John McCain. He beat Giuliani, he beat Thompson, and he won more states, got more votes, and ended up with more delegate support than Huckabee.
The only person who ended up doing better than Romney was the eventual nominee, McCain – the second-placer who followed a thirty-year-old tradition to capture the nomination, and there were at least half a dozen times where Romney nearly up-ended McCain to capture the nomination. A win in Iowa, New Hampshire, or Florida would have handed Mitt super Tuesday. Wins in Tennessee, Missouri, Georgia, or West Virginia, or a different delegate allotment or win in CA would all have allowed Romney to stay in, possibly win Texas (where I believe at least one poll showed him winning), and force a split convention.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
What would be your platform DaveG? Something along the lines of “An optimist for a better America”?
Policies to spur economic growth would be first and foremost, probably through business-friendly policies and those that encourage entrepreneurship. Support for freer trade would be included, along with programs designed to transition American workers from Old Economy to New Economy positions. A massive overhaul of entitlements would be necessary to address the looming fiscal crisis due to Social Security and Medicare. Also included would be policies that make it easier for Americans to get decent health insurance through sources other than their employers, thus easing the burden on employers to provide those benefits, and a massive buff up of the public education system in this country to make sure that students have the skill set needed by employers who currently push for greater numbers of skilled immigrants to be allowed into the country because the kids on the streets of Philly aren’t qualified to do the jobs of their own neighborhood employers, largely because our country has failed those kids (and lots of others) for ideological reasons on both sides. K-12 must be dramatically improved, math and science must be emphasized, basic biology must be taught and taught well (i.e., evolution), and higher education must be accessible. Round that all out with an aggressive push to overturn laws that absurdly limit individual freedom (e.g., why should a 22-year old garner a criminal record for smoking pot?) and I’ve got myself a platform.
And then of course once elected I disband the Congress, put the regional governors in charge, build the Death Star, try to quash the Rebellion, etc.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“Unless romney gets elected to somethinf in the near future”
how many years was Reagan out of office before he ran in 1980?
===
“and builds some type of record as a true conservative”
A) Romney’s 2008 campaign platform, and his work between then and 2011 will be more than enough.
B)Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones – Huckabee is no more (and is, infact, less) of a true conservative than Romney is. He has been a social conservative longer, thats it. And thats great – in the six states where Abortion is the top issue, but doesn’t do much for a national campaign.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
#14 Max
Love your predictions, much more appealing than President Caroline.
The few times I have commented on this site, I have said that we need to appeal to a broader base, especially the largest minority.
Does anyone seriously think that the MSM will EVER say anything negative about Obama? The Democrat MSM will continue to blame Bush for everything wrong with this country for decades. When something goes wrong that is directly caused by Obama’s poor decisions, the MSM will spin it to his staff, congressional leadership, misunderstanding of the facts. I seriously believe that Obama could be on live TV standing over a body with a smoking gun in his hand and the MSM would spin the story to blame the victim, or Bush or Obama’s staff of a misunderstanding of the facts but never blame their messiah.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“An optimist for a better America”.
Actually, that should be one of our main criteria for the next candidate we select.
DaveG, I love this post. Although I do disagree with some of your points on Palin and I would hope that you would keep an open mind, I have recently been self-reflecting on all the points you made.
Glad your writing again, I am still in ‘break-mode’.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“I am still in ‘break-mode’.”
Thats going around…
January 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Palin’s star will not shine as brightly or for as long as Giuliani’s did, even though the Palin candidacy could have rivaled 9/11 on the disaster scale.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Mr. Romney only got 22% of the primary vote, not 40%, but I concede that he is probably the front running at this point (but certainly not a strong front runner.) While a dark horse is possible, unless Mr. Obama fixes the economy, the GOP certainly has at least a shot at winning in 2012. One of the advantages with Mr. J. Bush is that he is liked by Hispanics, (and possibly other no-Whites) Mr. Romney is not. Mr. Romney would do well among White suburbanites, but it has to be enough to make up for the loss of non-White. He will also have to improve his standing among ethnic Whites.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“not 40%”
No – but polls toward the end of the campaign placed him in the mid-thirties or higher.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Everyone’s assuming Obama will be popular.
