Republicans - If we lose...

[HardRCafé]

I would love for a surprise 2012 candidate, like Judge Alito

What. The. Hell.

[Brittain33]

I'm sorry but I've discussed Santorum's personal views on homosexuality enough around here and elsewhere. We're just not going to see eye to eye.

I don't disbelieve you, but I honestly don't remember. I haven't been here that long and I don't read every forum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there could be some data out there for this, although I don't feel like looking it up and I doubt you do after this morning, either. I think a rough rule of thumb is that 1/3 of people support gay marriage, 1/3 oppose everything associated with gay rights, and 1/3 are uncomfortable in the middle, not liking gay marriage, but are turned off by anything that seems punitive. The actual location of those dividing lines varies a lot by state and by year. I think the hard core of voters who oppose all recognition of gay rights is larger than you do, and that Santorum is seen as a national hero by them.

However, I also must recognize that people within Pennsylvania will support him for reasons other than those that draw conservatives from Georgia and Arizona to him, and that is something I have lost sight of with you this morning, to my discredit.

[Ebowed]

I would love for a surprise 2012 candidate, like Judge Alito

What. The. Hell.

rotfl.

[Brittain33]

I would love for a surprise 2012 candidate, like Judge Alito

What. The. Hell.

rotfl.

That's one way to change the subject from Santorum.

[big bad fab]

Romney will probably be the GOP nominee in 2012.

But Bloomberg would be a good idea: centrist, with money, articulate.

A Bloomberg/Jindal ticket: very surprising but quite effective electorally.
Or Bloomberg/Thune.

[Storebought]

I agree with the previous Frenchman: It will be Romney in 2012, mostly by default. Not that it matters -- I don't forsee the Republican party winning any national election for the next 16 years.

[Moooooo]

I doubt Palin will run if they lose in 2008.

Romney will be the front runner if he manages to stay relevant.  Easier said than done - ask Edwards.

Charlie Crist will be in a strong position so long as McCain carries FL.

Jindal and Burr are worth watching too.

[Torie]

What is all this Burr chat about?  Is he a mensch?

[NOVA Green]

Not a Republican commenting so apologies if I'm "butting in" here (granted I've only been a registered Dem for a few months out of years of voting history).

Personally I liked Paul (anti-Iraq, libertarian on personal freedoms) and Huckabee (economic populist) during the '08 Republican primaries.

If McCain loses this year, strategically I think Republicans will have to "reinvent" their economic message at the national level, and downplay the social conservative message (although there are still ways of reassuring the base without turning off social moderates). This will require developing innovative means of dealing with issues like health care and education, that transcend the traditional "let the markets sort it out" approach that most voters are rejecting. This will also require addressing chronic economic weaknesses (manufacturing job losses to overseas competition, problems with social security funding, etc...) that provide real solutions, without undermining some of the core free-market principles of the party.

This is no longer the America of the 1980s, and the population sees a role for the government in solving some of these problems, although what role that should be is open for serious debate....

If the current economic climate remains relatively stagnant over the next four years it will be imperative that whomever the Republicans select break out of the traditional role of blaming government for all of the problems, and offering the "invisible hand of the market" for all of the solutions. I believe this can be done without destroying many of the major tenets of the modern Republican party.

Romney may be the candidate that could achieve that, since he already has extremely high name recognition and has a record of governing as a Republican in a traditionally blue state. There are many other options as well, although if you're running against an incumbent, it might be best to go with a candidate with high name recognition that could get into the game right off the bat.

[JSojourner]

What is all this Burr chat about?  Is he a mensch?

I tossed his name out a few days ago.  No particular reason except that...

*  he will have had two Senate terms under his belt
*  he is a Southerner
*  he wanted the VP spot pretty badly this time
*  NC is becoming a pivotal state (at least it may be)
*  he fits the "very conservative" billing, but lacks the harshness of many (like DeMint)
*  he doesn't have the allegedly gay problem that (unfairly) dogs Crist and Graham

[Torie]

What is all this Burr chat about?  Is he a mensch?

I tossed his name out a few days ago.  No particular reason except that...

*  he will have had two Senate terms under his belt
*  he is a Southerner
*  he wanted the VP spot pretty badly this time
*  NC is becoming a pivotal state (at least it may be)
*  he fits the "very conservative" billing, but lacks the harshness of many (like DeMint)
*  he doesn't have the allegedly gay problem that (unfairly) dogs Crist and Graham

Splendid, but hey, that does not secure a nomination now does it?  There needs to be the X factor. Does he have it?

[Lief 🗽]

Burr's not going to win re-election...

[Torie]

Burr's not going to win re-election...

I can't decide whether you or that NJ guy, are the bigger Dem hack.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Burr would be a good choice, and he very well may run. I'd be sure to get heavily involved in his campaign if he does decide to jump in. I really like the guy and he doesn't come across as a right wing nut, but he's definitely a conservative.

