I love american politics. It's like Canadian politics except with REALLY stupid people.

For once, I might have to agree with mapleleaf...

Really?

You mean you're not going to REFUDIATE my remark?

No, and I won't REPUTIATE it, either...

but you WILL repudiate it

huckabee is baptist not mormon.

christian fundies != mormons

they have a lot in common mind you

"Ron Paul's a joke"

lol no

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pXaK30qNBM

Your next President......

"Huckabee comes across as FAR too religiously-influenced (I don't mind his being a Mormon"

He is not a Mormon. Romney is the Mormon. Which is precisely why Romney will probably get the nomination.

If the GOP can find a good presidential candidate, they will kick some (pun intended) ass in 2012. If not, someone like Palin or Huckabee will get annihilated by Barack Obama.

The 2012 Republican primary is going to be very interesting. I can't wait to see who gets selected.

*will probably NOT get the nomination*

Too many Evangelical Christians in the GOP for a Mormon to have a shot at the presidency.

Oh, and for the uninformed (obiwan), as Thucy points out, Huckabee is Baptist, not Mormon. But you know who is Mormon? Mitt Romney - the guy you said you could see yourself possibly supporting. Geez, obi. Get informed before your spout your shit out. C'mon, man!

@Eden:

Oh........*EPIC facepalm!*

I go in for the typo-joke and hit the wrong key myself, that's like picking up a fumble and fumbling the ball yourself in mid-spring to the endzone... XD

And yeh, I did mix up Romney and Huckabee with the Baptist/Mormon thing (I was clearly too jittery about the Ducks/Preds game, a ton of errors in that initial post...I'm not uniformed, Draugnar, just wasn't all that focused I guess when I posted, which is it's own breed of failure, really...)

obiwanobiwan, almost every Republican politician you say you loathe either can't win or aren't running.

Newt Gingrich was having an affair during the impeachment of Bill Clinton (which was actually about perjury but such a distinction is lost on virtually everyone). He divorced one of his wives while she was in the hospital with cancer. He was forced out as Speaker by House Republicans in disgrace in 1999, and didn't even take the seat he was reelected to in the 1998 election. He toyed with running in 2008 and it was just a ploy to sell more books. A similar thing is probably happening now, although I'd guess he also wants a TV show out of this attention too, ala Mike Huckabee.

Speaking of Huckabee, he won't win since he's making too much money at Fox. The guy's got a nice life going outside of government, why give that up for a grueling run for the nomination and general election, let alone the burdens of the presidency? Not to mention that his populist, big-government conservatism would make him an easy target for other potential candidates. He's not running. Huckabee wants to be happy, not president.

Sarah Palin is not running. For one thing, she has approvals in the 30s nationwide and not a great deal better among Republicans. Over the past few months her political influence has declined precipitously as everyone serious realizes that her Mama Grizzly intervention in the 2010 election probably cost the GOP what should have been easy pickups in the Senate (DE, NV, etc). Her insistence to air feuds with bloggers on TV and a general immaturity when it comes to the contact sport of politics has shown her to be totally unprepared to be President of the United States.

And just think of this. If she runs and wins the nomination and loses to Obama she would lose any influence she still has left. If she were politically smart she'd not run and be content with being a Conservative Godmother. So she won't run. By doing so she'd lose more than the nomination or the election, she'd lose being relevant.

Ron Paul is not a joke. Most of what he said during the debates in 2008 is now accepted as virtually mainstream. I agree he can't win and takes his libertarianism to absurd areas sometimes, but the guy's serious and is willing to face this country's problems. Integrity ought to count for something.

Romney won't get the nomination because of Romneycare. Or at least, he won't get the nomination unless he raises so much money that he can outlast and outspend anybody else. But can he really hope to raise so much with that albatross around his neck? The fact that he's not running away with it now doesn't bode well for him.

You've forgotten Pawlenty, who is everybody's second choice and I think is probably the one a lot of people will settle on.

If Mitch Daniels runs he could do very well, assuming people get a chance to listen to him. He's a Republican governor who won reelection in Indiana as Obama carried it in 2008, balanced the state budget, raised taxes AND cut spending, and has both Washington insider and outsider credentials. If you look into this guy there's very little not to like, but also not too much to compare with Obama's ability to speak and spin.

