GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

[Irvine511]

What are they going to promise, free icecream for everyone?

that's essentially what George W. Bush did in 2000. his grand vision for the future of the most powerful nation in history was a tax cut for the wealthy.

pretty much the same thing as free ice cream.

 

[maycocksean]

A month or two ago I saw polls showing that Romney was ahead in two out of the three states of IA, NH and SC. After that comes MI I believe, where I have to believe he would win with his family ties. If those polls hold for the next year, he'd be in business at that point.

I don't believe a number of people being talked about will end up running. At this point I think Romney and Gingrich are sure things. But right now I'm of the opinion Palin won't, Bush won't, Jindal won't, Perry won't, Demint won't, and the last I heard from Huckabee is that he is leaning slightly against running at this point. I also don't see Pawlenty getting much traction. I like him and he's a smart guy, but unfortunately nowadays you need charisma, and he's somewhat lacking there. Christie will be interesting to watch. There might be a big push in the GOP to persuade him to run. I think he, and only he, could really challenge Romney for it. I could be wrong.

I'm curious as to who you'd like to see be the nominee. Do you personally like Romney the best or do you think he's just the most likely to win the nomination? Do you think he's also the most likely to beat Obama?

I ask all this because for us liberals this just a parlor game--this isn't about who we "like best";after all we don't actually want any Republican beating Obama--but I'd be interested in hearing a conservative's perspective on who they think would be the best candidate.

 

[PhilsFan]

Given the state of the US economy (and I think the smart Republicans would know it isn't Obama's doing, not even Bush's, really), why anyone would want to seize the office of President is beyond me. It's not that highly paid. What are they going to promise, free icecream for everyone?

Well, think of it in the context of being a politician already. All of these people are making less money as senators/congressmen/governors than they would as president, and they have less power and recognition. And they care just as much about power as they do about money.

It's not like Donald Trump is running for president, these are politicians already. They're applying for job promotions.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Ah yes, Jim Demint of the "gays and lesbians should not be permitted to teach in our schools" fame.

Which fits so well with the "libertarian, small government" mindset, too, natch.

Man. I honestly don't know who would be the nominee in 2012. Dark horses can be unlikely, but hell, who knows anymore, politics can surprise people sometimes. I agree that it wouldn't surprise me if Romney got the nomination, he's got that proper politician package to him, but there's definitely some things he'd have to shake off, namely the Mormon thing.

How they'll run is what I'm most interested in. If Obama manages to do a lot more great things, and employment starts to improve again, and all that, then the Republican nominee's going to have to really focus on a strong platform to combat him, and in that case I'm not sure who could fit that bill. It'd have to be a more moderate Republican, one that could find a way to appeal to people outside the conservative base.

If things stay as they are now, though, then the Republican's likely going to go on the "I can do better" mixed with fear and scare tactics route that many are going now. How well that'll work, I don't know. I'd like to think people would get sick of it by then, but some have fallen for such moves thus far, so... In that instance, I could easily see Romney, or perhaps Jeb, even (though he'd have to try and get rid of the spector of Dubya's presidency), or definitely Rick Perry or somebody of that sort.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

the only thing that stands between Obama and a smashing re-election is the employment rate, barring any unforeseen catastrophe.

and that's a big thing, no doubt. i am betting the smarter Republicans are going to hold off until 2016.

 

[diamond]

Cantor/Rubio ticket?

 

[kramwest1]

the only thing that stands between Obama and a smashing re-election is the employment rate, barring any unforeseen catastrophe.

and that's a big thing, no doubt. i am betting the smarter Republicans are going to hold off until 2016.

Totally agree.

And, the economy and the unemployment rate won't matter until September/October 2012. The U.S. population's short attention span means that people simply assess how they are doing at the time that they need to decide on a candidate.

Like you said, barring anything unforeseen, the recovery of our economy will work in Obama's favor. The positive trends will be seen favorably by anyone with a slightly longer attention span than average.

The potential Republican candidates have very little to offer as far as recent achievements go (like Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and Gingrich). Any current/recent governor that decides to run really only has the "it could have been worse under me" excuse to use.
Honestly, I think Republican Senators and Congresspeople could have the best chance for the nomination based on their recent votes. But, would those votes/achievements attract enough independents to win the presidency?

