Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Politics

Pipe Dream

It is a good idea not to make to much of one jobs report, but I'm still going to upgrade my estimate of Republican chances in the 2012 presidential election from moderately pesssimistic to slightly pessimistic. I still think Republicans are well into "going to have to earn a victory by being better than merely competent" territory.  We could use a better Republican presidential candidate.  Come to think of it, we could also use a good President.

Run Bobby Run 

Categories > Politics

Discussions - 20 Comments

I think that macro-trend is neutral at best and actually trends in the opposite direction, especially given the actions of republican governors, or that this is the case regionally for the Great Lake states(New York, Penn, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.)

Of course Obama won all these states anyways in 2008.

I think if anything folks wish Obama had gone the 1.2 Trillion dollar stimulus with aid to states, rather than the diluted 700 billion dollar one, that essentially increased income disparity. It really is the states who must budget, and are seriously hurt by economic downturn. True Keynesianism would have pumped more money into state governments to hold up employment at the state level, rather than setting off a war against an already weakened union friendly middle class.

You just aren't selling unemployment policies, in fact you are fighting them tooth and nail. It is incredibly cynical to suggest that a bad jobs report favors the obstructionists, and the advocates of deflationary policies.

We could use a better political science.

By the time the 2012 election comes around people will be tired of the Unexpected increase in unemployment, the unexpected dropped in housing values, the unexpected drop in the stock market, the unexpected etc. etc. etc. By then, any other candidate than Obama will look good.

Don't forget the unexpected $5/gallon gasoline!

I like Bobby Jindal, but he seems to lack the presence and stature that he needs to run for President. His appearances on behalf of the GOP have not gone well.

Rogervzv, Jindal is both very articulate and knowledgeable. He has plenty of presence (compared to say Romney and Pawlenty) and at least as much charisma as the candidate (s) who have so far substituted showmanship and bragging for substance. He also has a record as a tax cutter, ethics reformer and administrator (and that's not even getting into his pre-governor record.). Stature he has. I remember seeing him talking about Obamacare and thinking "THAT'S the guy we need." His response to Obama's State of the Union (or whatever the hell it was) is a poor guide to how good a candidate Jindal would be.

Jindal's weaknesses are different. His is really young. He would be 41 in November 2012. He will have served only one term as governor (and his reelection looks really likely) and if he devoted all his energy to running for President right now he would still be getting a late start. All the self-interested reasons argue for waiting until 2016 when he would be 45, would be a two term governor, and could devote the last two tears of his last term to preparing to run for President. The only counterargument would be that we sort of need him now.

I truly believe that Forrest Gump could win the presidency from Obama. You have to give Forrest credit - he may have been slow, but he was honest. I'd take slow and honest over intellectual and liar any day.

Sharron Angle seemed honest enough to me and she tried to win an election in a constituency with 13% unemployment (rather than the current 9.1 unemployment rate.)

Sharron Angle was not running for President of the United States. She was running in Nevada which over the years has been inflitrated by liberals from California escaping the mess they created in California and the overpowering Unions. Furthermore things will be much more messier in 2012 than 2010... He is not polling well in blue states like Ohio & Wisconsin....

You're right, but not in any way that makes sense given your original point. Angle was running for a less powerful position against an unpopular opponent far less charismatic than Obama in a constituency with an unemployment rate far higher than the national average and still lost decisively. Only you know why that supports the assertion that "Forrest Gump could win the presidency from Obama." A sensible person might conclude that candidate quality matters even in a very favorable environment and it doesn't pay to practice self-delusion in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of candidates.

November 2012 could see an economic environment worse than that of November 2010 (unemployment rate 9.8%), but the Republicans would have to be morons to count on that eventuality

Latest ABC/WaPo poll has the Mittster beating the Big Zero among RVs now, mainly over the BZ's (mis)handling of the economy:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terrible-numbers-president-new-poll_573943.html

I'm not a huge Romney fan, but it's starting to look like he could easily pass the "serious candidate" threshold it would take to beat Obama. I suspect that Pawlenty will meet that standard as well. The other GOP hopefuls (Newt, Michelle, Santorum) so far are just too fringey.