I would say only Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels would have a realistic shot at the nomination. But even if Republicans don't take the White House, the seats up in 2012 for the Senate all but guarantee a GOP majority and the House is unlikely to change as well. You might see Obama reelected with a smaller majority in 2012, but you will not see a repeat of his social and economic policies in the new term.

Pawlenty and Daniels are too reasonable for the fire-breathing base.

That's the issue.

I think Romney, Pawlenty or Daniels will get it, but the one who gets it will be the one who sells out their values the most.

Remember when McCain was a maverick? Seems like a long time ago now...

That's not really fair to make a blanket statement about the base being fire-eaters. I mean, if that were true Sarah Palin would actually have a serious shot at the nomination.

I agree Romney would have to sell out considerably to get people to forget Obamacare Senior, also known as Romneycare, but the other two might not have to. Both have shown a great deal of integrity in running their states and it might be a good idea for them to keep that going. I think I read somewhere Daniels has never even aired an attack ad. Ever. These two are decent men who sincerely believe this country is at the brink of a terrible crisis, and if they can outlast Romney and don't get bogged down by their deeply flawed peers in the primaries I think either of them could give Obama a real competition. And even if they lose a race with Pawlenty or Daniels (or, perhaps, both) would structure the debate around actually addressing our debt crisis. If even in winning Obama is forced to concede on entitlement reform it would be worth it.

McCain was never a maverick, he's always been an opportunist. A true American hero who would have made a good president, but a man who values consensus over results.

no man theyre not stupid, just idiotically extreme.

the definition of a partisan base is fire breathers.

take it or leave it. lol. if you're not, if you're level-headed etc you are a moderate as a matter of course.

and pawlenty and daniels aren't extremists. that's the point i'm making.

if you're reasonable and have integrity and actually care about solving problems you are by definition a compromiser and moderate, which is something the partisan base hates by definition.

thus i dont think any three of them can take the nomination..

unless as i said they give up on their values and basically morph into your classic base grabber.

but then all the independent appeal those three men would vanish.

i would consider voting for daniels. but in a world where he gets the nomination, obama will likely have won my vote by then.

by being more centrist i mean

I agree with Invictus on how Gingrich, Huckabee, and Palin will never get the nomination in this lifetime, but I don't the other candidates he listed have a realistic chance either. If the GOP picks someone too moderate, they risk losing the Tea Party/Libertarian base and splitting the party, which would give the mostly united Democrats a big opportunity. However, if they pick someone too radical, they risk losing swing voters and moderates.

Personally, I am watching Marco Rubio and Haley Barbour with interest. I just hope there is SOMEONE out there who's not a moderate pushover but not a psychotic Tea Partyer.

By that definition, Thucydides, William F. Buckley and Ted Kennedy were moderates. Just because a person takes a realistic approach to putting their ideas in practice doesn't mean they're "moderate." It means they're good.

And if you're thinking about voting for Obama OR Daniels you really don't understand one of them. Apart from both being pretty likable there's nothing politically similar about them at all. You should look into both of them more closely to see you who really agree with, because it is absolutely impossible to agree with both.

Gunfighter06, Marco Rubio will not run. He hasn't even been in the Senate six months, for goodness sakes. I suppose he could be a Vice Presidential possibility, and would be pretty strong if there's no Republican incumbent in 2016, but right now it's ridiculous to think he could actually be President of the United States, however good his ideas might sound. Let's be serious.

Haley Barbour is probably running, but also couldn't win the general election. Can you even imagine what the 2012 campaign would be like with Obama running against a fat Southern governor? He's definitely got a place in national politics and possibly in a future Republican administration, but Democrats are gonna wet themselves with joy if Boss Hogg is nominated.

"Democrats are gonna wet themselves with joy if Boss Hogg is nominated."

I had to laugh at that. I guess Haley Barbour is comparable to Boss Hogg. A close relative of mine is a legislative clerk and (s)he got the chance to me Haley Barbour. (S)he said that he is "definitely a good ol' boy"

Invictus + 1

@Invictus:

I just meant that Ron Paul was a joke insofar as he's become known somewhat for running and losing (not saying that's all he's known for, not at all, just something he's associated with.)

