I disagree: I don’t think Palin would work as a P or VP candidate (maybe VP if she clues herself up but …), but her forte is being a roving cheerleader and the Republicans would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did not use her as such.
Since Palin wouldn’t be standing for P or VP, I wonder how they would pay her off? She’s not SoS calibre, and I don’t see her working as an ambassador.
Wow you really are from another continent. I think you are wrong in a big way on at least two of these three points.
No reason it has to be a white male though it probably will be. But offering to legalize marijuana in the name of freedom would be unthinkable to most actual prospective candidates. I’m not sure about DADT.
It’s not like she wants an administration job. She’ll take cash.
I think an ex-governor like Lamar Alexander or Jeb Bush would be the best choice. That shows they actually have some credentials in an executive position. Bush is better on paper, since he is from a swing state the Republicans must win. Condoleezza Rice has great credentials, but she doesn’t seem interested in elective office, but they might get her to accept a nomination for VP.
I think the biggest problem for the GOP is the Tea Party. I’ll cross post from the other thread since it’s actually more relevant here:
What the Republican party needs to do is clamp down on their base. Unless they can get the Tea Party and it’s pushers like Beck to shut-up and accept some compromises they don’t stand a chance because they won’t be able to field anyone capable of getting wide centralist support.
Here’s the scenario (unfortunately) as I see it:
Obama loses control in the House this November; he also loses a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
The economy continues to tank-Timmy Geithner resigns, and a new Sec. of the Treasury takes control. Obama wants more massive “stimulus” spending; the Congress balks-and the international credit markets downgrade the USD.
Oil prices take off…and car sales tank. GM and Chrysler lapse into bankrupcy…and Obama (frantically) tries another “cash for clunkers” plan.
Meanwhile, the US and Nato forces take heavy losses- the Afghan government falls, and Karzai moves to a cozy villa in Switzerland. Germany, France, Spain, etc. give the US an ultimatum-get out of Afghanistan now.
Sensing the moment is right, the Israelis decide to destroy the Bushehr reactor-Iran retaliates with missile strikes on Tel Aviv.
Not a nice picture.
Pure fantasy.
-XT
fap fap fap
Mitch Daniels. Not named Bush. Comes from a state Obama won that any Republican challenger must flip back. Good southern-sounding name. High approval ratings. Relatively blank slate (i.e. Tea Partiers can claim him while independents don’t already hate him). Went to Princeton, got caught smoking pot there. Noted budget hawk.
No foreign policy credentials, but that didn’t hurt GWB. Relatively unknown, but also perhaps not an overwhelming obstacle in a field where all of the big names are despised by at least part of the voting pool (Romney, Newt, Palin, Huckaby…).
Another possibility is Haley Barbour, but he seems too Southern to me.
Because the presidency is a very different race from a congressional district. The presidency is all-or-nothing; pushing tea party candidates around the country is a much safer strategy because losing some races (like Hofstader in New York) has only an incremental effect on the larger effort that’s offset with victories like primarying Bob Bennett or Lisa Murkowski.
Too early. In 2006 who knew of Mr Obama. 2012 election will be about the economy. If the Democrats want to win, they need to convince America things are better. People usually vote in or out the party in control depending on their pocketbooks.
I think if the Republicans can find someone merely palatable to both its establishment wing and the teaparty crowd, they’ve about got it in the bag. I’m pretty convinced that the formerly “hopeful” but now disillusioned left will be staying home.
I hope any tubby StraightDopers don’t take this the wrong way, but Haley’s too fat. Don’t think that looks don’t factor into the equation. I know that NJ just elected a husky guy, but that’s only because the state was in financial meltdown from Corzine and so many years of Dem policies.
Personally, I think **Cyberhwk **has it right. That, plus it will come down to the unemployment. And don’t think the indy’s (me included) aren’t incredibly concerned with the deficit and massive debt we’re enslaving our kids (and theirs) with - those are the two most important issues as far as the country is concerned. And 2 years of Obama’s rule, and 6 of Dem Congressional rule, will be easy to run against; the GOP will just say, look at the results.
If the economy and budget situation massively rebounds by then, then they’ll have to have a real issue or two.
