GOP Nominee

[Centurion1]

If you're going to adopt that tack, may I inquire how Fred Thompson, your former heartthrob, worked out as a primary and general candidate? Oh, that's right, he bombed. And yet you are allowed to voice opinions . This would suggest that who you or I personally intend to vote for does not have a bearing on whether or not we're allowed to evaluate and comment on candidates. IMHO, Huntsman would be formidable in the general, but you are correct that he stands no realistic chance in the primary.


Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.

Xiahou's, correct, point is that if you want to run a moderate in the races instead of a solid party man like Obama you have to be enough to take extra voters from him. Otherwise your best served to play a party man. In essence a moderate has to be the Messiah to win.

Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.

Essentially that is the difference between Left and Right with a few exceptions such as defense.

Your being entirely too defensive though Lemur what got your hackles so raised.

[Lemur]

Your being entirely too defensive though Lemur what got your hackles so raised.

The main irritant would be this mindless, zombie-like mouthing of the notion that Repub = small guvmint and dem = big socialism. I realize that's the party line as spewed by Fox News, NRO and pretty much every organ in the conservative-media complex, but still, I don't expect thoughtful people to echo it, given that it has no basis in fact or history.

Don't know why I bother repeating it, since it's both obvious, checkable and ignored by the hordes of born-again budget virgins, but the last Republican President was directly responsible for two unfunded wars, a giant unfunded giveaway to pharma and old people, and a giant tax break during wartime. And his Vice President, when questioned about this reckless spending, declared that "deficits don't matter."

But now, three whole years later, when we're wallowing in the aftereffects of all that irresponsible spending, when trillions have been sucked out of the economy to fund two middle eastern adventures, when the same Republicans in congress who cheered and supported Bush 43 are in office, we're supposed to accept as an article of faith that Republicans are the party of small government and personal liberty, or some such sack of stinking horse manure?

Feh. People who get high on their own talking points and reality-defying rhetoric shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I'm interested in the GOP nominee because whomever it turns out to be will have a realistic chance of being prez. I have skin in the game.

Xiahou will inevitably wind up voting for some third-party candidate because the GOP nominee will fail one of his purity tests, so his question about who I would vote for was deeply hilarious, if you know the players.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Right, right, because all candidates can be judged on a Big Guvmint versus Little Guvmint axis, and you hold the keys to the magic decoder ring. Lovely.

Who urinated in your Wheaties, my proto-simian friend?

Of course, this is one axis of measurement for candidates. For me, an important one. You know better than to believe that that represents the sole metric I employ.

Besides, my magic decoder ring doesn't work worth a hoot anymore. I purchased early and got the "The USSR is an Evil Empire" edition. It's sadly out of date, but I just can't get myself to buy a new one since by the time it's out there they are already beta testing the next ring. I'm hamstrung by anticipatory buyer's remorse.

[Major Robert Dump]

I like how the right has repeated the "Time to stop blaming Bush" mantra as if a Republican president would not have had the same mess to clean up. I find that statement remarkably shallow and similar to the ones somehow dismissing global warming by the fact that it gets cold. If you repeat something enough times, people will start to buy into it, especially the rank-and-file and the dim. The left does it with attacks on the tea party by providing anectdotal evidence of racism, because we all know a few retards represent the entire batch. And all Baptist youth camp counselors are homoesexual.

[Lemur]

Who urinated in your Wheaties, my proto-simian friend?

I blame my natural prosimian lack of control. I am only capable of eating it, fighting it, fleeing from it or making sexytime with it. Everything else is too nuanced for a lemur.

Here's a good piece on Huntsman: The insanity of running as a sane GOP candidate.

The idea is to build the same kind of maverick image that McCain, with his Straight Talk Express and campaign finance reform crusade, established for himself in 2000. There is some logic to this: Surely, there are a fair number of Republican voters who are bothered by the party's direction these past few years, and even if they're a minority within the party, it's not like anyone else is airing their concerns. [...]

But there are some crucial differences between what McCain did in 2000 (and why he was able to do it) and what Huntsman's strategy is likely to produce.

One is that McCain wasn't actually that far off the GOP reservation. His main break with the GOP establishment was over campaign finance reform, an issue that mattered for nothing to most Republican voters but that mattered a great deal to the party's interest group establishment. [...]