If Obama continues to look weak, I wonder if Mitch Daniels will reevaluate his decision not to run. And maybe Jindal or even Ryan will jump in.

Forrest Gump was a likeable character because he was slow, but honest. Anyone who watched that movie walked out of it liking Forrest Gump. Angle was honest but not very likeable in some aspects. Obama won the Presidency because of his likeability, not experience or his policies. He had no experience in foreign or domestic affairs and he lied about his policies throughout his whole campaign - we know that know now.

Gump might not be as bright as Obama, but he is honest and far more likable than Obama and Angle for that matter.

Obama is destroying this country. Everyone, even Obama's own administration knows that - they are leaving his adminstration in droves. You have a tendency to bang on the GOP Presidential field of nominees. However you lack that with the Democratic Presidential Field of one named Obama. He does not have the ability, character or experience to be elected to a second term. His policies and idealogy are destroying middle class America and in the words of his former pastor, the chickens are coming home to roost. You claim that the Republicans are morons to count on the economy to be like it is in November 2012 - pray tell me what Obama will do by that time to change anything? In order to change anything, he will have to change his ideology - he is unable to do that and has proved that time and time again.

Oh yes, one more thing we can add to Forest's likeability - he started a shrimp boat company which led to a popular restaurant chain called Bubba Shrimps. He, unlike Angle and Obama, has run multiple businesses, met payrolls, and made a profit. Has the same kind of experience that Herman Cain has!!! :):)

Race, I guess Pawlenty and Romney PROBABLY wouldn't lose a race that the Republicans should win. If you can promise me 17 more months of employment reports like this month's then Romney or Pawlenty would probably be favored (though I suspect Romney would be weaker among both right-of-center and centrist voters both because of his flip-flops and Romneycare.) I'm not counting on the economy being that kind to the Republican presidential candidates and that hard on the rest of us. Though that is out of our control.

cowgirl, I notice that you enjoyed Forrest Gump and are not enjoying the Obama administration. Why you think that your feelings suggest that candidate quality does not matter when very recent experience indicates that it matters a great deal even under very favorable circumstances is known only to you.

Angle was actually likeable enough given what the stresses of campaigning would do to a normal person. She just couldn't explain her ideas to people who didn't share her view of the world and seemed clueless as to how other people thought. She never showed any appeal to those who were not committed right-of-center voters (like Cain come to think of it) and not even very favorable circumstances could induce enough persuadables to vote for her. Oh well. She has actually won primaries and general elections and never insulted the universe's intelligence by trying to tell us that she would inform us of her views on Afghanistan only after she was safely elected. She was a weak candidate, but has her virtues compared to some.

I believe that I am in the majority of those not enjoying the Obama administration - especially those 5 million Americans who have dropped out of the work force because there are no jobs. I have no feelings, just facts. Obama, who you seem to have a great deal of affection for, is destorying this country. Are you on vacation in the Carribean and not aware of unexpectedly drops in the housing market, runaway inflation, inflated gas prices, increase food prices, a third war, as well as a complete lack of leadership in the White House? Again Forrest Gump would do a better job - he at least started a company and made a payroll. Something that the bus driver in the white house has no idea on how to manage.

Your feelings are that Sharon Angle was likeable and honest. I did not think she was strong candidate and wasn't surprised when she lost against Reid's machine in Las Vegas - namely the SEIU. She had horrible communication skills and was incompetent in getting her views communicated to voters. Cain doesn't have that problem.

Cain has never claimed (you are definitely twisting this one) that he will only give his views on Afghanistan once elected - please don't spin. He said that he is on the outside looking in and cannot make a clear and concise decision until he has all the information - which he will not get until he is elected. Remember the bus driver in the white house claimed he was going to shut down Gitmo and stop the wars in the Middle Ease. What did he do after he was elected - he has kept Gitmo opened and started a third war in the Middle East. Liar.

Cain might have learned a great lesson from Nixon, Kennedy & Cuba as well as Obama on the Bush Doctrine. Don't make statements about things you don't have all the facts and information.

