GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just spent a few minutes adding up the EVs on the 2012 map, excluding Ohio and Florida, and got Obama with 250 and the GOP with 227. I made a few educated guesses- IA and WI going red, CO and NM going blue- but there's no doubt the election will hinge on those two states, and I have a hard time picturing Obama doing well there, or certainly not to the extent of his 2008 victories there.

Iowa going red in 2012? Ehhhh, I dunno about that. Same with Wisconsin. I can't see them doing that. I think Obama should do fine in those states again.

I do agree that Ohio and Florida will definitely be battleground states, though, no question. The Democrats are certainly going to have to find ways to win the support of those citizens. Especially in Ohio, given that their economy, as I hear it, isn't exactly the strongest right now.

Michigan might be a bit of a tough sell, too. Detroit's pretty much fallen apart and the economy in general in that state sucks, too.

Angela
 
Democrats have had many dreams over the years. But it hasn't changed the fact that they have only re-elected ONE president since World War II.

Since World War I every Democrat President that ran for re-election has won, except one.
The Republicans have not been as successful. And that's a fact.
 
Rude behavior is not conducive to the purpose of this discussion board.

I don't think people should be excluded because some people don't like their style.

I am glad we have this new username posting. We do need a mix of different view points in here.

If someone does not like a particular style of posting, they should just not respond to it. Or only respond to it when they feel like it.
 
Iowa going red in 2012? Ehhhh, I dunno about that. Same with Wisconsin. I can't see them doing that. I think Obama should do fine in those states again.

Michigan might be a bit of a tough sell, too. Detroit's pretty much fallen apart and the economy in general in that state sucks, too.

Angela

I think Wisconsin has a shot of going red. They did just elect a GOP governor and senator this past election. Plus, living in northern Illinois and making trips there once in a while I sense a lot of anxiety with Obama. Anecdotal, sure, but I'll say it goes red for the time being.

As for Michigan, if Romney's the nominee that could put it in play, but I'll believe it when I see it.
 
I think Wisconsin has a shot of going red. They did just elect a GOP governor and senator this past election. Plus, living in northern Illinois and making trips there once in a while I sense a lot of anxiety with Obama. Anecdotal, sure, but I'll say it goes red for the time being.

Hm. That's interesting. I'll take your word for it on that, then-I've never been to Wisconsin, but I'd just always heard they tended to not be very conservative. Maybe it depends on the area of the state or something, too, who knows. If you went out to the western part of Iowa, after all, you'd find people who are also a bit nervous about Obama, too. That area of the state definitely tends to be more conservative.

And then of course there's the people who supported him but are disillusioned, and that will be a problem in states that usually go blue, definitely. It's certainly going to be interesting next year (man, I can't believe I'm already saying that).

As for Michigan, if Romney's the nominee that could put it in play, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Good point.

Angela
 
Since World War I every Democrat President that ran for re-election has won, except one.
The Republicans have not been as successful. And that's a fact.

I love arbitrary periods too! Can I play along?

Over the last 68 years since FDR first took office, Dems have held the Presidency for 42 of those years. That's 62% and that is including the 20/28 stretch between Reagan and HW Bush.

The Reps only took office during that stretch by gaining what, class?

Did you answer:
"Reagan Democrats"
You are correct.

But the truth is, be it Dems or Reps, moderate to conservative fiscal policy is a winning policy, period. Clinton was re-elected when he (was seen to have) moved to the middle. LBJ was already a conservative Dem (amazingly, outside of civil rights).

I think for those of us who've grown up during the Reagan era-present, it sure feels like Republicans own the White House. I'm 35. Democrats have held the WH for only 14 of my years. But for my dad, who is exactly 68 - see above.
 
Unnecessary. Let's keep the insults out of it, all.
I'd counter that my bitterface avatar, with Bill Murray's cold, distant look, would preface all the following remarks in each of my posts as cynical.

I will try to be better.
 
I think it's possible for Wisconsin to Red in 2012. I believe 2004 and 2008 were very tight races there. Even MN was close in 2004. Wisconsin still is a big manufacturing state, so if unemployment is improving there, it bodes well for Obama.

Ohio is losing 2 electoral votes, and Pennsylvania is losing one.
Texas is gaining 4 votes, and Florida gains 2.
Utah, Nevada and Arizona each gain one, (all) largely because of increases in Hispanic populations.

Florida is Purple. Period.
Ohio Red? -not a big surprise. Pennsylvania Red? -a little more unexpected.
Utah Blue? Arizona Blue? Texas Blue? -Democratic coups that are increasingly possible.

