The Next GOP Field
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:10:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Next GOP Field
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Next GOP Field  (Read 1609 times)
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 10, 2009, 03:12:20 PM »

No.  No poll.  (You're welcome.)

Just a question.

What is the likelihood that the field of Republican primary candidates will include two or three people who haven't been talked about as candidates at all?  Yes, I realize there is always a Duncan Hunter out there.  That's not what I mean.

I mean a name or two we would know.  But one virtually no one had on their radar?  It's tempting to throw names out there but for the present moment, I am content to simply mull over the general question...
Logged
ej2mm15
electoraljew2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 986
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2009, 03:15:00 PM »

mmmm... Theres eric cantor.... Sanford... Crist?
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2009, 03:20:25 PM »

mmmm... Theres eric cantor.... Sanford... Crist?

Well right there are three people that have been mentioned as candidates so that eliminates them.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2009, 03:21:39 PM »

mmmm... Theres eric cantor.... Sanford... Crist?

Well, all are credible candidates...but I might not have been clear.  I'm not talking about those whose names have surfaced already.  There's been lots of buzz about Sanford.  Cantor was a potential VP nominee the last "go-round", so that makes him a potential in 2012.  And Crist has also been the source of much speculation.

Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2009, 03:24:01 PM »

George H W Bush once again trying out for a second term. Now that'd be unexpected.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2009, 03:24:50 PM »

How about Ensign? I've never heard his name thrown around on the mainstream media and it's clear that he has some ambitions.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2009, 03:41:40 PM »

Well, admittedly...one of the problems is that the media (print, tv, radio and internet) has nothing but time to fill.  So there are a lot of armchair pundits who simply run down a list of every Republican Governor, Senator and Representative and say..."what about him/her?"

Even so, I'm thinking of those candidates very few saw coming. 

I am not sure many people anticipated Lamar Alexander's 1996 bid on the horizon. Outside Indiana, I wonder if there was any buzz at all about Dick Lugar in that year?

That's what I am getting at...and trying to do so without throwing out any names.  When we do that, the thread tends to turn into a debate about the merits of that individual.  (which is fine as far as it goes...)  But I am getting at the larger question...

How often does someone fly under the radar until campaign season and will it happen in 2012? 
Logged
ej2mm15
electoraljew2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 986
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2009, 04:43:47 PM »

cheney, Petraeus, barbour
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2009, 04:45:04 PM »


Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2009, 04:46:33 PM »

I might be wrong, but if Obama is beatable in 2012, the Republicans will nominate someone other than Huck, Sarah or Mitt.
Logged
ej2mm15
electoraljew2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 986
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2009, 04:55:23 PM »

No. No way in hell.
Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2009, 05:13:33 PM »

Sen. Richard Burr(if he wins re-election), Gov. Mitchell Daniels, Sen. Mike Johanns, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Most likely Gov. Kay Bailey Hutchison) and Sen. John Thune.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2009, 07:14:20 PM »

Dirk Kempthorne is supposedly planning a run (he won't get far, with his bastard children). 

You've got a thing for Dirk, don't you?
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2009, 07:33:06 PM »

Gov. Brownback

Sen. Jerry Moran
Gov. Christie

Gov. Hoekstra

That's if their elected in 2010 and 2009 of course
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2009, 09:43:10 PM »


Hopefully a good low-key Governor like Rell or Daniels (or formerly Huntsman).  Though we don't have very many good Governors anymore.

According to JSojourner, Daniels isn't as accomplished as non-Hoosiers believe him to be. 
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2009, 09:47:19 PM »


Hopefully a good low-key Governor like Rell or Daniels (or formerly Huntsman).  Though we don't have very many good Governors anymore.

According to JSojourner, Daniels isn't as accomplished as non-Hoosiers believe him to be. 

