Page 1 of 183

2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:21 pm
by lessthanpleased
Because it's never too early to start the campaign cycle.

This thread is for all of you to have one centralized place to discuss rumors of the coming campaign - news stories, blog posts, whatever.

I'll start off by making a bold prediction:

Bobby Jindal will not be the Republican nominee in 2012. He most likely will not run, but if he did he would probably lose to either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee. Jindal's experience squandering Louisiana's budget surplus and turning it into a budgetary shortage that requires the state to cut education funding does suggest that he's uniquely qualified to be the Republican standard-bearer in 2012; moreover, his experience as a volunteer exorcist in college should appeal to the conservative base. But, sadly, neither of these two things are enough to take him all the way - Palin has the market cornered in red-baiting and anti-intellectualism, and Huckabee owns Southern-fried populism.

-neal

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:42 pm
by Patricoo
Huckabee is looking real good, if anything because he has the same sort of courage McCain had in the years leading up to 2008 in talking to the other side and is able to bring his points out in a very reasonable tone without demonizing the other side. This attracts a lot of "Closet Conservatives", which consist of a good portion of Americans who fit the "white picket fence in the suburbs" attitude who don't want to get connected to Republicans.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:00 am
by lessthanpleased
Anyone brave enough to look way back in the presidential prediction thread will note that I picked Huckabee to win the nomination - I knew he was a virtual lock in Iowa, and didn't think the RNC would essentially sabotage his campaign.

The problem with Huckabee being the standard bearer and eventual president is that to claim this seriously one has to assert counter-factual thinks (case in point: America is a center-right country). For the past two decades, virtually every commissined policy poll has revealed that Americans are substantially more liberal on virtually every issue than any establishment politician of any party. This shouldn't be particularly hard to grasp, either - almost every populist campaign since FDR has boasted liberal economic policies (Does "Every man a king" ring a bell?)

Huckabee's advantage over virtually everyone else in the Republican party is that he's an economic populist who opposes free market capitalism - a belief he carefully obscures, but something pretty obvious if you actually listen to what he says. This is a good thing, given that conservative economics have been about as thoroughly disproved as flat earth theory: Alan Greenspan tearfully apologizing for the failure of his life's work and repudiating his economic policies tends to do that.

But Huckabee's disadvantage is twofold: first, his social policies are retrograde and massively unpopular (conservative social policies are approved by roughly 30 percent of the country). Secondly - and this might have just been a feature of his 2008 primary campaign - top tier conservative thinkers and policy wonks don't take him seriously. Huckabee was the frontrunner, and he was running a campaign that was massively underfunded from the beginning; he had no surrogates other than Chuck Norris, for God's sake! To offset this, he had a shoestring budget in Iowa and hoped money and policy heavyweights would join up after he won, if he won. But look back at his policy portfolio during Iowa: it read like a collection of policies taken wholesale from crappy right-wing think tanks, largely because it was a collection of policies taken wholesale from crappy right-wing think tanks.

You can't cut and paste policies from CATO and the Heritage Foundation onto your pushcard if you want to be the standard-bearer of your party; but you don't have any alternatives unless the political heavyweights take you seriously.

If the alternative is Palin, I think the movers and shakers will unite behind Huckabee. But if Romney is viable - and he certainly has the money to be viable - then Huckabee will be in trouble, and won't rank as anything other than a spoiler.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:29 am
by Patricoo
lessthanpleased wrote:Huckabee's advantage over virtually everyone else in the Republican party is that he's an economic populist who opposes free market capitalism - a belief he carefully obscures, but something pretty obvious if you actually listen to what he says. This is a good thing, given that conservative economics have been about as thoroughly disproved as flat earth theory: Alan Greenspan tearfully apologizing for the failure of his life's work and repudiating his economic policies tends to do that.


I kind of disagree on this account. For once, conservative economic issues are the failures, not free market capitalism. There is a difference between promoting competition, freedom and equal opportunity elements of capitalism and the Republican corporation favoritism which people often confuse with the free-market theory. This "obscured belief" is exactly that. My outlook about his critical speak is that he wants to shift away from the Republican mindset, which falls no where on the political compass aside from failure.

