The 2012 United States Presidential Election

[illinois_hustle]

It's not based on any research, just a feeling I have, but it seems that the GOP is waiting until 2016 to take over the presidency, i.e that they think Obama is too strong, and any GOP candidates are just putting their names in now to get some publicity and practice.

Do I agree with this? No! If the economy continues to stall and unemployment stays high or even rises ... this is the critical issue of this particular time and the GOP could really exploit the fact that Obama has had 3 years, etc etc etc.

That said, it doesn't seem like any GOP candidate is going to put together a serious run. I think this is a mistake; even if Obama is to be re-elected, the intensity of the debate causes some conciliation.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by illinois_hustle

It's not based on any research, just a feeling I have, but it seems that the GOP is waiting until 2016 to take over the presidency, i.e that they think Obama is too strong, and any GOP candidates are just putting their names in now to get some publicity and practice.

Do I agree with this? No! If the economy continues to stall and unemployment stays high or even rises ... this is the critical issue of this particular time and the GOP could really exploit the fact that Obama has had 3 years, etc etc etc.

That said, it doesn't seem like any GOP candidate is going to put together a serious run. I think this is a mistake; even if Obama is to be re-elected, the intensity of the debate causes some conciliation.

I think it is hopeless for the GOP. That doesn't mean they shouldn't mount an effort, but I would prefer they concentrate on House/Senate races to limit the damage that Obama can continue to inflict. Obama won in a landslide last time. There were not that many states that he won by <10% of the vote. Yes, many people (like Dayton) got caught drinking the kool-aid and will change their vote, but I don't think that there will be enough. I think that the popular vote will be much closer than the 53% to 46% we had last time, but I just don't see the electoral vote breaking the way of the GOP. There are too many variables working in Obama's favor. There is still hate for Bush, he is withdrawing troops, we killed Bin Laden, he's excessively liberal, he's amazingly charismatic, he's in touch with the youth, and he's black. I don't think all of those can be overcome.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

I think it is hopeless for the GOP. That doesn't mean they shouldn't mount an effort, but I would prefer they concentrate on House/Senate races to limit the damage that Obama can continue to inflict. Obama won in a landslide last time. There were not that many states that he won by <10% of the vote. Yes, many people (like Dayton) got caught drinking the kool-aid and will change their vote, but I don't think that there will be enough. I think that the popular vote will be much closer than the 53% to 46% we had last time, but I just don't see the electoral vote breaking the way of the GOP. There are too many variables working in Obama's favor. There is still hate for Bush, he is withdrawing troops, we killed Bin Laden, he's excessively liberal, he's amazingly charismatic, he's in touch with the youth, and he's black. I don't think all of those can be overcome.

You just totally ruined my day.

He's a totally beatable candidate, but he's sure got an awful lot of help in the media that the Republicans don't have. Some of these Republican candidates can beat Obama, some can't. I'm not confident that the base will pick the right one.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

You just totally ruined my day.

He's a totally beatable candidate, but he's sure got an awful lot of help in the media that the Republicans don't have. Some of these Republican candidates can beat Obama, some can't. I'm not confident that the base will pick the right one.

If there is someone who can beat Obama, that person stands no chance in the GOP primary.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Huntsman is in big trouble with the base. Said in his announcement that he was going to be civil and not attack his opponents or Obama. He actually said he respects Obama. Great audio clip for the left. He's not going to win any points with the base on this one. They demand a candidate who is on the attack at all levels, and they would be correct.

In addition to this, he's a supporter of cap and trade. That immediately removes him from having any chance of getting my vote in the primary.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

If there is someone who can beat Obama, that person stands no chance in the GOP primary.

Yep. I've said on Facebook that the Republicans need to pick an electable candidate, because none of them will do as much damage to the country as four more years of Obama will. That seems completely absurd to hardcore conservatives. I get that they want to push a hard-right guy (or girl), which is fine, just make sure they are electable. Even a moderate is a hard shift back to the right from what we have now.

[DaytonIllini]

Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.

By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.

Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate.

“As far as the economy goes, I don’t see that he has delivered on the change that he promised,” said Sharon Ortiz, a 38-year-old independent voter from Hampton, Virginia, who supported Obama in 2008. “The jobs that he promised -- I haven’t seen it.”

