Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[Slimprofits]

Let's kick it off, 15 months out. This is not a thread for ideological debates. Please keep your partisan hackery to yourself. From time to time I will update with odds, polls etc.

If I had to guess today, I'd say that Rick Perry is going to be the GOP nominee. The big money will split between him and Romney and the Heartland base of voters will give it to Perry, not Bachmann. He's a Governor with a history that Bachmann can't touch as a mere Representative. Obama coming out of the Senate was not the start of a new trend. The big money is not backing Bachmann, she's getting the small money checks from the Heartland.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I'm not so sure.

Your points above are valid, but Perry also made lots of noises on such subjects as Texas seceding from the Union.

Thus the normal 'governor as mini-stage for responsibilities of President' meme is potentially overshadowed by Perry's nearly equal nutty public image as compared to Bachmann.

Perry also doesn't have what Bachmann does - or more specifically has what Bachmann doesn't: a genetic calling card to voters outside the South.

Perry also isn't Bush Jr. in that he doesn't have any type of even theoretical reach to Hispanic voters - having a record of opposing amnesty, increasing border security, etc etc.

Both appeal strongly to the hard core right wing, but are frankly unelectable barring a truly impressive economic collapse in the next year.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

If we're going to have a discussion, someone has to disagree a bit.

Perry and Bachmann will fight over the Tea Party vote. How long that fight lasts, and whether it ends in a bitter fight, or an alliance, could determine if Romney gets the nomination. I think Bachmann is running for VP all the way. She could be the king maker. But just as Palin pulled down McCain in 2008, both Perry and Romney know the same would be true of Bachmann.

The Tea Party suffered in the polls from their stance in the debt ceiling debacle. And there's probably more of this to come between now and the elections. But the Republican party is run by the BIG money people and I think the willingness of the Tea Party in congress to send the economy over the cliff scared the hell out of them. In fact, I think the big money is going to dry up for "true" Tea Party candidates.

So as long as Perry and Bachmann split the Tea Party vote, Romney's chances increase. If Perry and Bachmann unite, Romney's religion will be such a drag on him, Perry wins in the end.

[Chomsky]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

It seems to me that the time is rather ripe for a single-issue 3rd-party candidate, a sort of Perot 2.0, to run on a plain talk platform of economy/jobs. Obama is on very weak ground and the GOP field isn't credible. (I was not a Perot supporter.)

Not that I think this will happen, but it wouldn't shock me either given the dynamics of the upcoming election.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Long before there was the Tea Party there was Ron Paul. Ron Paul ran a close second place to Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll. He's an interesting candidate for many reasons.

Out of all the candidates I've seen, he is the most principle-driven. He never wavers from the principle that adherence to the Constitution should be the touchstone for government. This view, long considered unpopular and old-fashioned, is becoming popular again, and that scares Big Government politicians who are beholden to the corporate oligarchy. Ron Paul hasn't changed, the voters have.

Being an ex-Texan I have followed his career for many years. I've watched as the Republican party has tried to ignore and discount him. I've seen him excluded from debates. I watched after he won the CPAC straw poll in February. Instead of having him on the next Fox News Sunday, Fox had Haley Barbour, who came in last. If Romney had won, I don't think they would have had Haley Barbour on instead.

He brings up issues that TPTB do not want discussed. He is the only candidate talking about Freedom like it's the air he breathes, rather than a talking point given to him by his handlers. His positions on the economy, war and Big Government are now resonating with a lot more people than just the ones on the fringe. I think it's because middle-class Americans are sensing that they are being marginalized. They are certainly seeing that the politics and rhetoric they voted for in the past have let them down hugely.

He has great appeal to young voters, which is fascinating given his age (I wish he was 10-20 years younger). Disaffected youth are turning out in droves to support this old man. I even hear Democrats saying they are disgusted with their own party now and would vote for him. Is there any other Republican who could draw in the Democrats like he can without compromising on principles?

