If GOP seriously considers Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin, as we so often see blithely asserted as though it well might, then Obama has a rock-solid lock on a second term, maybe a third.
A third? Hey, the constitution can always be amended again, if the threat to the nation is sufficient…
Nothing, but nothing you can set forth as examples of how feckless the GOP is these days comes even close to the bizarre fact that those two are mentioned, without a hint of irony, as contenders. It was crazy enough, bordering on obscene, when people spoke of Sanford for the 2nd spot last year. But this…
Related Posts
Palin would have a better chance than Sanford (the base he appeals to, while dedicated and active, is just too small) but I just can’t see the powers that be in the Republican establishment (and NO, I do not mean Rush Limbaugh) giving way to her brand of populism. The Republican to watch is Bobby Jindal, if not in 2012, certainly in 2016.
Of course the interesting thing about Sanford is that no one gave him a shot for either Congress or Governor.
If the economy has not recovered by 2011, the Republicans can run ANYBODY and will win easily.
Obama’s Hail Mary pass on deficit spending could possibly result in what we need – a third party based on ethics and fiscal conservativism.
Whose ethics? Mine? Brad’s? Clinton’s? Cheney’s?
No, mine.
Only if they perfectly match mine.
Yes, Palin would be more appealing than Sanford. But Greg, talk about damning someone with faint praise…
The question for Bobby Jindal is, can he rise above having flubbed his big moment giving the GOP response to the president’s speech?
And mind you, just to be perfectly fair to Govs. Palin and Sanford’s chances, it’s highly possible that the reason I think Bobby Jindal is a better alternative is that I know less about him. There’s always that possibility…
If the election were held today, Obama would lose.
If the primaries were held today, Hillary would be running against Mitt Romney.
That many independents who didn’t pay attention have already waked up to the fact that Obama is incompetent, with a Napoleonic complex, who wants to be a dictator. He is down to 38% support, and the Yellow Dog Democrat core is 36%.
I don’t like Palin better or think that she would do a better job, just that she has broader appeal. She is a lowest common denominator candidate.
Yes that is the question for Jindal, but his list of positive accomplishments is impressive (headed and turned around both the state’s hospital and university systems by the time he was in his early 30s) and perhaps most importantly he is Roman Catholic.
From what you say above you seem to feel that as you learn about ANY Republican candidate you will find them to be unacceptable.
Truth be known, Jindal has libertarian leanings so that probably scratches him for you. However, he is scary smart and seems to be able to actually get things done in Louisiana during difficult times.
With the way Obama’s numbers are dropping daily, by next year Democrats too will be pushing for the Sanford/Palin ticket. Can you picture the Obama “no budget” checkbook slamming shut with Sanford’s fiscal conservatism? That is if we aren’t a Chinese colony by 2012. This is what we get for electing a President with minimal political experience, and clearly not ready for the job. I believe that we’re just seeing the tip of how incompetent Obama really is, the next 6 months should be interesting.
Palin, Sanford, Jindal (and let’s throw in Rick Perry, what the hell), are all “Southern” regionalist candidates. Yes, it seems strange to think of Palin as “Southern”, being that she’s actually….not Southern.
But, sociopolitically, Alaska is like a huge dislocated chunk of the Southeast right now.
None of them can form a serious national coalition. They just don’t have the cross-demographic, cross-cultural appeal to do it. The fact that Jindal is Indian-American is almost incidental and meaningless. In a way, that ethnic color-blindness is a good thing…but, politically, he won’t be able to harness his own personal story of transcendent multiculturalism in the same way Obama did. He already tried during that awkward speech response a few months back, and badly flopped. He came across as scripted and even a bit inauthentic.
And it’s that “scripted” bit that will kill them. Even if there’s significant disagreement with some of Obama’s policies, people don’t generally distrust him as a person (call it “Reaganesque”). If he simply holds that line, and continues to come off as authentic and decent, he’ll win again handily.
The Republicans are going to have to field somebody that comes off not only as competent, but genuine….and even warm. Sanford is good at pretending to be competent, but he’s got the shark eyes. Palin is good at being peppy and feisty, but she’s totally out of her depth on national and international policy (i.e., not competent). Jindal’s flashes of competence are canceled out by inexplicable weirdness in front of a TV camera. And Rick Perry is just bat$#!* insane.
They won’t listen, but I’ll tell the Republicans “Go to the middle”. Don’t veer to the right again like McCain did late in the race. Joe the Plumber is a dinosaur.
