The 2012 Republican primary is starting to heat up, so I want to get my early 2012 predictions out there. A lot of people don’t like to make concrete predictions this early, for fear of being wrong and then ridiculed in the future. I like to make super-early predictions though. I’ve been wrong about politics before, and I fully recognize that this post may look ridiculous in 18 months. But I do follow this stuff very closely, and I like to think I have a decent political sense. Anyway, on to the predictions.
I think the Republican presidential primary will essentially be a two-man race between Huckabee and Romney. After splitting the early states, I think Huckabee winds up winning the nomination. Huckabee, Romney, and Haley Barbour are the only candidates who can raise real top-tier money. (I’m excluding Sarah Palin because I don’t think she’ll run, but if she does run, then obviously she’ll be able to raise top-tier money too.) Barbour doesn’t have the name recognition or the charm of Huckabee and Romney, and Republican primary voters do tend to nominate candidates who are viewed as having waited their turn. Also, the mainstream media doesn’t respect Barbour; they view him as a crazy, confederate-flag-waving good ol’ boy, and fair or not, that’s how he’ll be portrayed. In addition to Palin, I don’t think Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, or Chris Christie will run. I think Ron Paul will run though. And I think Jon Huntsman will run, but drop out early (he’s setting himself up for 2016, where he could legitimately be dangerous).
Of course, this assumes that Huckabee runs, which he may not. I think he will run, but if he doesn’t, then obviously I think Romney gets the nomination. Either way, the Republican primary is going to be a truly sad spectacle, as the candidates try desperately to out-crazy each other for months on end.
In the general election, I’m actually more scared of Romney than Huckabee. In 2008, I really wanted Romney to get the Republican nomination, because I thought there was just no way that the American voters elect a Mormon president. In 2012, I think the right’s blind anti-Obama rage will cause them to turn out in droves for any Republican nominee — even a Mormon. And Romney’s business background, his experience as a moderate Republican governor of a liberal state, and the fact that he looks extremely presidential (which is sadly an important factor), has the potential to win over Independents. Huckabee, however, will undoubtedly shoot himself in the foot several times in the general election (“discipline” isn’t his forté).
Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, I think it’s highly likely that Obama will win re-election. Incumbent presidents have a huge advantage with Independents, who already view Obama as a very cerebral person. The circus in the Republican primary will scare most disaffected liberals back into Obama’s corner too. (I do think liberals will revolt against an incumbent Democratic president eventually, but it won’t be Obama.)
Of course, I also hope that this is how the election plays out. As I’ve said before, I’m a Democrat, and an Obama supporter. I voted for him in 2008, gave a not-insubstantial amount of my wife’s money to his campaign and campaign-related groups, and I plan to do the same thing in this election cycle. (I’m something of an easy target for Democratic fundraisers.)
There are certainly things that Obama’s done that I disagree with — first and foremost, the hiring of Rahm as chief of staff. On the other hand, Obama’s administration did address the subject I know by far the most about, and around which I’ve spent almost my entire professional life (financial reform), and I think they handled it very well. No, scratch that, I know they handled it very well.
Moreover, I also recognize that in a lot of decisions, if not most decisions, Obama has significantly more information than we do. That’s just a reality, and one that you can’t ignore. Unfortunately, it’s something I think a lot of Democrats are ignoring, since it’s deeply unsatisfying for people — and especially for people interested in politics — to say, “I don’t know if Obama made the right decision on X, because I don’t have all the information, and he does.” Given that Obama has vastly more information than we do, it’s sometimes (though not all the time) necessarily a matter of whether you trust his judgment. At this point, I still do. That may change in the future, but that’s where I stand right now.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
On the other hand, Obama’s administration did address the subject I know by far the most about, and around which I’ve spent almost my entire professional life (financial reform), and I think they handled it very well.
That's good to hear, although the responsibility probably lies more with Congress than Obama on that.
I wouldn't rule out a different Republican getting the nomination. Romney's a known quantity, but that's a disadvantage as well - it's harder to change the negatives about him in promoting his candidacy.
Of course, from a political scientist point of view, none of that matters much. Obama will win because he's the incumbent, because the economy isn't tanking, and because he hasn't done anything to make him wildly unpopular (like mis-manage a crisis).
"I think the right’s blind anti-Obama rage will cause them to turn out in droves for any Republican nominee — even a Mormon."
Do you feel the moderate Republican has become completely extinct?
Went extinct about the same year as the passenger pigeon.
Ron Paul will run and lose, and then he will go 3rd party, and he will take a shocking number of wingers with him.
I appreciate these positive comments on obama. Not because I agree. I am not sure. For example, he waited so long to register a strong budget opinion that by the time he did, the Republicans had backed a plan that is just nuts : combining destruction of Medicare with tax cuts for the rich. Was Obama shrewd, or passive? I can't seem to get the measure of this guy.
Interesting stuff, as always. I've been assuming that Huckabee is dead in the water, as (among other things) about the least fiscally conservative candidate they could put up there. Also, I think Romney's biggest problem is going to be healthcare, not Mormonism. (I tend to think people overplay the "Republicans= crazy social cons" bit, although I have a Pauline Kael-esque blind spot of my own there - I don't personally know anyone who doesn't think Huckabee is a joke as a candidate.)
On the other hand, someone has to win the damn thing.
My prediction: Chris Christie will enter the race at the last minute, win the nomination, and handily beat Obama. Running for president on a platform of $4 gas and 8% unemployment isn't going to be that easy for Obama.
I enjoyed the article until I arrived at "I know he handled it very well", at that point I questioned his sanity. I cannot imagine how a reasonable person cannot come to the conclusion that Obama has given away the store to the financial interest. His policies, in all spheres, have been an unmitigated disaster for the entire country with the exception of the moneid class.
That is good to know, even though the accountability almost certainly is situated more using The nation's lawmakers as compared to Barack obama upon which.
Runescape Gold
Sell Runescape Gold
Post a Comment