GOP chances in 2016

[Thump553]

Take a look at this op-ed and let me know your thoughts:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/29/the-upside-of-gop-despair.html

My synopsis: GOP doesn't stand a chance in 2012-their current crop of candidates are pathetic and they are running against a strong and relatively popular President. Things are totally different in 2016 though, with the GOP then having a pretty broad range of new (but then seasoned) and attractive candidates. OTOH (not really discussed in the article) in 2016 the Dems currently have no real attractive prospects on the horizon. Very likely the GOP will take the White House back in 2016.

Of course all of this could be upset by a dark horse like Clinton in 1992 (or possibly Obama in 2008), where each pretty much came out of nowhere but those are pretty rare occurrences.

 

[fskimospy]

Predicting with much accuracy what will happen a year and a half from now in politics is pretty damn hard. All you can really do is rely on the historical record and make your best guess.

Predicting what will happen five and a half years from now in politics is borderline insanity.

 

[MissingYou]

If 10% of the people are out of work; the WH is up for grabs for who has the best smokescreen

 

[sunzt]

I like John Huntsman from GOP.

 

[dullard]

Of course all of this could be upset by a dark horse like Clinton in 1992 (or possibly Obama in 2008), where each pretty much came out of nowhere but those are pretty rare occurrences.

Are they rare occurences? You are telling me that 2 out of the last 3 presidents is a rare thing. Sounds common to me. Even if those were the only dark horses (which they aren't), that is still 5% of all presidents. That isn't too rare.

Personally the GOP has two potential causes of defeat in 2016: (1) An economic recovery may happen by then and (2) the TEA party may split the republicans in two. The latter is the most dangerous for the GOP. They are a party of people who really have nothing in common but are forced to vote together on all the issues. At some point, people are going to realize that just because they support guns doesn't mean they have to be against gay marriage. Just because they are against gay marriage doesn't mean they have to want smaller government. Just because they want smaller government doesn't mean they want a bigger military. Etc. At some point people will realize the glue that holds them together is very fragile. The TEA party might just do it.

On the other hand, the Democrats have one potential cause of defeat in 2016: the economy is still bad. In other words, the Democrats are in control of their own destiny.

Democrats can easilly lose 2016 (which they are quite skilled at doing by putting up uncharismatic robots for presidential candidates), but no matter what the GOP does, they might not be able to win it.

 

[ProfJohn]

psst.....

Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.

The campaign has not even started and Romney is already beating Obama at the polls.

Would you care to revise your OP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...gop-contenders/2011/06/06/AGT5wiKH_print.html

 

[IBMer]

The campaign has not even started and Romney is already beating Obama at the polls.

Would you care to revise your OP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...iKH_print.html

Yah until the tea party doesn't have a leg to stand on with Romney Care. He can't talk about Obama Care at all with that standing out there.

 

[MotF Bane]

psst.....



The campaign has not even started and Romney is already beating Obama at the polls.

Would you care to revise your OP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...gop-contenders/2011/06/06/AGT5wiKH_print.html

Obama will defeat Romney in the general election (if Romney gets there). Feel free to quote that if you wish.

 

[MotF Bane]

Take a look at this op-ed and let me know your thoughts:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/29/the-upside-of-gop-despair.html

My synopsis: GOP doesn't stand a chance in 2012-their current crop of candidates are pathetic and they are running against a strong and relatively popular President. Things are totally different in 2016 though, with the GOP then having a pretty broad range of new (but then seasoned) and attractive candidates. OTOH (not really discussed in the article) in 2016 the Dems currently have no real attractive prospects on the horizon. Very likely the GOP will take the White House back in 2016.

Of course all of this could be upset by a dark horse like Clinton in 1992 (or possibly Obama in 2008), where each pretty much came out of nowhere but those are pretty rare occurrences.

I agree with your assessment of 2012, but 2016 is too far away to say anything about except that Obama will no longer be a factor.

 

[matt0611]

Its so far in the future its hardly worth thinking about, theres so much that can happen between then and now, we could have another financial collapse (very likely IMO)

If Obama wins this term (which i think he still has a decent chance in doing) then I think the GOP has a strong chance of winning the presidency in 2016. But again, its just so far away.

Obama will defeat Romney in the general election (if Romney gets there). Feel free to quote that if you wish.

Yep, I would also bet that way if I were a betting man.

 

[nageov3t]

one leading Democrat after another was looking at the 1992 campaign and deciding that George Bush could not be beaten...

Representative Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, said, "This is no longer an entertaining situation. This is becoming a serious problem."

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/08/u...ential-field-shrinks.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

a year and a half is a pretty long time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Look at the data from the poll I linked:
By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak.

Obama is in big trouble. Unemployment is over 9% and no one since FDR has won reelection with it being over 7%.

 

[Lotheron]

Yeah I'm not sure how anyone can say Obama is a shoe-in for the reelection. I'm not saying that he won't get it, but he's damn sure gonna have to put up a fight cause there are more than enough that do not like is record as president to get him voted out of office.

 

[dullard]

Obama is in big trouble. Unemployment is over 9% and no one since FDR has won reelection with it being over 7%.

A year and a half is a long time, but Obama is still barely over 50% approval link to republican leaning poll average website. If he has over 50% approval in 2012 then Obama will almost certainly win.

