Posted on 05/06/2011 10:14:56 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
It’s the oldest truism in politics: You can’t beat something with nothing. For 2012, the Democrats have something: Barack Obama. The Republicans, so far, have nothing.
This could change. But who is going to change it? And when? It may seem like the Republicans have lots of time until the 2012 campaign, but they do not.
Obama is already running for re-election and already raising money. Lots of money. For the GOP, the sands are rushing through the hourglass.
Item: The Quinnipiac poll finds “Still No Clear Leader in GOP Field.” Pollster Peter Brown says: “It is difficult to get a handle on the 2012 Republican race. Many contenders are not well-known, and many who are known are not liked, making their candidacies problematic.”
The killing of Osama bin Laden by the Obama administration shows what a difference a death can make. Not to world security — that is still dicey. But the Republican field has been fried like an egg.
Item: “The day after a one-day Washington Post poll found Obama getting a nine-point bounce in his approval rating, a new two-day New York Times/CBS survey shows the president’s numbers increasing 11 points, from 46 percent last month to 57 percent now,” says First Read. “The increase in Mr. Obama’s ratings came largely from Republicans and independents.”
Item: Bruce Keough, the 2008 director of Mitt Romney’s New Hampshire campaign, says he won’t rejoin in 2012 because, according to a Mother Jones interview, “he’s no longer sure what Romney stands for.” Keough says: “I don’t think the voters are looking for somebody who’s going to be recasting himself.”
No matter how well Republicans did as a party in the last congressional elections, their presidential field was shallow in 2008 — and it is shallow today.
In 2008, the Republican order of finish based on delegates to the nominating convention was: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Rudy Giuliani ran in the primaries but ended up with no delegates. The rest of the field of Alan Keyes, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, etc., withdrew before the primaries.
Take a gander at those names and tell me how many you can see in the Oval Office running the country today? Two? One? None?
Here is the Republican field for 2012 based on the highly useful Real Clear Politics average of leading polls. The potential candidates are, in order: Huckabee, Romney, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Paul, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Rick Santorum. Others may enter. Huckabee is polling at 16.6 percent; Romney, 16.5; Trump, 16.3, and Palin, 10.1. The rest are in single digits.
How many would make you comfortable if they were sitting in the Oval Office, making decisions about the economy, health care, education, the environment and war and peace?
If you came up with any names at all, how confident are you that any one of them could defeat Obama?
And now you see the problem for the Republicans. It’s not the billion dollars Obama is expected to raise, it’s not that he has gone through a presidential general election campaign while none of the Republicans have (except Palin), it’s not his oratorical skills and mastery of the issues, it’s the image he has created based upon his record of a competent, cool, skilled, experienced, capable leader.
Has he done things that have disappointed Democrats and enraged Republicans? Of course; especially his perilous policy of continuing the war in Afghanistan and his launching of a confused and confusing war in Libya.
But Obama also rescued the economy, saved the auto industry, expanded health care to millions of children, passed health-care reform for everybody, repealed the ban on gays serving openly in the military and eased restrictions on stem-cell research.
And oh, yeah, he found and killed Osama bin Laden.
Does this mean we don’t need an election campaign in 2012 and that Obama has already won?
Nope. He has vulnerabilities. He is going to have to defend a four-year record. And the economy could tank. Even further. The Republicans could beat this guy. All they have to do is find someone to do it.
They have to find a candidate who is smart, gutsy, nimble, creative, credible, determined and capable of raising vast sums of money.
Give me a minute, and I’ll try to come up with a name.
George Bush Sr. seemed to be in a superior position coming in to his second run for president too.
The “magic negro” is going down.
You beat me to the “delusional” statement. Gas prices are going to kill the economy and by late Aug., the Rats will be jumping ship to save their own skins.
Take a pill.
Trump's got squat. What happened to his investigators "who can't believe what they are seeing"? LOL. Here he basically makes "birtherism" the centerpiece of a possible vanity campaign bid and his issue gets blown to pieces in his face in embarrassing fashion.
Trump is not a serious candidate, he is not a conservative, he will never win the GOP nomination and he will never be President of the United States.
We have plenty of real candidates and potential candidates, Trump is not one of them.
18 months is a political lifetime. A long one.
I’m really hoping that Trump will take it to Barry in the ‘rat primaries. That would be his best strategy right now.
You mean no incumbent other than FDR, twice - right?
For a more modern comparison, the unemployment rate was actually the same on election day 1984 from where it was when Reagan initially assumed office - 7.2%, and it had climbed to as high as (I think) 11% or so. I think if Obama can keep it below 8.5% considering it was almost 8% when he assumed office, he's probably still the favorite, and if he can somehow manage to get it below 8%, then he's going to be tough to beat.