Regan’s and Clinton’s approval rating after 2 years was less than 50%. Bush 1 and 2’s was about 60%.
Go figure.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
luck just wasn’t on Romney’s side in 2008 – he came so close, so many times, but ended up with the short straw.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I would bet my life that 3 people will never be president.
Caroline Kennedy
Sarah Palin
Jeb Bush
The first two as they are clueless. Jeb because the B stands for Bush.
Anyone suggesting any has a chance should never be taken seriously again.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“Everyone’s assuming Obama will be popular.”
I am not sure who everyone is. It is very easy to predict somebody will be popular 4 years prior to an election. I for one wish to see a few years unfold before I join ‘everybody.’
Maybe a few polls showed Mr. Romney near 40%, but that was after Mr. Thompson and company left the race.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Romney’s only chance for the 2008 nomination after Rudy and Fred dropped out was to unite all the anti-McCain forces within the Republican Party. He failed to do that; how can Romney get the nomination in 2012 when he couldn’t even derail McCain in 2008?
January 4th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Romney’s only chance for the 2008 nomination after Rudy and Fred dropped out was to unite all the anti-McCain forces within the Republican Party. He failed to do that”
There wasn’t the time.
====
“how can Romney get the nomination in 2012 when he couldn’t even derail McCain in 2008?”
Because the same 30-yr-old tradition within the GOP that protected and aided McCain in 2008 will be working for Romney in 2012.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
…and when you’re down to your “only chance”, its pretty darn good just to come close.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
First of all, Mitt shouldn’t need to spend any of his own money next time, unless he just chooses to. Without his own money he pulled in more money than anyone other than Rudy, whom he essentially tied.
He’s much better know this time from the get-go, so I would expect his money to flow even better than the last time.
Secondly, my feeling is that if Mitt wants it, he is the front runner. Huckabee will be his toughest competitor, but Mitt will win it handily once it gets down to essentially a two man race.
Thirdly, while its true that Mitt didn’t do that well with non-whites, that doesn’t mean that he won’t fix that by the next time around. For some reason, he did terrible amongst the California Orientals, for example, and noone seems to know why that would be. I’m sure he’s finding that out.
Fourthly, I think Mitt will run even if Obama is popular. He’ll be a healthy 69 four years later, so even if he gets beat, Obama will completely mess up before the 2016 election, and gobs of people will be wishing they had voted for Mitt when they had a chance in 2012.
I heard Mitt on CNN this morning. The guy is still absolutely amazing, and has a command of all issues and is right on all of them. May God bless America and implant into the hearts of the voters that Mitt Romney can move this country into the right kind of change.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Illinoisguy:
Yes, I believe it is possible for Mr. Romney to improve his standing among non-Whites (and even Ethnic Whites, but I believe it is an uphill battle and one of his challenges. However, rightly or or wrongly, it is possible for a Republican to succeed without much non-White support, but it remains an issue nevertheless. Yes, Mr. Romney can move the country in a much better direction, but other candidates can also do so. We shall see over the next few years how things unfold.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
winning the GOP nomination shouldn’t require bending over backwards to the open-borders crowd.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I am not saying that we should open the borders to anybody and let people come here illegally, but we might be paying the price for being perceived as anti-Hispanic. Mr. Bush got re-elected in 2004 because he increased significantly GOP votes among non-White. In 2008, the non-White vote killed us. Yes there are more Whites than non-Whites in this country, but if over 40% of Whites fail to vote for the GOP, we need to at least get a few non-Whites to vote for us. It seems like basic math to me.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Ohio,
help me out , what is an “ethnic white”? the other terms you used make sense to me, but I have no clue what you are meaning by this.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Romney is likely to be the next in line candidate in 2012. People have got more used to his Mormon-ness (still a prolblem for the Huck wing of the GOP, but he was never going to get those votes if Huck ran anyway). He would consolidate the fiscal wing of the party, and attract enough of the social wing (he’ll have been running as a pro-life for 6 years, not 2) to win the nomination.
