Well, it would vary from election to election, but I’m going to say and older (say early 60’s) male with distinguished looks and maybe a little gray but vigorous looking and taller than average (someone maybe 6’ or so) with a good speaking voice and who at least looks intelligent without sounding TOO intelligent. He would be fiscally conservative (but not TOO fiscally conservative) and socially liberal (but not TOO liberal…you get the idea), and have basically a moderate foreign policy outlook (he can be as moderate as he likes…there isn’t such a thing as TOO moderate ;)).
I think that such a candidate would have more of an impact as a Republican in the current political climate, but I think it would work for either party in the coming election if they can really pull it off. Race I think is less necessary (I see a lot of people going for ‘white’, but I think a distinguished looking Hispanic, Asian or Black would also work). And you could even shift the male to female, though in that case you’d want less gray and more vigor I think. The key is that they LOOK healthy, intelligent, farsighted and have a connection with people in both parties who aren’t at the radical fringes.
I think you’re doing a bit of projection here. You’re assuming that since this is the most important thing to you, it must be to everyone else. If your interpretation of the Second Amendment is the most important thing on earth to you, you’ve been voting Republican for president for your entire life. Every Republican candidate in the past half century has pledged unending fealty to The Second Half Of The Second Amendment, yet there has been no Republican legitimately elected president since Eisenhower. It’s given that the gun rights crowd is going to vote Republican, that is NEVER going to change. Yet somehow Democrats still find ways to win.
I’m not projecting on guns and hunting. This issue is a loser for Democrats and they know it. Even anti-gun politicians have come to realize they have to deny it to continue to get elected.
There’s a reason John Kerry pretended to go duck hunting when he ran. Yes, I’m a gun rights supporter and a hunter. But it’s not projection to say that those things are very important in a potential candidate.
The fact that Mitt was viewed as mildly anti-gun probably isn’t fair. He was governor of a liberal state and was just representing the views of the voters there, which is reasonable. But there’s no doubt that pro second amendment voters were wary of him because of this perception and this undoubtedly hurt his candidacy.
For another example see Scott Brown. His vote in favor of the AWB probably cost him the NH Senate Seat.
Governors who rule during prosperous times are good. Make it a state that’s not too far one way or the other on the political spectrum… say Arkansas :). I’m not sure about generals. It’s worked well in the past, but at least in the case of Grant and Ike, it was after the two largest wars the country has had. Military service recently hasn’t seemed to help much. Tall, probably male, late 50s. Being white doesn’t hurt, but I think someone else could do OK as long as they weren’t seen as having their identity too tied to their race or ethnicity. Protestants good, Catholic’s OK, I didn’t think Romney’s religion hurt him too much, but I’m not the demographic to care, so maybe it was a bigger deal in some circles. Lukewarm support for gay rights, but gay marriage should be a state issue. You can make some noises about being fiscally conservative, especially with regards to taxes, but don’t touch social security. Abortion’s a tricky issue, you’re going to alienate a lot of otherwise potentially moderate people no matter what your stand there. Probably just say that Roe v. Wade has already settled the issue, and don’t say much about it. Foreign policy? Obama did well on the get out of Iraq banner, though now he’s on his own military adventures that seem to be going over at least OK. Limiting your involvement to air power and minimal ground troops seems to be pretty popular. You don’t want to call for toppling governments these days, that leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. You have to be a good speaker, look like you know what you’re talking about, but still be someone you would want to have beer with, or whatever. As much as I hate to say it, a lawyer from an Ivy league or similar is probably preferable. Party? I think you could go either way. Normally I’d probably say Republican, but I think they have a bit of an image problem at the moment with regards to being moderate.
But really, the best strategy to date has been to be from the opposite party after a disliked president, whether through their own fault (invading a country that then drags on forever) or not (economic downturn). I guess being from a liked party after a good president can work too, though it seems more common for a president to leave office strongly disliked than strongly liked.