And I agree with whoever sabove said it--I can't see the GOP, so fiery and so determined to positively crush everything Obama and the Demmies have attempted in the last two and half years, going with a moderate candidate, I see a right-of-right-of-center candidate emerging, maybe not a Palin, but someone who's "Redder" than romney, so to speak? (And anyone else find it humorous ever that the GOP plays the socialist/communist card against Obama so often when THEY are represented by the color, Red, that was once associated with...) ;)

I mean, if I were to call Sean Hannity, Republican that he is, a RED...

I wouldn't be technically wrong there, would I? :p

If the Republicans are even remotely smart they'll get Paul nominated. You don't have to give a shit about losing the extremes because the extreme right won't vote for Obama. Paul would actually give the more social-issues-minded Democrats a viable alternative. No other Republican would. And I feel like Paul is the most likely candidate to pick up independent voters of *everyone* that's considering running or has already declared -- Republican or Democrat. At a minimum he can beat Obama with independents, which is more than soccer moms or Baptist preachers can say.

It would be worth Donald Trump getting the nomination just so this plays at the convention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74TFS8r_SMI

"And anyone else find it humorous ever that the GOP plays the socialist/communist card against Obama so often when THEY are represented by the color, Red, that was once associated with..." - Actually obi that only dates back to the 2000 election, which was the first year all the major broadcast networks in the states actually used the same colour scheme on election night. And then of course the 2000 election managed to stay in the public eye much longer than most, for some reason or another, and so the blue/red thing stuck, but really it's only a little more than 10 years old now. And yeah, because of that historical accident the US politics has ended up with a colour scheme that's backwards, when compared to virtually ever other English speaking democracy.

Ron Paul to win independents? Uh no Paul appeals only to a narrow conspiracy-minded crowd. His domestic policies are bonkers.

It points to the sad state of the Republican Party that they haven't even begun seriously fielding candidates yet. They had to cancel a debate because only Pawlenty was in the race at the time of the debate. Nobody wants to run against Obama, despite how unpopular they portray him to be. I'll enjoy the wingnut GOP primary. Going to be a circus and a half.

Anyone else enjoy Pawlenty's "speech to the youthsss" and his fake southern accent? ROFL. Yeah I'd say Pawlenty's selling out will make McCain's look almost principled by comparison.

Are you serious, Putin33? Everyone wants to run against Obama. The only national Republican figures who aren't are people like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio who were just elected to their positions. You've got Rick Santorum testing the waters, for goodness sakes.

As for seriousness, Romney and Pawlenty are both serious. The loons like Trump and Bachman are getting the attention because the other candidates have chosen not to have too large a profile while it's still, what, eight months till the caucuses? They probably canceled the debate because somebody had the bright idea that a presidential debate in the spring of 2011 is ludicrous for an election in the fall of 2012. We should be a year away from debates since all it would do is give the public an whole year for each candidate to expose real and fashioned flaws on their opponents, only helping the Democrats.

If things look like this in August I'll agree with you, but the fact that there's no leader or stand out candidates in the Republican party over a year out from a presidential election when they're the party out of power should surprise no one. Remember, Obama was seen as a stalking horse, VP nominee at best this time last cycle.

A lot of Republicans in NJ like Chris Christie, but he keeps saying he won't run. Even though I lean left, I like that he is trying to keep our budget in line even if it means being a jerk to everyone; that may be the only way to get things done. Of course I don't like that he kicked out so many teachers but if he was nominated, I'd at least like him better than any of the other GOP candidates. Then again I've never heard of Pawlenty, Daniels, Rubio, or Barbour.

Then again Romney isn't too bad either.

The only way I'll ever vote Republican is if Obama absolutely fails his economic responsibilities for fiscal year 2011 AND either Chris Christie or Mitt Romney are up against him.

As for the remarks Obama made aimed at the GOP, it's nice to know that he isn't as soulless as I thought he was. It's time he showed some fire which is, in my view what some people want to see.

"Are you serious, Putin33?"

Yes I'm serious. Usually by this time we have a good idea of what the field is. Nobody wants to run. US elections aren't normal, we start very early. By this time we've already had a primary debate. Republicans are biding their time for 2016. Why? Because it's almost impossible to beat an incumbent President. Especially a President who is an extraordinarily capable fundraiser and campaigner.

