Romney gets the nod and Palin realizes her limelight is fading so she runs as a third party. Not to win (the Republican establishment was just to gosh-darn entrenched!), but to make a big enough splash to keep her in the media and have influence over the tea party. This would strip a large measure of enthusiasm away from Romney/Republican base, to say nothing of votes.
ETA (got cut off):
On the other hand, the nominee could pick a tea-party darling that’s more competent than Palin and not nearly as batshit as Bachman. This could stir up the base’s enthusiasm without killing support of the so-called independents. (Question is, is there anyone out there that fits the bill?)
This seems about as likely as a Hurricane Katrina-like disaster in Minneapolis. As in, a hurricane hitting the twin cities and causing the levies to break. Ron Paul is the only possible wild card of any significance, and I doubt he’ll run.
When is the last time a vice presidential choice been of any help to the ticket? I can only recall the negatives (Palin, Eagleton).
It wouldn’t necessarily take a single, discrete event to shift the odds significantly. A long-term pattern of behavior could do it, too. If the unemployment rate ticks down a bit more, Obama would be in excellent shape. Alternately, the unemployment rate could stay about the same, but if people have the perception that Obama’s genuinely trying to decrease it, and is failing only due to Republican obstructionism, that would have much the same effect. Sure, in either of these cases, there would be a couple of big-headline moments, but those moments would be a symptom of the overall phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.
There is no chance that anyone will run as a third party candidate this year. None. Not Paul, not Palin. The internecine bickering will continue until shortly after Romney becomes the official nominee, and then the rank and file of the party will begin to slowly coalesce around him.
Romney will give Obama a run for his money but, in the end, I’m pretty confident Obama will pull it out.
That’s my sense, too. If the Republicans had a charismatic candidate, Obama would be in trouble. But they don’t. Romney (or Huntsman?) is going to have to bust his ass to get the base fired up, and he’s just not really up to the task. He can’t get Schwartzeneger out there like Bush did, but he needs to find someone of national stature, well respected, to pound the pavement for him and make the case. I hope don’t see a bunch of white-shirted, neck-tied clean cut 20-year-olds walking around in pairs trying to stump for him.
It seems to me that winning a second term is the default option, absent some major compelling reason. Exhibit A would be GWB in 2004. His first term was not exactly a rousing success, and yet he won. Since World War II, we have had six presidents who have run for re-election and won, three who have run for re-election and lost, and two who didn’t run or didn’t get a chance to run. The ones who ran and lost had some fairly major negatives, particularly Ford and Carter. George H. W. Bush lost partly because of negatives, and mostly because he was up against an unusually good campaigner. November is still a long ways away, but I think things would have to get a lot worse for Obama to lose.
I would agree that Ron Paul running as a 3rd party is unlikely, but he has not ruled it out, basically saying he’ll cross that bridge when he gets to it.
I wouldn’t be so sure (“None”? Really? <Mr. Dubious>)-the massive egos of some of these people (starting with Trump who has already made noises) may impel them to give it a shot.
The Republican have an advantage in that people tend to vote for or against the incumbent regardless of who the opponant is. Obama ran on the “I’m not George Bush” platform and won against “The Next Bush” McCain.
The problem Republicans face is that while the apologists for Obama have quieted down, there is no vitriol from the general public. Unemployment is at 8.5% and instead of Democrats blaming Bush or Republicans talking about those not counted (underemployed or not collecting unemployment) we are hearing a lot of nothing. Iraq is a non-issue as is Afghanistan. The credit and housing markets are still in the crapper <yawn>. Obama will win in 2012 simply because not enough people are pissed off enough to vote him out.
Romney is going to win the nomination and if he takes a moderate Republican as a running mate he will effectively be telling the conservative wing of his party that its time for the adults to take over the party again. We brought them out of the shed because we were facing a long trip through the wilderness and we needed their help to derail the Obama presidency but now that that we’ve done about as much as we are going to be able to do, its time to get back in teh shed and we will continue to nominate conservative SCOTUS justices to keep you happy with living in the shed.
And when Romney loses, the squeaky wheels in the party will, once again, haul out the tired, yet effective old saw that they lost because they weren’t conservative enough.
I live in Indiana. Even though this state went for Obama in the last election the love didn’t last long. I know two people besides me that still support him. I would guess most Hoosiers that voted for him will deny it now. I think some people in this thread are underestimating how big of an impact the right wing spin machine has had since 2008. People here in the midwest really, really dislike him.
I didn’t sense this much dislike for Clinton at the height of Monicagate or the “Hillary had Vince Foster killed” days.
And conservatives would love for Nader to run. That’s more likely.
Trump isn’t going to run. He’s not willing to put in the time necessary. He just wants to keep speculation going so he can cash in on his other ventures.