As much as I respect JSojourner's insight, let's not forget that he is a Democrat, while Mitch Daniels is a Republican.  Wink
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2009, 11:22:53 PM »


As much as I respect JSojourner's insight, let's not forget that he is a Democrat, while Mitch Daniels is a Republican.  Wink

True...but it's JSojourner.  I value his opinion a lot more than many Republicans in this forum.
Logged
aaaa2222
yoman82
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2009, 02:04:34 PM »

Honestly, I could see Guiliani run again, should he win the governorship of NY. People are too quick to write him off.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,680
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2009, 02:49:27 PM »

Honestly, I could see Guiliani run again, should he win the governorship of NY. People are too quick to write him off.

If Giuliani ever wins statewide office in NY I will literally eat my hat.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2009, 07:57:19 PM »


1. Cheney has so many negatives that he would be a joke if he were running for President. He has said that he is unelectable. He's not much of a politician.

If he wanted to run for President of the United States, then he would have done so in 2008 against Obama on his "merits" as President.

2. Petraeus has a job to complete, and that may take too long to give him time in which to campaign. The last career military man to win the Presidency (Eisenhower) did so seven years after the end of "his" war. 2016? Maybe. Earlier? Forget it. 

3. Barbour? Think carefully about Mississippi. The state has no political pull. What is it -- Mississippi is one of the States that has most often voted "wrong" since the Civil War? Mississippi is a political lagger and not a leader, and its 6 electoral votes aren't much of a prize. Mississippi is far from a microcosm of America, having no really-large city (it would be about the tenth-largest city in Texas, and many suburbs in California and New York dwarf it. The sort of campaigning that Barbour does in Mississippi just wouldn't work against the master of urban and suburban campaigning. A politician wins Mississippi by winning the white vote, which explains someone like Trent Lott or Thad Cochran who can win while losing 90% of the black vote -- which just won't work north of the Ohio or west of the Rockies. That's theoretically possible in almost the whole US, but that's not how people vote -- as Obama showed in 2008 (not to mention such persons as Ed Brooke, Tom Bradley, and Douglas Wilder).

Mississippi fittingly has two hissing sounds in the state name as far as its politics go (I concede that the virulent racism and KKK violence of the early 1960s is dead there, which is a huge improvement). The state is one of the most corrupt (if one looks at the rate of criminal convictions of elected officials) because of the racial division among voters. In that state the Republicans are effectively the White People's party and the Democrats are effectively the Black People's Party, which ensures Chicago-style machine politics even in hick towns. When people quit voting on ethnic lines and start voting on issues, integrity, and political talent, then Mississippi will take the second step out of the political gutter. When it's no longer possible for a white candidate to win Mississippi while losing 90% of the black vote, Mississippi will be a far better place in its politics.
Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2009, 09:31:19 PM »

Sen. Richard Burr(if he wins re-election), Gov. Mitchell Daniels, Sen. Mike Johanns, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Most likely Gov. Kay Bailey Hutchison) and Sen. John Thune.

Let me put this out there again...
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2009, 09:38:43 PM »

Mike Pence is certainly a dark horse to watch.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2009, 09:33:25 AM »


As much as I respect JSojourner's insight, let's not forget that he is a Democrat, while Mitch Daniels is a Republican.  Wink

True...but it's JSojourner.  I value his opinion a lot more than many Republicans in this forum.

Thanks, Paul.  Joe has a point, of course.  Some of the things Daniels has done would be very appealing to Republicans.  So it's definitely worth considering that I approach Daniels negatively.  Here are my objections to the man...

1.   Indiana has lost record numbers of high-paying manufacturing jobs since Daniels became governor.  This began long before the recession.  I don't blame Daniels for this and I don't completely dismiss complaints that state Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans.  My anger at Daniels is based on his response to the job loss.  During his re-election campaign, he stumped as "a job-creating machine".  While smart tactically, one needn't scratch more than the surface away to see that the jobs his administration has helped to create are minimum wage, service sector positions.  When Dunkin Donuts recently announced plans to open 44 new stores in my part of the state over the next five years, Daniels was the keynote presence at the press conference.  He claimed credit for these jobs and, indeed, state grants and tax breaks made it possible.  He's been cutting the ribbon on new Wal-Mart stores and Dollar General stores, too.  Swell. But that's not job creation by any measurable, meaningful standard.