If that theory is true, he should definitely run. A sacrificial lamb in 2010 becomes the President in 2012 every now and again in history. (Just look at Bill Clinton, against the invincible Bush Snr. Wasn’t so invincible come election day was he?)
Anything can happen. Reagan didn’t look great in 1982 and won big in 1984. Bush Jnr was invincible in 2002 and almost lost in 2004. Once you’re down to the final two, you’re in with a shot.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I guess, the exact definition of Ethnic White is debatable, but essentially Ethnic Whites tend not to be in this country for many generations and they trace their ancestors to Southern Europe as opposed to Northern Europe. It is a simple demographic term as opposed to a strictly racial term. For the most part, Ethnic Whites are assimilated into American society, but voting patterns still differ a little generally speaking. I for one do not believe that any ethnic group (or racial group) is better than another. I am just making the point that as a party, we seem to have problems among certain ethnic groups. For whatever reason, Mr. Romney does seem to have a bit more trouble with certain demographic groups and frankly that concerns me in a general election. To be fair, Mr. Romney actually does better than other Republicans among certain demographics. I for one will vote for Mr. Romney in general election. If I am to support him in the primary, I want to be sure that he is the most electable. Frankly, at this point, Mr. Romney is still not my favorite among the main candidates, but I can live with the idea of him as our nominee and I like him better than I did. I will certainly consider supporting him in the primary if I think he is the most viable. I for one, do not know the answer to that question at this point of the game.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Mitt didn’t do too badly with hispanic voters, except in Florida, and I think that was because of the particular endorsements, rather than issues.
In California, for example, those that consider illegal immigration as their most important topic overwhelmingly went for Romney: Mitt – 53%. McCain – 23%, Huckabee – 9%
The Hispanic/Latino vote split McCain – 33%, Mitt – 25%, Huckabee 23%. So, althought Mitt needs improvement in that area, its not like he didn’t receive support.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
#44
Those who were concerned about Immigration in CA were most likely opposed to illegal immigration unless they voted for McCain.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I agree with that statement AdamG.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
OK, fair point Illinoisguy, Mr. Romney certainly is not starting from zero among Non-Whites. Also, as I have mentioned, A Republican does not need to win 50% of the non-White vote in order to win a general election, he or she just needs to do OK.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Mitt is theoretically stronger in the West (an irony given McCain’s Western roots and relative strength in Mitt’s NorthEast).
The West is a key battleground, with CO/NM/NV/AZ likely to be all in play in 2012. Given the significance of the hispanic population in those states, wouldn’t it be dangerous for Mitt to adopt an overly anti-immigration line?
PS: I think the quartet of Western states will be worth an additional 3 EV’s in 2012, after redistricting. So they get a whole lot more valuable.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I agree 48. If you noticed, Mitt’s position wasn’t terribly different than McCain’s. His main think was to not grant citizenship to those who had come here illegally ahead of those who had been waiting in line for years. He was open to the idea of allowing them to stay for a period of years in some kind of guest worker situation. His main difference was that of amnesty.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Ohio, thanks for the definition.
I think we as a party will always have problems with some demo groups as you say. Some truly are beyond our reach for sometime to come, but we need to make sure we are reaching out and including as many different groups as we can. One would think that having a candidate that is part of a worldwide organization such as the mormon church would be a benefit with some of these other ethinic groups that we need to improve on. I thought I read somewhere that there are more mormons outside the US than within and that there are more hispanic mormons than ethnic or traditional whites. Maybe I am just painting too simplistic a picture.
anyway thanks for the new vocabulary addition. I am thinking I mihgt actually be a part of this group being born in europe as I was.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
So Mitt was ok in a field of Huck, McCain & Mitt. But once you throw in some others (Sanford? Palin?) then it’ll be harder for him to attract that vote.