You may be right. But I don't think we've seen the end of Trump by any means. I think he's going to make Dumbo his whipping boy.
I may be wrong. We'll have to wait for Michelle to sing.
The only person Ronald Reagan trailed in any poll leading up to 1980 was (strangely) Gerald Ford.
There's an oft-repeated refrain here at FR that goes something like - "Look how unpopular Reagan was during the 1980 primary campaign, yada, yada, yada".
It's not true. Reagan was always one of the two frontrunners along with Ford, and once Ford was unequivocal in his decision to not run, Reagan never had even a moment of competition.
Palin is going to knock Obama’s teeth out.
I just think it’s dangerous to underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate. Obama seems to have an immovable hard core of about 40% to build upon. After his abysmal record, that’s what’s depressing.
“How many would make you comfortable if they were sitting in the Oval Office, making decisions about the economy, health care, education, the environment and war and peace?”
Peter Pan and Tinkerbell could do a better job and make me feel much more comfortable than Obama.
Obama must go at any cost, ANY.
The Republicans in the House need to start impeachment proceedings over Libya. Challenging Obama that way is going to put the boy king on the defensive. Just like Kerry, Obama is going to lose it at some point. If the Republicans take the Senate, even if the boy king gets elected, the rails are greased to convict the man and send him back to Chicago to play golf on his own dime.
Didn't the HBM said the same thing about Jimmah??
I have to agree. Obama is unbeatable in 2012. I don’t care who runs against him they will lose. When push comes to shove people are just not going to toss that jerk out of the WH. Believe me I’d love to be wrong on this but I’m not.
In fact I have become so cynical I wouldn’t be surprised if there were no elections at all in 2012. I can see a scenario where terrorism, because of the OBL execution, becomes so rampant that martial law is declared and elections suspended. This scenario could take on even more gravity if Obama’s poll numbers were poor.
Let’s face it the Commies have never been this powerful nor have they been so close to a complete take over of this country. They will do anything it takes to keep the power and complete their goal of world revolution.
I can’t find any pre primary polling from the day strangely enough on line. I have a different view of 1979. Baker and Bush were strong until the Primaries which were a sweep for Reagan. The Ford hype at the time was a media fabrication because he said he wasn’t going to run. Remember all the BS at the convention from Cronkite on Reagan/Ford? Much like the Christie hype today. You are most likely right, but I am not the only one who had that impression of the early part of that election cycle before the states voted.
Found this fun spot when digging to confirm my fuzzy memories that I didn’t remember.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980/pres-ford
With that so called solid support, what has he been able to accomplish? Every single election since he became President starting with VA Gov has been a rout. If the '10 midterms didn't boost your opinion of the American electorate, you are doomed to go through life eternally depressed. Look at all the carnage the so called stupid voters did in state and local elections along with many federal. Do you think the Unions would be on the run if things were as bad as you think?
You seem jubilant. Too much so.
I am because there is some truth to the lack of leadership of the GOP. EVery day RINOs keep politicking like Obama. They are trying to keep his campaign model of cowardice.
Note how Zero wants all the credit amongst conservatives for killing OBL but none of the blame that would expose him in liberal circles. He does not want to take the RESPONSABILITY, he wants AMERICA to take responsability, in self hate.
THe GOP is following the same Stokholm syndrome self hate momentum that was started by Bob Dole and got us that little monkey wrench Perot and then Clinton coward in power.
Yes, it's hard to find. I have looked before myself, which is one reason that Nate Silver Piece for the NYTs' 538 blog stuck out to me several weeks ago. He answered some questions I had been asking myself.
Gallup offered some additional analysis earlier last month as well. It may be found here . In it, they said about 1980...
"1980: Reagan's bid for the Republican nomination in 1976 paid off in 1979, when he emerged as the front-runner for the 1980 Republican nomination. Although George H.W. Bush came the closest to actually toppling Reagan in the early primaries, Reagan's closest competition in 1979 Gallup polls for support among Republicans nationwide came from Gerald Ford, who never formally entered the race. In January 1979, Reagan led Ford by 31% to 26%. Republicans' preferences for the two were about tied from May through July, but by August, Reagan was up, 36% to 22%, and he maintained a strong lead through the end of the year. When the 1979 trend is re-configured by substituting Ford supporters' second choice, Reagan's position looks even stronger -- he beat John Connally and Howard Baker by more than 20 points in each poll."
If you have access to a college library that has Lexis access, you can pull some of the network polls from back in the day. I was able to find several CBS polls from '79 and a few from NBC as well - all had Reagan leading pretty comfortably.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.