The majority of politics is merely theater- politicians rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The Republicans will choose another neocon supported by the hard religious right. If they do that they run the risk of losing in 2012. The Oligarchy owns both parties- it wins as long as both Dems and Republicans don't allow politicians who would really shake thing up.

Ron Paul's ideas are a real threat to the political system, so he'll never get the Republican nomination. If he continues to do well I expect he will suffer a "heart attack" or traffic accident.

An ideal ticket in my mind would be Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

[Kadriana]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

So far, I haven't cared for anyone. I'm thinking about going into hiding for the next 15 months though espcially where I live in a swing state. I am really not looking forward to this election and I think it's going to be one of the ugliest we've seen in a long time.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

i'll go for the "piss off everyone" post.

Obama is an idiot and a kleptocrat, and couldn't run an economy out of a paper bag.
Bachman is too ideologically goofy to be prez.
Paul is the overall best informed to run the country, so he'll never win.
Romney is as much a kleptocrat as Obama, so thats no "change we can believe in"
Palin is un-electable
Perry I can't actually comment on.

As much as I hate Obama for the dope he is, I just prefer he get another term to finish off whatever he thinks he is doing, so Amerika never elects another "academic manager" ever again. And by the end of term two, so much of the bad will be done, the next person in from either party may actually be able to put it all together again.

(ps. I am an equal opportunity "hater" as I hate them all from boht sides now)

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Here's a few things

Obama Daily Job Approval - Gallup - all time low @ 39% - disapprove @ 54%

http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

GOP Nomination on Intrade:
Rick Perry 36.% chance
Mitt Romney 30.4%
Bachmann 7.1%

Obama re-election 50.8%

These are from VictorChandler.com, a UK betting site. The most expansive list of odds I could find online.

winning party outright

Democrats 8/15
Republican 11/8

GOP nominee outright

Rick Perry 13/8
Mitt Romney 9/4
Michele Bachmann 4/1
Jon Huntsman 12/1

US President 2012 - Outright - Win only

Barack Obama 8/15
Rick Perry 4/1
Mitt Romney 11/2

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Your points above are valid, but Perry also made lots of noises on such subjects as Texas seceding from the Union.

Thus the normal 'governor as mini-stage for responsibilities of President' meme is potentially overshadowed by Perry's nearly equal nutty public image as compared to Bachmann.

Perry also doesn't have what Bachmann does - or more specifically has what Bachmann doesn't: a genetic calling card to voters outside the South.

Perry also isn't Bush Jr. in that he doesn't have any type of even theoretical reach to Hispanic voters - having a record of opposing amnesty, increasing border security, etc etc.

totally agree, and those are good points for the general election, should Perry be the nominee.

Both appeal strongly to the hard core right wing, but are frankly unelectable barring a truly impressive economic collapse in the next year.

Today I would also bet on more economic fireworks similar to what happened last week, over the next 15 months.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perry and Bachmann will fight over the Tea Party vote....

So as long as Perry and Bachmann split the Tea Party vote, Romney's chances increase. If Perry and Bachmann unite, Romney's religion will be such a drag on him, Perry wins in the end.

What I don't know is who made the decision and how exactly it went down, but Perry's name was inserted into the conversation in June and he immediately polled well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-1452.html

He passed Bachman in the polls in the third week of July. I don't think it's as simple as you put it. As a 10 year governor, Perry is attracting more than the tea party support. Also, the Perry machine (campaign) started seriously raising funds last week. There are a series of debates in Sept. and Oct. and the endlessly insidious television and radio advertisements will hit the airwaves soon.

Politico has Bachman Perry defeating Bachmann in the first post-straw poll event.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Long before there was the Tea Party there was Ron Paul. Ron Paul ran a close second place to Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll. He's an interesting candidate for many reasons.................An ideal ticket in my mind would be Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

I love the passion, but you really missed the point of this thread. This thread is for election analysis, outcome prediction and for some, trading on those potential outcomes. I ask that people refrain from electioneering.