No, it’s not true that the more I like about Republicans the less I like them. I like Lindsey Graham more all the time, for instance.
National candidates get overexposed, with a heavy emphasis on the negative. Look at all the people who once liked McCain who changed their minds during the campaign. Not me, but a lot of people.
But also, I’ve got a lot of Mr. Darcy-style hard-to-please in me. For me, McCain was the only Republican running last year I liked (although Mike Huckabee had his moments). And Obama was the only Democrat I liked (after Joe Biden dropped out). Just like four years earlier the only Democrat I liked after Dick Gephardt dropped out was Joe Lieberman (and I liked Joe way more than Dick), and Kerry was near the bottom of my list, which is why we ended up endorsing Bush, very reluctantly.
That’s why it seemed to me miraculous that I liked BOTH of the major party nominees last year. That has never happened before for me.
Anyway, Obama (my second choice last year) is still looking WAY better than anyone likely to run against him.
Pawlenty of Minn. is a good choice. But when you consider a state that elected Jake “The Body” Ventura as governor and stands on the edge of having the worst example of an unfunny comedian become their newly elected senator, maybe coming from Minn. is not a ringing endorsement.
Romney may have a shot but if the Republican party doesn’t do something and soon, even with Obama’s evident immaturity and incompetence, he will still have long coattails across the country. And as long as Obama goes unchallenged by the so-called watchdogs of democracy, the press, his favorable ratings will stay above the 50% range, bolstered by a very good public relations group of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, PBS, etc., etc., etc.
Palin is a lightening rod figure and is one of the most popular individuals on the political scene today. (challenge if you will but it is a fact)
Sanford on the other hand is the darling of the likes of Hannity and a few others who suffer the same illusion about either the conservative or liberal purity of ideals and the electability of either. Sanford doesn’t have the broad appeal necessary for election to the presidency no matter how well he is packaged by handlers.
Bobby Jindal, like Sarah Palin in Alaska, is very popular in La. His first exposure on the national stage was a disaster and first impressions are lasting ones. It will take a lot of work to repair the damage.
Even if the voters want a change in 2010, where are those who can mount a legitimate challenge to Democrat incumbents?
Democrats should continue to enjoy an unbreakable majority until the 2012 elections providing Republicans can stop shooting themselves in the foot on a daily basis.
Romney’s Achilles heel (sad but true) is that many of the very voters he wants to appeal to (and otherwise would) think of his religion as a non-christian cult and would never vote for an adherent of it. I could never support him for the seemingly inane reasons (which have served me well in the past) that he smiles too much and his hair is too perfect (though Carol campbell did have the perfect hair but was a pretty good governor.)
I agree with the perfect hair thing but you would think that we have gotten past a hangup like a man’s religion. I remember when the scare tactic was that the Pope was going to be running the country when Kennedy ran. Mormonism is a very conservative religion with the exception of the old tradition of multiple wives. On that point alone I would have to question the sanity of eithe a male or female. Living with just one is bad enough. Imagine the problems of living with six or seven.
Multiple wives is a thing of the past (though Romney’s grandfather had to flee to Mexico because of multiple wives). No, religion should not be grounds for not supporting someone.
I do realize the multiple wife thing is of the past and not practiced anymore.
Lee Muller: Where are you getting your numbers from? Based on a Pew Research Center poll conducted between June 10th and 14th, Obama still has a 61% approval rating. You can read all about it here: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2009/06/obamas-approval-ratings-strong.html
Meanwhile, another poll conducted by Gallup (trumpeted under the headline “Obama’s Job Approval Slips In New Poll”) still has him at a very respectable 58%. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/06/19/obama-s-job-approval-slips-in-gallup-poll.aspx
Meanwhile, the number of voters who self-identify as Republicans continues to fall. “Interviews with over 7,000 respondents nationwide so far this year found fewer than a quarter (23%) of the combined total identifying themselves as Republicans. This is down from 25% in 2008, and from 30% in 2004. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years.” This is from the end of April, but so far I’ve found nothing that has indicated any new groundswell of support for the GOP: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1207/republican-party-identification-slips-nationwide-pennsylvania-specter-switch
Of course, polling is like investing: past performance is no guarantee of future results. But based on current trends, I believe that any predictions of a Republican landslide in 2012 are at best premature.
According to a Rasmussen poll released this morning, 54% approve of Obama’s job performance while 45% disapprove. There is only a 1 point gap between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove. This is an historical low number for a president who has been in office only 6 months.