"Everyone wants to run against Obama."

Then why haven't they declared their candidacy? Who is 'everybody'? This party has been leadership since before Bush left office. While they've been able to race bait against Obama in order to agitate their frothing base, the party hasn't consolidated its top level leadership. In fact, this party is so leaderless the base basically runs the show. As Boehner said, there's no daylight between him and the teaparty.

"As for seriousness, Romney and Pawlenty are both serious. The loons like Trump and Bachman are getting the attention because the other candidates have chosen not to have too large a profile while it's still, what, eight months till the caucuses?"

Eight months is not that much time, especially when you consider what these candidates have to do to match Obama in terms of fundraising. You have to measure it by what has been done in the past, and in the past election season was well on its way, with in many cases a clear front runner. When clowns like Trump are topping the polling, that's a very bad sign for the GOP. Now, sure, Romney and Pawlenty are supposedly "serious", but you have a couple of problems with both of them. They are wooden and uncharismatic. They can't make a speech to save their lives. Pawlenty has to pretend he's a southerner for christ's sake. Romney is a Mormon. While the GOP likes to use the Mormons to mobilize political support, the evangelicals are too bigoted to accept one as their candidate. Plus, the only thing consistent about Romney is his ability to flip flop on a dime.

"We should be a year away from debates since all it would do is give the public an whole year for each candidate to expose real and fashioned flaws on their opponents, only helping the Democrats."

Or alternatively, the Republicans will be so far behind in the money race that Obama will have this thing locked up before the caucuses even start.

"If things look like this in August I'll agree with you, but the fact that there's no leader or stand out candidates in the Republican party over a year out from a presidential election when they're the party out of power should surprise no one. Remember, Obama was seen as a stalking horse, VP nominee at best this time last cycle."

If this is August and we only have two announced candidates the Republicans might as well not even run. Obama being "stalking horse" is no basis for comparison, because, again, the Republicans are running against an incumbent President. How many times has an incumbent lost in the past half century? Twice, I believe. Carter in 1980 and Bush in 1992. If the economy is recovering the Republicans don't have a prayer. But they might not have a prayer anyway.

*not leadership, leaderless.

Of course, the GOP saving grace is that this election cycle will be the first Presidential election under the new Citizens United regime. Since Republicans rely on millionaire faceless organizations for support, this will help them immensely. The butchery of public service unions by their cronies in state government will also help, as will their ability to fundraise through Fox News.

I would guess most candidates not officially announcing has more to do with rules on raising money than fear of running against Obama. There's no doubt Pawlenty and Romeny are running but so far they only have "exploratory committees" while Obama was a clear cut candidate in February 2007. The stupid nuances of delaying official announcements has more to do with grabbing the most media attention than a fear of Obama. A Republican would be crazy to think he could gain more attention from the media during weeks where we're having serious budget debates.

Who is everybody? Look at all the people running. They're almost all the national Republican figures who aren't either political children or confirmed legislators. And as for leaderless, of course they are! Who was the leader of the Democratic party in 2003 or 2007? We have a presidential system, and you won't get these silly excuses for political parties we have here unified without a sitting president or presidential nominee. That's just how it works.

As for eight months not being much time, it's an eternity. It's important that the campaigns set up infrastructure for vote gettign well ahead of time, but you really need to keep in mind that it might be a good strategy for these guys to come at the game rather late. This election is going to be a referendum on Obama and his policies, so an effective strategy could be to bet the American people won't like how Obama responds to the budget battle and only have the candidates start weighing in around the start of 2012 itself.

Republicans will have more than a prayer. Obama is not going to win North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana again, and in addition to the ever up in the air Florida-Ohio-Pennsylvania-etc Wisconsin is less reliably Democratic. It's uphill, but Obama is far from unbeatable.

As for the whole incumbent invincibility thing, that's the most ignorant piece of received wisdom I've heard flung about the media in a long time. This is not just at you, Yelstin33, but much dumber people who parrot that talking point.