I’ll be interested to see if anyone can regain the % of hispanic voters that Bush achieved. They are a key growing consitituency, and the last thing the GOP want is for them to become solid Dems. The black vote is a crucial “banker” for the Dems.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I think Bush had an advantage that his brother married one. His numbers may be tough to match.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
IG52, why is that? It is odd that the only prominant GOP hispanic I can think of is Martinez, who’s retiring. The Dems have got Richardon, Menendez, Salazar that come to mind immediately.
The GOP has been traditionally very strong in Texas, Arizona & oither strongly hispanic states. Surely that reflects a familiarity with hispanic issues that would translate to votes? Mind you, Sanford is from SC and he wouldn’t get many black votes against Obama!
January 4th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
#53 – I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with Jaype? Clarify please!
January 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I’m saying, why does the GOP have to say “no one will ever beat Bush’s hispanic numbers, so lets not make an effort”?
given their importance (swing states, and fast growing population) surely an effort is worth it. And surely hispanic leaders can be found given the GOP is strong in states like TX & AZ that will enable the GOP to outreach to disillusioned hispanic voters.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Guilliani, with all his problems, was a national hero and will be twice as hard to beat as Palin, Sanford and Pawlenty.
The only thing that could possibly stop Mitt is Ann’s health (or a 80% Obama approval rating in two years which won’t happen).
January 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hello Heath,
The one major problem with Rudy is his 2008 campaign. He was hopeless.
- He didn’t have a consistent message (“I can stop Hillary … sorted out NY budget … 9/11 … Hillary! … crime … 9/11 … Hillary!)
- He didn’t campaign. I’m sorry, but refusing to campaign in Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada & Michigan is just outright folly. Skipping two of those states is deadly (McCain dropped just one, FDT’s decision to skip NH & Michigan didn’t help him) Skipping 5 is stupidity.
What did he learn from 2008 that will help him in 2012? Did he cultivate donor & email lists like the others? I don’t recall it. Actually, I don’t remember Rudy’s website at all. Mitt’s was good, McCain’s was ok, heck I even remember Brownbacks.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I wasn’t saying that at all. I was just pointing out that Bush had a little advantage over some other candidates because Jeb was married to one. I wholeheartedly embrace attempting to beat his numbers, and I believe a reasonable approach on the illegal immigration issue would be acceptable to many of them. Given the fact that the US Government had practically invited them in by the fact that it was well known for many, many years that they were more or less welcomed because of their perceived willingness to work as cheap labor that no one else wanted, i don’t think a hard lined approach such as Huckabee migrated to is appropriate. Mitt’s approach was close to the right answer, but I don’t think he ever had a chance of explaining it in full during debates etc. On the stump, I heard one two many times how “Legal Immigration is great; we welcome legal immigration. But illegal immigration is wrong.” I think at some point one has to find a way to elaborate on positions like that so others may see that your thought process is close to being right, and certainly not unfair to anyone.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Don’t forget to add the NOSTRADAMUS thing going on with the history channel right now…yikes 2012 prez election might not even make headlines in 2012.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
#32 “I would bet my life that 3 people will never be president.
Caroline Kennedy
Sarah Palin
Jeb Bush”
Heath, that is a bet, speaking about Jeb, that I would gladly take, any day of the week. Jeb will become President one day, there is no doubt in my mind. It might be 2016 or even 2020. In 1992, GHW Bush got 37 percent of the vote and GW Bush came back just 8 years later to win. Jeb would be an amazing candidate -unites the party and appeals to Hispanic voters (a growing population) and would have his Dad’s and brother’s dynastic rolodex and campaign infrastructure. The last time the Republicans won without a Bush on the ticket was in 1972.
Jeb is our future!
January 4th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
…And I should add that Jeb is Catholic and electorally would be a lock to win Florida and the Southwest. The perfect all round candidate in my opinion. I tend to think that he will wait until 2016 and run on a “restoration” platform.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
You folks like MatthewK who keep saying Romney came in second and got more support etc. etc. Need to stop living in a fantasy world. Huckabee had more delegates than Romney and came in second to McCain. This is not a hopeful wish it is a fact. Huckabee is not hated by 2/3 of the party, in fact he does real well in polls among conservatives and they like him. I am not sure id he will or should run again, but he would have a better shot tahn you people give him credit for.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
How old will Jeb be in 2016? That would be a tough sell after 8 years of Obama. “Bring back Bush again”. At some point people get fed up with dynasty’s. As potent as the Kennedy’s & Clinton’s have been, only one has even been President.