Cain has never claimed (you are definitely twisting this one) that he will only give his views on Afghanistan once elected - please don't spin. He said that he is on the outside looking in and cannot make a clear and concise decision until he has all the information - which he will not get until he is elected." Let's let that stand as a monument to self-refutation.

"She had horrible communication skills and was incompetent in getting her views communicated to voters. Cain doesn't have that problem." Well she has a far better batting average at winning primaries (to say nothing of general elections) than does Cain.

You are right that the economy has severe troubles. Nevada had far worse troubles than the national economy and it turned out that even in that situation candidate quality mattered a great deal. Comforting ourselves with thoughts that Forrest Gum or whoever could beat Obama might feel good (I guess...), but not helpful in understanding our situation.

"Cain might have learned a great lesson from Nixon, Kennedy & Cuba as well as Obama on the Bush Doctrine. Don't make statements about things you don't have all the facts and information." Hilarious in light of his comments on the Palestinian "right of return."

A couple more items to chew over, Pete.

Rasmussen charts the continuing GOP edge in the generic Congressional ballot (suggesting that the dynamic which led to the massive GOP seat pickup in 2010 is still the predominant trend):

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Martin Feldstein summarizes Obama's deep-seated economic-policy mismanagement. Do you really think Obama's going to turn this around? One never wants to get cocky or underestimate an opponent, but I rather doubt that he can or will.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363984173620692.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

But as a qualification, I hasten to agree with you that candidate quality matters a great deal (as we just saw in the NY special election, and as Democrats learned when they ran that uber-stiff Martha Coakley in the MA special election), which is why I hope to God that Palin stays out.

." Let's let that stand as a monument to self-refutation.

Self-refutating? Really. He readily admits he doesn't have all the facts and anyone with any sense would know he doesn't have all the facts. He is not privy to debriefings that Obama/Congress get from the military and intelligence sources. Makes a great deal of sense. I mean it sounds like you think he will make some big erroreous call on the wars in the Middle East. How much more screwed up can it get?


Well she has a far better batting average at winning primaries (to say nothing of general elections) than does Cain.

And a better batting average at saying stupid and crazy things about people. Cain made have made mistake on the right of return, but Angle downright has insulted people in her own party with stupid comments.


Hilarious in light of his comments on the Palestinian "right of return."

He had the cojones/balls to admit he he was unsure of the question and came back with an solid answer. Angle would have taken a nose dive on that one. I really don't think that you and I watched the same Hermain Cain on Wallace's program.

Race, I would say that, with some major caveats (like the turnout models - that cuts both for and against Republicans), the special elections in New York and Wisconsin tell us more about the relative positions of the two major parties. I think that the Republican position is very slightly stronger than you would think looking at those results, but there are a lot of voters who are up in the air.

I don't expect Obama to fix the economy. I expect the economy to do what it is gonna do over the next fifteen months. I just don't know what that is. Maybe it will look more like the May jobs report. If that is the case, then a merely competent, plausible, non-alienating Republican has a pretty good chance. If it looks more like the April jobs report (even the downward adjusted one), then Republicans will have to do better. The thing is that this is totally out of the control of the Republicans. The quality of their candidate and campaign isn't.

cowgirl, Senator Obama seemed able to conclude, without benefit of being President, that a) preventing Afghanistan from becoming an al Qaeda client state was a national priority and b) the Bush administration was under resourcing the effort. This was very much to his credit and he never (on this issue) resorted to self-contradictory nonsense like he would give his views but not in a "clear" way (though to be fair Cain never said anything quite so silly either - to my knowledge.) It is to Obama's credit (though this is a very, very low standard) that he never lowered himself to a position of "elect me President and then I'll tell you my Afghanistan policy."

Angel seems to have united enough of her party to have won her party's nomination for multiple offices (including statewide office) and won multiple general elections. That compares favorably to Cain's unblemished record of failure in this area. This is not to say that Angle would be a good presidential candidate. Though it does help put things in perspective.

"came back with an solid answer."