2.   Daniels, in the name of downsizing "big state government", tried to close a number of BMV branch offices. There can be no question that the BMV needed some reform in terms of improving service.  Hoosiers are annoyed by long lines, bungled computer records and poor communication.  So I applaud the governor for trying to do something.  But his answer was much too simplistic.  Closing offices was NOT the way to reduce congestion.  If anything, it would have created more. I understand why conservatives believe in small government...but I don't understand why, when they want small federal government, they also want small state, county, city and township government.  Services have to be provided somewhere, right?  Fortunately, sensible Republicans and state Democrats were able to temper the Governor's plans.  He did succeed in closing a BMV branch in my neighborhood -- one that served about 50% African American clients, 15% Hispanic and the rest being whites and Asians.  (We have the largest Burmese refugee community in the country.)  Almost all of us are poor, working poor or middle class.  Closing this branch left 20 thousand people without a branch to serve them.  As a compromise, the administration agreed to open a new branch out at the airport.  Now consider -- the airport is  miles from any residential area.  (Allen County is one of the largest counties east of the Mississippi.)  And on top of that, all these working poor people would have to pay to park!  Daniels never understood why that was even a problem.  This would explain his "let them eat cake" philosophy when crafting the Bush budgets for the first four years.

3.   Daniels pulled a Reagan when it came to the mentally ill and institutions in which they were housed.  Ostensibly, he "privatized" them.  Today, most of them are closed and their former patients are homeless or being cared for by strapped family members.

4.   Because the Governor felt the state needed an infusion of cash, he sold the Indiana toll road (turnpike) to a Spanish-Italian consortium that also operates the Chicago Skyway toll road.  The state did reap massive profits and I am pleased the money is mostly being used to improve highways and small town infrastructure.  I'm less happy with the way toll road workers were treated in the transition.  And the jury is still out regarding how they are being treated by their new employees.

5.   He pretty much broke the back of the state employees' union.  (Which, I realize, would be regarded as a positive my a lot of Republicans.)

So those are my objections to the man.  As to a Presidential bid, I am at least leaning toward the idea that he will run.  Daniels is too cute by half when he denies any interest in seeking higher office.  I see a wink and a nod there, but that could just be me.  The fact is, he might very well be a candidate and -- despite what I consider to be a miserable record -- he could be a winner.  Daniels is an extremely good campaign and, like The Decider and Reagan before him, has a mastery over the simplistic, most base appeal to voters.  This has worked in past elections (in both parties) and if it works again, Daniels could be the man.

That said, I am not sure he qualifies anymore as a "name out of the blue".  In the last month, he has been much-discussed in the press and in the blogs.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2009, 09:52:37 AM »


As much as I respect JSojourner's insight, let's not forget that he is a Democrat, while Mitch Daniels is a Republican.  Wink

True...but it's JSojourner.  I value his opinion a lot more than many Republicans in this forum.

Thanks, Paul.  Joe has a point, of course.  Some of the things Daniels has done would be very appealing to Republicans.  So it's definitely worth considering that I approach Daniels negatively.  Here are my objections to the man...

1.   Indiana has lost record numbers of high-paying manufacturing jobs since Daniels became governor.  This began long before the recession.  I don't blame Daniels for this and I don't completely dismiss complaints that state Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans.  My anger at Daniels is based on his response to the job loss.  During his re-election campaign, he stumped as "a job-creating machine".  While smart tactically, one needn't scratch more than the surface away to see that the jobs his administration has helped to create are minimum wage, service sector positions.  When Dunkin Donuts recently announced plans to open 44 new stores in my part of the state over the next five years, Daniels was the keynote presence at the press conference.  He claimed credit for these jobs and, indeed, state grants and tax breaks made it possible.  He's been cutting the ribbon on new Wal-Mart stores and Dollar General stores, too.  Swell. But that's not job creation by any measurable, meaningful standard.

