I think one of the biggest problems with our political system is the media’s focus on horse race over substance. Having said that, I think we should have a policy substance-free thread on the 2012 presidential campaign oriented toward the horse race. I used to be a poli sci guy, I can’t help it.

My thoughts:

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Obama wins the democratic nomination.

The Republicans: I think Romney is their best general election candidate, and I think he is the most likely nominee, though I don’t know that the odds of that are greater than 50%. He’s trying to walk the line between renouncing enough of his moderate Republican past to get the nomination while not renouncing it so much that he can’t reclaim it in the general. Don’t know how that will work.

Until last week I though there were three Rs that could beat Obama: Romney, Huntsman, and Pawlenty. And as the incumbent, I don’t think someone beats Obama so much as voters fire him, so the goal of the Republican is to a) convince voters to fire him and and b)convince them that they are an acceptable alternative. I’m about ready to drop Pawlenty from that list because he seems to be tacking hard to the right and with Bachman apparently entering the race, he may have to do that more to get traction. And he seems kind of wimpy.

I can see Bachman winning Iowa, freaking the hell out of the Republican establishment who then coalesce around Romney despite their reservations. But there seems to be such antipathy toward Romney from so many segments of the Republican party, I don’t know that that will happen. In which case, who knows? As a Democrat, I’d love to see the Rs nominate Bachman, Palin, or Santorum. Hard to imagine that happening, though. I have no idea what to think of Huntsman. I have to wonder if he’s trying to position himself for 2016. And then there’s Perry. I can see Perry getting in and winning the nomination. But I think he’s unelectable in the general election. Talk of secession doesn’t play well outside the South, and I don't think the country is ready for another Texas governor.

I think it all essentially comes down to jobs. If unemployment hasn’t improved, I think Romney/Huntsman beats Obama. At best, I expect it to be marginally improved, with Obama squeaking by a la Bush 2004.

Thoughts?

At this point four years ago, my expectation was Clinton vs. Giuliani, so...

But, your points make sense.

I think there are some Repubicans with a legitimate shot at being elected, some positioning for 2016, some positioning for VP, and some making a money grab.

Unemployment should be the key, but who know's what will happen in the next 18 months? And just as important as the absolute unemployment rate will be the trend. If it's still 7% but steadily declining and voters are gaining confidence, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. If not, then he's in trouble. Seventy-five years ago, FDR carried 46 of 48 states and 98% of the electoral vote on a day when the unemployment rate was 15%. That's because it had been 25% four years earlier.

I've read how how JFK and Nixon were criticized for starting their campaings so early. They both announced in January 1960. RFK didn't formally announce March 1968, IIRC.

I expect the economy to be worse a year from now, perhaps substantially so.

I see no reason to expect improvement. If you expect it to improve, even marginally, I'd be interested if you care to share how you get there.

I still think the economy is less likely to improve than to go so far in the tank that the democrat power brokers could try to toss Obama off the ticket (in favor of Hillary??) in order to try to mitigate the down-ballot damage.

I don't see a republican that both (1) I like, and (2) has any legitimate hope of getting the nomination.

That's an incredibly pessimistic assessment, I realize, but I really don't see any basis for optimism.

I know it's a bit of a hijack, but I'd really be interested if someone who does think the economy is going to get better would explain how or why.

I don't expect anything beyond marginal improvement, unfortunately. Probably for different reasons than you; I'll elaborate later if I get a chance.

Obama's pretty much screwed the pooch on the economy by now. Even if he were to change course on some things now (which he won't because of his rigid ideology), it wouldn't change things much by the time the 2012 election rolls around. I remember a few years ago when the Democrats and mainstream media were telling us how bad George W. Bush's economy was. Having lived through the Carter presidency, I got a good laugh out of that, and as I thought would happen people are now finding out what a bad economy is really like.