Only in 1956, 1972, 1984, 1996, and 2004 were presidents reelected. Incumbents lost in 1976, 1980, and 1992. Incumbents won in 1948, 1964, and 1976 but they gained office by the death of the previous popular president (in the case of the first two) or a good bit of constitutional gymnastics. These three elections should be treated separately since their dynamics were so different than simple incumbency and reelection.

So in the 7 elections in the last 60 odd years where a similar sort of incumbency played a role 5 had the sitting president win and 2 had him lose. That's still a significant advantage for the incumbent, but not the ironclad guarantee to remain in office it's popularly made out to be.

If you ask me it also would only make sense to extent our current political climate back to 1980, since there have been no non-electoral changes of the presidency since then, and the office itself has dramatically transformed. It's not really fair to lump the circumstances of 1956 in with 2004. That would make the win-lose split only 3-2, still an incumbent advantage, but again not foolproof.

Also keep in mind we've only had three two term presidents in a row once in our history (Jefferson-Madison-Monroe) and they were all of the same party. Incumbency helps but it's very easy to over emphasize.

I'm confused, are you claiming incumbents won or lost in 1976 (not that Ford was an 'incumbent', but whatever, I'm trying to figure out what on earth you're talking about). I do love the 'Yeltsin' crack, though.

"Also keep in mind we've only had three two term presidents in a row once in our history (Jefferson-Madison-Monroe) and they were all of the same party. Incumbency helps but it's very easy to over emphasize."

Well if you're going to downplay the role of incumbency because of non-electoral issues maybe you shouldn't concoct statistics that are tainted by non-electoral issues in order to buttress your point. We had a number of Presidents die in office during the 1800s which disrupted the "three two-term presidents in a row" feat that you invented here.

"A Republican would be crazy to think he could gain more attention from the media during weeks where we're having serious budget debates."

Really? That's what you're going with here? They're delaying their announcement because they want exclusive attention on their day of announcement, as if that will give them an edge? All this for a single day, eh? If they're going to wait for a non news day/week in order to grab headlines they're going to be waiting a while.

"Who is everybody? Look at all the people running."

Yeah look. Barbour is staying out. Christie is staying out. Huckabee is staying out.
Who exactly is running?

"They're almost all the national Republican figures who aren't either political children or confirmed legislators."

You must be getting news I'm not getting. There is plenty of speculation, but no candidates. How can you say that it's guaranteed they're all going to run? If you run in 2012 and lose say goodbye to 2016. And since a lot of them are living the high life as media pundits giving speech tours anyway, why bother?

" And as for leaderless, of course they are! Who was the leader of the Democratic party in 2003 or 2007?"

There was a clear sense of what the state of the party was. People knew who the candidates were going to be. There was a vaguely populist insurgency (Dean) in 2003 but no such thing in 2007. The Republicans are in total disarray. The RNC has been a joke for a couple of years now. They have no organization behind them. We might even see a rightwing third party force by the time we're done. We had lots of third party challengers in 2010 from the right.

"As for eight months not being much time, it's an eternity. It's important that the campaigns set up infrastructure for vote gettign well ahead of time, but you really need to keep in mind that it might be a good strategy for these guys to come at the game rather late. This election is going to be a referendum on Obama and his policies, so an effective strategy could be to bet the American people won't like how Obama responds to the budget battle and only have the candidates start weighing in around the start of 2012 itself. "

I hope that's their strategy. My god I hope the Republicans give Obama that much of a head start. What a gift. I agree with you that I think the Republicans hope that obstructionism will do for them in 2012 what it did for them in 2010. But they have a couple of problems. 1-They're 'Just Say No' tactics only tend to work when they're in the opposition. Now that they control the House, more is expected of them. They can't blame the Democrats for everything anymore. 2-Blocking the budget and forcing a government shutdown is politically much more dangerous than blocking structural reforms. So obstructionism isn't going to help very much. People want a deal.. Compromise is going to be expected. Their base isn't going to allow compromise, so Obama has much more room to maneuver than these Republican pseudo-candidates who have to position themselves to the right of Attila in order to mollify their hysterical base.

So the Republicans will rely on obstructionism and put off their mobilization efforts, meanwhile their state officers are pissing off the Democratic base something fierce with their overreach which is alienating independents. How are they going to match a mobilized, angry, anti-Republican Democratic base with Obama's organizational capabilities? It's a recipe for disaster for them and I look forward to this trainwreck.

how can anyone think of voting for Chris Christie, tye New Jersey Government has been a shit show under him, and his administrations idiocy has cost the state several hundred million dollars in federal grants.

