GOP chances in 2016

[Atreus21]

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.

Can I get a...goddamn it where is the...

Ah, here it is.

 

[nageov3t]

more important than any of the GOP's candidates is probably the fact that Obama is gearing up to drop a billion dollars getting himself reelected.

 

[Anarchist420]

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

The fucked up thing is that most of the people in the GOP are dumbfucks of the Neocon/Rockefeller Republican faction and won't vote for someone (i.e. Ron Paul) who could beat Obama by a lot more than that. The GOP is really risking it by choosing Romney.

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.

See below. The Tea Party isn't against the welfare state.

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.

The Tea Party recently said they will support anyone who gets the GOP nom for President, including Romney. The tea party is nothing more than a bunch of brown shirt fuckheads. All the tea party cares about is banning gay marriage, restricting illegal immigration, and increasing the size of the military.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

Romney is probably their best candidate for 2012, and he might be able to make some headway by running on a pro-American jobs, anti-offshoring, anti-immigration type of platform.

The GOP definitely has a good chance in 2016, not because the GOP has any better ideas, but simply because the depression and transformation of the U.S. into a third world country will have continued to that time. Of course, the GOP which is largely responsible for the problem won't be able to fix it after being elected, either, and eventually the Democrats will get back in either in 2020 or 2024 when things have gotten even worse.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Personally the GOP has two potential causes of defeat in 2016: (1) An economic recovery may happen by then...

Nope. It's not going to happen unless the Democrats change course and attempt to end foreign outsourcing, mass immigration, and eliminate the H-1B, L-1, and other visa programs. It's possible that unemployment might decrease a bit and that in that sense we might have a "recovery", but there will still be a net loss of solid middle class jobs with those jobs having been replaced by poverty-wage jobs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

Obama is far from a shoe-in for reelection. However, the Republican field is pretty weak and they are liable to nominate either the Dingbat (Palin) or the Moron (Bachman). Those two might appeal to the Republican and Tea Party base, but they'll chase off independents and they'll incite the Democrats' base to come to the polls.

 

[nageov3t]

Obama is far from a shoe-in for reelection. However, the Republican field is pretty weak and they are liable to nominate either the Dingbat (Palin) or the Moron (Bachman). Those two might appeal to the Republican and Tea Party base, but they'll chase off independents and they'll incite the Democrats' base to come to the polls.

best case scenario is that Palin, Bachmann, and Santorum all split the far right vote and allow a moderate like Huntsman to accidentally slip through.

it's also worth mentioning that at this point leading up to the '92 elections, Bill Clinton was some stranger bitch that no one had ever heard of (ditto with John Kerry before '04)

 

[Thump553]

Romney is probably their best candidate for 2012, and he might be able to make some headway by running on a pro-American jobs, anti-offshoring, anti-immigration type of platform.

* * *

To put it mildly, Romney's going to have to overcome quite a bit of his actual past businesses practices if he campaigns on a pro-American jobs, anti-offshoring platform.

I agree Romney's the most likely choice (Palin and Bachmann not a chance, unfortunately) but the Dems will have an absolute field day running ads hanging him with his prior conflicting statements and actions. Remember when he claimed he was left of Teddie Kennedy? When he was pro-abortion? The list goes on forever as far as his flip-flops go.

 

[sunzt]

To put it mildly, Romney's going to have to overcome quite a bit of his actual past businesses practices if he campaigns on a pro-American jobs, anti-offshoring platform.

I agree Romney's the most likely choice (Palin and Bachmann not a chance, unfortunately) but the Dems will have an absolute field day running ads hanging him with his prior conflicting statements and actions. Remember when he claimed he was left of Teddie Kennedy? When he was pro-abortion? The list goes on forever as far as his flip-flops go.

I think Huntsman can be the dark horse. I'll take him over Romney any day.

 

[JTsyo]

Can I start making Biden 2016 stickers yet?

 

[Freshgeardude]

if the economy is in a shithole come 2012, obama wont be relected.

why would the average american vote for a man who hasnt fixed the problem?


Look at the 2010 mid-term elections, the republicans took a lot back from the dems 2 years before and that was simply because the dems didnt do a good job


when voters see that, they will decide " do we keep the guy who hasnt fixed anything or try a new guy"


it has less to do with "who is this new guy" as opposed to "we dont like the old guy"

obama is losing support fast, as fast as the economy doesnt get better.

 

[OCGuy]

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

10%? Much more than that. The unemployment % doesnt count people who have given up looking for work, or who have reduced hours and are barely holding on.