But Huckabee's disadvantage is twofold: first, his social policies are retrograde and massively unpopular (conservative social policies are approved by roughly 30 percent of the country).


If you want a carefully hidden secret, it's the results of that poll. If California's Prop #8 isn't a sign, a good portion of Americans have a randomly scattered certain socially conservative feelings. You can blame it on "Utah funding" all you like, but there is good proof that people don't like to be associated with the "conservative" title that gets called racists and discriminators. Can you blame them? Never underestimate the power of old people and closet republicans.

To further support this example, my own mother just went back to the Republican party for the first time since the late eighties. Never mind the fact that she never held a single liberal point of view for just over 20 years, but the her sheer hate of Ronald Reagan and the Republican party kept her away. McCain's straight talk performance impressed her during the primaries and she reregistered with the right. Nevermind the fact that she, honest to god, doesn't want people to know. By no means is she the only one that acts this way.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:25 am
by lessthanpleased
I don't attribute Prop 8's result to some sort of mythical and widespread conservatism in the public as much as I do to those who supported gay equality running a terrible campaign - and this is something prominent gay pundits are beginning to agree with.

How can you run a campaign for the social inclusion of gay and lesbian Americans without running ads that featured gays and lesbians? Look back at the ads and the marketing - at no point did gay and lesbian Americans get featured in ads that humanized either them or their struggle for inclusion. It's political malpractice that an attractive, whitebread gay couple wasn't put on TV in a 30 second spot talking about how they were scared that Proposition 8 would force them to be divorced, and that there's nothing more American than love (or some other saccharine BS).

But nope. That didn't happen, and we saw the results.

A more interesting nail in the coffin of the center-right nation nonsense was the fact that an abortion ban couldn't even pass in South Dakota - which is unbelievable, frankly.

While I appreciate that your mother has suddenly switched parties because of McCain, I find it highly unlikely that this speaks to some sort of latent and silent conservatism in the larger public. I worked as a newspaper editor for the entirety of the the campaign and the primaries - editing conservatives and liberals alike - and consumed more news, watched more speeches and did more research than anyone who wasn't being paid to do it. So while I respect that your mother discovered conservative tendencies within herself and accept that somehow this was because of John McCain being a Maverick or whatever, I'm not sure she was watching the same campaign I or anyone else who was covering the thing - liberal or conservative - was watching.

To paraphrase conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, all McCain offered was 1970s "identity politics bullshit." McCain ran on two policies: continued military commitment in Iraq and abolishing health insurance regulations that prevent interstate sales of insurance (something numerous elected Republican Insurance Commissioners opposed).

Unless your mom is a health policy wonk who doesn't know much about insurance, I would bet her new-found conservatism was more a function of age demographics (I'd bet she's a Baby Boomer or child of the 60s & 70s) than a sign of an imminent national rightward shift; After all, the Democrats just won their biggest landslide since LBJ with the most liberal presidential candidate we've seen in a generation (though, to be fair, Obama's far more "center" than he is "left"). My dad hasn't voted Republican in 24 years - and been a lifelong Democrat - but he voted for McCain, too. He said the same things that your mom said, too - but ultimately his behavior was pretty much exactly what I expected him to do, demographically.

And, demographically speaking, the only people trending further right are aging baby boomers (who will die sooner rather than later) and Southerners. So I wouldn't take either of our parents' conversion to McCain as a symptom of any sort of meaningful path for future conservatism to build on, but rather as a function of their age demographic and the voting behavior of similar Americans. A coalition of rural voters and Baby Boomers can't win when 65 percent of Americans under 60 are voting center-left

That's not to say the Republican party is doomed - Huckabee's economic populism (which, Fair Tax aside, amounts to the expansion of the Welfare state and is a far cry from your traditional free market conservatism) combined with a more socially permissive social agenda and a workable health-care reform would be quite formidable. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam posit the same policy prescription for Republicans in their book Grand New Party. But this raises a troubling question (also raised by Andrew Sullivan when reviewing Douthat's book): Are the policy prescriptions Salam and Douthat note are necessary to rebuild the party actually conservative?

