Why aren't the Republicans running?

[Reaganfan]

Seriously?

Daniels...no.
Huckabee...no.
Christie...no.
Rubio...no.
Bush...no.
Barbour...no.
Pence...no.
Thune...no.
Perry...no.
Demint...no.
Jindal...no.

It seems that more Democrats ran against Bush starting in 2002 and 2003 when his approval rating was at times 20+ points higher than Obama. Why are so many Republicans declining?

[Liberté]

I don't think this is shaping up to be the landslide election Republicans and others (including myself) thought it would be. Either a complete dark horse clinches the nomination and we re-align along his or her policy positions, or Obama wins and rides out the last four years of the New Deal era.

[King]

Ton of reasons, some off the top of my head:

(1) Bush had higher approvals, but everyone could see it was all on a wartime bounce.  Obama is holding steady at 45-50% even during the lows of 2010.

(2) Bush won a contested 2000 so there was still a strong "wronged Democrat" opposition

(3) Though Dubya had a powerful and united conservative machine run by Rove, he was no way near as skilled of campaigner as Obama.  Kerry lost by 2.5% on Election Night, but was down by 10 points before beating up on Bush in the debates.  I doubt Mitch Daniels could beat Obama in a debate.

(4) The demand for ideological purity in the GOP primary this season thanks to the Tea Party is making it incredibly difficult to get nominated and still have an ounce of dignity for the general election.  Primary ideology shifts are normal, but there's no place for individualism this cycle.  

For example, Bush was pro-amnesty in the immigration debate back in 2000 and 2004.  He wouldn't be allowed to get away with that in 2012.  There are a lot of votes and signings these Senators and Governors have on their resume that don't mix well with tea.

Obama wins and rides out the last four years of the New Deal era.

The New Deal era died in the early 80s.

[Liberté]

(1) Bush had higher approvals, but everyone could see it was all on a wartime bounce.  Obama is holding steady at 45-50% even during the lows of 2010.

I have to say that I am remarkably impressed with this. His numbers have sagged consistently but have not ever collapsed. He's pretty good at holding actions. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean the broader realignment of interests inaugurated in the 1930s and which we are still feeling the direct effects from.

[Mr. Morden]

It seems that more Democrats ran against Bush starting in 2002 and 2003 when his approval rating was at times 20+ points higher than Obama. Why are so many Republicans declining?

10 Democratic candidates ran in the 2004 cycle, with Clark not entering the race until September.

This time around, you already have the following with exploratory committees or official campaigns: Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Paul, Johnson, Cain, Santorum (that's 7....plus additional candidates like Roemer who are so far shut out of the debates).  Bachmann and Huntsman are widely expected to enter the race within the next couple of weeks.  Bolton, Giuliani, McCotter, and Palin are still question marks.

So it's likely that there will be just as many candidates this time as in 2004.  It's just that there are more complaints this time about which people chose to run and which didn't.

[Paul Kemp]

Because challenging an incumbent is never easy, except for a few cases.

The GOP is also strongly lacking in leadership, which hurts the process. There's no heir to the throne.

So does this mean you won't have a Top Ten for 2012, Naso?

[bgwah]

Because they know Obama will win.

[Bull Moose Base]

The 2 strongest Democrats in 2004 (Gore and Hillary) didn't run.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The Democratic field in 2004 wasn't much stronger than the Republican field is today:

Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Dick Gephardt
Bob Graham
John Kerry
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Carol Moseley Braun
Al Sharpton

How many of these candidates were viewed as serious contenders to actually defeat Bush?

[Phony Moderate]

The Democratic field in 2004 wasn't much stronger than the Republican field is today:

Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Dick Gephardt
Bob Graham
John Kerry
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Carol Moseley Braun
Al Sharpton

How many of these candidates were viewed as serious contenders to actually defeat Bush?

Kerry and Lieberman were both heavyweight Senators, Gephardt had just served as the Democratic House Leader for quite a long time, and Clark was a four-star General.

[Keystone Phil]

The Democratic field in 2004 wasn't much stronger than the Republican field is today:

Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Dick Gephardt
Bob Graham
John Kerry
Dennis Kucinich
Joe Lieberman
Carol Moseley Braun
Al Sharpton

How many of these candidates were viewed as serious contenders to actually defeat Bush?

Kerry and Lieberman were both heavyweight Senators, Gephardt had just served as the Democratic House Leader for quite a long time, and Clark was a four-star General.

...but they still weren't seen as great candidates. Clark being a four star General was a resume booster but he fizzled out very quickly. Gephardt and Lieberman might have been seen as the most likely to give Bush his toughest competition but they never truly resonated with the primary electorate.

[krazen1211]

Kerry and heavyweight senator do not belong in the same sentence. Even Edwards cosponsored something of note in his Senate career.

[specific_name]

They don't think they can win?