At the same time, Americans are skeptical that Republican control of the White House and Congress will be a better prescription for their economic wellbeing. Sixty percent said that any Republican candidate will need to move so far to the right on fiscal and social issues to win their party’s nomination that it will be very hard to back the nominee.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...nomy-poll.html

This confirms everything said in the other thread. Obama is deeply unpopular and viewed as a failure from an economic standpoint. Nobody is enthralled with the current crop of Republicans. Everyone is afraid that whatever litmus test the 35% hard core Republican primary voters apply will alienate the moderates in both parties and the independents.

Two things to consider. At this point in time Reagan was very unpopular. He went on to be one of the most popular presidents in history. At this time last cycle nobody was too excited about the large field of Democrats in the primary.

[Illest]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Two things to consider. At this point in time Reagan was very unpopular. He went on to be one of the most popular presidents in history. At this time last cycle nobody was too excited about the large field of Democrats in the primary.

Well, I think Democrats were relatively excited about their 2008 field early on. But in 1992, when Cuomo, Gore, and the rest of the top Democratic candidates decided to sit it out, few people were enthralled. (Well, among my circles, there were a lot of people who liked Tsongas, but obviously that wasn't nationally representative.)

Point being, I agree with you. A year and a half is an eternity in politics. We have little or no idea what will happen in the election.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

In addition to this, he's a supporter of cap and trade. That immediately removes him from having any chance of getting my vote in the primary.

It might be all campaign talk, but while he supported cap and trade as governor, he says it has failed and no longer supports it.

Take that for what it's worth, I suppose.

Hannity interviewed him the other day. I don't much like Hannity, but I like Huntsman more and more as I learn more.

FWIW, there's heavy speculation that Huntsman got the ambassador position to get him out of the way politically, as the Obama camp felt that he was one of the primary GOP candidates that could trounce him.

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by ill07

Hannity interviewed him the other day. I don't much like Hannity, but I like Huntsman more and more as I learn more.

I'm trending in the exact opposite direction. I heard a taped portion of the Hannity interview this morning and wasn't impressed.

[KBLEE]

Club for Growth: Jon Huntsman 'inexcusable' on spending

“In the end, it is Governor Huntsman’s spending record that is inexcusable,” the paper says. “There is now widespread recognition that the next President must address the enormous threat posed by federal spending that threatens national bankruptcy. Huntsman’s failing grades on controlling state spending raise serious questions about whether he would be equal to that task.”

The white paper points to Huntsman’s apostasy on cap-and-trade, stimulus and bailouts to argue that he has been too eager to please the “intelligentsia.” and the elite media.

“In addition, we find Governor Huntsman’s statement that ‘health care is a right’ to be simply flabbergasting,” they say. “We’re not sure what part of the United States Constitution Governor Huntsman was referring to when he made that statement, but he certainly needs to explain what he was thinking.”

[DaytonIllini]

One thing to consider when we have so many poor people in this country and so many disabled and unhealthy people and so many illiterate people is that we probably need to ultimately spend more on social programs.

Fiscal conservatives are often painted as nature hating, poor hating people. Nothing could be further from the truth. It simply becomes one of priorities. If helping the poor makes all of us poor in the long run, it is a bad idea. It is a bit akin to putting a half dozen extra people on the last lifeboat. It sounds like the right thing to do rather than let them drown. If it causes all of you to drown though, was it really smart?

Spending by Huntsman might be the right thing to do or it might not. Ultimately though a fiscal conservative wants to allow government to grow AS THE ECONOMY grows. In other words if we have 3% growth in the economy, we can afford 3% growth in the government. Decades of 6-10% increases (counting unfunded liabilities) though have left the treasury empty and our nation wracked with debt. We must slash the spending to allow the private sector to grow us out of this mess. We must break the promises that we have made regarding SS and MC and decrease those benefits slightly. A fiscal conservative understands all of this. A fiscal liberal feels that you don't have to pay your bills, you can steal the money from someone else. There are never any consequences to wreckless spending because there never have been any.

I will be voting for a fiscal conservative. If we continue to venture down this path of spending, most of us are going to drown. Since I don't trust most Americans to wash their hands after they take a dump, I am trying to build my own lifeboat just in case we keep electing spenders.

[pizzaman]

Just my opinion but Obama can't lose if three things are happening in the fall of 2012:
Jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Wall street trending upward.
Greatly reduced military presense in the mideast.