As for Ron Paul's chances, you and I both know it's not going to happen.

It seems to me that the time is rather ripe for a single-issue 3rd-party candidate, a sort of Perot 2.0, to run on a plain talk platform of economy/jobs. Obama is on very weak ground and the GOP field isn't credible. (I was not a Perot supporter.)

Not that I think this will happen, but it wouldn't shock me either given the dynamics of the upcoming election.

i was going to say something about electability, but until we have someone to actually comment on there is no point.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perot 1.0 proved that the country is ripe for something, anything that's different.

He entered the race relatively late.

Even with the shortened calendar, he had time to exit and re-enter and still make an impact.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

This is another trend that has to be making the Obama machine uncomfortable.

Over the last month, in polls, the generic Republican candidate has started to pull even with the President.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...andidates.html

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

It's only a matter of time before the "Ron Paul Racist newsletter" meme is rolled out again.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perry is the most credible in terms of least objectionable Republican candidate thus far who actually has some political base (Pawlenty didn't have that), but again this next election is going to be about the economy. Frankly a monkey would win against Obama should we really descend into double dip territory.

More scathing commentary on Obama - admittedly from someone who was never a fan.

The points raised are quite valid though.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08052011.html

Ready to Vote for Mitt Romney?

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Start with Obama. Of course he blew it. Whether by artful design or by sheer timidity is immaterial. He blew it. Two days before the United States was officially set to default on its debts on August 2, Barack Obama had the Republicans where he wanted them: All he had to do was announce that he’d trudged the last half mile towards a deal but that there’s no pleasing fanatics who reject all possibilities of compromise, who are ready and eager to shut down the government, to see seniors starve and vets denied their benefits. So, Obama could proclaim, he was invoking the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which states that the "validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."

Obama could have done that, but he didn’t. At the eleventh hour and the fifty-fifth minute he threw in the towel, and allowed the Republicans to exult that they’d got 95 per cent of what they wanted: cuts in social programs, a bipartisan congressional panel to shred at its leisure what remains of the social safety net, no tax hikes for the rich, no serious slice in the military budget.

As America plummets into phase 2 of the double-dip recession Obama’s deal has stripped the country of all available remaining defenses: no jobs program, no hope of stimulus money for stricken states and cities across the country. It’s as bad as the Republicans’ onslaught on Franklin Roosevelt’s programs seeking to prise America out of the great Depression – a Republican onslaught that launched the terrible downturn of 1937, from which America was extricated only by the vast war spending after Pearl Harbor.

Why did Obama do it? Like all first-term presidents he thinks first and foremost about reelection in 2012, and the thinking in the White House is that the all-important independent voters, are eager for deficit reduction, however ruinous it may be for the economy.

Polls show that Obama had a winning hand. His approval ratings are in the mid 40s in percentile terms, more or less where they’ve been for months. But Congress is now down at 18 – the lowest since records began. So he could have called the Republicans’ bluff at any time. Sure, Americans will always say that deficits should be reduced. That’s like asking if you support an end to gassing badgers. But when you ask them something serious, like Do you want a job, they say Aye – by any means necessary, including increased federal spending.

But beyond coarse political calculation, and eagerness to satisfy his Wall Street backers, it’s plain enough that Obama is a quitter by nature. As someone joked bitterly last week, he turns up for a strip poker session already down to his shorts. In the crunch, the weapon he snatches from its scabbard is the white flag, which he flourishes brzenly at the bankers, the Pentagon, and America’s billionaires.

It was plain in 2006 – the first time I looked at his record -- that Obama was gutless and devoid of principle. By 2008, before his victory, he was already reassuring the Establishment he was set to “reform” Social Security and Medicare – i.e., to hand these entitlement programs over to Wall St and the insurance industry.