Jeb is a good paper candidate (FL, experience, contacts, hispanic & catholic connections) but he’s a Bush. And no matter how bad Obama is in the next 4-8 years, he’s not going to turn a very bad President (Bush) into a good one in the eyes of the public. Less bad, maybe, but not good.
Imagine 2016, Hillary vs Jeb.
Hillary could say “there’s only been one Clinton president, and he didn’t stuff up the economy like Bush 1 & Bush 2 did”
January 4th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
James, Huck got 2nd in delegates because he stayed in the race until the bitter end, something Mitt had the good grace not to do.
Mitt would easily have picked up 7 delegates, and then some, in the 27 contests that occurred after he dropped out.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“You folks like MatthewK who keep saying Romney came in second and got more support etc. etc. Need to stop living in a fantasy world. Huckabee had more delegates than Romney and came in second to McCain. This is not a hopeful wish it is a fact”
OM Goodness. How many did he have when Mitt dropped out and Huckabee should have dropped out? That’s all anybody with any sense is going to care about! You make yourself to be a laughing stock when you reach to these extremes to try and claim that Huckabee came in second. Huckabee stayed in, caused McCain to spend millions of dollars in the primary that would have been available for the general, bad-mouthed McCain (even after he eventually dropped out). Have you even considered the polls that show 60% of them want him to run to be that 90% of those wanting him to run do so in order to be able to watch him get the crap beat out of him as payback for hurting the party?
January 4th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
#63 “How old will Jeb be in 2016?”
Younger than Mitt will be in 2012.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
#65,
That’s a really good point IL guy. Many people I talk to are mad as hell at Huck for draining precious time and money away from the inevitable nominee. There are some who even go so far as to blame Huck for McCain’s loss. One thing that I do admire Mitt for is his concession speech in which he stated that he did not want to embolden the terrorists with an extended primary challenge. Many former Huck supporters, after his ill fated continued challenge, view him as a traitor and have turned on him because of his actions.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“Huckabee had more delegates than Romney and came in second to McCain.”
Huckabee:
Got more delegates according to unofficial predictions by the MSM.
Romney:
Won more states than Huckabee
Got more votes than Huckabee
Actually had more delegates vote for him at the convention (which is the standard I’ve used all along)
January 4th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
#67 – If they didn’t, they should have. He did nothing for the party that was good. It was and still is all about Huckabee.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Oh dear, what to do with the Huckster. He’s quite a self-involved troublemaker, isn’t he?
He never had a shot in 08, and he won’t have one in 2012. But he will run, if for no other reasons than to soak up more spotlight (which he loooves), and to make life miserable for Romney – (just listen to him, he never stopped snarking.)
Poor Huckabee. He seems incapable of embarrassment.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
He doesn’t recognize that he is supposed to be embarrased. Hapy New Year Martha.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
as of december 2008, the people of florida have a 29% approval of george bush, yet a 65% approval of jeb bush. if florida, a state then voted for obama and bill clinton, can still judge the brothers on their own records, why not the rest of the country?
jeb would have the money, organization, establishment backing, and new voters among hispanics to not only win the nomination, but challenge obama. in the ‘16 open seat election i would contend jeb bush would be the frontrunner, but in 2012 he may be the only repub who can generate the money needed to take on obama.
i think jeb would easily defeat romney in a primary, as well as huck and palin. the only candidates who i feel would be able usurp him are john thune and mark sanford, and the latter is only because of his unique pole position in the all-important SC primary. the other man i think could give jeb a run is jindal, but he wont run until 2016 at the earliest. and of course, i think petraeus would win, but will likely never run.
obama barely edged out the clinton machine, mostly due to overconfidence and unpreparedness. a recharged, incredibly well funded bush machine can stop hussein obama, and ensure 8 more years of pain for kos and olbermann. imagine a teary eyed kieth olbermann having to utter the words ‘president-elect bush’ in november of 2012, seeing chris matthews leg thriller beaten by a bush is just too sweet a chance not to take.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
#72 – That’s what you get for thinking Max.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Mitt wins kudos for his graceful exit. Although its worth noting that an extended primary didn’t hurt Obama (if anything, he was very strong as a result of the contest. It made his hunt for blue collar voters easier come November).