The party was badly damaged at the end of the Bush era and that put them into something of an existential crisis. The 2010 primaries were one act of that crisis, where long time Republicans were being knocked off by insurgent radicals. It's created a fissure in the party, that reminds me of what happened to the Democrats before the last real realignment. That is the conservative Democrats split strongly from the progressives. Nixon then pursued the conservative Dixiecrats with his Southern strategy.

HHH's nomination temporarily kept the party together before it totally fell apart with McGovern, at least at the national level. History never repeats itself exactly, but these things are worth noting. The moderate Republicans were instrumental in nominating McCain, but the evangelicals, libertarians, paleo-cons and what would later be called Tea Parties were all left out in the cold. McCain is comparable to Humphrey if my analogy holds any weight.

Now if the Republicans try the opposite strategy and the mood shifts to an unelectable but "pure" candidate who generates enthusiasm from the base (somewhat like McGovern), we may see Obama in a Nixon like position. The president who is elected to end wars expands them and is attacked by the other party partially on those grounds. The candidate most likely to fill that position is someone like Bachmann. Unfortunately for the TP they don't have anyone sane and charismatic enough to get the nomination, so it looks like an establishment type will get it and lose narrowly. 

[feeblepizza]

Because they don't want to?

[Whacker77]

What makes the decision of so many not run even more curious is the electoral college math.

Consider this.  A strong Republican would win all of the McCain 2008 states and almost certainly bring back the traditional R states of IN, VA, and NC.  That person would also likely win FL and OH, both center/right states historically.

Based on the EC totals, the Republican would need only flip just ONE other Obama state.  Just ONE.  If the economy remains poor, think PA, MI, or WI.  If the nominee has appeal with Hispanics, think CO, NV, and NM.

While we hear lots of stories about how unbeatable Obama is, the EC math says otherwise.  That assumes a credible R nominee obviously.  Still, this race should be much closer than it probably will be.

Just based on the math, I still think a late entry is possible.  All of the No's don't make sense when looking at the map.

[sentinel]

What makes the decision of so many not run even more curious is the electoral college math.

Consider this.  A strong Republican would win all of the McCain 2008 states and almost certainly bring back the traditional R states of IN, VA, and NC.  That person would also likely win FL and OH, both center/right states historically.

Based on the EC totals, the Republican would need only flip just ONE other Obama state.  Just ONE.  If the economy remains poor, think PA, MI, or WI.  If the nominee has appeal with Hispanics, think CO, NV, and NM.

While we hear lots of stories about how unbeatable Obama is, the EC math says otherwise.  That assumes a credible R nominee obviously.  Still, this race should be much closer than it probably will be.

Just based on the math, I still think a late entry is possible.  All of the No's don't make sense when looking at the map.

I don't agree with your determination of what the outcome might be. Looking at this realistically, from 1992 through the 2004 election Obama is in a great place right now. He appeals to the states that have tended to be more Republican but due to demographic changes in the past 20 years are definitely trending Democratic. Indiana will most likely go Republican in 2012 but Virginia and North Carolina are leaning Democratic --Virginia more so than NC.

Lets look at this since 1992...

Dark Red = Voted for the Democratic (Presidential) candidate EVERY election since, and including,1992
Dark Blue = Same as above, but Republican.
Light Red = Voted for the Democratic candidate a majority of elections since, and including, 1992
Light Blue = Same as above, but Republican.

On this map, there are 281 EV for the Democrat, and 257 for the Republican. Probability says that Obama will win.  But we can look a little further in terms of what Obama's appeal is.

Because he won Indiana in 2008 by a plurality I will keep Indiana on the table as leaning Republican, but he's unlikely to win it --I think anyway.

Colorado, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina were decisive victories and Obama was definitely competitive. Even though he lost Missouri, I would also throw this in the same category. Even if he loses these, he still wins the Presidency.

Obama could also be competitive in Montana --he was in 2008.

But on my map, he loses all these states and STILL wins.

He would have to lose Iowa and Nevada, or Ohio, or some combination of 12 Electoral Votes to lose the Presidency...and because he appeals to another 79 Electoral Votes that usually go Republican, it ain't gonna happen.

[TheGlobalizer]

Seriously?

Daniels...no.  Wife
Huckabee...no.  Southerner, religious
Christie...no.  Not ready
Rubio...no.  Not ready
Bush...no.  "Bush"
Barbour...no.  Southerner
Pence...no.  Not ready
Thune...no.  Not enough substance for the climate
Perry...no.  Texan (but considering it)
Demint...no.  Southerner, kingmaker
Jindal...no.  Not ready, prior national stage debacle

It seems that more Democrats ran against Bush starting in 2002 and 2003 when his approval rating was at times 20+ points higher than Obama. Why are so many Republicans declining?