[JSojourner]

What is all this Burr chat about?  Is he a mensch?

I tossed his name out a few days ago.  No particular reason except that...

*  he will have had two Senate terms under his belt
*  he is a Southerner
*  he wanted the VP spot pretty badly this time
*  NC is becoming a pivotal state (at least it may be)
*  he fits the "very conservative" billing, but lacks the harshness of many (like DeMint)
*  he doesn't have the allegedly gay problem that (unfairly) dogs Crist and Graham

Splendid, but hey, that does not secure a nomination now does it?  There needs to be the X factor. Does he have it?

That, I cannot say.  The original question -- where I posited the idea -- was in a 2012 primary thread.  That is, who might be running?  As to the sort of X factor that nails down a nomination, I have no idea.  

I also keep bringing up Governor John Hoeven, but mainly because his favorables are so high and he is presently off the radar outside North Dakota.  Small state guy, but so were Howard Dean. Tom Daschle and Sarah Palin.  

Those X-factors are pesky things, too.  The thing that might make someone a shoo-in this time could spell political death for the same guy in four years.

[Lief 🗽]

Burr's not going to win re-election...

I can't decide whether you or that NJ guy, are the bigger Dem hack.

His seat is cursed. And the reason that a nobody like Kay Hagan is running against Dole this year is that all the big names in the NC Democratic party decided to wait for 2010 to take on Burr.

[J. J.]

Huckabee vs. Romney would be dirty. And great.

I would support Romney in the Primary, beyond doubt.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Does the GOP have any non-wingnuts in reserve? How about a sane, moderate Republican? Do they even exist anymore?

[A18]

I predict that none of the foregoing predictions will be anywhere close to correct.

[Frodo]

Does the GOP have any non-wingnuts in reserve? How about a sane, moderate Republican? Do they even exist anymore?

None that stand a chance at winning the nomination. 

[NOVA Green]

In the event that the economy were to go down the tubes and the Democratic party were responsible to a large extent, I would certainly considering voting for a moderate Republican that offered some comprehensive solutions to major structural problems that transcend political party.

The key is that the Republican party candidate would have to actually offer solutions that help deal with systemic issues. I do not believe that the government is the only solution, and I think that there are many areas where business can contribute without completely destroying the social security nets of the New Deal.

Oregon has a history of moderate Republicans, including Mark Hatfield, and I for one would be willing to accept a Republican candidate for President that actually had the balls to lead and propose innovative solutions to pressing issues, rather than rely on the rhetoric of the '80s and Reagan revolution that is in danger of driving the party to oblivion in much of the country.

I believe that this can happen without destroying the base, and there is a reason that Huck had broad appeal in certain regions, beyond the stereotypical "Christian Conservative" label.

I'm not saying he is the ideal candidate, but too few Reps seem to actually care about those who are working hard every day and suffering under adverse economic conditions.

[panda_priest]

The 2012 GOP primary will be identical to 2008, with the addition of Sarah Palin.

[cannonia]

The 2012 GOP primary will be identical to 2008, with the addition of Sarah Palin.

I doubt Thompson, Paul, and Giuliani (or McCain!) will run.

[HappyWarrior]

I know I'm not a Republican but I had to include my input as to who I think are strategically the Republicans best choices.  I have a top three already put together.  First I will list the bottom two(they have no real order) and then my #1 pick:

My second two are Richard Burr and John Thune.  They are both conservatives but they have that compassionate conservative aura.  They won't come across as wingnuts(whether they are or not isn't important) and to my knowledge neither one has any significant scandals in their past.

However, my #1 pick for the Republicans in 2012 is General Petraeus, I feel he could take an Eisenhower presidential route.  He does'nt have any clearly defined positions yet, is a successful military commander who has previously communicated with government leaders in and out of congress, and his public positions can be molded to suit his candidacy's needs.

[Torie]

I know I'm not a Republican but I had to include my input as to who I think are strategically the Republicans best choices.  I have a top three already put together.  First I will list the bottom two(they have no real order) and then my #1 pick:

My second two are Richard Burr and John Thune.  They are both conservatives but they have that compassionate conservative aura.  They won't come across as wingnuts(whether they are or not isn't important) and to my knowledge neither one has any significant scandals in their past.

However, my #1 pick for the Republicans in 2012 is General Petraeus, I feel he could take an Eisenhower presidential route.  He does'nt have any clearly defined positions yet, is a successful military commander who has previously communicated with government leaders in and out of congress, and his public positions can be molded to suit his candidacy's needs.

Generals on white horses don't appeal to me. Eisenhower was unique, in that he really was as much a politician as a general, while he was a general. That meme has not been, and cannot be, replicated.

This Burr buzz is interesting. Why? Thune is a decent chap. I don't consider him a heavy weight. I want weight.