The major failing was perhaps McCain’s failure to use those three months effectively.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
#73
jeb is for real, whether the MSM-obama lovers want to realize it or not, and he will run some day.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I like Jeb, and I was just kidding you. I like Mitt much better, but I could easily vote for Jeb if he were to become electable. Right now, he isn’t going to be, and its not his fault.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Max, I was nodding along to your #72 post until you said that “obama barely edged out the clinton machine, mostly due to overconfidence and unpreparedness”.
With respect, Obama was up against a team that was entrenched in the Dem system, dominant & beloved. He was never going to smash them, as he was only a 4 yr Senator. He ran an incredibly disciplined campaign, and after narrowly dispensing with Clinton he turned his fire on McCain & absolutely thumped him (reminder: IN, VA, NC, NE-2!)
Many people have underestimated Obama’s political ability. the Clintons, John Edwards, the entire GOP cast all wrote him off. He beat them all. Don’t just naively join the list Max.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
IllinoisGuy writes:
OM Goodness. How many did he have when Mitt dropped out and Huckabee should have dropped out? That’s all anybody with any sense is going to care about! You make yourself to be a laughing stock when you reach to these extremes to try and claim that Huckabee came in second. Huckabee stayed in, caused McCain to spend millions of dollars in the primary that would have been available for the general, bad-mouthed McCain (even after he eventually dropped out). Have you even considered the polls that show 60% of them want him to run to be that 90% of those wanting him to run do so in order to be able to watch him get the crap beat out of him as payback for hurting the party?
However, this only goes to show that you have NO clue as to what you are talking about. McCain could not have used the money he spent in the primary in the general, they have two seperate funding periods and the money for one can not be used for another. Also, imagine the press if Huckabee had dropped out, you would have never heard McCain’s name in the media. Mitt spent 10 times as much as Huckabee and didn’t win as many delegates. Say what you want
but if you pay attention to the facts the economy and the fact that McCain and the other candidates had said “everything is great and it is sound” is the main reason the public voted a different way in the general, by the time that
McCain started singing a different tune (one that Huckabee had talked about for over a year) it was too late. I know that facts won’t change your mind because you have a strong dislike of Huckabee, but he is the only one wh owas in the race that could have debated Obama with credibility on the economy and frankly the only one who would not have been out shined by him on the stage when it came to ability to communicate. He was able to get as far as he did with as little a he did because he could connect with people.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Obama will be reelected. The republicans need to grow their grass roots organization, elect more governors, sincerely appeal to non white minorities,get more elected to Congress and the Senate.
What is needed is a clear vision of where the
Republicans want to take America. We need to OWN the energy independence issue, we need to sell the idea of rewarding manufacturing businesses who keep their businesses here in the USA.
Throw support and funding to the states efforts who want union votes to remain private and sell this to the workers that the Republicans are looking after their best interest. Expose the wasteful spending of the union leaders.
There are so many issues that we can agree on without bringing in issues that divide us. For those who want staunchly want to use one or two issues as the only way to vote, that is not being practical.
Yes whoever runs in 2012 will be the sacrificial lamb. Someone said earlier that the 2nd runner up in the ‘12 primaries should aggressively support the nominee and be ready to take the nomination in 2016, after campaigning hard in the primaries.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:56 am
BOULDER – Don’t you realize if Huckabee would have dropped out, the McCain money being given from that time forward would have been for the GENERAL. GET A BRAIN!
January 5th, 2009 at 1:01 am
IllinoisGuy…er…the general election starts when the nomination is given at the convention, not when the last candidate drops out…
January 5th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Alex is right. That’s why the Palin pick only generated heaps of money for a day or two, because after he formally accepted the nomination he had to stop fundraising.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:13 am
In any case, Ron Paul would have still been in. Good old Ron Paul!