6 years of Democrats in Congress? Are you expecting them to hold their majority through the upcoming election?
Fair point. I expect that, in 2010 the GOP will run against the unchecked lefty policies from Obama , and 4 yrs of Dem rule, getting us what we have now.
In 2012, it will be a) stop the madman Obama, b) let’s get the Senate back too, and c) they’ll have a few ideas by then (maybe) on how to fix what’s probably still going to be a sorry state of affairs, budget-wise and economy-wise. My guess is that their ideas will be mostly recycled stuff.
They will probably claim that the 2 years since they kicked Pelosi out of her gold-plated jet isn’t enough time to fix things.
*big disclaimer: if Iran starts any shit and either nukes Tel Aviv or mines the straits of Hormuz and oil is $300/barrel, the GOP will focus way more on stopping terrorism, keeping America safe, get tough with our enemies, etc.
Even Democrat supporters will often agree that their party is full of pussies, and I believe even the farthest left will begrudgingly respect conservative solidarity. The GOP needs a solid candidate that shrugs the religiosity and hard headedness of the far Right and has a fresh outlook on the future. And while doing so if the man or woman calmly and intelligently puts Rush and Beck in their place that’d go far with me.
I consider myself a left leaning moderate and I’d like to vote for someone who ‘cleans house’ regardless of political affiliation and it’s my prerogative to define what cleaning house means.
But people don’t THINK this much.
It’s extremely common. Baseball managers take the fall for bad seasons and CEOs take the fall for a year of bad earnings that were not their fault. If things are good, people vote the status quo, if not, they vote for a change, and the change usually comes at the top regardless of their actual culpability.
Yes. Not sure about war with Iran, though no doubt heightened tensions would be useful politically like Islamaphobia was in 2004. As far as deficit expanding tax cuts…I guarantee it. In fact, after a campaign about government spending and deficits, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if H.R. 1 of the 112th Congress was a revenue negative tax cut bill. And they don’t even have to write new speeches. Just print off another copy of the ones they gave when they approved the last ones in 2001.
They’re ALREADY pretending the trillions added to the debt don’t exist. The same people so terrified at deficits are the same people that caused them by approving the cuts in 2001 and rubber stamping the deficit spending during the Bush administration.
Except the people that vote this November are going to be the EXACT same people selecting the Republican candidate in 2012.
Thought I’d share this article (though I don’t know how accurate it is, or whether, accurate or not, it’s going to be believed around here), which sort of underlines my own brief comment on what the GOP can do:
It’s all about the economy, and about how well people PERCEIVE their government, especially their president, is doing. If they THINK he’s doing a good job, or if the economy is doing well, then an incumbent has a huge advantage and the opposing party might as well just run a token candidate and wait for the worm to turn.
The thing is, the Dems are going to have to associate all the stuff going wrong right now with Bush and the Republicans, and then they are going to need to hammer that home. But as time goes by and people forget about Bush, it’s going to become more and more difficult to keep beating that dead horse. Mind, I’m not saying that there isn’t some truth to the fact that Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the lions share of what’s going on, just that it will be increasingly difficult to keep going back to that well, as the Dems have had control of the House and Senate for several years now, and as Bush has been out of the picture and the public’s eye for a while. It hasn’t helped that Bush has STAYED out of the public’s eye, pretty much retiring as a public person and keeping his comments to himself…it further fades the memory of him and his presidency from peoples perceptions.
The article I linked too may just be a bit of Republican propaganda, or some anti-Dem/anti-Obama writer with an axe to grind (or it may be overhyped sensationalism), but I think the key is going to be the state of the economy and who is in charge. If the economy continues to suck, if we continue to shed jobs (I read that the US lost an additional and unexpected 40k jobs over the summer), then the Republicans have a real chance to recapture seats in the House and Senate…and if it’s still sucking when Obama runs, he might actually have a fight on his hands. I didn’t think this would be the case, but lately I’ve been rethinking that and wondering how this will all play out.
The best bet for the Dems isn’t to try and keep the blame firmly on the Republicans, but, instead, to have the economy really pick up (won’t help them this election cycle in the House and Senate), as that will certainly shift public opinion.
-XT
Why do you hate America?
Yes, it was merely a aleep deprived attempt at humor.