But the more fundamental problem for Huntsman is that the Republican Party is just in a different place than it was 11 years ago. Ever since Barack Obama was elected, a siege mentality has gripped the GOP. Even Republicans who agree with him on some level are apt to shrug off Huntsman's calls for intraparty soul-searching: There'll be time for that fight after we get the socialist out of the White House, not before.

And all Baptist youth camp counselors are homoesexual.

This is a self-evident truth.

-edit-

Ladies and gents, we have a new frontrunner.

[Strike For The South]

It would seem my state is playing kingmaker

Not surprising

[Lemur]

I know who I'm voting for.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know who I'm voting for.

"In his palace at Ryaa'lay'ah, dead Cthulu lies dreaming."

...and, apparently, awaits being drafted for the 2012 race. Euclid? **** Euclid!

[drone]

At this point, Cthulu is probably the lesser evil.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Cthulhu hasn't got a chance. He's too slimy for the Great Old Ones (aka Florida voters).

The nomination would be sewn up if Nyarlathotep were to announce. After all, his followers lose all awareness of the world around them, so the deficit should be easy to ignore.

[Xiahou]

If you're going to adopt that tack, may I inquire how Fred Thompson, your former heartthrob, worked out as a primary and general candidate? Oh, that's right, he bombed. And yet you are allowed to voice opinions . This would suggest that who you or I personally intend to vote for does not have a bearing on whether or not we're allowed to evaluate and comment on candidates. IMHO, Huntsman would be formidable in the general, but you are correct that he stands no realistic chance in the primary.

And you've totally missed the point. You say Huntsman is your favorite in the field and that he'd be a formidable contender in the general election.

The implication is that he would have mass appeal by not being so hard right as the other candidates and he could attract moderates from both parties, yes? So, I asked would disillusioned Obama supporters (you) vote Huntsman? That sounds like a resounding no. You could also count on a good many hard-right Republicans staying home or voting third party. I think Huntsman would only be a formidable force for Obama's reelection.

It looks like current polling data bears this out.

Regardless of who wins, I won't be voting third party this year. It's too important to stop Obama's mismanagement of our economy. I think I'd vote for my garbageman if he had a credible chance of winning. Taxes and regulations aren't the way to grow the economy. It's bad now, but when Obamacare comes online in 2014 things are going to get really hairy if someone doesn't put the brakes on.

[Xiahou]

In other news, Perry has gotten the all important Kinky Friedman endorsement:

In his own words:

"So, would I support Rick Perry for president? Hell, yes! As the last nail that hasn't been hammered down in this country, I agree with Rick that there are already too damn many laws, taxes, regulations, panels, committees, and bureaucrats. While Obama is busy putting the hyphen between 'anal' and 'retentive' Rick will be rolling up his sleeves and getting to work."

And my favorite line.....

"Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay," he wrote. "I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama."

Perry isn't my ideal candidate, but I'd rate him as "acceptable". But regardless of my opinion, I predict (barring some sort of campaign implosion) he'll be the next president.

[Vladimir]

In other news, Perry has gotten the all important Kinky Friedman endorsement:

And my favorite line.....
Perry isn't my ideal candidate, but I'd rate him as "acceptable". But regardless of my opinion, I predict (barring some sort of campaign implosion) he'll be the next president.

While I'm all about Kinky, Perry doesn't have a chance.

All the W haters need to hear is the word "Texas" and they'll vote in droves against him. I also doubt conservative leaning moderates will vote for him either. While I think his style of leadership would be refreshing, I think most of the squishy center is tired of a Texan in the White House.

[Ronin]

While I'm all about Kinky, Perry doesn't have a chance.

All the W haters need to hear is the word "Texas" and they'll vote in droves against him. I also doubt conservative leaning moderates will vote for him either. While I think his style of leadership would be refreshing, I think most of the squishy center is tired of a Texan in the White House.

absolutely.....

so you have the incumbent that was elected in the wave of the anti-dubya sentiment.....and the GOP is gonna run a Dubya clone against him?
talk about a loosing ticket.

[Beskar]

Cthulhu hasn't got a chance. He's too slimy for the Great Old Ones (aka Florida voters).

The nomination would be sewn up if Nyarlathotep were to announce. After all, his followers lose all awareness of the world around them, so the deficit should be easy to ignore.

Glenn Beck is now running for president?

[Lemur]

Ronin, there's a portion of the population that would vote for a warm can of mayonnaise if it ran against Obama, so running a Bush clone isn't suicidal per se. The question is how many people need to combine with tie die-hard O-haters to eke out an electoral college majority.

Too complicated for me to predict, so I'll leave that to full-time statisticians like Nate Silver.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ronin, there's a portion of the population that would vote for a warm can of mayonnaise if it ran against Obama, so running a Bush clone isn't suicidal per se. The question is how many people need to combine with tie die-hard O-haters to eke out an electoral college majority.

Too complicated for me to predict, so I'll leave that to full-time statisticians like Nate Silver.

A good bit of truth in this point. I am fairly dead-set against the Obama policy set and am strongly inclined to vote against. Regrettably, I am likely to have a total non-entity as my GOP alternative. Sigh.......

[Fisherking]

A good bit of truth in this point. I am fairly dead-set against the Obama policy set and am strongly inclined to vote against. Regrettably, I am likely to have a total non-entity as my GOP alternative. Sigh.......

I am of the opinion that it doesn’t much matter who runs against the big O this time.

As long as he runs I think he will win. He would have to step all over himself to not win.

Also, remember that the Democrats always do a better job at voter turnout than the Republicans. The dead always vote D.

[Ronin]

Ronin, there's a portion of the population that would vote for a warm can of mayonnaise if it ran against Obama, so running a Bush clone isn't suicidal per se. The question is how many people need to combine with tie die-hard O-haters to eke out an electoral college majority.

Too complicated for me to predict, so I'll leave that to full-time statisticians like Nate Silver.

the last election also proves a lot of the population were fed up with Bush......and it was just 4 years ago...it's still very fresh on the minds of the people.
We will see who is right...but to pick a guy that is so similar to the president that was shunned just 4 years ago doesn´t seem like sound strategy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There are drawbacks to be sure. Perry twigs all of the left's "We want Laicite" fibers into high gear -- which will produce some turn out for the Dem base. And, in addition, a segment of the middle who like conservative economics but liberal social policies will be repelled.

On the other hand, a good progressive GOP nominee will please about half the middle and keep most of the base, especially the tea party wing, interested in staying home rather than voting.

As I said earlier, Obama will be re-elected. It will not be pretty, and will not have the charismatic elements his first election did, but he will get back in.

[Xiahou]

As I said earlier, Obama will be re-elected. It will not be pretty, and will not have the charismatic elements his first election did, but he will get back in.

I'm curious why you think so. I think it'd be pretty unprecedented for a president to win reelection with numbers like his are now. I think the economy would have to make a major turnaround before the election for Obama to be a lock. If things stay as they are now or get worse (which is a fair possibility), I think the odds are against Obama. I think any of the top tier GOP candidates right now have a pretty good chance to win.

I wish I could find a more updated version of this poll, but it's hard to imagine the numbers got any better for Obama since last year....

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Obama will lose and it won't even be close.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Obama will lose and it won't even be close.

How can you say that without knowing who he will be up against?

No-one even knows what policies will be put forward. I realise that personalities play the biggest part in presidential elections, but doesn't anyone want to see an actual manifesto before deciding?

[slashandburn]

Xiahou: (I stole time on my son's account; this is Seamus talking)

The basic issue I have is that NONE of the GOP top tier are top tier. Obama, as a campaigner, is. He comes with some huge inbuilt advantages (Commanding leads in the Black and Hispanic blocs in all of the major urban areas) and all of the "moderates" who went for him last time have to actively vote AGAINST the first black president. Some of them will simply not be able to do so -- just as my father couldn't vote against the first Irish Catholic nominee in 1960 even though he truly believed Nixon was the better choice for President. So, ultimately, I simply do not think the 39% approval rate is going to hurt Obama a whole lot more than the 20% approval of Congress hurts the Congressional incumbents.

So, to counter that, the GOP would need a candidate who could dynamically and POSITIVELY argue for conservatism, emphasizing the small government/fiscally responsible elements while quietly representing family values issues. Instead, we have a choice between strident conservatives and glib progressives who won't motivate enough of the base. Obama then wins. It'll be ugly and concentrated in big vote urban states and much more like a Clinton win then his last one, but I think he will squeek back in.

[gaelic cowboy]

Xiahou: (I stole time on my son's account; this is Seamus talking)

The basic issue I have is that NONE of the GOP top tier are top tier. Obama, as a campaigner, is. He comes with some huge inbuilt advantages (Commanding leads in the Black and Hispanic blocs in all of the major urban areas) and all of the "moderates" who went for him last time have to actively vote AGAINST the first black president. Some of them will simply not be able to do so -- just as my father couldn't vote against the first Irish Catholic nominee in 1960 even though he truly believed Nixon was the better choice for President. So, ultimately, I simply do not think the 39% approval rate is going to hurt Obama a whole lot more than the 20% approval of Congress hurts the Congressional incumbents.

So, to counter that, the GOP would need a candidate who could dynamically and POSITIVELY argue for conservatism, emphasizing the small government/fiscally responsible elements while quietly representing family values issues. Instead, we have a choice between strident conservatives and glib progressives who won't motivate enough of the base. Obama then wins. It'll be ugly and concentrated in big vote urban states and much more like a Clinton win then his last one, but I think he will squeek back in.

indeed

[Hosakawa Tito]

How can you say that without knowing who he will be up against?

No-one even knows what policies will be put forward. I realise that personalities play the biggest part in presidential elections, but doesn't anyone want to see an actual manifesto before deciding?

Where to start?
1. Jobless rate too high: With the latest Labor Department report showing the unemployment rate at 9.1%, jobs will likely remain the No. 1 issue for voters. Well over 2 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, and he wasted a trillion dollars on a stimulus bill that didn’t stimulate. Remember those "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs, the ones he admitted weren't as shovel ready as proclaimed? The money got spent, but not on infrastructure. Unfortunately for the American people, his policies will keep the jobless rate high, right up to November 2012.
2. Economy in doldrums: It’s not just jobs, but everything about the economy remains snake-bit. With housing slumping and the stock market tanking, all Americans are feeling the impact of the down economy. With the threat of a double-dip recession looming, don’t expect a turnaround in time to help Obama’s reelection.
3. ObamaCare looms: With health care costs continuing to rise *costs were supposed to be contained, remember?*, it is clear that ObamaCare wasn’t the answer. As the implementation of the highly unpopular health care measure nears, more workers will be dumped from their employers' health care plans, taxes will rise and fewer doctors will be available—giving voters more reasons to dump its architect. If the universal health care is so critical why are the costs upfront and the healthcare not available till 2014?
4. Out-of-control debt and credit downgrade: The debt-ceiling deal did little to fix the long-term debt problem, as the U.S. is still on tap to borrow $7 trillion over the next decade, adding to the $4 trillion Obama has already racked up since taking office. With the S&P downgrade, Obama goes down in history as the first President to lose America’s AAA credit rating.
5. Depressed base: Progressives are having buyer’s remorse and are trying to convince everyone that Obama is not even much of a liberal. The anti-war left certainly won’t be out in force on Election Day. Nor will black turnout match 2008’s historical number. More of the young will stay home. The excitement of electing the first black President has worn off and even his staunchest supporters are disappointed that Obama hasn’t fulfilled their expectations.
6. Opposition energized: The Tea Party didn’t even exist in 2008, and the 2010 midterm elections showed the country rejects the President’s big-spending policies. No matter which Republican gains the party’s nomination, expect an energized grassroots opposition to Obama’s second term.


7. Changes in battleground states: The terrain that Obama faces in his reelection bid will be more difficult to navigate in 2012 than four years ago. He starts out by losing six Electoral College votes from states he carried in 2008 due to population changes registered by the 2010 Census. Then the 2010 midterm elections saw Republicans win governors’ races previously held by Democrats in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan—all states Obama won in 2008.


8. Foreign policy mess: From the Libyan war to mixed signals given to Middle East protesters, from the Russian “reset” to China’s economic belligerence, there is not much that Obama can tout as a foreign policy success. Now with deficit hawks setting their sights on the Pentagon, Obama is likely to preside over the dismantling of America’s superpower status.
9. Media less a adoring: Obama will still have most of the media on his side for his reelection bid, but they certainly won’t be getting thrills up their legs, admiring the crease in his pants, or writing how the seagulls were awed. Even Obamaphile Chris Mathhews has turned on the President, saying a recent Obama speech sounded like a Fox News commercial, a harsh epithet coming from the MSNBC host.
10. Aloof, inept: Now that America has seen the President up close for nearly three years, the magic that many believed in during his hope and change odyssey is clearly gone. His aloof personality and scolding partisanship will not endear him to the electorate this time. As his falling approval ratings attest, he increasingly looks pathetically inept and not up to the job he was elected to do. He's a community organizer, not an effective leader. He has no real understanding of economics or finance. As a result he deferred to the "experts," who just happened to be Wall Street cronies and insiders who easily swayed the President with their hobgoblin stories of financial meltdown and ruin if we didn't "save the banking sector from losses."

Obama has no positive record to run on. His only viable option will be character assassination and blaming others, that won't fly well this time around. People vote their pocketbook. This shrinking economy and lack of jobs, coupled with rising inflation and stagnate wages for many will ensure he's a one term president.

[PanzerJaeger]

IMHO, it could go either way at this point. IIRC, compared to the resurgence in late '83 and '84, time is quickly running out for an Obama 'Morning in America' type economic rebound. However, as Lemur has pointed out in the past, he is still tracking closely with Reagan in the polls and far higher than Carter was.

What is really surprising is the lack of quality GOP candidates to either come forward or gain popularity with the base. There are plenty out there with great records and non-controversial personas. And yet, the party seems hell bent on nominating the most strident figure possible. As a governor, Rick Perry automatically has more credibility than congresswoman Bachmann, but he's just as flawed. His record has already been taken apart, he cannot keep his mouth shut, and his time in Texas promises an endless stream of negative stories that will undoubtedly intensify if he becomes the nominee.

If things continue to stagnate and the negative atmosphere persists, pretty much any candidate will have a decent shot against Obama, but does anyone really think Perry will play well in the suburbs of Columbus or Philadelphia? All the GOP needs is a vanilla candidate with a solid record (Daniels, Thune, Pawlenty) to contrast to what many see as a failed gamble on a glib but inexperienced first term senator. What the GOP wants, however, seems to be a candidate with just as many liabilities.

[Strike For The South]

I would not vote for Perry if you put a gun to my head

The man has alienated an entire generation of Texans

Bush is Marx next to Perry, a GOB to the freaking core.

Rick Perry is what George Bush wanted to be while he was on daddies yacht in cape cod

[aimlesswanderer]

What the GOP wants, however, seems to be a candidate with just as many liabilities.

The process of selecting candidates in Australia is very different and has its own problems, but the primary system in the US seems tailor made to produce extreme candidates who have to play to the party's hard core base during the primary, then rapidly 'moderate' themselves (not always possible if they're too extreme it seems) into the middle during the actual election.

And I think that having voting as optional means that the candidates can pander hard to their bases and mostly ignore roughly half the electorate, who don't vote. I know a lot of people here don't follow politics, and vote based on some extremely non rational criteria, but I think the process is less extreme and more inclusive if the politicians do have to pay at least some attention to all voters.

And seriously, Bachman a potential president? How she could possibly be even considered to be a serious candidate boggles the mind of nearly every non American who even vaguely follows what goes on over there.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So, which of the fiscal conservatives apparently seeking the GOP nomination will be the first to guarantee there will be no more pointless wars that run up huge debt mountains but also waste billions because non-one can be bothered to exercise effective procurement principles?

Waste in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted through poor planning, vague and shifting requirements, inadequate competition, substandard contract management and oversight, lax accountability, weak inter-agency co-ordination, and subpar performance or outright misconduct by some contractors and federal employees. Both government and contractors need to do better," they said.

Examples of waste in the report included $40m of US money to finance a prison Iraq did not want and that was not completed, and more than $300m on a power plant in Kabul "that requires funding and technical expertise beyond the Afghan government's capabilities".

In a separate report, released on Monday, the independent Centre for Public Integrity thinktank said $140bn in defence contracts were awarded without competitive tendering last year – almost triple the sum in 2001.

One always considered that a prudent conservative, committed to small government, would include the military in this and shy from war (since it's always expensive and entirely down to government). In the same way as I have never understood how 'small government' conservatives are invariably also the people keen that government does interfere in people's social activities.

From what I gather, this is largely Ron Paul's general position? And he has no chance?