Considering that we’re coming to the fruition of a multiple-decade plan, and that the GOP is getting most of what it wants, including the anti abortion shit, you’d thnk there would be a better plan in place.

I honestly don’t give a shit about who the GOP runs for President.  Sure, one is supposed to be religious while the other is supposed to be a political wonk and the third is a charismatic adonis capable of prettying himself to electoral victory.  Their policies will be the same.

George Bush was a total rubber stamp for the Delay/Hastert political machine between ‘02 and ‘05.  His administration had planned war in the Middle East a decade beforehand.  Would President McCain have been any different?  President Dole?  President Gingrich?  I think not.

It’s not the GOP’s candidates that are the problem.  It’s their policies.  Their policies are what tie Pawlenty in knots and make Romney unelectable and make Sarah Palin a front runner.  Republican voters aren’t in the political mainstream, and they don’t even want the facade of moderation anymore.  Anyone the base selects will be unpalatable to the general electorate.  Anyone the moderates pick will be unpalatable to the base.  It is impossible to have a “good” candidate, given this massive divide in opinion.  You’re either reasonable but weak or crazy popular.  Until the base is willing to pick moderate sounding politicians again, your candidate selection will remain terrible.

The 2012 Presidential Election is going to be the Reid/Angle race on a national scale the way things are going.

The 2012 Presidential Election is going to be the Reid/Angle race on a national scale the way things are going.

I think that’s totally spot on. Obama will most likely get re-elected next year, but not because he’s wildly popular - he isn’t. He’ll get re-elected because a huge chunk of centrist voters will say to themselves, “Yeah, Obama kinda sucks, but there’s no way in hell I’m gonna let his whackjob opponent anywhere near the nuclear football.”

One difference in this scenario vs. Reid/Angle though is that, regardless of how good at governing you think Obama is, he *is* a very very good campaigner. Reid was/is not (at least, except for behind the scenes where he does organize pretty well.)

One difference in this scenario vs. Reid/Angle though is that, regardless of how good at governing you think Obama is, he *is* a very very good campaigner. Reid was/is not (at least, except for behind the scenes where he does organize pretty well.)

True. And to be fair, barring the “no chance in hell this will happen” nomination of Michele Bachmann, it’s unlikely that the GOP nominee is going to be as catastrophically bad as Sharon Angle, which is where Obama’s superior campaigning ability to Reid will be able to compensate.

#2 seems on the money.

But remember where GHW Bush was in ‘91 - riding high on Desert Storm. It’s almost hard to imagine a scenario where Mitt Romney wins, but I think the primary might be his to lose.

Lots of bad stuff could happen, but Obama’s crazy streak of luck will probably hold out - and the economy will probably not go double dip. Objectively, October 2012 will probably be worse than October 2000 in terms of unemployment or gas prices, but it will be better than 2011 so Obama gets a pass.

I said two year ago that it will be Romney, and I’m sticking with it. Yeah, he’s a Mormon, but he’s also going to have the most well-funded and best organized campaign among the Repubes. And when the party base doesn’t have a true rockstar to gravitate towards, they go with the retread who didn’t quite win the nomination last time around. Aside from George W. Bush in 2000, every GOP nominee since Goldwater has been a guy who had already run for POTUS once before.

That’s why Romney squeaks by to snag the nomination. He’ll lose Iowa and South Carolina - probably badly - but he’ll take New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, and the GOP race will be effectively over by mid-February, just as it was in 2008. There may be a few hangers-on beyond then (ala Huckabee and Paul in 2008), but after the first Super Tuesday in February, it will be pretty clear that Mittens is gonna be on the ballot next November.

Objectively, October 2012 will probably be worse than October 2000 in terms of unemployment or gas prices, but it will be better than 2011 so Obama gets a pass.

Whats more, there’s no way barring some really semi-apocalyptic international event (something along the lines of the US and China getting into a shooting war over Taiwan, or North Korea nuking Seoul)  that the economy in late 2012 is worse than in the first quarter of 2009, when Obama took office.

People tend to judge the President not on how objectively good the economy is during the re-election year, but if it is better or worse than it was when the President was first elected. This is why FDR could get re-elected in 1936 even though the depression wasn’t over, and why George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 even though the ‘91 recession was fairly mild.

As to the comparison to Angle, true, but I think Mitt Romney could be almost as bad as Angle, in a different sort of way. I can’t quite put it into words, but you’ll get what I mean after watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

@DTG

What about Huntsman splitting the Mormon vote out west (esp. Nevada?) Sometimes I think Huntsman is running not only to set himself up for 2016, but to spite Romney by splitting his base. They don’t like each other personally from what I’ve heard.

Whats more, there’s no way barring some really semi-apocalyptic international event (something along the lines of the US and China getting into a shooting war over Taiwan, or North Korea nuking Seoul)  that the economy in late 2012 is worse than in the first quarter of 2009, when Obama took office.

Depends on what metric you’re using. Unemployment in November 2012 is almost certainly going to be worse than it was in 1Q 2009 (7.6%). The jobless number is getting better, but it’s still a lot worse today than it was when Obama first took office. I don’t think that’s his fault, since the full unemployment fallout from the economic apocalypse of 2008 didn’t really hit until late in 2009, but the fact is, more Americans will probably be out of work when Obama is up for re-election on November 6, 2012 than when he first took office on January 20, 2009.

What about Huntsman splitting the Mormon vote out west (esp. Nevada?) Sometimes I think Huntsman is running not only to set himself up for 2016, but to spite Romney by splitting his base. They don’t like each other personally from what I’ve heard.