Another recent poll is also interesting. I cannot remember who took it but if memory serves me correct, it was one of the more respected polling companies. I will try to find the right name and post it later. However, those identifying themselves as liberal was at 25%. Conservatives were at 30% and moderates were at 45% with most of the moderates identifying themselves as more right leaning than left.
The misconception that this country has made a drastic swing to the left is off the mark. No matter how much the press tries to tell us otherwise, we are still a more conservative than liberal country. Our problem has been that those who SAID they were conservative were not being truthful.
For now, there is not a groundswell of support for the GOP because the GOP has not been able to get together a cohesive message or present a united front with real answers to our problems. Until they do, it will be business as usual and they will be branded as the “Party of No”. And if they continue to have idiots getting caught with their pants down like this latest dolt from Nevada it won’t matter much anyway.
Of all the pollsters, so far Rasmussen has been the more accurate and consistent. But, as a wise person commented, polls are a snapshot in time and until a pattern has been established, a one day result means little.
Look at all the people who once liked McCain who changed their minds during the campaign. Not me, but a lot of people.
-Brad
John McCain could have thrown a baby in the Potomac River and Brad would have said he was just trying to teach him how to swim. Come-on Brad, the GOP cannot be taken seriously right now. They’ve become a characiture with ridiculous folks like Palin, Sanford and Limbaugh leading the way. We should stop concerning ourselves with bipartisan cooperation and just get on with governing. With 60 senate votes (once Franken gets on board) there is plenty of leeway for debate within the remaining sane major party. The MSM doesn’t help matters by continuing to pander to these nuts. It’s time to pass a good healthcare plan, larger stimulus package and above all end our imperialistic adventures in the middle-east. Just say NO to GOP pandering and get on with the work of the country.
Palin is a lightening rod figure and is one of the most popular individuals on the political scene today.
-Bart
There are a lot of words to describe Sarah Palin but popular is not one except among the wacko right of the Fox News universe.
There are a lot of words to describe Sarah Palin but popular is not one except among the wacko right of the Fox News universe.
Well, Bart is right. Just because you and I may not like her, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of people out there who do — who really, really do.
A lightning rod is a great way to describe her.
And in my book, anyone who supports just about any of these Rs and Ds is a whacko. 😉
Reading anything bud says is almost comical, it’s as if he’s auditioning for the position of “liberal poster boy”.
Bill, at least Bud has more to offer than an attempted attack ad hominem. BTW, some of us don’t consider “liberal” to be a dirty word, per se.
Karen – When you’re a liberal, it’s not surprising that it’s not a dirty word to you.
bud, Palin is popular, like it or not, admit it or not. I don’t like sushi but it is a very popular delicacy – ugh! Bait on a Plate!
I’m curious. Could someone please give a definitive definition of what a “liberal” and a “conservative” is today and compare it with the definition of one say, 20 years ago? Maybe a couple of sources could step up to the plate and present their view point…..would be “verrry interrrrresting”.
I was all set to vote for John McCain until he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. After that, I did the only thing I responsible thing I could given the options on the ballot: I wrote in a candidate.
Palin is popular in multiple dimensions.
She’s popular to the Limbaugh-Hannity right wing base, in an abundantly favorable, uncritical light.
And then she’s popular to the rest of the free world in the same way that American Idol is popular…as a kind of schizophrenic, quasi-respectable trainwreck, that’s mostly uncomfortable to watch, yet you can’t look away….
Bart, Palin is hurting in Alaska where barely half approve. Maybe she is popular in “real America” but that is increasingly limited to the south and parts of the west. She offers little more than scripted red meat for 20% of American voters – e.g. her Letterman dog and pony show.
Given that McCain was a moderate republican who couldn’t swing his moderate consituency, No Stimulus Sanford, Bobby “volcano monitoring is dumb” Jindal, and Propaganda Palin have no shot to sway the independents.
Doug, I already cited links to reports that the vast majority of economists predict the recession will end this year. You can pooh pooh them all you want, they know more about the economy than you or I. Given this, Obama will likely pick off a couple more red states in ’12.
Randy E., economists were invented to make weathermen look good. Neither one can brag about their accuracy.
Just look at the records of the vast majority of economists who “missed” the correct predictions about the current state of the economy when they had the chance. The recession will not end this year, we haven’t hit bottom yet and won’t until early 2010. After that, we may see some improvement but not to the degree promised by Obama and his inexperienced group of advisors. They have no record to stand on.
