Most political observers say the GOP field is set by now. But what if it really isn't?
But the elongated layout of the nominating calendar this time provides the opportunity for a late-starting candidate to emerge. Should Mitt Romney stumble badly in the January events in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, another establishment Republican could enter the race in early February and still compete directly in states with at least 1,200 of the 2,282 or so GOP delegates. Many of them will be up for grabs after April 1 when statewide winner-take-all is possible.
Similarly, should non-Romney alternatives led by Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry fall flat in the January contests, there would be time for the conservative wing of the party to find a new champion to carry its banner through the bulk of the primary season.
[. . .]
To be successful, a late-starting campaign needs to feature a candidate with considerable fund-raising and organizational ability who is capable of quickly grabbing national attention. Charisma helps, as does a campaign message that can evoke widespread support. Robert Kennedy fit the bill in 1968, and there are arguably a few prominent Republicans on the sidelines this time who could mount a competitive, late-starting candidacy in 2012. These could include one of the establishment non-candidates who Republican elites pressured to enter the race earlier this year, such as Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Rep. Paul Ryan (WI), ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (although Christie has already endorsed Mitt Romney). The entry of any of these Republicans would cause waves, and because of their high profiles they would have little trouble raising money or attracting establishment support. On the other hand, if Romney gets off to a strong start in January's opening round, then there might be pressure on the right to enlist former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to pick up the anti-establishment baton.
This is the kind of year when it's probably not wise to say something can't happen. Just look at Newt Gingrich. He's violated about every piece of conventional wisdom about campaigning but leads the Republican field, in some polls by hefty double-digit margins. If he can do that with no money and the most disorganized campaign in modern history, anybody could have a shot, no matter how late he or she is in entering the race. I don't think the GOP field is quite as weak as some say it is, but there's nobody in it I can support wholeheartedly, so I wouldn't mind a fresh face showing up late in the game.
Comments
I don't know how weak some say it is, but I am surprised the first team decided to sit this year out. Any incumbent should be easy pickings in an extended recession. But every declared Republican candidate has at least one fatal flaw. It would be so easy to beat either Romney or Gingrich simply by playing videotape of their own words. I'm still not ruling out a brokered convention. You've got two or three people who could actually beat Obama. Unfortunately for the GOP, none of them are running.
Headline November 7th 2012:
Ham Sandwich 52%
Barack Obama 48%
Election 2012 Overview:
Candidate on the left: "Vote for me and I'll give your money to poor people who are too lazy to work for it."
Candidate on the right: "Vote for me and I'll give your money to rich people who are too lazy to work for it."
It really doesn't matter what the names are, two things are for sure.
1) This race is going to be too close for anyone to call.
2) The average American will be screwed no matter who wins.
If I could write it fast enough, I'd write a novel in which a formerly apolitical internet billionaire funds a project to run a different favorite son candidate as a third-party candidate in each state.
Obviously, nobody wins a majority of the electors that way, so the internet billionaire funds a convention of the electors before the actual voting - it'd be the first-ever meeting of the electoral college. They'd interview organizational leaders, and decide who to vote for, then go back home to do their actual voting.
It could happen, especially if the tea party and the 99% like the idea. What would happen in the novel, of course, is that they would never agree at the convention, and the whole thing would go to the House when the electors fail to vote in the new president.
The problem for the GOP, of course, is that the GOP has no 35-year-old ham sandwiches that it could run. Most ham doesn't reach 1 year old. And even if there was one that old, voters would never elect such a blatently anti-semitic candidate.
I think most Americans don't invest much time in heavy reading these days. Put it out in comic book form and it might be a hit.
In support of my ham sandwich theory:
"Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don't think so."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57340576-503544/grim-economic-outlook-weighs-down-obama-approval-rating/
Toss in Fast & Furious, Solyndra, LightSquared, John Corzine, and the Bradley Effect and you have a one term wonder period.
Tim,
I am no fan of Obama, so I won't argue agaisnt any of the specific points you listed above. But when it comes down to the wire, people are going to be weighing a president who failed to get the economy going again versus a challenger who says he/she can do better.
As far as I can see, the Republicans only strategy there is to convince people that cutting taxes on upper-level income earners is the solution. Sorry, but the past six years has absolutely proven that trickle-down is a hoax.
So for me, if the choice is between giving money to poor folk who don't deserve it and giving money to rich folk who don't deserve it, I will obviously vote for the former because that is much closer to my current economic status.
Now I might be convinced to vote for 'give money to nobody' or even 'give money to everybody' if I were convinced that such policies would produce true efficiencies in our economy. But that probably won't be a choice. So if we're going to choose between competing unfair plans, myself (and most Americans, I expect) will likely choose the one that is biased in their favor. And if that's the case, then the faltering economy might actually help Obama.
Tim, I know you're an eternal optimist, but I don't think you get it. Obama doesn't have to be good or even popular to win re-election. All he needs is a Republican opponent who is even less popular. Mitt and Newt both fit the bill. It's not pretty, but Obama can't be written off unless your guys nominate someone better.
As for the ham sandwich, why didn't McCain win? It is simply nonsense, no matter how many times you repeat it, that "anyone" would beat Obama. McCain lost in a landslide.
I plan to vote in the GOP primary and write in Palin.
Littlejohn, do you understand the difference between 2008 and 2012? Obama was a fresh unknown factor in 2008, today he's an exposed socialist and serial liar that wrote $15 trillion in bad checks and as of today 54% of those surveyed say he doesn't deserve to be re-elected...