Whether Republicans or Democrats control the State legislatures and Governorships will make a difference in the reapportionment of Congressional seats from the 2010 Census. But, there won't be massive shake-ups in Congressional districts.

Honestly, if Republicans continue to cater to the Tea Party and ignore Hispanics (or worse, vilify them), it will be to their long-term detriment. (And, it could come as early as 2012.)
 
Last edited:
Honestly, if Republicans continue to cater to the Tea Party and ignore Hispanics (or worse, vilify them), it will be to their long-term detriment. (And, it could come as early as 2012.)


absolutely.

it kind of amazed me that in 2010, the GOP now hates Latinos more than gays, i.e., Dream vs. DADT.

good luck with that.
 
Actually, the GOP made gains among Latinos in November. In 2006, they voted 69-30 Democratic. In 2010, it was 60-38, and victories by Governors Martinez in NM, Sandoval in NV, and Senator Rubio have the potential to make greater inroads there.
 
Actually, the GOP made gains among Latinos in November. In 2006, they voted 69-30 Democratic. In 2010, it was 60-38, and victories by Governors Martinez in NM, Sandoval in NV, and Senator Rubio have the potential to make greater inroads there.

The opposition to Dream and other moves they've made this year will set them back.
 
It was a joke, like if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

If you insult someone who's been banned several times and shouldn't be here, is it really an insult?
 
Hm. That's interesting. I'll take your word for it on that, then-I've never been to Wisconsin, but I'd just always heard they tended to not be very conservative. Maybe it depends on the area of the state or something, too, who knows.

From experience, I can say that Wisconsin's liberal reputation is almost completely derived from Milwaukee and especially Madison. The rest of the state is quite conservative. The new governor, for instance, is a hard, hard-line conservative.
 
I wonder how much of our prognistication is more about what we want to be true and less about what actually is true. Not a lot of conservative posters suggesting Obama can win, not a lot of liberal posters suggesting Obama could lose (though this group is somewhat more open to that possiblity). Conicidence? I think not.

I think this is one of the more insightful posts in this thread. It seems many are posting in the direction they want things to go.

I will go on the record and say I expect to vote for Obama again in 2012, I voted for him in Nov 2008.
I suppose that could change, but I disagree more with many things the current GOP are doing and want to do.

With that said, I expect Obama to have a much more difficult road to re-election than he had to success in 2008. Looking at the mid-term elections in 2006 things were trending strongly in the Dems favor. There was strong Bush/ Cheney fatigue. Also, the economy was in a complete free fall from Sept 2008 on through election day.

Looking at 2012, from the 2010 mid-term elections, things are trending towards the GOP. Reapportionment leans to GOP advantage. The GOP took over Ohio in 2010. They did great in FL, too. Unless Obama is blessed with a strong economy in 2012, like Clinton was in 1996, he will have a difficult time. Bush 1 was not successful, with a 7.5 unemployment rate.
 
Nate Silver's take:

Optimism for Obama Should Come With Caution
By NATE SILVER

For as poorly as President Obama’s Democrats performed on Nov. 2, you can find several assessments of his re-election chances that seem doggone optimistic.

The Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone, in a careful analysis, suggests that Mr. Obama won’t be easy to defeat. Karl Rove, meanwhile, recently made comments to Fox News about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s electoral future, which seemed to imply that he expected Mr. Obama would still be president in 2016.

There are a lot of things that casual attempts at political science tend to get wrong, but one thing that observers seem to understand relatively well is that a poor performance by the president’s party at his first midterm election hardly dooms him. That is no doubt because of the recent experience with Bill Clinton as well as Ronald Reagan, both of whom witnessed their parties lose badly at the midterms and both of whom eventually won re-election by wide margins. Mr. Obama’s Democrats lost a few more seats in Congress than Mr. Clinton’s Democrats did — and more than twice as many as Mr. Reagan’s Republicans. On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are slightly better than Mr. Clinton’s or Mr. Reagan’s were at a comparable point in time, being in the mid-to-high 40s rather than in the low 40s.

There may be some risk in over-learning these lessons, however: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Reagan, though they are two recent examples, are nevertheless just two examples, and they were both once-in-a-generation political talents.

Still, it’s worth reflecting on what, if anything, we might have learned about Mr. Obama’s re-election chances during the past couple of months — both based on what happened on Nov. 2 and what has happened since.