I’m very surprised that Mitt Romney is coming up in this discussion. Protestant Hunter Mitt Romney would still be a pretty bad politician. He didn’t demonstrate good people skills in either of his presidential campaigns, IMHO. Monogamous Bill Clinton would win in a landslide.
ETA: I did not like GWB at all, and he rightly isn’t coming up here, but even he had his moments of campaign brilliance. At the end of his rough first debate with Kerry, I was pretty happy, but then he gave his final statement that he had clearly prepared and nailed it, and I remember thinking that he won the election right there. Romney had no moment even approaching that, even the first debate with Obama was more of an example of Obama being terrible; Romney was prepared, efficient, but not especially inspiring.
It takes a pretty unusual viewpoint to think that Reagan winning 44 and 49 states doesn’t count as being legitimately elected.
It’s like losing a game by the score of 100 to 25 but blaming the refs.
Some brain bleach would work well, after reading that. I don’t endorse the article of course, merely point out where he most likely got that meme from.
I strongly believe the next election will be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. Now, is ANY Republican excited aboutJeb Bush? Is ANY Democrat’s heart palpitating at the thought of President Hillary? Of course not- but they’re the front-runners because they have 100% name recognition and a lot of money to spend.
White male 55, old enough to be experienced but not too old that health is an issue, faithfully married to his high school sweet heart, 2 kids, women in their late 20’s safely out of their college bingeing days. Built his father’s washing machine repair business into a large big box appliance chain, which employes a union organized work force. Then ran for and won the Governorship of Ohio as a Democrat and served two popular terms.
Policy platform:
Tax reform, lowering middle class rates through the closing of unspecified loopholes.
Pro gay marriage
Pro abortion
Relatively isolationist foreign policy but open to expanding free trade
Leave gun regulation up to the states
Rhetorically supports tighter border security while expanding the guest worker program.
Supports enforcing government regulations as they now exist but opposes new regulation.
Supports tweaking but not repealing the ACA.
etc.
But how is he going to wrest the nomination away from Hillary? Outside Ohio, he’s a nobody, with zero name recogniiton.
In order to become a contender, he’ll have to do a LOT of advertising. He’d have to be either extremely charismatic, incredibly wealthy, or hold a special appeal for big donors.
I’m not saying a candidate with the qualities you describe can’t win- just that, without a famous name, he’s at a huge disadvantage.
If his last name were Kennedy or Clinton, I’d like his chances better.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think he believes in the October conspiracy theory on the Iran hostages that two Congressional inquiries discovered to be unfounded. IIRC he believes that Bush was re-elected based on election fraud in Ohio, and that the 2000 election wasn’t legitimate because the Supreme Court ruled that Gore wasn’t entitled to a recount that he would have lost anyway.
I am not sure why the elections of 1968, 1972, 1984, and 1988 shouldn’t count under any principle other than “four legs good two legs bad” but perhaps he can explain. Or perhaps not.
Here’s a proposal:every liberal or Democrat who describes an ideal candidate must answer one big question: “Who , specifically , will vote for this person who WOULDN’T have voted for any other Democrat?” Describe a voter who didn’t vote for John Kerry but would eagerly vote for your guy.
Similar proposal for conservatives: tell me who’s going to pull the lever for your guy that didn’t vote for Romney or McCain.
Seriously. All I’m seeing is people designing their personal ideal candidates and making them old white guys. Except whoever wanted Mitt Romney With Guns.
There would be voters who didn’t choose Gore because he’s dull and voters who didn’t choose Kerry because he’s dull and voters who didn’t choose Obama because he’s black. A charismatic white guy fixes that, because it’s mostly a personality question and less a policy question.
There would be voters who didn’t choose McCain because he was a RINO* and didn’t choose Romney because he was a RINO* and a Mormon. This is harder to fix because it’s less a personality question and more a policy question. But you start losing people with policies as quickly as you gain them.
He would be fiscally conservative (but not TOO fiscally conservative) and socially liberal (but not TOO liberal…you get the idea), and have basically a moderate foreign policy outlook (he can be as moderate as he likes…there isn’t such a thing as TOO moderate ;)).