The real indicator, commercial development and construction has about four to six months inventory left on the books and those projects are fading fast. This is the real story and anything else is Polyanna wishful thinking. The only story of anything useful comes out of Florence and the award of a contract to Florence Concrete Products to furnish over $2 million worth of product to replace or repair some bridges in SC. 24 people will RETURN to work, no new jobs created.
As far as Palin’s poll numbers, I could actually care less. But, if 54% is a bad thing, then so be it. Obama’s numbers aren’t any higher. If not mistaken, the latest Rasmussen numbers out today have him at 54% as well. All things considered, not much to brag about from either side.
If you read my long rant on another thread, you should know I don’t think we have any leaders in the current shallow gene pool worthy of electing or re-electing.
Don’t count on Obama picking off any more red states in 2012 unless the economy actually turns around and we are enjoying almost full employment again. The voters of this country were angry at the way things were going and made their voices heard. They are even more disappointed now than before and buyers remorse is already a fact of life.
Bart, the weatherman cliche is specious. You look at the weather reports just as the rest of us do. It’s predicted to be in the high 90s today in Columbia. You plan on taking a jacket with you when you go out?
The economists may be off in long term predictions, but as you did in your post they can interpret the indicators and explain what is happening. You scoffing at saved jobs reflects bias. Before new jobs can be created, it makes sense to save current jobs. Those people who are still employed will find this a very big deal. Their mortgages will be paid and they’ll continue buying goods and services, often in their community.
54% in Alaska for Palin after she was at 80% is a big deal. She is governor of a state that receives more federal aid per capita than any other state yet she’s taking a “principled” stand on the stimulus – hypocrite. That’s what people, other than those in “real America” calling Obama a terrorist, have discovered about her. Meanwhile Obama has had the right wing echo chamber putting out non-stop propaganda about his every move – e.g. blaming him for this economic mess starting in August (seriously, GOPers are saying he started this mess before he was even elected). His approval rating is still higher than Reagan at this time in office.
Bart, regarding red states in ’12, McCain barely won the following which makes them possible conversion states:
MO: <1% difference
Montana: 3%
GA: 5%
Given the venom spewed by the GOP talking heads towards Sotomayor and the rapidly increasing Hispanic population, the scenery is changing faster than Rush Limbaugh racial epithet.
Thankyou, Bill for stating my point much better than I did.
Karen, you’re welcome… this isn’t the first time I’ve corrected a liberal for being wrong.
Bill C, seeing that you are in favor of vetting posts, let’s look at your first on this thread.
We could be a “Chinese colony” because Obama is a novice This “rationale” is the same thinking found in the line “borrowing from China to pay for oil from the Middle East.” When W took office, we had a surplus and low gas prices. W talked about our “addiction to oil” but he and the rest of the GOP offered “drill baby drill” as the solution. This is like getting an alcoholic to recover by giving him beer instead of liquor. With the dramatic rise in oil prices while W was in charge, we both have high gas prices and we make the governments of Venezuela, Russia, and Iran rich. Meanwhile, W and the GOP cuts taxes for the wealthy while we are at war. The result was massive deficit spending and borrowing from China. All this happened BEFORE Obama took office.
Obama’s numbers are dropping daily and you suggest this will continue, unchanged? Using your “rationale” unemployment is increasing daily so we’ll all be unemployed sometime next year. That is assuming we can extrapolate wildly as you have.
Sanford’s “fiscal conservatism” which you apparently champion has led to his state having one of the worst unemployment rates in the country. Having Sanford do for the U.S. what he has done for SC is hardly desirable.
BTW, this is not the first time I’ve corrected the propaganda of a “conservative.”
Randy E. – Do you typically compare apples to oranges?
So you see the fate of the county’s unemployment rate repeating itself if Sanford were elected in 2012. Using your logic, what does that say about consumer safety now that Inez is in charge? She brought and kept our public school system at the bottom during her tenure. Should I start buying everything I’ll need for the next 3.5 years before she’s put in charge of our country’s consumer safety?
Obama is a puppet. Anyone who still thinks he is competent or even running the show is seriously delusional. Obama cannot even complete a sentence unless he is reading it. Yet the press is ashamed to admit that President Bush was more articulate and intelligent than this clown. They were so determined to get any woman or any non-white elected, they didn’t look at qualifications. Let’s hope more of the press gets turned out of their jobs.
