The next regularly scheduled change of President is Jan 20, 2013.
After considerable time to consider, I don’t think that Romney’s nominal Mormonism is going to affect the Republican base. If he were a Democratic candidate, then it would make them scream wild accusations like he is a Kenyan, cultist, socialist (anything but a word about his skin color) phlebotomist, community organizer.
Well, obviously that means that Obama will be replaced by a Republican in a coup! Or that he’ll switch parties…a coup would be more fitting for an End Times scenario, though. At any rate, our destined apocalypse demands a Republican.
All GOP nominees must be devout Christians, but not all devout Christians can be nominees, which accounts for Buchanan and Huckabee falling short. They were pious enough, but they were found lacking in other departments. Probably wouldn’t suck on Cheney’s scaly, barbed shaft.
Scrupulous honesty? Honestly? Willard Romney? No, we can’t count someone incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood as “scrupulously honest.”
Note the first line of this Salon article:
That’s how much a reputation Willard Romney has for scruples, or for honesty.
I’m not sure Willard is smart enough to tell how much lying is spilling out of his mouth. I think he’s a stuffed shirt.
My two front-runners would be Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie.
As Shodan said, I think the SDMB overplays the ‘Christian’ aspect of the right wing in the U.S. It may have been true 30 years ago, but it’s not true any more. Some of the biggest figures on the right are not particularly religious. Andrew Brietbart is an athiest. Many of the people who started the Tea Party movement are agnostic at best.
But even if the right wanted a Christian, they’d easy settle for a non-Christian if he had a good plan for the economy, because right now fiscal issues dominate everything. No one has asked about Chris Christie’s faith, but he just won a straw poll for 2012 presidential candidates. Sarah Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina despite Fiorina being pro-choice. Paul Ryan is an up and coming star, and his popularity is based solely on his economic plans. I haven’t heard a single person on the right mention his religion or even ask about it. I have no idea whether he’s a social conservative or a social liberal.
I’d add Paul Ryan to the list of candidates for 2012, except that sitting congressmen have always made poor candidates.
I also wouldn’t count out Tim Pawlenty or Bobby Jindal. Neither are sparkling with charisma, but after four years of a ‘charismatic’ president who pisses everyone off, the electorate might be looking for a boring executive type who just quietly gets the job done. Jindal really damaged himself with that disastrous speech a while back, but he has by most accounts done a very good job governing a state that has been hit with repeated crises, and in 2012 he’ll look more serious having aged a few years.
And yet -
Palin’s popularity is another topic sometimes over-stated on the SDMB and other left-wing outlets. I think part of that is wishful thinking, and part is the belief that she is beatable.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it will be Romney. The teabaggers would far rather have a (white) Mormon in the White House than a (black) Muslim antichrist
There is absolutely no way in hell they’d vote for a non-Christian, though, except maybe, perhaps for a Jew. They like to feign tolerance towards Jews even though they think they’re all going to be converted or fry after Jesus comes back.
Yes. And if she wouldn’t be verging on too old (69 at that point), I could see that happening in the 2016 election year.
I see Obama as likely winning re-election against any of the likely current crop. I see the GOP’s next best crack to be that 2016 cycle.
Susan Collins, also of Maine, would also satisfy many Dems and swing voters.
I do think the next successful GOP candidate will be a moderate. In 2012 the revv’ed Tea Party base will tip the balance for a hard line conservative and Obama will capture the middle. By 2016 the abysmal failure of that tact will have the pragmatic wing ascendent, and they’ll take the White House.
I don’t know about that. If the Tea Party fails to get an extreme whacko elected in 2012, there is no telling what they will do after the election. Add a moderate nominee in 2016, and my bet is they will just Rapture and miss the election altogether. Hard to get elected when half your base has ascended bodily into heaven. These are not reasonable people, they are likely to go off like cheap roman candle, KA-*POW!!! *and the Republicans are left with seven fingers.
Meh. I only need two to respond to them. One on each hand.
This deserves repeating ad-infinitum.