And I don't know the answer to that, though I'll confess that I'm thinking "No." And if I'm right, that suggests that Republicans are in a much worse position than most American conservatives are willing to admit.

-neal

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:02 am
by masamune
If president barack obama maintained/improved the country's economy in his current term, my speculation is that he'll run as a president on 2012(If their law allows it, sorry I'm illiterate to political issues). I got no source, it's just pure speculation

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:19 pm
by Kingdom of Cheng
lessthanpleased wrote:Because it's never too early to start the campaign cycle.

This thread is for all of you to have one centralized place to discuss rumors of the coming campaign - news stories, blog posts, whatever.

I'll start off by making a bold prediction:

Bobby Jindal will not be the Republican nominee in 2012. He most likely will not run, but if he did he would probably lose to either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee. Jindal's experience squandering Louisiana's budget surplus and turning it into a budgetary shortage that requires the state to cut education funding does suggest that he's uniquely qualified to be the Republican standard-bearer in 2012; moreover, his experience as a volunteer exorcist in college should appeal to the conservative base. But, sadly, neither of these two things are enough to take him all the way - Palin has the market cornered in red-baiting and anti-intellectualism, and Huckabee owns Southern-fried populism.

-neal

Sarah Palin can't be the republican nominee. I'll rock with Mike Huckabee.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:53 pm
by Lexus Fiend
LTP- I have not thought much about whom the next Republican nominee will be even though it's fun to look at the possibilites, glad to see you are still around btw. Honestly I did not realize that our own Bobby Jindal was even under much consideration natinonally for being a nominee. From the beginning I have given my praises of Jindal if you recall after our last Governer election, but as I said I did not realize he was that 'big' as to be considered as a Presidential nominee. I think he would represent a 'wild card' sort of position for the Repubs, who seem somewhat desperate to put someone 'different' up there as opposed to an older white man ala McCain.

I could see Jindal being a possible VP nominee though, but hopefully not on the same ticket as Sarah Palin. I just don't think that woman is ready for anything beyond her current duties as Gov of Alaska. I am just not a fan of the woman, despite the sexy librarian look, j/k ;).

At this VERY early juncture, I think Mike Huckabee could possibly be a front runner if such a thing exists at this point in time. He's put in work for years and I actually like him. I would fully support a Huckabee/Jindal card depending on what the next 4 years look like for Obama, Biden, and company.

Has there ever been any discussion about the possibility of Condolezza RIce running for President? I personally know of a LOT of Republicans who would vote for her based on her Secretary of State role which I personally felt she was pretty competent at. Sec of State is a harsh position for one to get great approval ratings for, but I think she did fairly well considering everything she had to deal with at the time.

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:17 am
by WeiWenDi
Lexus Fiend wrote:I could see Jindal being a possible VP nominee though, but hopefully not on the same ticket as Sarah Palin. I just don't think that woman is ready for anything beyond her current duties as Gov of Alaska. I am just not a fan of the woman, despite the sexy librarian look, j/k ;).


'Sarah Palin' and 'sexy librarian' in the same breath... just doesn't work, man. I mean, yeah she's attractive, but... that's a pretty heavy slam on librarians, dyt?

Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:56 am
by Lexus Fiend
WeiWenDi wrote:'Sarah Palin' and 'sexy librarian' in the same breath... just doesn't work, man. I mean, yeah she's attractive, but... that's a pretty heavy slam on librarians, dyt?


Whatever you say man... she's an attractive lady who looks like a librarian. If you know of far sexier librarians please send me your library card so that I may go check out some 'books'.

Anyway, that is juuuuuuust a bit OT.

There is no way that I would vote for Sarah Palin as the President of the United States, unless she all of a sudden changes a solid 100% of what she is about politically, how she speaks (not the accent), how she conducts herself, and what she is and isn't aware of despite what her party tells her to say, she wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting my vote. She's a popularity figure and nothing more, all appearence, no substance, notable only because she is female. And I hope that doesn't come across sexist beause it's absolutely not, she's just not fit to run the most powerful nation on earth and I highly doubt anything can be done to sway my opinion on that. If she were to get a nomination in 2012 then there will be a three-peat on two-term presidents with Obama being the latest addition to the club.