Has the public taken on a more favorable view of Mr. Obama since the Democrats’ defeat? The evidence here is mixed, but for the time being points toward “no.” Mr. Obama’s Gallup approval rating reached 49 percent late last week — the highest it had been since July — but other surveys show it about flat, and the overall trend shows little change.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s approval rating had already been “stuck” at about 45 or 46 percent several months ahead of the midterms and had not been declining; most of the damage to Mr. Obama and the Democrats had come in 2009. Given how hardened partisan attitudes have become, it may be that Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are liable to fluctuate within a relatively narrow range.

Perhaps the question should be, then, whether Mr. Obama would win re-election if an election were held tomorrow. His approval ratings right now are quite similar to where George W. Bush’s were at the end of 2004. Mr. Bush won re-election, albeit very narrowly and against a relatively weak Democratic nominee.

Then again, the set of prospective Republican nominees is also perhaps rather weak. An average of polls conducted since Nov. 2 show Mr. Obama leading Mitt Romney by an average of 2 or 3 points, and Mike Huckabee by 3 or 4 points. Some people aren’t fond of looking at head-to-head matchups so far in advance of an election, and indeed, they are very rough gauges. With that said, both Mr. Romney and Mr. Huckabee are quite well known to the public, so these results might be more meaningful than they would be for a candidate who is not yet identifiable to the public at large, like a John Thune or a Tim Pawlenty.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama continues to enjoy a very large advantage — about 14 points, on average — over Sarah Palin. However likely Ms. Palin is to win the Republican nomination — and I can’t help but think that, if her numbers remain this poor, it will eventually become less likely — this essentially represents pure upside for Mr. Obama: what poker players would term a freeroll.

So if an election were held tomorrow, Mr. Obama would be a clear favorite against Ms. Palin, and probably about even money (although perhaps a very slight favorite) against a less divisive Republican nominee.

Fortunately — because I could really use the rest — an election won’t be held tomorrow. Do we have any inkling yet about whether Mr. Obama’s standing with the public is likely to improve or decline by 2012?

The state of the economy, undoubtedly, will be a huge part of the equation. The vast majority of economists expect it to continue to grow through 2012; the forecasts, in fact, have become slightly more optimistic over the past several weeks. The bad news for Mr. Obama is that the forecasts are more optimistic about G.D.P. growth than they are about unemployment: economists also expect the employment picture to improve, but at a sluggish pace, with the unemployment rate most likely being in the low 8 percentage point range at the time voters go to the polls in 2012. How voters might react to this situation — one in which the employment picture has improved, but is still rather poor in an absolute sense — is an open question, and one for which the historical evidence is of relatively little use.

How about the Democrats’ performance during the lame-duck session of Congress, when they were able to pass several important bills like the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, to the surprise of many observers?

One needs to be careful not to unintentionally damn Mr. Obama and the Democrats with faint praise; yes, they got a lot done, but all of the measures they passed were quite popular. Once the Republicans take over in the House, Mr. Obama will be engaged in some big showdowns with them over issues like the budget and his health care plan. Mr. Obama will be fighting from a defensive posture on health care, which remains unpopular with the public. How the public feels about the budget, where it has little faith in either party, is less clear.

Ultimately, however, Mr. Obama is more popular than the Republican Congress — an advantage that Bill Clinton did not have after 1994, nor Ronald Reagan after 1982. With the equally unpopular Democratic Congress largely being marginalized, that may work to his advantage. And — although I hesitate to endorse such a wishy-washy concept — the Democrats’ successes during the lame-duck session may provide him with some “momentum” headed into these battles, which will begin very early in the new Congress.

The political futures market Intrade puts Mr. Obama’s re-election chances at about 58 percent, which seems about as reasonable an assessment as any. Until we get a better sense for how the dynamics between Mr. Obama and the Republicans will play out — or in which direction the economy is headed — I would be skeptical of analyses that seem to express a significant amount of confidence on either side of that figure.

Optimism for Obama Should Come With Caution - NYTimes.com
 
Oh, my good lord, are you kidding me *Puts head in hands*?

But actually repealing the health care law that Mr. Obama signed last March has no chance of taking effect. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said on Thursday that he would not bring up the bill. And Mr. Obama, of course, would veto any such act.

Which, of course, then begs the question: WHY ARE THEY EVEN BOTHERING TO DO THIS, THEN?

Try not to waste any more of our time and taxpayer money, Republicans, please?