 

[2861U2]

I'm curious as to who you'd like to see be the nominee. Do you personally like Romney the best or do you think he's just the most likely to win the nomination? Do you think he's also the most likely to beat Obama?

I certainly don't have a clear favorite yet. That'll come after listening to them and watching the debates and all. Though right now I do like Romney best, especially in this economic environment, and most polls show he is indeed the best chance of beating Obama.

I've never been crazy about Huckabee, but he's running well against Obama too.

No doubt Gingrich is very smart, though everyone seems to be saying he's unelectable with his personal baggage. I'm torn on that opinion, so he falls somewhere in the middle.

I like Palin a lot personally, but there's just no shot of her winning the general.

From what I've seen of Tim Pawlenty, he seems quite smart and I don't think he should be underestimated. Not the most charismatic or naturally appealing guy, but if he impresses in the debates he could jump right up there with Romney for me.

Ambassador Bolton has mentioned a number of times that he's thinking seriously about it. He would be an interesting candidate, and almost certainly the most experienced of the potential candidates, and worth doing a little research on.

I really think Christie is the wild card. If he doesn't run, I think Romney's got a good shot. If he does get persuaded, I really believe he becomes a bigger factor than even Palin.

Should Obama win in 2012, the crop for 2016 include a handful of really appealing people IMO, including Christie, Rubio, Haley in SC, maybe Kasich, all possibly VPs this election.

 

[LPU2]

I think Palin is going to be a lot tougher to beat than people wishfully think. She has an incredible swell of unbelievably enthusiastic people. She'll raise millions of dollars and be on the news every night.

That said, candidates like Palin, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, etc don't stand a chance against Obama. The only ones who can beat Obama are those who are seen as sort of newcomers, someone not part of the Fox/GOP punditocracy...someone like Thune, Daniels, Pence...

 

[2861U2]

That said, candidates like Palin, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, etc don't stand a chance against Obama.

What makes you so sure? For Palin and Newt you're probably right, but Romney? Seems like a smart, successful businessman former governor moderate Republican in the midst of 9-something unemployment would do well. How can you say that with a number of polls showing him beating Obama?

 

[PhilsFan]

Like every election, it comes down to the moderates. Can Romney play to them? Certainly. Sitting here right now, he gives the GOP the best chance. All this talk of him being Mormon, to me, isn't a big deal. Mormon still beats Hitler Muslim in the eyes of the base, and doesn't matter in the least to the independent vote.

He'll still need to run a very smart campaign to beat Obama, but it's absolutely possible.

 

[Irvine511]

Mitt Romney couldn't beat John McCain or Mike Huckabee. and he's burned his moderate credentials to the ground, and if the GOP wants to make repealing "Obamacare" their raison-d'etre, by all means, go ahead. because "Obamacare" is pretty much "Romneycare" in Massachusetts. Obama himself made this point after it passed.

the issue really is whether or not the unemployment rate can beat Obama in 2012.

and, ironically, the president doesn't have very much control over that.

 

[deep]

RomneyCare is a non-stater as a serious issue.

All he has to do is say MA wanted some Health Care reform, it was an open process and supported by the residents of MA.

States have a right to choose how they want to be governed.
The Federal Government has no business in mandating individual choice for Health Ins.



Reagan could not beat Gerry Ford in 1976, but did ok in the GOP primaries and general in 1980.

 

[Irvine511]

if it's good enough for the citizens of Massachusetts, it should be good enough for all Americans.

 

[financeguy]

and, ironically, the president doesn't have very much control over that.

Agreed, it's the bond vigilantes that do, perhaps.

Bluntly, America, like Europe, has been living beyond its means for too long.

And just to confirm that America's banana republic status will be cemented in under three months, when Congress passes the debt ceiling to well over $15.5 trillion, Austan Goolsbee was heard advising America not to play chicken with the debt ceiling (i.e., to pass it to an arbitrary number with preferably one hundred zeroes). The alternative to not increasing the ceiling is per Goolsbee, in true kleptocrat fashion, untold misery and destruction. From the AP:

The top White House economic adviser is warning against what he calls "playing chicken" with the need to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

For some conservatives, refusing to raise the limit on the federal debt would be a tactic to force the government into cutting spending.