2.   Daniels, in the name of downsizing "big state government", tried to close a number of BMV branch offices. There can be no question that the BMV needed some reform in terms of improving service.  Hoosiers are annoyed by long lines, bungled computer records and poor communication.  So I applaud the governor for trying to do something.  But his answer was much too simplistic.  Closing offices was NOT the way to reduce congestion.  If anything, it would have created more. I understand why conservatives believe in small government...but I don't understand why, when they want small federal government, they also want small state, county, city and township government.  Services have to be provided somewhere, right?  Fortunately, sensible Republicans and state Democrats were able to temper the Governor's plans.  He did succeed in closing a BMV branch in my neighborhood -- one that served about 50% African American clients, 15% Hispanic and the rest being whites and Asians.  (We have the largest Burmese refugee community in the country.)  Almost all of us are poor, working poor or middle class.  Closing this branch left 20 thousand people without a branch to serve them.  As a compromise, the administration agreed to open a new branch out at the airport.  Now consider -- the airport is  miles from any residential area.  (Allen County is one of the largest counties east of the Mississippi.)  And on top of that, all these working poor people would have to pay to park!  Daniels never understood why that was even a problem.  This would explain his "let them eat cake" philosophy when crafting the Bush budgets for the first four years.

3.   Daniels pulled a Reagan when it came to the mentally ill and institutions in which they were housed.  Ostensibly, he "privatized" them.  Today, most of them are closed and their former patients are homeless or being cared for by strapped family members.

4.   Because the Governor felt the state needed an infusion of cash, he sold the Indiana toll road (turnpike) to a Spanish-Italian consortium that also operates the Chicago Skyway toll road.  The state did reap massive profits and I am pleased the money is mostly being used to improve highways and small town infrastructure.  I'm less happy with the way toll road workers were treated in the transition.  And the jury is still out regarding how they are being treated by their new employees.

5.   He pretty much broke the back of the state employees' union.  (Which, I realize, would be regarded as a positive my a lot of Republicans.)

So those are my objections to the man.  As to a Presidential bid, I am at least leaning toward the idea that he will run.  Daniels is too cute by half when he denies any interest in seeking higher office.  I see a wink and a nod there, but that could just be me.  The fact is, he might very well be a candidate and -- despite what I consider to be a miserable record -- he could be a winner.  Daniels is an extremely good campaign and, like The Decider and Reagan before him, has a mastery over the simplistic, most base appeal to voters.  This has worked in past elections (in both parties) and if it works again, Daniels could be the man.

That said, I am not sure he qualifies anymore as a "name out of the blue".  In the last month, he has been much-discussed in the press and in the blogs.

Why do you think Daniels had a bad record? Republicans and Independents in the state seem to love him. As an outside observer, I've only heard good things about him. Besides, he got reelected in a landslide in an otherwise relatively Democratic year for the state.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2009, 10:01:07 AM »

Vepres,

The fairly long tome you copied would explain why I think his record stinks.  But I admit, I am reacting as a liberal Democrat.  I wouldn't read too much into the last election result, however.  Prior to the election, Daniels was extremely unpopular.  Jill Long-Thompson, a brilliant public servant, was defeated handily because she is one of the worst campaigners ever.  I know Jill personally and if she suffers from anything, it's a terrible discomfort with self-promotion and asking for donations.  You simply cannot survive in politics that way.

Some Republicans and many Independents were livid about Daniels' decisions regarding the Toll Road, state mental institutions and the BMV.  To say nothing of his inaction on jobs.

But something happened along the way -- the money from the sale of the toll road started rolling in.  Daniels, a brilliant self-promoter, has his name on every single local infrastructure project being paid for by toll road money.  I don't fault him for it.  And this is one decision I think might turn out to have been a prescient one.  (We won't know for 20 years until we see if the private concern running the toll road screws things up or makes things better.)

Anyway -- my problems start with Daniels as President Bush's budget director.  And then just spiral down into the crapper from there.  But, as I said, that's one liberal's opinion.  So tack a "grain of salt" alert on to my ramblings! 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.