What, exactly, is the Republicans' problem?
President Obama looks highly vulnerable as he begins his campaign for re-election. His job ratings, even after the elimination of Osama bin Laden, are only middling -- around 50%, which is the threshold for re-election. Last year's midterm was catastrophic for Democrats. The excitement factor, which drew huge Democratic turnout in 2008, is not there anymore.
And the economy is worse than it was when Obama took office. The nation's unemployment rate was 7.8% in January 2009. Last month, it was 9%. The most optimistic forecasts have the unemployment rate dropping to about 8% next year.
Ten presidents have run for re-election since World War II. Six of them ran when the unemployment rate was below 6%. They all got re-elected. Four ran when unemployment was over 7%. Three of them lost (Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and the first George Bush in 1992).
The exception? Ronald Reagan. When Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, the nations' unemployment rate was 7.2%, about the same as when he took office. Nevertheless, Reagan could claim a major economic victory. He cut the inflation rate by two thirds, from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.3% in 1984. And Obama? Since he took office, gasoline prices have nearly doubled.
Every re-election campaign is a referendum on the incumbent. If most voters are satisfied with the way things are going, they vote for continuity. They re-elect the incumbent. If they are unhappy with the status quo, they vote for change. They fire the incumbent. All the opposition party has to do is nominate a plausible challenger.
"Aha!" you say. "There's the Republicans' problem. They don't have a plausible challenger." Actually, they do. Three of them, in fact. If Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman wins the Republican nomination, Obama is in for the fight of his life. Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman were all governors. Governors always make better presidential candidates. They have executive experience, and they can claim to be Washington outsiders.
Moreover, both Pawlenty and Romney got elected in strongly Democratic states (Minnesota and Massachusetts). Huntsman was governor of Utah, one of the most Republican states in the country. But he angered conservatives by taking moderate positions on gay rights and the environment. And by accepting an appointment as President Obama's Ambassador to China.
Can any of them win the Republican nomination? Ah, there's the problem. Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman are all suspect to two core Republican constituencies: the Tea Party and the religious right. They are suspect for the same reason they are plausible challengers: all are mainstream politicians who know how to build a governing coalition. That requires deal-making and compromise -- the very things the Tea Party and the religious right denounce as selling out. The far right may try to veto the nomination of any of them by joining forces behind an alternative. But who?
Right now, the Republican field divides into three groups. One is the mainstream contenders who could defeat Obama -- if they can figure out how to get the nomination. Then there are half a dozen marginal contenders whom columnist Peggy Noonan has dubbed the "antic candidates": Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and possibly Sarah Palin. Several of them have fervent supporters. But they can't build a broader coalition: the base of their support is the limit of their support. They can't defeat Obama. Not even Gingrich, whose campaign is becoming more antic by the day.
Finally, there are the fantasy candidates: Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, to name a few. It is a sign of the Republicans' anguish that the list of fantasy candidates keeps growing as other candidates drop out of the race. Actually, the fantasy candidates have also taken themselves out of contention (well, Perry says he is re-thinking that decision). But they, too, have problems. Jeb Bush and Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, have the same problem: they would remind voters of George W. Bush. Paul Ryan has an even bigger problem: Medicare.
Of the fantasy candidates, Christie is the most interesting. He is the governor of a major state (New Jersey) that usually votes Democratic. You know how dissatisfied voters usually look for an alternative who is the polar opposite of the incumbent? After Nixon the corrupt, Carter the pure? After George W. the inarticulate, Obama the eloquent?
Christie is the un-Obama. Obama was a law professor. Christie was a prosecutor. Obama doesn't have a populist bone in his body. Christie is a raging populist. Obama is no drama. Christie picks fights all the time. And he certainly doesn't look like Obama.
Christie versus Obama! What an exciting race that would be. Only it probably won't be, as long as Christie resists the blandishments of Republican insiders.