From experience, I can say that Wisconsin's liberal reputation is almost completely derived from Milwaukee and especially Madison. The rest of the state is quite conservative. The new governor, for instance, is a hard, hard-line conservative.

Huh. I stand corrected, then.

Angela
 
^

The Republicans are not serious leaders, they are petty children. That goes without saying. No serious, responsible adult would name a bill any such thing. It's absurd and befitting of junior high kids.

As for unemployment and the election, there is an excellent article, of which I'll post excerpts. It outlines very important facts that I think are not being stated outloud because it sounds "bad" politically.

"The story runs as follows. Before the financial crash, there were lots of not-so-useful workers holding not-so-useful jobs. Employers didn't so much bother to figure out who they were. Demand was high and revenue was booming, so rooting out the less productive workers would have involved a lot of time and trouble -- plus it would have involved some morale costs with the more productive workers, who don't like being measured and spied on. So firms simply let the problem lie.

Then came the 2008 recession, and it was no longer possible to keep so many people on payroll. A lot of businesses were then forced to face the music: Bosses had to make tough calls about who could be let go and who was worth saving. (Note that unemployment is low for workers with a college degree, only 5 percent compared with 16 percent for less educated workers with no high school degree. This is consistent with the reality that less-productive individuals, who tend to have less education, have been laid off.)

In essence, we have seen the rise of a large class of "zero marginal product workers," to coin a term. Their productivity may not be literally zero, but it is lower than the cost of training, employing, and insuring them. That is why labor is hurting but capital is doing fine; dumping these employees is tough for the workers themselves -- and arguably bad for society at large -- but it simply doesn't damage profits much. It's a cold, hard reality, and one that we will have to deal with, one way or another."

Rest here:

10 Percent Unemployment Forever? - By Tyler Cowen and Jayme Lemke | Foreign Policy
 
are you kidding me? Is the gop's handbook 1984? "Job Killing Heath Care". They'll say it enough to where idiots will think it's true.

Fact: The bill will create more jobs, even if it's in the evil healthcare industry
Fact: Repealing the healthcare bill will run up the deficit, but gop states this shouldn't count....Much like the wars overseas
Fact: Repealing this bill will take coverage away from 30 million people, and potentially killing some of those whose coverage could have prevented such incident.

I think democracy is done
 
Today there was an interesting segment on NPR.

When polled close to 50% of the population wanted "Obamacare" repealed.

When polled about specific sections like pre-existing conditions, children up to age 26, so on and so on an overwhelming majority supported it.

Republicans have done a good job with branding. They know the intelligence level they are aiming for...
 
I just hope Michael Steele doesn't make a run for any position. Did you see him at the RNC conference the other day? ("My favorite book is War and Peace...It was the best of times it was the worst of times)
 
Ugh, yes, I saw clips of that on TV. That was truly pitiful.

My favorite part was the girl who got confused about the book question and started talking about her favorite bar instead ('cause, you know, hearing the person before her list a book apparently didn't tip her off...). And then later she mentioned having 16 guns. What a great combination :hyper:!

(And naturally, of course, your ability to run things properly is determined by the amount of guns you have)

only the democrats do that.



although, won't repealing the health care act buy another three weeks in iraq? let's do it!

Bingo.

The Republicans are not serious leaders, they are petty children. That goes without saying. No serious, responsible adult would name a bill any such thing. It's absurd and befitting of junior high kids.

Oh, absolutely. It just amazes me that more people don't seem to realize that. How can anybody watch that aforementioned RNC conference and still think, after all that, "Yeah, these people look like pretty good potential leaders"?

That article you shared is pretty well spot on, my mom's said the same thing, in essence. I still think it kind of sucks, though, that those with only a high school education are more likely to be let go from jobs. Sure, there are some whose lack of continued education hurts them job-wise, but I've only got a high school degree and I can be just as productive as somebody with a college degree.

I know it's not always easy or affordable to train and educate new employees on the tasks at hand, but if that's the case, then businesses need to quit whining that they have a hard time keeping people on the payroll-if they're not willing to do that, then don't be surprised if some people decide to go elsewhere. Or they need to start changing their attitudes and decide that training people is worth the effort if it means they'll have employees for a longer period of time. Everyone has to start somewhere, and how are you going to learn the tasks if nobody teaches them to you?

Angela
 
A college degree, even an associate degree, is the new high school degree. Not too surprising considering some of the community colleges out there. They're like holding pens for high schoolers who scraped by to remain in arrested development for another six years to get that general studies degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom