The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@parados,

But I didn't ask for such details at all. Instead I demonstrated that the pattern of his key actions in office demonstrates the validity of my point.

There are always some contradictions to useful generalizations. Your mastery of such irellevant detailand equally impressive ability to miss the point under discussion is already well established. Why add to it?

0 Replies

Whoever the GOP picks, moderate or ideologue, they won't be running against the torch carrier of liberalism. Obama has demonstrated he is anything but.

The reason Obama's liberal purity was even brought up was because of the idea that the GOP seems to prefer purity over ability. Since this was agreed on can we move forward? Why just GOP, George? Does it matter? Even if it also was the Democrats, we're discussing the Republican nomination for 2012. So if the dems do it or not really isn't a factor. The fact the the GOP does, is of significance.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

From ehBeth's post:

Quote:

The Republican race is starting slowly for the very reason that it is so full of uncertainty, with more questions than answers about the field. What that means, for now, is that everyone can be a dreamer.

I agree 100%.

0 Replies

Roll Call wrote:

When Talk Radio Talks, Congress Listens

By Christina Bellantoni
Roll Call Staff
Jan. 24, 2011, Midnight

Welcome to Congress in the echo-chamber age, where outside influencers have an increasing sway on how Members shape their agenda.
At a time when Rush Limbaugh reaches as many people as vote in Florida and California combined, and when Jon Stewart can draw several hundred thousand people to the nation’s capital, these outsized personalities based far outside the Beltway have become as much a part of Washington’s political ecosystem as the lawmakers themselves.
This phenomenon was most prominent during the long health care debate but has been seen again vividly in the weeks following the Tucson, Ariz., shootings, during the Republican transfer of power and as President Barack Obama prepares his budget.
With Members taking cues from the echo chamber as well as their party leadership, it’s changed the way business gets done. Limbaugh and Fox News hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity can mobilize more voters than any press release or floor speech, so Members find themselves needing to be responsive or face their wrath.
A Republican strategist and former top Republican National Committee aide told Roll Call that Members have one of two reactions when constituents start a message with “I just heard on Rush today ...” — “joy and panic.”

Full article

This doesn't really say much for who gets elected, but does speak to how freshly elected GOP are going to have to address their own media. This may have an impact on the more populist conservatives come 2012 in terms of who gets the benefit of their assistance in mobilization and who is perceived as ideologically impure.

A
R
T

0 Replies

I like Cain.

HERMAN CAIN EMBARRASSING BILL CLINTON

0 Replies

Here's a discussion that includes Angle, Barbour, Christie, Daniels, Demint, Gingrich, Palin, Pence and Romney.

Quote:

“Instead of relying solely on ambivalence as the motivating favor behind their public hesitation, leading presidential prospects are also admitting some of the strategy involved,” The Hill observes. “Four top prospects have admitted to some of the truest dangers of going early — financial burn rate, overexposure, and turning into a sitting duck.”

0 Replies

CNN is reporting that Representative Mike Pence (Indiana) will announce that he not be running for President.
He has some vocal supporters but he would face some formidable obstacles, including, lack of: money, name recognition, a resume.
He won his recent House race by a 2-1 margin.
He is 51 years old and might fair better if he ran in 2012 or, in 2016 if Obama wins.
In addition, Republican Governor Mitch Daniels is term-limited (and may be considering a Presidential run himself). Lt Gov Becky Skillman (R) has indicated that she will not run for Gov.
It seems to me to be a good move for Pence.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

It is interesting that so few Republicans have openly declared their candidacy. I can understand the reluctance to be first - it raises campaign costs and makes one a solo target for a while. However, I wonder if many are not giving Obama a pass for 2012 and waiting for easier pickings in 2016.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Isn't Michele Bachmann waiting in the wings?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

But where is she looking?

0 Replies

Georgeob: I commented early on that I thought someone would formally declare before the end of January. My thinking was that, with a potentially crowded field, they would need to lock up the advisers and some early money, etc.
I was wrong about that, obviously, as were some media pundits. Some of the potential candidates have lucrative day jobs as talk show hosts. Others are afraid of burning through money and getting "campaign fatigue."
I disagree about the notion of not wanting to challenge Obama in 2012. I think there are some viable Repubs out there who will come forth.
If I were a Republican, which I am not, I would be terrified of the party splintering into right-wing vs more centrist factions.
Someone needs to step forward who can unite the party. I am not sure who that might be.
Which is kind of why this sleepy thread got started.
Thanks for following along.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Good surmise: I don't feel confident about the answer either. I think the SOU speech made it clear that Obama is going to play rope-a-dope with the Republican Congress, hoping for some overreach or a misstep on their part. It is always easier rhetorically to be for something (i.e. "investment programs" ) than against it (i.e. government spending). With the potential for the Republican House to be outmaneuvered by the President (as in 1993) it is possible that the candidates are holding back to see what plays out.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Georgeob: I commented early on that I thought someone would formally declare before the end of January. My thinking was that, with a potentially crowded field, they would need to lock up the advisers and some early money, etc.
I was wrong about that, obviously, as were some media pundits.
...........................................
If I were a Republican, which I am not, I would be terrified of the party splintering into right-wing vs more centrist factions.
Someone needs to step forward who can unite the party. I am not sure who that might be. ....

You were wrong, as were the unnamed pundits, because of the second part in your post - you care nothing about the Republican Party, let alone take the time and effort to advise a potential candidate (full disclosure, I am; pro bono). Therefore you're mistaken on what anyone in the party "needs to" do.

Not that I attribute bad faith to you, or any wish to cause harm to the country, but since you know next to nothing on your topic I can tell you (since I've not named my supported candidate) that nobody will step forth and not for the flaky reasons listed in any linked article on this thread.

"Core" inflation, i.e. excluding housing, energy, and other everyday items most people must buy, is a mirage invented back in the '70s to conceal sharp rises in petroleum prices. Inflation is quietly building up and will explode the moment QE3 gets underway, and the plan is to inflate the debt to extinction.

Printing money hasn't helped in the 2001 downturn, it won't help this time either. This is the worst downturn since the great depression:

http://cr4re.com/charts/chart-images/PercentJobLossesDec2010.jpg

Obama's fine words about highways populated by electric vehicles (powered by coal-generated energy!) and suchlike fantasies will get nowhere because jobs aren't coming back with fantasies. People are truly suffering out there, and unless things improve soon (not likely) the field is wide-open for a challenger. There is a time and a place for such a move; someone will announce without splitting the Republican Party. Thanks for your concern Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

This is the worst downturn since the great depression:

Obamanomics is the reason.

0 Replies

I do read articles from pundits ranging from the far left to far right. My comment about what I see as a potential split in the Republican party was based in part of these quotes:
"I predict that unless Republicans act in response to the American people, they will reject Republicans...(and) I think you will see an emergence of a 3rd party."
------------------------------------------
"Why not a 3rd party?
------------------------------------------
"If we do not govern according to our principles...I think there will be a 3rd party in this country."

John McCain, Sarah Palin and John Thune, respectively.

Your chart was interesting although I am not sure why it wasn't posted on the economy or Obama threads. This thread, as noted in the title and the intro is about potential Republican candidates for President in 2012.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Intertesting comment about a 3rd party. It is worth recalling that Bill Clinton defeated G. H. W. Bush with a plurality after a split in the Republican Party under Ross Perot over roughly analogous issues. I suspect everyone involved is very mindful of that event and the cost they paid for it, but what may yet unfold is still uncertain.

Alternatively, Obama appears (to me) to be behaving in a way that will likely keep the Republicans united.

It's going to stay interesting.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

My chart has no connection with any 3rd party - which I find extremely implausible. It simply addresses the logistics of solving our national economic problem. Even Democrats realize that baptizing "stimulus" with a new name "investment" still means "red ink rising". The federal government is running out of money on March 4th unless the House votes to continue funding it. How the cuts are handled, and how the unemployment rate will respond, will determine the Republican economic position down the road.

No credible Republican will declare before March 4. Hope now you know why your prediction someone would have done so weeks ago was wrong.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

March 4th or later could be correct.
When Mysteryman and I set this up, we tried to list every candidate we could find as having been mentioned. We deliberately decided not to winnow out anyone we might think of as implausible. There were, I believe, around 2 dozen names.
Would you be willing to speculate as to who you think are likely and viable candidates at this juncture?
Thanks.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Thank you very much, but as I'm advising a specific candidate it wouldn't be proper for me to speculate on others. Hasten to add I only advise on economic and financial matters (foreign and domestic), not politics. On those - as you know, but others on thread may not - I listen to Ed Rollins.

I'd like to contribute to your thread, since I learn a lot from it, so I'll post his list of 20 rules for political campaigns (# 6,7 now include internet):

Quote:

1. Always fire first.
2. Always assume that your candidate hasn't told you everything and that what he hasn't told you will leak out.
3. If your candidate says, "Don't worry, I can raise the money," worry -- and demand to be paid up front
4. The most important hire is your candidate's press secretary.
5. Define your candidate before your opponent does it for you.
6. If it's not on television, it barely matters.
7. An attack made on television must be responded to on television
8. Don't let the polls drive you nuts. And if you don't believe the numbers, order a new poll.
9. In boxing you must win the rounds; in campaigns you must win the weeks.
10. Election day is the ultimate deadline: a day lost is gone forever.
11. Campaigns aren't democracies; don't be afraid to ignore all committees and rule like a petty tyrant.
12. Don't tell your candidate what to believe; tell him how to say it.
13. If your candidate doesn't believe in anything, don't do the campaign; he's going to lose.
14. If you candidate doesn't listen to you, quit: he's a goner.
15. Never let your candidate go on vacation in the middle of the campaign; it's an invitation to disaster.
16. Never let your candidate control the spending -- especially if it’s his own money.
17. Never let your candidate sit in the headquarters. Don't give him an office -- don't even give him a chair.
18. Be the first and last person your candidate talks to every day.
19. If you think things can't get worse, relax; they can and they will
20. Never get into a pissing match with the person or persons who sleep with your candidate.

Edit: the Economist's take on the State of the Union speech: http://www.economist.com/node/18010469?story_id=18010469&fsrc=nwl

1 Reply

@High Seas,

The Economist's take on the speech, and the current situation in DC is somewhat Old Hat.

The deficit hawks in the Republican party know full well that discretionary spending cuts around the edges are not enough.

The issue is one of politics not economics.

The conventional wisdom is that specifically broaching the subject of entitlement cuts is political suicide.

One way or the other the subject will have to be broached because the entitlement programs are unsustainable.

It's fairly axiomatic that large problems don't get seriously addressed until they are large catastrophes.

I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans and even some Democrats who want to address the large problem of entitlements, but few, if any, are willing to sacrifice their careers or the chances of their party to gain or retain the White House, to get the ball rolling.

So we witness this game of Chicken being played out.

The Republicans learned in the 90's that they can get all of the blame and none of the credit for reforms, and it seems clear that they do not intend to repeat that performance.

I suppose they will try and manuever the president and Democrats into addressing entitlements, but it won't work.

The only chance for the matter to be dealt with as a problem rather than a crisis is for the Republicans to win the White House and Senate in 2012, and even then I doubt that, individually, they will have the stomach for stepping on the third rail of American politics.

Maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong though.

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know