Actually, I always thought the Obama presidency would broadly play out like Carter's, and so far that seems to be the case. That bodes very poorly for Obama's re-election chances. In terms of the electoral math, there are several states that Obama won in 2008 that he has no chance of winning in 2012 (Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida come to mind), and there's no state that John McCain won in 2008 that Obama has any reasonable chance of flipping. So if the Republicans nominate someone reasonable, their candidate has a good chance of winning. Right now, the polls tell us the Republican nomination is Mitt Romney's to lose. Dick Morris thinks that the runner-up for the nomination will be either Michelle Bachman or Herman Cain (and, for whatever it's worth, Morris is right about half the time). You may well be right about Huntsman really running for vice-president, but I just can't see a ticket with two Mormon guys on it - he must be hoping someone other then Romney will win the nomination. As for Rick Perry, I'll think about his chances if and when he throws his hat into the ring.

Looking more and more like Rick is running.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...73280.html

This is a post of mine, hopefully on point, from earlier today in the spin room:

(06-23-2011 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-22-2011 10:19 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Chances on the nomination, 5/22/11:

Pawlenty - 30%
Romney - 30%
Huntsman - 20%
Rest of the Field - 20%

Updated for 6/23/11, I'd put the current odds at:

Romney - 35%. Hasn't looked great, but no major gaffes or stumbles. All the "bad" news about him is stuff that we knew about already.
Pawlenty - 25%. He's given some strong, in-depth speeches on domestic issues (foreign policy speech coming up) and has some great web-ads. But comes across as weak on the trail and in the debates. When it's all said and done, he just seems to lack gravitas, and that counts for a lot with GOP primary voters.
Huntsman - 10%. For Republicans who think Obama has basically been a solid president, and just want a slight readjustment.
Bachmann - 10%. The unexpected star of the last 2-3 months. Republicans are simply not going to nominate a member of the House for the Presidency, but she is setting herself up nicely as the Huckabee of the '12 cycle: the candidate who appeals to social conservatives and survives to the last couple of rounds without raising much money.
Rest of Field - 20%. Herman Cain keeps threatening to break out of the second tier, but his cringe-inducing comments about foreign policy are a big obstacle. Gingrich was never going to be the nominee, but I never thought he'd crash-and-burn that fast, either. Santorum and Paul just keep doing their thing. Their fans will follow them through hell and high water, but there just aren't enough of them to win the nomination.

As for Sarah Palin, she still has the ability to get in the race in September/October and be a major force. I just don't think she'll do it, though.

(05-23-2011 09:17 PM)TOGC Wrote:  According to a Fox News poll taken this week: Considering how President Obama has performed so far, do you think he deserves to be reelected, or would the country probably be better off with someone else as president?
50% Deserves to be reelected
43% Better off with someone else

Just your best guess: As of today, do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012, or not?
57% Will
36% Will Not

That poll was taken May 15th-16th-17th.
I'd be interested to see the results of the same poll-questions asked of likely voters on (say) June 21st-22nd-23rd.

I still think Rick is positioning himself as the top pick for VP for any of the contenders. That said (and this being the Republican primary we're discussing), the free market (intrade) puts the odds of him getting in the race at 78.9%.

As far as nominees:

35.6% Romney
16.8% Perry
10.2% Pawlenty
10.0% Huntsman
8.7% Bachman
5.0% Palin
2.6% Paul, Ron
10.6% Field (Probably some rounding error in here)

I'm surprised, however, that the numbers actually total to about 100, as one would rationally expect. I would have thought that Government Sachs would have figured out a way to prop up the market to yield a better return. (Making it better than free).

There is very bad blood between Perry and Romney. I think Perry would *Definitely* run if he sees himself as the only chance to deny Romney the nomination.

(06-24-2011 02:23 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  There is very bad blood between Perry and Romney. I think Perry would *Definitely* run if he sees himself as the only chance to deny Romney the nomination.

Bad blood re: what?

(06-24-2011 03:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-24-2011 02:23 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  There is very bad blood between Perry and Romney. I think Perry would *Definitely* run if he sees himself as the only chance to deny Romney the nomination.