I doubt all those come true and if someone is going to beat Obama I think they need to define a vision that accomplishes those goals, particularly the jobs. I think health care and the deficit will become back burner issues because no one really knows how to solve those issues without pissing off many (or most) voters.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

Jobs, jobs and more jobs.

Reminded me of this... :laugh:

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

Just my opinion but Obama can't lose if three things are happening in the fall of 2012:
Jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Wall street trending upward.
Greatly reduced military presense in the mideast.

I doubt all those come true and if someone is going to beat Obama I think they need to define a vision that accomplishes those goals, particularly the jobs. I think health care and the deficit will become back burner issues because no one really knows how to solve those issues without pissing off many (or most) voters.

I agree and one could argue that if all 3 of those things come true there might be little reason to get rid of him. His best campaign would be to do his job.

[NV Illini 74]

It might be hard for Bachman to stay in the race once the media drills her on her incapacitating migranes. If they are, in fact, that bad, I sure wouldn't want our Commander in Chief to be compromised like that.

OTOH, maybe a publication called the "Daily Caller" might just be stretching the truth a bit?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/st...l-use-alleged/

[ill07]

Originally Posted by NV Illini 74

It might be hard for Bachman to stay in the race once the media drills her on her incapacitating migranes. If they are, in fact, that bad, I sure wouldn't want our Commander in Chief to be compromised like that.

OTOH, maybe a publication called the "Daily Caller" might just be stretching the truth a bit?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/st...l-use-alleged/

Daily Caller is actually a fairly balanced source in my experience.

[ChicagoJoe]

Daily Caller is actually a fairly balanced source in my experience.

Read their op-ed pages. They're about as balanced as The Nation.

[ChicagoJoe]

I agree and one could argue that if all 3 of those things come true there might be little reason to get rid of him. His best campaign would be to do his job.

What would you do to create jobs? Payroll tax holiday hasn't done much, imo.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJoe

What would you do to create jobs? Payroll tax holiday hasn't done much, imo.

Why would anyone think that a payroll tax holiday would create any jobs. That is a liberal mantra that is simply nonsense. Can you imagine an employer saying, "Hey! I got $2K back this year in payroll taxes. I won't get it next year. Let's go hire someone with the money!"

Of course not. It is insane. The argument would have to be that everyone will have more money to spend and that will stimulate the economy. Except that business owners know that it is a temporary thing. Nobody is going to hire anyone except a temp to take care of a temporary bump in income.

[ChicagoJoe]

Why would anyone think that a payroll tax holiday would create any jobs. That is a liberal mantra that is simply nonsense. Can you imagine an employer saying, "Hey! I got $2K back this year in payroll taxes. I won't get it next year. Let's go hire someone with the money!"

Of course not. It is insane. The argument would have to be that everyone will have more money to spend and that will stimulate the economy. Except that business owners know that it is a temporary thing. Nobody is going to hire anyone except a temp to take care of a temporary bump in income.

Then what do you propose?

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJoe

Then what do you propose?

I suggest scrolling back through just one or two pages of this thread. Or, perhaps a search of posts by Dayton. Or, not assuming all you hear on MSNBC is true.

[ChicagoJoe]

I suggest scrolling back through just one or two pages of this thread.

There's really nothing on this thread that approaches a policy discussion.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJoe

Then what do you propose?

Jobs will be created when there is a demand for the products and services that employers provide. Businesses will hire people when there is a reason to do so.

The housing mess is a big part of this. New homes generate construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, and effect financial and insurance industries. At the most fundamental, logging and mining products are used in constuction. When those jobs are filled, those people will purchase goods and services (like cars and trucks) that keep the economy moving.

The financial crisis has hit the housing industry hard and that has rippled through the nations economy.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJoe

There's really nothing on this thread that approaches a policy discussion.

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forum...1&postcount=39

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forum...2&postcount=25

It isn't complex. You need to have stability in the economy. Quit tinkering and adding layers of government. Stop jawboning of companies (the only true job creators) and stop the social warfare. Until the President realizes how destructive of jobs he personally has been in his tenure, it cannot be fixed. Since he is far too pig-headed to realize that Cambridge and DC may not understand Main Street very well, we are in for a lot of bad job news in all likelihood.