Cain answered that he was confident that Israel would accede to a policy that would lead to the demographic destruction of that polity. The more charitable and likely explanation is that Cain was trying to bs his way through the answer (rather than just admit he was unfamiliar with the issue) and got caught giving a lousy answer. The less charitable (and vanishingly unlikely) explanation is that Cain favors the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Either way, I don't see how anyone this side of Hamas would think that Cain gave a "solid" answer on the Palestinian "right of return." Then again, you seem to have spent the 2008 presidential campaign fantasizing that Obama was calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, so this seems to be some kind of recurring malady.

"I don't expect Obama to fix the economy."

Well glory hallejuah! You and I agree on something. The bus driver took something bad and made it worse than anything known in the history of the United States. He can't fix it because he broke it and he hasn't a clue on how to put it back together. The one thing I do agree with Obama is that is George Bush's fault - make Bush get off his duff in Dallas, get it back to D.C. and fix it since it is his fault. Get r done George.

Cain ran for office once and did not lose by a very big margin. Everything the man has touched within his control has gone golden. Politicals is different than having control over your own destiny. Cain single-handly stopped Hillary-Care in its tracks in 1994. You can find Cain debating Clinton about Hillary Care on YouTube. By the time Cain was finished not only did Clinton have the deer in the head lights look, but he could not answer Cain's questions. The guy deserve a whole lot of credit - he has a brain and uses it - that much cannot be said for the herd of cattle in Congress and the White House looking for their brains and showing off their shortcomings (Weiner man).

Cain has come out numerous times since the interview with Wallace supporting Israel and plainly stating that he will continue to support them. He appeared on Hannity two days after the Wallace interview and made a statement on the "right of return". Wallace presented the question incorrectly to Cain in the first place - but I am sure you did not catch that one. Isn't it time for you to badger Wallace for being a journalist and not knowing
what the right of return meant?

"Then again, you seem to have spent the 2008 presidential campaign fantasizing that Obama was calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, so this seems to be some kind of recurring malady."

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Pete!!!!

Obama emphatically stated on many occasions during the 2008 Presidential Campaign that he was going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan in June 2011 - what an idiot - telling your enemies your plan - and he has not attempted to do so. You can google this information on the web in case you missed it - which obviously you did .He crucified the Bush Doctrine throughout the 2008 campaign and now he is supporting the Bush Doctrine. Again Forrest Gump could do a better job. No fantasy Pete - just the facts.

"The bus driver took something bad and made it worse than anything known in the history of the United States. He can't fix it because he broke it and he hasn't a clue on how to put it back together." This is minimally coherent, but it seems to assume that our recent difficulties are worse than the Great Depression (I'm sure you could find misleading metrics, but the unemployment rate and decline of GDP would be the most relevant here) and that Obama was responsible for the Great Recession and the financial crisis that occurred when he was a freshman Senator (this being distinct from the conjecture that certain policies he favored but was not responsible for implementing contributed to those events.) Neither assertion holds up under scrutiny.

"Politicals is different than having control over your own destiny." True, and he didn't do so well there. Sharron Angle has done better.

"Cain single-handly stopped Hillary-Care in its tracks in 1994. " Not so much. Phil Gramm and Rush Limbaugh (among others) were more important in slowing down momentum for passing a bill and publicizing critiques of ClintonCare. No one has to or should pretend to believe that Cain is dumb. He isn't (though I tend not to assume stupidity in prominent political figures across the ideological spectrum.) If I though he wasn't capable of articulating an Afghanistan policy there would be no point in criticizing his approach.

So we are agreed. He originally bs'd and was caught and then came out with a sensible position. Was that so hard? Wallace's explanation of the "right of return" was partisan (as in favorable to the Palestinian narrative), but that's life in the NFL. The only reason Cain was wrong footed was because he was unfamiliar with the issue.

"Obama emphatically stated on many occasions during the 2008 Presidential Campaign that he was going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan in June 2011" I think you are referring to Obama's policy articulated in 2009 or 2010 (I don't remember which and I'm presently too lazy to look it up) where he increased the number of American troops by more than he had promised during the campaign During the campaign, I'm only aware of statements where he advocated expanding the troop commitment to Afghanistan. Take it as a given that Obama HAD articulated such a policy in the 2008 campaign. That would still put him ahead of Cain's current position of insisting on being elected before sharing his policy preferences (subject to change based on events of course.)

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/16706