Bad blood re: what?

It goes back to 2006 when Romney was chair of the Republican Governors Association and Perry was running for re-election in that weird 4-way race. Perry felt threatened in that campaign (although he wound up winning by a safe margin, IIRC), and was very bitter that Romney did not steer more $$$ his way. From what I hear, I don't think that bitterness has subsided. if anything, the opposite.

I just can't see Rick as president. Of course, at this point in 1999, I couldn't really see GWB as president either.

(06-24-2011 06:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I just can't see Rick as president. Of course, at this point in 1999, I couldn't really see GWB as president either.

I know what you mean -- about Perry and Dubya both.

But quite honestly, when you look back on all the last 7 presidents since 1974 -- Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush/41, Clinton, Bush/43, Obama -- I think Bush/41 is the Only One whose career (prior to becoming president) would have been taken seriously as a "potential president" in the pre-1970s era. Reagan would have come close, based on being Gov. of California for 8 years. But the other 5, under normal circumstances, would've been lucky to just make the VP "short-list". The idea that those 5 men actually became president at all speaks volumes, IMHO, about how deep the trauma of Vietnam/Watergate affected this country, and how discredited the traditional "ruling class" was as a result.

(06-24-2011 09:19 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-24-2011 06:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I just can't see Rick as president. Of course, at this point in 1999, I couldn't really see GWB as president either.

I know what you mean -- about Perry and Dubya both.

But quite honestly, when you look back on all the last 7 presidents since 1974 -- Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush/41, Clinton, Bush/43, Obama -- I think Bush/41 is the Only One whose career (prior to becoming president) would have been taken seriously as a "potential president" in the pre-1970s era. Reagan would have come close, based on being Gov. of California for 8 years. But the other 5, under normal circumstances, would've been lucky to just make the VP "short-list".

Another generational factor is that Bush 41, Reagan, and the five before them (Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower (duh!) and Truman) had not only all served in the armed forces, but had nearly all been commissioned officers or cadets (Carter) during World War II (Truman's service was in WWI). That is a phenomenal degree of shared experience.

(06-25-2011 03:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Another generational factor is that Bush 41, Reagan, and the five before them (Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower (duh!) and Truman) had not only all served in the armed forces, but had nearly all been commissioned officers or cadets (Carter) during World War II (Truman's service was in WWI). That is a phenomenal degree of shared experience.

Very true.

The presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, in which two combat-veterans (one of them permanently wounded) were defeated by an opponent who had -- to put it as gently as possible -- never worn the uniform, was a key cultural turning point, IMHO. The party which initiated this shift later tried to revive the "old" attitudes for the 2004 election, but to no avail: the cultural shift had already occurred, and there was no turning back. So much so that by 2008, the personal contrast between the military background of the two nominees -- though stark and dramatic -- was just not a significant electoral factor, whatsoever. I doubt that it ever will be again, at least at the presidential level.

(06-25-2011 03:46 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-25-2011 03:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Another generational factor is that Bush 41, Reagan, and the five before them (Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower (duh!) and Truman) had not only all served in the armed forces, but had nearly all been commissioned officers or cadets (Carter) during World War II (Truman's service was in WWI). That is a phenomenal degree of shared experience.

Very true.

The presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, in which two combat-veterans (one of them permanently wounded) were defeated by an opponent who had -- to put it as gently as possible -- never worn the uniform, was a key cultural turning point, IMHO. The party which initiated this shift later tried to revive the "old" attitudes for the 2004 election, but to no avail: the cultural shift had already occurred, and there was no turning back. So much so that by 2008, the personal contrast between the military background of the two nominees -- though stark and dramatic -- was just not a significant electoral factor, whatsoever. I doubt that it ever will be again, at least at the presidential level.

These are good points. I think with the post Vietnam generations, military service is so rare across the board it can't really be an issue too much anymore. Even more true among the college educated cohort that supplies candidates for both parties...