Obama was correct on 60 minutes, it doesn't matter who the nominee is, it's going to be a choice between two ideologies, one being complete governmental control, the other being a push back towards freedom. I'm banking on the fact that there are still a few more us (though not many) NOT on government assistance to vote him out no matter who the other candidate is.
The vote in 2012 will result in the country deciding if they want to be Greece or North Dakota.
You crack me the hell up, Tim...!
(And you might be onto something, Phil)
Okay, Tim. Have some tea. I'm disinclined to make predictions, but you seem to be on your own in your assumption that it doesn't matter who runs against Obama. Would you bet on, say, Joe the Plumber?
Look at today's poll question. Last time I looked, "Someone who has not declared his candidacy" was way ahead in the voting. At any rate, in just 11 months we'll know.
My point is, and I'm not sure you're following me, is that it doesn't matter how low Obama's numbers are if his challenger's numbers are lower.
It's sort of like the two of us being attacked by a bear. You don't have to outrun the bear; you just need to outrun me.
Election 2012 summary, so far:
Democrat opening salvo: We will continue to raise your taxes and spend that money foolishly until we achieve prosperity.
Republican response: That doesn't make sense. You can't tax someone into prosperity. Therfore, we propose to alleviate this burden (for the upper-level income earners only.)
My response to the Democrats: The Republicans are right, overtaxing and spending foolishly is no solution.
My response to the Republicans: Seriously? You expect me to believe that helping the rich is going to help me?
It's far too early for me to decide, but either way I'm pretty sure I'll be voting AGAINST somebody rather than FOR somebody next year.
Littlejohn, obviously you ARE inclined to make predictions...and I understand your point, it's simply a moot one until next November. Let's do a Romney, I'll bet ya a rib-eye and a lager that Teh One is a one term Prez...
But ya have to make it at a place outside of Ft Wayne so I can blow cigarette smoke at ya while I gloat. lol
not sure I want to b north dakota.
Beats the hell out of being greece Andrew...
I'm not a betting man, Tim. I'll decline your offer.
Please understand I'm not saying Obama can't be beaten, of course he can. Any incumbent during a bad economy is vulnerable.
Since you keep mentioning polls, here's one from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/fox-news-poll-romney-bests-gingrich-in-matchups-against-obama/
Romney narrowly edges out Obama, although it's within the margin of error. Obama clobbers Gingrich, the current GOP front-runner.
Maybe your ham sandwich is a shoo-in, but neither of the guys likely to get the nomination is. Wanting something to be true is not evidence that it is true. I understand you want a Republican to win in 2012. I want the opposite, but I don't delude myself into thinking that my desires constitute evidence.
Littlejohn, it seems your no gambling stance is in line with Perry, so perhaps you should rethink your position.
And I really like ham sandwiches. I could probably be convinced to vote that way over either of the party nominees.
talking quality of life. been to north dakota. i will pass. at least greece has culture. ND has cattle.
Littlejohn, 10 months is an eternity in Presidential politics for challengers, whether it's Mitt, Newt, Perry, or Mickey Mouse, they have 10 months to "drum up" support, which is why "generic republican has been beating Chicago Jesus for a year. Conversely, your Boy King can't un-ring his bell in 10 months, he just can't give away enough food stamps and bad loans anymore to make up the difference so he'll stick with the "rich people are evil" meme but that will grow old as well. Voters understand their prosperity is directly tied to their boss and they realize that poor people don't sign paychecks.
If the government hands out cash to poor people, they will spend it almost immediately. That will create a quick demand for jobs. If the governement gives money to the rich, they will sit on it as long as it takes to ensure they can profit more from whatever they do with it.
Comparing these two plans for how they will stimulate the economy in the short-term, trickle-up actually has more credibility than trickle-down. In the long-term, both are equally flawed because they induce inefficient behavior.
Unfortunately, neither side offers a fair plan. So we have ten months to decide which unfair plan is more beneficial to us personally as well as how each of them will further destoy this country's economy.
At this point, I am seriously hoping and praying that a ham sandwich does enter the race. It might not be able to do anything good, but it couldn't do any more damage either - and that is more than I can say for either of the two parties.
Becoming North Dakota has more problems than giving up the "Fighting Sioux" nickname.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gfoeX6wM4g
If the government hands out cash to poor people, they will spend it almost immediately. That will create a quick demand for jobs- but many of those jobs will be in Asia.
On the other hand, we need to maintain bridges, dams, water plants and sewer plants no matter what, and it'd be better for the economy to do it now, while construction workers are sitting on their duffs because there is no demand for new housing.
Most rich people do their best to avoid creating jobs. It's the consumer who creates jobs, because his demand for goods and services means companies either staff up or lose market share. And construction work cannot easily be done by Asians.
And if we can build a better infrastructure, it makes the USA more competitive. My favorite is bullet trains. Commuter trains are hopeless, but trains that compete with air travel, over separate new trackage, could lower costs to business, reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, allow people to take a Pullman on long trips (which would eliminate most jet lag), make us less vulnerable to terrorism (kinda hard to crash a train into a skyscraper or a nuclear power plant), and let Alex play Words With Friends.
And it would largely pay for itself by reducing the cost of widening the Interstate System and expanding airports.
Neither party will produce a budget that spends less than the government takes in. Seriously, is there any real difference?
Please, God, give me a ham sandwhich!
And, responding to Harl's last comment, many of us would probaly have a lot of different ideas about exactly what constitutes a worthwhile capital investment. But I bet just about everyone who reads this blog would agree that spending more money on consumable items from China and other countries is not the path to prosperity for America. Most of the trillions that the fed's have wasted in the past six years probably did far more to stimulate other's economies than our own.