Don’t think it will be much of a factor, because Romney will already be so far ahead by the time those states vote that it won’t really matter much anymore. The only early state where it might matter is Nevada, but even there, Huntsman’s biggest problem will probably be “Who the hell is Jon Huntsman?”

My guess is that presently fewer than 1 out of 20 American citizens could even tell you who Jon Huntsman is if they were asked. Obviously that will improve by the time the primaries get going, but right now, the thing that Huntsman is most well-known for (among the tiny group who even knows who he is) is the fact that he was President Obama’s Ambassador to China. Not a great selling point to the GOP base.

As shallow as this is, I think one of the biggest points in Romney’s favor is that the guy is the epitome of the stereotypical Hollywood president. He physically looks like someone who would be cast as the president in major motion picture. The guy is as fake as a three dollar bill, but he very much looks the part of president.

I mean as far as economic growth and monthly jobs reports. No way in hell we go back to losing 600,000 jobs in late 2012 and the economy contracting at a rate of 6.2% unless one of those things I listed or something similar happens.

I don’t understand why he doesn’t help the dim-witted little ladies out by putting abortion coverage on all of our plans.

Oh, shit, wrong thread.

I know it’s crazy, but I kinda think we can see a Herman Cane insurgency. He’s selling “I’m a businessman, barooooo” (yes, I imagine Cane punctuating his speeches with beagle noises) and a chance for the mushy among Republicans to feel not-racist. Which isn’t much, but these are Republican primary voters who might get it into their heads that it’s better to vote for one of the high priests of business himself than just one of those priests’ toadies. I know it’s crazy, but I can’t shake the idea that it could happen.

I’m not ruling out the possibility of a split in the Republicans, with the rise of an actual “Tea Party” third party candidate - especially if Romney moves into a solid frontrunner position. That would depend on the Tea Party actually being (or becoming) a grass roots movement and not a cover for a privately funded effort to keep people voting Republican.

I really don’t think that Romney is going to be able to overcome the wingnut base’s knee-jerk to his religion, and it’s inconceivable that some of his primary opponents aren’t going to use is policies in Massachusetts against him, probably viciously.

There are enough batshit republicans for a third party split to affect the GOP vote, but it won’t do anything other than make a few Red states look a more purple than they actually are. The Electoral Vote is still going to be decided in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and maybe someplace like Colorado. Obama probably needs only one of those four, and the Social Security stuff probably moved Pennsylvania into the Dem column.

The GOP could still nominate someone other than Romney, but won’t. There’s plenty of time, but not much momentum or ideas coming from the GOP other than antipathy for a health law that they don’t understand, antipathy for a war they started and is coming to an end, antipathy for a debt they made and isn’t going away much, antipathy for the low taxes we have, and antipathy for Obama. Of those, only the Obama stuff has much traction. The Social Security and anti-women bills aren’t helping either, though they aren’t hurting them much in their insular worlds. Yet. They won’t figure it out in time.

And it doesn’t help the GOP that Tim Pawlenty makes Paul Tsongas (currently deaceased) seem like the guy from the Dos Equis ads.

There are enough batshit republicans for a third party split to affect the GOP vote, but it won’t do anything other than make a few Red states look a more purple than they actually are. The Electoral Vote is still going to be decided in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and maybe someplace like Colorado. Obama probably needs only one of those four, and the Social Security stuff probably moved Pennsylvania into the Dem column.

Pennsylvania has only been a swing state in the last two decades as the industrialized western side of the state lost industry and residents.  The pollsters insist that Western PA is growing redder when in reality it is reflecting a loss of citizenry.  Of course Pittsburgh and the surrounding Metro is growing blue-er which somewhat ironically offsets the whole situation.  But basically if Philadelphia and Pittsburgh turn out the dems win this state with ease.  Toomey was running against a great candidate but the top of the ticket Governor’s race was against a highly popular centerist AG who went batshit tea party crazy once he won against a barely liked political hack from Pittsburgh.  It was a bad candidate to draw out eastern voters against a fairly likable centerist AG. 

But I digress….The 2012 election is really a referendum on where the Republican party is going.  They have no real shining stars except for Mark Rubio who anybody reasonable would hate but he has his following in Florida.  Most of the governor’s are tarnished or going to be voted out soon.  Christie has some clout but already people are growing tired of his “lets cut taxes and break unions!” approach.  If 2012 comes out as a land slide for the democrats it will be a back breaker for the tea party.  They’ll push further right as a response from Fox undoubtedly but that will only push them further into a regional party.

The only really interesting candidate that may emerge in 2016 for republicans would be Jeb Bush.  He could win the nomination but lose the election.  But it would be entertaining to watch him crash and burn.

I think Sarah Palin will make a third-party run so she can do Facebook and Twitter rather than debates.  And I’m loving it that the Republicans are spinning the loss of the NY Congressional seat as, not a response to the Ryan Medicare plan, but the unusual factor of a tea-party third candidate.  All these guys, including Boehner and Cantor, will have a tea party opponent, so they should worry.

How is Huckabee not conservative enough? He’s as right-wing as they come—practically a theocrat. But his nasty habit of pardoning killers-to-be made the nomination all but impossible.

DTGslu2K @ 8: I don’t know that he’ll take NH.  A bunch of people there (GOP people specifically) act like he’s a carpet bagger to MA for whence many of them fled north.  They have baffled me with their choices before though.  (I live literally walking distance from the MA/NH border.)

Bitter scribe:
Huckabee is a batshit crazy social conservative, but he seems to actually believe the “feed the poor and clothe the poor” song and dance enough to raise taxes (at least enough to get them to be good little churchgoing peons and as long as they pop out kids everytime they have a tumble).