I've heard it said that our country doesn't go to war any more, just a small percentage of American families.

I wonder if NY's gay marriage law will have an effect on this election. The politics of it have changed so rapidly it's really stunning. I saw one poll where the majority of *evangelicals* under the age of 30 support gay marriage. It was 10 years ago many or most *liberals* were not willing to say they support it. (Not that liberal and evangelical are mutually exclusive.)

It's possible this is an issue where it's gone from Dems needing to balance not alienating part of their base vs not alienating swing voters to Rs needing to do the same.

I suspect though it won't matter unless we have a race as close as 2000. Which we could...

Still shaking my head on this one...here's the the continued quality of the Republican candidates for president:

Quote:The wrong John Wayne: In her well-received presidential announcement speech, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) doubled down on Iowa and her roots there. But she made one minor gaffe about her birthplace, saying “John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.” John Wayne the legendary movie star is from Winterset — a three -hour drive away. John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer, lived in Waterloo.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-..._blog.html

(06-27-2011 09:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wonder if NY's gay marriage law will have an effect on this election. The politics of it have changed so rapidly it's really stunning. I saw one poll where the majority of *evangelicals* under the age of 30 support gay marriage. It was 10 years ago many or most *liberals* were not willing to say they support it. (Not that liberal and evangelical are mutually exclusive.)

It's an interesting example of what happens when we let contentious questions be decided through the political legislative process, rather than asking judges to rule by fiat. Perhaps we could try that with other social issues?

(06-27-2011 09:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think with the post Vietnam generations, military service is so rare across the board it can't really be an issue too much anymore. Even more true among the college educated cohort that supplies candidates for both parties... I've heard it said that our country doesn't go to war any more, just a small percentage of American families.

+1 on all of that

(06-27-2011 09:21 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wonder if NY's gay marriage law will have an effect on this election. The politics of it have changed so rapidly it's really stunning.

Agree about the rapid/stunning part, but I just don't see it affecting the presidential election to any significant degree. People who who vote for/against a candidate based on this issue are -- in my observation -- already locked into their preferred political party based on 20 other issues, too. So this will simply re-inforce the attitudes that already existed on both sides.

Quote:I saw one poll where the majority of *evangelicals* under the age of 30 support gay marriage.

I would be interested to see the "internals" of that survey. (Who commissioned the poll? How many people were polled? By what criteria were respondents classified as "evangelical"? What was their opinion of other issues? etc.)

My own personal experience/observation on this issue is that "religious" people under the age of 30 are definitely more liberal on this than "religious" people over the age of 30, but -- at the same time -- nowhere near the point of giving "majority" support to "gay marriage." The momentum is headed in that direction, yeah. But not nearly to that extent.

Quote:It was 10 years ago many or most *liberals* were not willing to say they support it.

That is, indeed, true in the most literal sense: most liberals were not willing to say they supported it, even though they most certainly did support it (and still do, of course) with the intensity of paparazzi stalking Jackie Kennedy or Princess Diana. To be "liberal" (in the Carter-Dukakis-Kerry sense of the word) is to bear the near-constant burden of concealing certain beliefs from public view.

Quote:It's possible this is an issue where it's gone from Dems needing to balance not alienating part of their base vs not alienating swing voters to Rs needing to do the same.

In certain states and districts, sure. Nationwide? Nothing I've seen indicates that, although like you said, the politics of this issue have changed with almost lightning-speed. I would not venture to say where this will end up in 50-100 years.

Bachmann's gaffe about "John Wayne" is pretty embarrassing. Fortunately for her, the underlying subject-material is so dark and tragic, that most people will not want to think about it.

(06-27-2011 06:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It's an interesting example of what happens when we let contentious questions be decided through the political legislative process, rather than asking judges to rule by fiat. Perhaps we could try that with other social issues?

I guess Justice Anthony Kennedy will let us know. When he feels like it. Maybe.