I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that Christians and Jews are simply using each other. At first glance it defies logic that Jews would support Christians. On the one hand, Christians pretty much need the Jews to play their part in the return of the messiah, even though in the end most of them will be Left Behind {duh-duh-dunnnnn}, or worse. On the other hand, Jews don’t believe in all that rapture malarkey, and if it takes playing into Christians’ delusions about the end-times to have their protection today while we all walk the Earth, then so be it; it’s no skin off their noses. Still, I’d find it insulting.
ETA: Bolding mine, although I’d say the Tea Party would rather have a white murdering rapist than any black person as president.
Condoleezza Rice 2012!
… what?
It’d be a way for the Republicans to one-up the Democrats. “Oh yeah? Well we had the first black female president!”
I’ve gone back through some polling data and agree with you. I’ll adjust my estimate of her base support to 15-25% (that seems to be her current range). Whether she can get that up enough to win a multi-candidate primary is unknown at this point, but I wouldn’t put it past her.
As far as whether my initial estimate is wishful thinking or not, I hope like hell she doesn’t run. I have no faith that she’s unelectable (although I’d like to think she is).
As of this writing, Gallup has Obama’s approval rating at 46%. The unemployment rate is 9.6.%. During the November 1982 election Reagan’s approval rating was 44%. The unemployment rate was 10.8%. Nevertheless, Reagan was reelected by a landslide, and transformed the United States.
Now as it happens, he transformed the United States in ways I dislike. I still hope Obama can get his act together, and transform the United States in ways I like.
I have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find a Republican I have any use for.
I want Sarah Palin, or somebody who’ll carry out the most conservative/righty policies possible. Bomb Iran, enact massive tax cuts to fix the deficit, scrap regulation of the financial/oil industries etc. and slash spending to kickstart the economy. There’s a large constituency of people in the country who want to see those kind of policies enacted, a groundswell of support for them, and any meaningful fixes for the situation we’re in can’t happen until people get to see the consequences of those policies.
I think Sarah Palin will win the GOP nomination by a country mile. I know Romney won some conservative conference thing but the people voting are political junkies, people who’ve been interested in politics for years, are interested enough to go to political conferences and who can calmly look at electability issues. These people differ even from most GOP primary voters who are all looking for a real Republican to vote for, one who won’t get to Washington and go native. Palin would be the favourite even among GOP primary voters I would guess. But Palin will also be strongly supported by the teahadist movement, the vast majority of whom will have never voted in a primary and also a massive number of evangelicals who see one of their own and large numbers of both these groups will run through a brick wall in terms of working for her election, staffing her campaign with large numbers of highly motivated activists.
If Palin does well initially (and she may, since the most troglodyte conservates tend to do well early in GOP primaries) then I think a lot of more moderate, reality-based Republicans will rush to someone like like Romney to offset th trainwreck. If nothing else, they will start noticing head-to-head polls showing that Obama would squash Palin like a bug in the General. We can always hope, though.
That’s because right about this point in Reagan’s presidency interest rates started to fall dramatically, the price of oil started to do the same thing and the economy started to grow dramatically as all the pent-up demand that had been constrained by almost 20% interest rates/high oil prices caused a massive economic boom. Things were improving by the 84 election and people could sense things moving in the right direction so Reagan got reelected. Obama can’t cut rates and current monetary policy is going to keep oil prices up at least where they are now. Elections are almost always decided on how the economy is doing. The economy will still be rubbish in 2012.
We’re talking about GOP primary voters here, the kind of people who look at Romney’s Massachusetts era and conclude he’s a dangerous left-winger.
As for who runs, out of the likely suspects, I both think that Romney has the best chance, and he’s the one I’d most like to see. While it can be viscerally satisfying to see someone like Palin squashed like a bug (as I believe she would be, if she went up against Obama), intellectually, I think it’s best for the country overall if each side puts their best candidate forward. And my intellect trumps my gut, here. While I fear that it might take someone turning the country into a smoldering crater to bring the Tea Party types to their senses, I certainly hope that they could come to their senses without that, and Romney getting the nomination would be one indication of that happening.
All that said, if Romney does get the nomination, then the press had darned well better ask him hard-hitting questions about his view of the health coverage reform. It’s the press’s job to ask hard questions, not softballs like “What newspapers do you read?”.