January 5th, 2009 at 1:13 am
clinton did underestimate obama, and some of her advisors didnt even know that the dem primaries were proportional. they assumed winning the big states would be enough, so let were lax on the caucuses and allowed obama to sneak on by. if clinton had prepared for the caucuses better, she wins. remember, he didnt beat her in a single major state primary. it was the red state caucuses that gave him the edge, something that if better prepped for, was easily avoidable.
i will certainly not underestimate obama, but i also wont underestimate a man with the name of bush who as of last month still holds a 65% approval rating in a state that voted for obama.
jeb is a very smart politician and strategist, and if he goes all in, i think he has as good a chance as anyone at stopping obama.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Illinoisguy, Happy New Year to you, too!
January 5th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Max, “if Clinton had been better prepared she would have won” – well, maybe, but then you could say the same about John McCain, Mitt, Edwards, Rudy, heck anybody in the political sphere. At the end of the day, Obama was better prepared than anyone, and that’s why he won.
He didn’t lose all the major state primaries. He won Georgia, Virginia, NC. One can argue that those are “red states” (and Clinton supporters frequently did) but Obama had the last laugh didn’t he? He turned Virginia & NC blue in the General election.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:55 am
JP I’m not saying Rudy will run again – clearly he won’t (he almost didn’t run last time and his heart wasn’t even really in that).
I’m saying that Mitt smashing Rudy about 400 delegates to 1 was an impressive victory. Rudy was the 6/4 fav basically from March – Nov 07.
I just laugh at people who claim that Mitt will be scared off running by Palin. It’s almost too silly to write.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:27 am
C’mon, “Mitts smashing Rudy about 400 to 1 was an impressive victory.” Well perhaps to a degree, but even Dr. Paul and Mr. Hunter received more delegates than Mr. 9/11. Sorry, but one does not win delegates if they wait until Florida to mount a campaign. Yes, Mr. Romney would do better than any ‘Dark Horse,’ but these Dark Horses that may emerge are not exactly going to play dead in Iowa. Such an idea is a non-starter.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Alex and Boulder – Do you not understand that people would have just held their money until the convention? Why is this so tough for you guys? DUH! You’re smarter than that Alex.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
[...] at Race 4 2012 discusses the nature of the 2012, assuming a popular Obama (earlier in the article, he assumes that Jindal will sit out for 2016, [...]
January 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
sec. of state clinton will challenge obama in the primary.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Romney looked too mean to win, and he came in third. He’s done.
I’d like to see proof that 2/3rds of the GOP despises Huckabee. Barring that, I think it is
his to lose, unless the next three years of being on talk shows produces a major gaffe (which
is actually a good bet).
Palin is not to be written off. She has a strong base. She can also debate passably, at least
passably enough to rally her base and get the nomination. She seems to have the fire in her
belly to win at all costs as well as the way to sling ugly rhetoric and not look ugly – a skill
Romney does not have.
Spare me another Bush, puhleeez. Even his father, in saying he think he will one day run,
acknowledged Bush fatigue. The same is true of Hillary. If we don’t have Clinton fatigue now,
we will by 2012.
I’m thinking a less than universally popular Obama in 2012 (not enough to lose the nomination, but
not necessarily enough to win reelection) vs. either Palin or Huckabee (if he doesn’t embarass
himself too much by 2012). Given that line up, a third party candidate could do it.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Clinton lost because she hired McAuliffe to run her campaign. Now he is exploring a run
in Virginia. McAuliffe as the Democratic nominee may be the only chance for a right wingnut
like McConnell to win in the Commonwealth. Jim Moran’s brother is no picnic either.
Somebody has to win, though. It will be entertaining to watch, kind of like an accident on the freeway.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
IL Guy- You do realize McCain took public financing and therefore people’s money did not really come into play, right? The fact he used tax payer dollars meant he wasn’t using donor money. I know you get this. You are smarter than that even though I think you are just wrong when it comes to your opinion of Huckabee.