Last February, Congress raised the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion. The debt is now at nearly $13.9 trillion and growing each day. A move to raise the ceiling again is expected this spring.

The chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee, says that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would push the country into default - and a far greater economic crisis than Americans saw in 2008.

There is no news as to whether America is also not supposed to play chicken with the same bond vigilantes that have made a mockery out of the European sovereign debt market.

Here Comes The Push To Repeal Obamacare, As Goolsbee Starts The Mutual Asured Destruction Charade On Raising The Debt Ceiling | zero hedge

 

[BVS]

Well, here are some other Republicans to consider:

Tom Ridge
Charlie Christ
Lindsey Graham
Colin Powell
General Patreus-although he would not run until 2016 if he does.
Robert Gates-like Patreus not until 2016.

Most of these are considered traitors by the far right, they would lose in a landslide.

 

[BVS]

My pick, Rick Perry (Gov of Texas) is the conservative Republican archetype. Like GW Bush with more intellect (yeah, yeah...I know) and less pedigree. Most importantly, no DC baggage, unlike nearly all the rest.

He has plenty of baggage here in TX, considering the political landscape he should have won by a much bigger margin in Nov, there's no way he would win on a national level. Plus he's been shown publicly supporting the idea of seccesion, not good for the national spotlight.

 

[kramwest1]

From what I've seen of Tim Pawlenty, he seems quite smart and I don't think he should be underestimated. Not the most charismatic or naturally appealing guy, but if he impresses in the debates he could jump right up there with Romney for me.

Tim Pawlenty is a weak candidate at best. In his two elections as governor, neither time did he receive a majority of the vote--a third party candidate split the vote each time. He has spent his last six years in office disparaging government as an evil entity despite the fact that both he and his wife have spent the majority of their adult lives as government employees. He's a fraud and a bully who gives a good speech occasionally. Even in neighboring Iowa, where he's visited many times, he's not making any progress in his poll numbers.

He's a second-tier candidate at best.

 

[Irvine511]

at this point, it's really Romney vs. Palin.

but in early 2007, we all thought it was going to be Giuliani vs. Hillary.

i still think the candidate who might have the best shot would be Chris Christie, but as i noted before, it's probably way too soon for him, and he's not going to read well in Dixie -- Tony Soprano is only popular amongst elitists who like paying for high minded cable dramas that show lots of boobs and blood.

 

[BVS]

at this point, it's really Romney vs. Palin.

Which both have major hurdles to cross... Right now this is a good thing for our country that there is no sure fire canidate on this side.

 

[adam4bono]

the only thing that stands between Obama and a smashing re-election is the employment rate, barring any unforeseen catastrophe.

and that's a big thing, no doubt. i am betting the smarter Republicans are going to hold off until 2016.

If the unemployment rate stays above 9%, taking out Obama is going to be pretty easy for almost anyone the Republicans put up. That would also mean 2016 would be about the re-election of that particular Republican. So Republicans that sit out 2012 would really have to wait until 2020.

More specifically, how is Obama going to win states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina given the current economic situation? GDP growth of only 2% or 3% is not enough given the amount of time left before the election. Reagan had GDP growth rates of over 7% back in 1983 and 1984, which is what brought down the unemployment rate significantly over a short period of time.

 

[adam4bono]

Totally agree.

And, the economy and the unemployment rate won't matter until September/October 2012. The U.S. population's short attention span means that people simply assess how they are doing at the time that they need to decide on a candidate.

Like you said, barring anything unforeseen, the recovery of our economy will work in Obama's favor. The positive trends will be seen favorably by anyone with a slightly longer attention span than average.

Oh it will matter before September/October 2012. Starting in November 2011, Republicans will starting asking the question, Are you better off than you were four years ago? When you compare a 9.5% unemployment rate to one that was just 4.8% four years earlier, most people are going to answer that question with a big NO.

There is still time for improvement, but it needs to start to happen significantly over the next 8 months before the 2012 campaign kicks into full swing. Otherwise, increased media coverage of the economy under Obama will slowly eat away at him. There is not going to be a September/October 2012 miracle. For Obama to get re-elected, he needs significant and sustained improvments to start over the next 8 months. It won't be enough to slowly get the unemployment rate down to say 8.5% by October 2012.