Unemployment rate has virtually no relationship to margin of victory. That is, there is no statistical evidence that the unemployment rate EVER had an impact on any presidential race in the last 100 years.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Otherwise, you'll nominate an unelectable candidate in 2012.

The real key is the unanswered question. Who will be motivated to vote in 2012 and 2016? I see no motivation from the GOP side at the moment (witness recent special elections where the GOP candidate did far worse than he/she should have done in Wisconsin and New York). Can the GOP raise motivations to vote? Or will there be a lot of GOP supporters sitting at home in 2012? In which case polls of approval or of pitting one person vs the other are useless.

 

[nick1985]

Yep, I would also bet that way if I were a betting man.

same

 

[Thump553]

psst.....



The campaign has not even started and Romney is already beating Obama at the polls.

Would you care to revise your OP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...gop-contenders/2011/06/06/AGT5wiKH_print.html

My guess is Romney will be the GOP nominee in 2012 but he will never be elected. Besides being from a bizarre pseudo Christian cult with magic underwear (albeit a cult that has grown enormously in the past few decades) Romney is the poster boy for flip flop opinions. He has absolutely no principles but will firmly assert whatever is the current popular view. The teabaggers greatly distrust him for good reason. As for the rest of us Huckabee summed it up best-Romney reminds you of the boss who laid you off.

The only things Romney has going for him is that he doesn't appear batshit crazy at first blush and he's handsome in a CEO kind of way.

 

[Lemon law]

I think its more a FDR question for the GOP. Even though the economy really sucked during the great depression, the general voting public still blamed the GOP for getting us into the Great Depression mess in the first place. And quite properly so.

Obama inherited a basket case economy from GWB, and has managed to only keep the bottom from dropping out unlike the same GOP under Hoover. As the GOP then advocated the same economic policies the GOP advocate to day that resulted in 25% unemployment. But still the GOP blocks important reforms needed to get the economy on sounder footing making it hard to recover.

But if this year's GOP house refuses to do its bit to be a part of government, its not hard to predict that the GOP can and will collapse the economy well before 11/2012. And we get vastly increased unemployment, the American voting public is still likely to blame the GOP.

In terms of the op ed article on all those new rising GOP stars being Presidential timber by 2016, a falling tide will drop all boats and cast them on the rocks. Candidates like Christie and other T partier governors, may not look good after being divisive and worse yet in GOP la la land. A blind assumption made by the OP ED author that they will look good in 2016.

As Eskimospy said, its very hard to make long range political predictions 5.5 years into the future. Unless one party or the other really screws up.

 

[dullard]

The only things Romney has going for him is that he doesn't appear batshit crazy at first blush and he's handsome in a CEO kind of way.

Romney's biggest asset is his looks. Since the TV debates, the better looking candidate has always won. McCain's deformed face vs Obama. Kerry's horse face vs likeable Bush. Boring Gore. Etc. This trend can certainly be broken (like if Palin was nominated), but good looks do give candidates a large advantage.

When I've asked my friends and classmates over the years, about 50% of them vote solely on looks.

 

[nageov3t]

I'd imagine the GOP line will be some variation of "Bush may have done bad, but Obama made it worse."

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

psst.....



The campaign has not even started and Romney is already beating Obama at the polls.

Would you care to revise your OP?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...gop-contenders/2011/06/06/AGT5wiKH_print.html

You mean like the polls that picked Giuliani and Clinton to go against each other 2 years before the last election? Look how accurate they were.

 

[MotF Bane]

Romney's biggest asset is his looks. Since the TV debates, the better looking candidate has always won. McCain's deformed face vs Obama. Kerry's horse face vs likeable Bush. Boring Gore. Etc. This trend can certainly be broken (like if Palin was nominated), but good looks do give candidates a large advantage.

When I've asked my friends and classmates over the years, about 50% of them vote solely on looks.

D:

 

[ProfJohn]

James Carville on Obama's re-election:

“[L]ook, I don’t think anybody — if 54,000 new jobs is the new standard, it’s going to be a very, very rough 2012 for President Obama,” Carville said. “But the three-month average was 160,000. If that is the case, then he will do OK. I can’t tell you what will happen. But yes, if this, if this last jobs number is an indication of future job numbers, it’s going to be very, very rough.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/06/c...vil-unrest-imminently-possible/#ixzz1ObioqJd4

The current economic news is very bad for Obama. The economy is at a complete standstill. Not getting worse, but not really getting better. The longer it stays in this state the worse it gets for Obama.

 

[Lemon law]

I'd imagine the GOP line will be some variation of "Bush may have done bad, but Obama made it worse."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GOP may have the best spin, but the GOP's current problem is that they believe their own spin. If the GOP has a major role in getting us to 25% unemployment, reality always trumps spin.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'd guess you could take Christie, Ryan, and Haley out of the equation for 2016. Haley for his tabacco ties, Ryan for his current budget (he's not popular now) and Christie is unpopular at home as well. Jindal is boring like Pawlenty.

But it's far too early to tell.

 

[BoberFett]

Unless they can find some amazingly brilliant candidate that we just haven't heard of yet, Obama will have no problem securing a second term.

The Republicans are buffoons playing to an audience of morons. They have their dedicated base but the swing voters with whom elections are won or lost are not as easily tricked. They just hold their nose and vote for the least awful person and like it or not, Obama is at least unoffensive to the average person.