He talks tough, doesn't deliver, typical republican

"I'm confused, are you claiming incumbents won or lost in 1976 (not that Ford was an 'incumbent', but whatever, I'm trying to figure out what on earth you're talking about)."

I think I was pretty clear the incumbent won in 1976 but since he wasn't elected to that term it's not a proper to include it when weighing Obama's chances of reelection. You might think that an incumbent is the guy who won the last election. Instead he's jsut hte current holder of the office. Quite a distinction there. The legacies of Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Nixon played a huge role in those elections and throw a wrench in the simplitic analysis that incumbents always win.

"
"Well if you're going to downplay the role of incumbency because of non-electoral issues maybe you shouldn't concoct statistics that are tainted by non-electoral issues in order to buttress your point. We had a number of Presidents die in office during the 1800s which disrupted the "three two-term presidents in a row" feat that you invented here. "

False. Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, and Cleveland were the only presidents reelected in the 19th century after the three I mentioned. Van Buren lost after Jackson, Johnson didn't run in 1868, Hayes swore to serve just one term after Grant, and Cleveland's terms were nonconsecutive. Only Lincoln was reelected and died. Three two term presidents has only happened once in our history and it was never even close to happening again until 2012. We never even had a neat two term president followed by a two term president until Clinton and Bush. Obama being reelected would be a break with the trend.

"They're delaying their announcement because they want exclusive attention on their day of announcement, as if that will give them an edge? All this for a single day, eh?"

No, for a week. A smart campaign staff would make sure the candidate officially announced at a time where it would be a big story. The shadow of a possible shutdown and major Republican budget proposal is not a media savvy time to declare.

"Barbour is staying out. Christie is staying out. Huckabee is staying out.
Who exactly is running?"

Barobur probably is running. Romeny, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, almost certainly Huntsman, almost certainly Bachman, probably Trump, and hopefully Daniels are running. That's most of the nationally know-ish Republicans who aren't dedicated Congress critters, haven't been Mayors of New York, aren't in the Bush family, and aren't named Chris Christie. You can criticize the quality, but you can't say nobody's running.

"The Republicans are in total disarray. The RNC has been a joke for a couple of years now. They have no organization behind them."

The RNC is a joke. That's why no one's using it. There are parallel organizations set up (one of which I interned at last summer) which organize in support of Republican candidates without having to go through the incompetent party apparatus. This isn't Europe, parties in America are mostly letters after a politician's name. There is plenty of organization outside the RNC, which is having a hard enough time organizing the convention...

As for the Democrats having a clear sense of what the state of the party was in 2003 and 2007, I couldn't disagree more. In 2003 there was still a great deal of division over support of the Iraq War among the candidates, and in 2007 there obviously wasn't a clear sense since the Obama-Hilary contest dragged on for months. There was only a clear sense of purpose and leadership (beyond a hatred of George Bush) once a candidate either had the preponderance of support and been nominated. An American party will never have leadership absent a presidential candidate. Democrats and Republicans are not Labour and Tories.

You're better than those last two paragraphs of talking points. Letting the public see that Obama will not seriously consider Republican proposals for reform could be a smart strategy to keep the momentum with the GOP. The Ryan Budget proposal will be the big issue this summer (assuming nothing too dreadful comes out of Libya) and that's an opportunity to put Obama on the defensive without getting potential candidates involved.

As for the state Republicans overreaching and an angry Democratic base coming out, if they couldn't swing a judicial election their way in Wisconsin I have low expectations for them in the long run. Unions and public sector unions is a very narrow (and shrinking) constituency. The unions will play a big role in the 2012 election, but passion for Obama can only be less than it was in 2008. He'll look a lot more lefty with these sorts of people making up even more of his organization than previously and that is going to make his spin to the center less credible.

If I had to bet right now I'd say he'd be reelected, but it's far from a sure thing and Republicans have a real chance here.

I completely agree with Invictus. If the election was tomorrow and the Republican nominee was Romney (or anyone else, for that matter) Obama would win.