 

[adam4bono]

Mitt Romney couldn't beat John McCain or Mike Huckabee. and he's burned his moderate credentials to the ground, and if the GOP wants to make repealing "Obamacare" their raison-d'etre, by all means, go ahead. because "Obamacare" is pretty much "Romneycare" in Massachusetts. Obama himself made this point after it passed.
.

Mitt Romney was 2nd to John McCain in the primaries and McCain had a tough fight to win over Romney.

the issue really is whether or not the unemployment rate can beat Obama in 2012.

and, ironically, the president doesn't have very much control over that

At least thats what he wants everyone to believe. Presidents tie themselves to the economy when its good, but distance themselves from the economy when its bad.

 

[2861U2]

And don't forget about the new census numbers, giving GOP states a pickup of something like 7 or 8 EVs. Not insignificant in a potentially close election.

With the GOP taking power this week, people keep saying "they're going to find it a lot harder being the party in power than in being the opposition." In this economic environment, the same will hold true for Obama come election time. I have to think that he'll be starting the race as the underdog in places like FL, OH, VA.

 

[adam4bono]

Most of these are considered traitors by the far right, they would lose in a landslide.

Well, the same was said about John McCain, and he still won the nomination. Plus, once a party is out of power in the White House, the desire to compromise in order to win increases.

Also, I don't know any Republican that considers General Patreus to be a "traitor". You won't get that from any Republican but you sure do get that from Democrats especially moveon.org

 

[adam4bono]

Which both have major hurdles to cross... Right now this is a good thing for our country that there is no sure fire canidate on this side.

Palin has major hurdles that she won't be able to cross. Romney really does not have any, and being from outside Washington DC is going to be a plus in 2012. Congress and the White House have not become more popular over the last two years.

 

[adam4bono]

And don't forget about the new census numbers, giving GOP states a pickup of something like 7 or 8 EVs. Not insignificant in a potentially close election.

With the GOP taking power this week, people keep saying "they're going to find it a lot harder being the party in power than in being the opposition." In this economic environment, the same will hold true for Obama come election time. I have to think that he'll be starting the race as the underdog in places like FL, OH, VA.

Very good point. The 2010 census was a nice little gift for the GOP. Also remember that the Republicans control the house, but not the Senate, so the burden on the democrats is really still there in both congress and the white house.

One Republican dream team for 2012 would be Charlie Christ and Tom Ridge. That gives the Republicans Florida and Pennsylvania right away, and would probably insure Virginia and Ohio as well, and that would pretty much be the election.

McCain's original choice for a running mate was Tom Ridge but he was told there would be to many party defections if he picked Tom Ridge. It would still be a long shot for Ridge in 2012, but with the Republicans out of the white house these past four years, the willingness to compromise in order to win increases.

 

[Irvine511]

One Republican dream team for 2012 would be Charlie Christ and Tom Ridge. That gives the Republicans Florida and Pennsylvania right away, and would probably insure Virginia and Ohio as well, and that would pretty much be the election.

Charlie Crist is an independent.

and gay.

 

[BVS]

At least thats what he wants everyone to believe.

Well it's part of the conservative mantra as well.

They say the economy will heal itself and that it's independent of the government except when a Dem is in control.

 

[Irvine511]

If the unemployment rate stays above 9%, taking out Obama is going to be pretty easy for almost anyone the Republicans put up.

you should ask yourself why Obama's approval ratings are actually very strong, and steady (especially compared with Reagan and Clinton at this point in their first terms) when considering a 9.8% unemployment rate.

you also need to look at the fact that when Obama took office the economy was shedding jobs, now it is adding jobs. the economy is fundamentally better now than it was at the end of 2008. it's not a comparison of 2000 vs. 2012, or 2004 vs. 2012. yes, the unemployment rate is much higher than it was under Bush, but Bush's continued abysmal approval ratings (and the fact that no Republican will go near him) demonstrates that most voters actually do place blame for the unemployment rate with him rather than with Obama.

now, whether or not Obama has done enough to fix it is the question, not whether or not he is the cause of the 9.8% unemployment.

it's more the sense of things having deteriorated under a president -- i.e., Bush 1 and Carter -- that leads to reelection or not.