So the Republicans are left with three plausible contenders, each facing a crucial early test:
Even if they pass those initial tests, each of them faces an even bigger test in the south. The south is now the heartland of the GOP. None of the three mainstream candidates is a southerner. Southern Republican primary voters can either crown one of them the nominee, or veto their nomination. That's why the South Carolina primary is once again shaping up as pivotal. South Carolina vetoed John McCain in 2000 and gave him the nomination in 2008.
So yes, Republicans do have a problem. They have several plausible candidates who could beat Obama, but they will have a tough time getting nominated. And the candidates who might be able to get through the nominating process can't beat Obama. There is name for that problem: Catch-22.
Follow Bill Schneider on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BillSchneiderDC
Howard Fineman: As Mitt Romney Arrives in New Hampshire, We Are Joining the Local Conversation
The hypocritical GOP looks poised to nominate Romney, the same guy that co-authored 'Obamacare', hello 'Romneycare'.
So long as it's not Obama, according to them. Gotta love it (sigh).
Ron Paul is the only one who has more than 4 long wikipedia pages dedicated solely to him, and he is the only one who has a voting record that is consistent with the views he shares with America. He is one of the few who actually votes against corruption, which is why they call him "Dr. No".
Sadly, most people will probably vote against him because he chooses what is right and just over what is popular and convenient.
No one is saying that Democrats needed to kowtow to President Obama; still, openly failing to support the Obama agenda didn't do the party any favors either. And, frankly, following Obama's lead wouldn't have been too hard anyway, for the simple fact that doing so would come with reasonable flexibility to change things around.
The "stimulus" would've been a 2-year $950 billion package of $50 billion to test-run some of Barack Obama's longer-term ideas, like Race To The Top, expanding biological research and universal broadband access, $300 billion, crafted by congressional Democrats, in aid to go to state/local governments, $300 billion, crafted by congressional Democrats, in a package of tax cuts, tax credits, and various incentives for small businesses and the "bottom 95%", and $300 billion, crafted by congressional Democrats, in funding for public infrastructure projects.
It wouldn't have been the $2 trillion package that clowns, on sites like this one, had the House Democrats dreaming of, but it would've been a package, big enough to do some major help that the country could openly rally to. Oh well.
http://thiÂnkprogressÂ.org/healtÂh/2011/05/Â31/232293/Âhuntsman-iÂndividual-Âmandate/
to
The problem is we are dealing with politicians.
When I vote, I vote for the lesser of two evils.
Which guy (gal) will do me the least damage?
Bush....Obama....members of Congress are all bought and paid for by the oligarchs and corporations.
The difference between the two parties?
The Dems throw some bones, sometimes with meat, to the lower classes.
The Repugs think the lower classes are losers and are not interested in doing anything for them (us).
Like I said, the lesser of two evils....the one party that will give us lower class Americans something some of the time....the Dems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW....the high unemployment (for once) is not as likely to sink Obama like it did the other presidents.......if only because neither the Dems OR Repugs are working on job creation.
Simply put....neither party is doing sh--t for the unemployed and underemployed.
The 2012 election probably won't be decided on job creation alone....but on what each party stands for. (Like tax rates, medicare, etc.)
We now have a right-wing party and a party that's almost completely fallen off the edge (And this new "Tea Party" movement is doing its damnedest to either kill or push the moderate Republican stalwarts right over the edge.) and every 4-years your vote makes it worse.
Also, it's popular to Union bash, but it's a fact that people who work in Union companies have higher wages, better benefits packages, and greater job security. People complain as though they're some separate entity, and while yes there's corruption in every organization, I'll take people representing the working man against the rich corporate oligarchs who have seized control over every aspect of our society.
Hilarious!
And too many governors are just plain unqualified for the job.
Yes, experience is good....but not all experienced people are good at what they do.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/05/31/232293/huntsman-individual-mandate/
faved
.. Likewise The Controlled Media ..
Ronald Ernest Paul Army
"Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (‘What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!’ one newsletter complained in 1990. ‘We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.’) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’
Any steps from a virulent racist meant to "astound" people by how far they would go make me deeply, deeply uncomfortable.