Indeed, the best outcome for the left in 2008 would have been a victory for McCain, Obama’s Republican opponent. McCain! But, you wail, he would have plunged America into new wars, kept Guantanamo open, launched an onslaught on entitlements, surrendered to Wall Street and the banks…

McCain would have tried all these things, but maybe he would have quailed amid a storm of public protest. Under W. Bush’s two terms the spirit of opposition throve; the antiwar movement flourished; the labor movement was active; blacks militant. Amid a brilliant campaign mounted by the AFL-CIO, Bush’s hopes to gut social programs were dead within months of the start of his second term in 2004. But since 2008 a Democratic president has neutralized all these constituencies.

In 2010, in the midterm elections, the American people spoke, and their message was confused. When exit pollsters questioned 17,000 voters across the nation as to who should take the blame for the country’s economic problems, 35 per cent said Wall Street, 29 percent said Bush and 24 percent said Obama. Just over half of the respondents (57 percent) said that their votes in House races had nothing to do with the Tea Party. The other half was split on the Tea Party, pro (22 percent) or con (17 percent). More than 60 percent said the all--important issue is the economy; 86 percent said they are worried about economic conditions. On whether government should lay out money to create- jobs or slash expenditures to reduce the deficit, there’s also a near-even split.

The American people wanted a government that wouldn’t govern, a budget that would simultaneously balance and create jobs, and spending cuts across the board that would leave the defense budget intact. Collectively, the election made plain, they hadn’t a clear notion of which way to march.

Obama carried substantial part of the blame for this. He delivered no clear message, no clarion call. For two years he gave labor nothing; he gave his most loyal constituency—black America—nothing. When the “One Nation” rally mustered in Washington on October 2, 2010 there was no stentorian message of support from Obama for the event, sponsored by the NAACP and the AFL-CIO. Among the vast throngs who gathered for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s politically inconsequential “sanity rally” on October 30, how many were young people who had voted for Obama in 2008, their passionate expectations now mutilated on the battlefields of Obamian realpolitik?

As Obama reviewed his options after the midterm elections, which way would he head? He’d already supplied the answer. He’d try to broker deals to reach “common ground” with the Republicans, the strategy that destroyed those first two years of opportunity.
But even after last week’s frightful betrayals, there’s been barely a fretful bleat from Democrats about running a challenger to Obama in the primaries such as the late Ted Kennedy mounted against Carter, another Obamian sell-out, in 1979. A serious challenge to Obama from inside the ranks of the Democratic Party has always been a non-starter. The time to launch a third party left challenge to Obama was back in January of 2010 when the writing was on the wall. In this very page I implored the ousted U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold to do just that. Now it’s all far too late.

In 2013 we could be faced with a Republican majorities in both houses and the prospect of Obama spending four years catering obediently to their requirements, defusing all liberal and left opposition. We need a Republican in the White House to dispel narcosis which will otherwise neutralize left activity till 2016. Who? Michele Bachmann is popular mostly with Tea Party ultras, Jon Huntsman with the Washington elites. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has yet to enter the race and is loathed by the Bush clan. At present the only candidate within reach of Obama is Mitt Romney, the Mormon millionaire businessman whose nomination bid fizzled in 2008.

I acknowledge the obvious: the clothes, the grin, the unrelenting fakery that so blatantly imbues every atom of his being. Mitt is a hard sell and his drive to be the first Mormon president is surely not helped by this summer’s Mormon-in-the-headlines -- Warren Jeffs , now convicted of child rape.

Romney kept quiet through most of the recent brouhaha about raising the deficit ceiling, aside from a pro forma nod to the Tea Party ultras near the end, designed to placate the ultras in early primary states like Iowa. In the briefest of inspections, he is not marked for greatness, but greatness is not required of him – just the tenacity to win the White House and drive Obama out of national politics and destroy his appalling vision of bipartisanship as the way forward for America.

Anybody but Obama, even if it’s Mitt Romney!

Mind you, a politician with some guts would be preferable, but we’re talking about politics and the art of the possible. Check out this truly terrific outburst from the Republican governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, attacking the “ignorance” of attacks on his successful nomination of Suhail Mohammed as a Superior Court judge.