Bill C, you hardly address my critique.
W oversaw skyrocketing oil and gas prices and exponentially increasing deficit spending yet he offered nothing to offset this. The public bailouts started last year with his tax credit in late spring and TARP, which originally was a THREE PAGE document from his administration. You blamed Obama because he’s a novice. I called you on this and you now ignore it, probably because your position is indefensible.
Regarding unemployment, your response is a big fat red herring about Inez? Sanford has been governor for 6 years and in that time unemployment has shot up. What has he done to counter this? Defend him Bill by citing what HE has done.
Finally, given that you want us to extrapolate numbers, I’ll use your “rationale” to predict unemployment for next year. EVERYONE will be unemployed because we are losing jobs daily – again, that’s your reasoning.
Deficit spending under Bush was inexcusable, because his tax cuts produced a boom that generated 40% more revenue anyway.
Democrats wanted even higher deficits every year 2001 through 2006.
After gaining power in the 2006 elections, Democrats increased the deficit 50% in 2007 and doubled it in 2008.
The Pelosi-Obama deficit so far in 2009 is larger than all the Bush deficits combined of 2001-2004, and may be larger than all 8 years of Bush.
The banking collapse was created by Clinton and the Democrats creating a junk loan program for blacks and illegal Mexicans, which collapsed in 2007. Democrats on the boards of FNMA and FMAC concealed the losses by issues fraudulent quarterly and annual reports. Most of those board members became advisors to the Obama campaign. Many are now on his staff, like Rahm Emanuel. Today, Obama just appointed one of them to oversee the bank bailouts.
These crooks took $400,000,000 in unearned bonuses by falsifying the books. Some of this money financed the startup of the Obama campaign.
Randy E, bias toward what? I stated simple facts, facts faced each day by those who are not employed, are in the short rows of employment due to no work on the horizon and another fact that development other than the few crumbs handed out by the Obama administration is at a standstill.
The THREE page document you referenced is accurate but not true. It was an OUTLINE at best, sent to a very receptive Democrat controlled congress and a president-elect to expand upon. After fine-tuning it, if you want to call it that, by this same Democrat congress, the unsuspecting public was subjected to a cumbersome, ill-conceived package of bailouts for Wall Street and banks who overwhelmingly supported and contributed to Obama. Bush acquiesed to the Democrats cries for something to be done well before and certainly AFTER the election results and allowed Obama to set the tone and agenda. Obama was already operating a shadow presidency weeks before the swearing in ceremonies.
The “sky is falling” scenario presented by Bush, Paulson, and Democrats was political theatre at its best. It went to demonstrate the lack of faith in the American pubic and taxpayer by those in control in Washington. “Too big to fail” was the clarion call of the day and fear mongering took its toll. GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy and the country is still standing. It might be a good thing for some of the others considered “too big to fail” were to declare bankruptcy. At least it help move things along to re-establish a “ground zero” for the economy.
Wall Street historically hedges its bets and contributes heavily to who they predict will be the winner even though the majority of those working on Wall Street historically are Democrats.
For the hard line ideologues out there, deficit budgets will ALWAYS be part and parcel of this country. Governments are quite simply not for profit businesses. They are totally dependent upon income from the private sector and income predictions are based on forecasts, not hard, fast numbers. Not that it shouldn’t be a goal and deficits kept at an acceptable minimum but an ongoing balanced budget is an illusion and a political talking point. What we have now is an unprecented out-of-control spending spree that WILL suspend any reasonable expectations of an early end to this unique recession.
The so-called surplus left behind by Clinton was nothing more than smoke and mirrors, dependent upon unrealistic expectations and reductions along with rose-colored financial forecasts.
“…The banking collapse was created by Clinton and the Democrats creating a junk loan program for blacks and illegal Mexicans, which collapsed in 2007….” is a accurate analysis but the other side of the coin was omitted. Clinton needed help to get it done and Repubicans wanted deregulation just as badly as Clinton and Democrats so the two sides joined to make it happen. It was a give and take agreement that ultimately screwed the taxpayers.
Sorry, should be “is an accurate”
A whole bunch of Republicans will vote for anything that says “deregulation”, even when it is something else. Many of them are liberals, who agree with Democrats – they just wear a different jersey. Very few of them ever read any bill before the votes. Most of them are afraid of being labeled “racist” by the media if they question any of these ghetto giveaway schemes.