The guys above who can win the GOP would have trouble winning the general, and there are too many good candidates not on that list.  Christie, Rubio, and maybe Pence are the GOP bench for the future, along with other guys (Ryan, Cantor, etc.)

[HAnnA MArin County]

They really are scared of the black guy.

Would you want to run against the guy who made a fool of Donald Trump and the birthers (er, well, bigger than what they already were) not to mention the guy who got Osama bin Laden? After what happened in NY-26, would you want to be on the side that defends The Road to Prosperity/killing Medicare and busting up unions? Or how are they going to defend their pledge to create jobs and reduce the debt when all they've done is defund Planned Parenthood?

Basically, none of them can defeat Obama. And what happened in NY-26, many of them are probably fearing that Pelosi will retake the gavel in 2012. The end.

[Whacker77]

To sirnick

I disagree with your view because you're making the assumption Obama is still the same hope and change guy he was in 2008.  That's clearly not the case at all.  He has a real record now and he won't be solely able to depend on his rhetorical ability.

It's quite possible, Obama could still win VA, but he's not going to win IN or NC.  He's also not going to be competative in MT either.  Forget about the 2008 map.  It was a once in a lifetime experience.

My point remains.  A strong Republican candidate would start with the McCain states and bring back the fluke states of VA, NC, and IN.  He would also be favored in Fl and OH.  Just one other Obama state would be needed.

Of course, my premise assumes the Republican is not a loon or completely damaged.  Having said that, I think the Obama campaign realizes the closeness of the map and that's why they tell Poltico and MSNBC on background they believe they will get solid challenges from Romney and Pawlenty.

I don't for a minute believe Romney or Pawlenty would win because I don't see them as credible, but the realities of the map show the race will be close.  Also, don't forget Obama won tight victories, smaller than his national win, in Fl and OH.  He did this despite going against a Republican nominee the party didin't really care for and despite having a VP nominee who appeared to be an air head.

[Smash255]

To sirnick

I disagree with your view because you're making the assumption Obama is still the same hope and change guy he was in 2008.  That's clearly not the case at all.  He has a real record now and he won't be solely able to depend on his rhetorical ability.

It's quite possible, Obama could still win VA, but he's not going to win IN or NC.  He's also not going to be competative in MT either.  Forget about the 2008 map.  It was a once in a lifetime experience.

My point remains.  A strong Republican candidate would start with the McCain states and bring back the fluke states of VA, NC, and IN.  He would also be favored in Fl and OH.  Just one other Obama state would be needed.

Of course, my premise assumes the Republican is not a loon or completely damaged.  Having said that, I think the Obama campaign realizes the closeness of the map and that's why they tell Poltico and MSNBC on background they believe they will get solid challenges from Romney and Pawlenty.

I don't for a minute believe Romney or Pawlenty would win because I don't see them as credible, but the realities of the map show the race will be close.  Also, don't forget Obama won tight victories, smaller than his national win, in Fl and OH.  He did this despite going against a Republican nominee the party didin't really care for and despite having a VP nominee who appeared to be an air head.

VA wasn't a fluke, nor was North Carolina.  North Carolina has moved very much into tossup category, and at this point Virginia is probably a lean Democratic state.  The problem for the GOP, is the candidates that can get past a Primary, have very little appeal in the General.  I think Huntsman is BY FAR the strongest GOP candidate in the General, but he has very little chance o winning a Primary. 

Quite simply the GOP candidates that can win the states they need in a General, can't get passed a Primary.

[TheGlobalizer]

VA wasn't a fluke, nor was North Carolina.  North Carolina has moved very much into tossup category, and at this point Virginia is probably a lean Democratic state.  The problem for the GOP, is the candidates that can get past a Primary, have very little appeal in the General.  I think Huntsman is BY FAR the strongest GOP candidate in the General, but he has very little chance o winning a Primary. 

VA and NC weren't flukes, but the results there are dramatically overstated relative to the overall trend.

VA is plainly a lean-R state, as is NC.  They are growing more Democratic, but Obama as a candidate was a perfect storm for VA/NC politics.  Recent results and polling are showing the tide wash back out and it will be difficult for Obama to hold both states.

[GOP732]

I doubt Mitch Daniels could beat Obama in a debate.

Why does everyone think Obama is such a great debater? Not that it has much correlation, but I assume we all saw his toast to the queen?

[JewCon]

.....Cause we are F***ed?

[Paul Kemp]

I doubt Mitch Daniels could beat Obama in a debate.

Why does everyone think Obama is such a great debater? Not that it has much correlation, but I assume we all saw his toast to the queen?

Debating = toasting?

[King]

I doubt Mitch Daniels could beat Obama in a debate.

Why does everyone think Obama is such a great debater? Not that it has much correlation, but I assume we all saw his toast to the queen?

Unless the GOP candidate plans on bringing an orchestra with him, I don't see how Obama talking over the anthem is relevant.