This economy is much worse than the Obama administration is leading you to believe. They know that the economy is probably the one thing that could cost him the election, other than Osama making a "I'm still alive!" video and putting it on youtube.

 

[Fern]

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.... -smip-
.

FFS, they haven't even STARTED campaigning yet. They may end up sucking, but to declare them campaign failures at this point is ridiculous.

Personally, I think if things continue as they have, the Repub candidate need not run on his/her virtues or policies; just run against Obama. Keep Obama in the spotlight and just being the 'not-Obama' candidate may be enough to win.

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

To put it mildly, Romney's going to have to overcome quite a bit of his actual past businesses practices if he campaigns on a pro-American jobs, anti-offshoring platform.

I agree Romney's the most likely choice (Palin and Bachmann not a chance, unfortunately) but the Dems will have an absolute field day running ads hanging him with his prior conflicting statements and actions. Remember when he claimed he was left of Teddie Kennedy? When he was pro-abortion? The list goes on forever as far as his flip-flops go.

Yep, made his millions by gutting companies and selling off it's assets.

 

[nageov3t]

I think Huntsman can be the dark horse. I'll take him over Romney any day.

I'd love it, but it would require the Romney campaign to implode and the far right evangelicals to fail to rally behind any one candidate and split their vote.

but it would be cool if a pro-civil union Republican had a strong showing.

 

[ProfJohn]

if the economy is in a shithole come 2012, obama wont be relected.

why would the average american vote for a man who hasnt fixed the problem?


Look at the 2010 mid-term elections, the republicans took a lot back from the dems 2 years before and that was simply because the dems didnt do a good job


when voters see that, they will decide " do we keep the guy who hasnt fixed anything or try a new guy"


it has less to do with "who is this new guy" as opposed to "we dont like the old guy"

obama is losing support fast, as fast as the economy doesnt get better.

Nice to see someone get it right.


2012 will not be about who the GOP nominates. It will be about whether the American people want 4 more years of Obama. If the election were held today it's a tossup as to whether Obama could win.

 

[Doppel]

I'm at this time finalizing my picks for the 2092 election.

Is OP serious?

 

[Genx87]

It is the economy stupid. Obama will fall victim or benefit from it just like any other candidate.

 

[Tom]

It comes down to Florida, Ohio, etc. So we Democrats shouldn't be over-confident based on national polling.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, why are you engaging in political prognostication with Pro-Jo? Is there a single person on this board who has been more consistently wrong? He just says 'Republicans are going to win' for every election, so what's the point?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Nice to see someone get it right.


2012 will not be about who the GOP nominates. It will be about whether the American people want 4 more years of Obama. If the election were held today it's a tossup as to whether Obama could win.

I know it is pretty much pointless to post facts in a nonprofjohn thread, since he really hates facts, but looking at the 2008 election, take a look at all of these early 2005-2007 polls. Note to nonprofjohn, they are wildly inaccurate and looked nothing like the actual 2008 election. Amazing, huh?

His wish is that these early polls mean something, but the reality is they do not. But again, as a true far-right neocon, reality does not apply to him (see Sarah Palin defense for better understanding or having his own reality)

Link

 

[ProfJohn]

Maybe you need to look at your link again.

In June 2007 the Democrats were winning nearly every poll.

Of course we shouldn't even look at 2008 since we were dealing with a wide open field and very few people knew the candidates.

Today everyone knows Obama and what he stands for and when he is losing to a candidate that most people don't really know much about then it is a bad sign.

 

[Lemon law]

OK let change the thread scenario, suppose the the American people vote in a GOP prez, house, and Senate in 2012.

And surer than GOD and little green apples, the GOP with all its economic twits will have America up to 25% unemployment.

Like they say, you can pay me now or pay be later, either way, its going to result in a FDR situation. Sadly Obama is no FDR, as the other Roosevelt might of said, Obama has all the backbone of a chocolate Eclair. But better an Obama than a fool like GWB or Hoover. Sadly the GOP has not learned a damn thing since the days of Hoover.

 

[ProfJohn]

So Obama's message next year will be "I know I haven't done a good job or created a lot of jobs and unemployment is still at 9%, but if you elect Republicans things will just get worse!"


Good luck with that one.

 

[MovingTarget]

Unlike the current crop of piss-poor candidates from the GOP, the 2016 candidates may be an entirely different story. A lot can happen between now and then. We likely haven't heard much at all from the eventual candidate in that election. Outlook cloudy.