Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?Nicholas Kronos -- Monday, January 31, 2011 -- 05:44:24 PM
The 2012 presidential campaign--you know it's coming and starting already. Will anyone run we can actually be excited about?This thread is tagged:
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
If Romney wins the nomination (by default), we'll have four more years of Obama. It's not that I think Romney can't hold his own against Obama in a debate--I think he'd actually do pretty well--it's that he's used goods and too many conservatives will stay home.
One thing about a candidate who runs repeatedly is those who dislike him have more chances to become entrenched in their views, as well as sick of having him foisted on them by supporters. At least with a new candidate you don't have so many past grievances. It seems to me that Romney is still very divisive within the GOP from last time.
Would dislike of Obama and fear of a second term be enough to overcome that? It would be easier not have to deal with it.
Personally, I'm ready to vote for almost any likely GOP nominee against the Big 0. But I'm not too excited about most of the prospects.
i agree with Nick. Romney can not win.
so, i hope the GOP really gets behind him!
(and i thought this thread was about racing / NASCAR when i saw it in the top 10 list on the side)
New CNN poll says:
26 percent -> definitely for Obama 2012
23 percent -> probably for
16 percent -> probably not
35 percent -> definitely not
That's registered voters. Interesting in the demographic breakout is non-whites:
50 percent -> definitely for Obama 2012
26 percent -> probably for
9 percent -> probably not
11 percent -> definitely not
15 percent -> definitely for Obama 2012
21 percent -> probably for
18 percent -> probably not
44 percent -> definitely not
Whites went 55 to 43 for McCain in 2008 according to exit polls, so that's about a 9 point drop. Also, Obama split men and won women by 13 points. Most all of his popularity decline is among women--presumably then, white women.
(downloaded PDF, so not linking)
Estimates are that Barack Obama will initiate his 2012 re-election drive with a $1 billion war chest. The need to raise such massive funding to mount a credible campaign means candidates must likewise ramp up earlier and earlier in the election cycle, which in turn feeds on itself, especially in an era where professional consultants have supplanted unpaid volunteers. (Whitman spent $1 million to lure heavy hitter Mike Murphy before he did one thing for her campaign.)
The example of Brown, however, shows that a candidate can take advantage of the right circumstances to minimize wasteful excess and achieve better results with less money. Moreover, Sarah Palinâ€™s rapid rise and fall in the 2008 election cycle highlights that a candidate need not even have widespread name recognition and immediate credibility because of a heavy resume to dominate an election for shortâ€“even criticalâ€“ periods. Hence the conflicting vector of high-tech, high-dispersion information in the 21st century: if a candidate or a story about the candidate can exploit the viral vulnerabilities of new media, it will be much more effectiveâ€“especially in terms of bang for buckâ€“than any expensive TV ad.
Cost argues that Thompson's strategy--enter late--was correct, even though the candidate himself failed to exploit it. I agree.
It's a fine strategy for someone who, unlike Thompson, looks like they might actually want to be president. Moreover you have to be the sort of person people may not have considered before but, from the moment you announce, people realize you're a great candidate. It has to feel like a real gem of a discovery for people to leave whoever they're thinking about at that point and move to you.
Mitch Daniels could pull it off. Maybe Pawlenty. It has to be someone with lower name recognition who isn't already obviously running for president - which excludes Romney, Palin, etc. One of the advantages is that it's a strategy the 2008 retreads can't really pull off.
That's what I said, too, same example of Thompson, but the day before. From my post (quoted):
The viral factor undermines the conventional assumption promoted especially by dinosaur media that the early start is, in fact, necessary. Foregoing the early campaign means a candidate will not have the big bank account–which will itself be a media story and indicate to mainstream eyes a quixotic campaign. Nevertheless, with the right hook (and a scrupulously self-vetted background) , the right candidate can wait until his or her opponents have bled themselves dry, other candidates have become tired and sickening to voters, and then spring into the fray.
This won’t work for someone like Rudolph Giuliani, who appeared to try a late-entry strategy in the 2008 GOP primaries, as he was not a surprise candidate at all. Nor did it work for Fred Thompson because he was unable to ignite any viral excitement and allowed the media to portray him as a lazy, stodgy joke. But it could very well work for a Palin-type other than Palin herself–who stands to gain little by a diffident strategy except to reinforce the notion of her unseriousness.
Stories about Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney as current front-runners for the GOP nod, therefore, are irrelevant.
I think it has to be someone who doesn't have a checkered past or even one big skeleton. And lots of innate charisma, especially a hook. And who can excite on the stump.
Palin as VP in 2008 had that initial effect, but her handlers botched the post-convention roll out, and the media did a hatchet job on her. But she had all the ingredients, including the hook of being a young (for politicians), conservative woman.
Trump was on Oprah recently with his five children touting what a great father he is. That article mentions an appearance on Piers Morgan's show and he also gave a speech at CPAC. On Morning Joe this morning, he said he can't announce until the current season of The Apprentice is over. He has $2 billion of his own money. It certainly looks like he is serious about running.
Trump won't run. The fact is that every candidate is "forced" to release years of tax returns, and one of Trump's most carefully guarded secrets is the state of his finances and net worth. The tax returns alone would indicate what percentage of the "Trump" branded properties he actually owns, etc. etc. IMO, just another attention-getting device for some ulterior egotistic motive.
Moron, the same goes for the jug-eared empty-suited imbecile in the WH.
He might as well resign in disgrace now, instead of wasting the $1+ billion it will take for him to run again.
Only a total fool, and/or the criminally-insane, would contribute money to the blithering idiot President Jughead's re-election.
“I've had a life which, on occasion, has had problems,” he added. “I believe in a forgiving God, and the American people will have to decide whether that their primary concern. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future... that's a debate I'll be happy to have with your candidate or any other candidate if I decide to run."
Gingrich cheated on his first with his second, and his second with his third. If I were the third Ms. Gingrich, I'd watch that shitheel like a hawk.
Really? You'd have married the guy in the first place given his history, and expect us to believe you'd get tough then?