In 2012 will we see a repeat of 1912? Or will we get a Republican Bill Clinton?

[wilji1090]

Somehow I feel like 2012 is going to be a repeat of 1912.

Reason I say this is because I think that Democrats are largely displeased with Obama's performance while Republicans are out to repeat the grand success of Ronald Reagan's election of Jimmy Carter. But, for some reason I'm beginning to see Barack Obama not as the Democrat Reagan, but rather a Democrat William Taft.

What I mean is, could 2012 see the rise of another Bull Moose Party with a Theodore Roosevelt-like figure heading it out of disgust with both political parties?

OR

Is it entirely possible we could get a centrist Republican ala Bob Dole style or even a Republican Bill Clinton? Personally, I see this one as the most likely and probably the most needed, especially when you consider the notion of third parties having little success in elections.

The only one who strikes me as a possible Clinton-esque figure for the GOP would be Donald Trump, though whether he can get nominated and ELECTED remains to be seen.

Your thoughts?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The Republican ticket in 2012 (In my opinion) will be either Daniels/Martinez, Barbour/Pawlenty or Paul/Christie.

[Penelope]

The issue with Obama = Taft is the fact that George W. Bush was not and never will be a Democrat, or anywhere near Teddy Roosevelt for that matter.

If you want a good Obama comparison, look to Nixon and Clinton. Both of whom won their re-election challenges fairly easily.

[wilji1090]

The issue with Obama = Taft is the fact that George W. Bush was not and never will be a Democrat, or anywhere near Teddy Roosevelt for that matter.

If you want a good Obama comparison, look to Nixon and Clinton. Both of whom won their re-election challenges fairly easily.

Well, what I mean is, Obama is drawing severe fire from the left it seems much like how Taft inadvertently split the Republicans during his presidency. Now, I am quite possibly over-exaggerating it, but it seems likely that someone will rise from the Democrats or GOP and try to pull a Teddy Roosevelt in forming a brand new party, personally, I think it'll be between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, though I'd wager Ron Paul's likelihood of getting on the ballots is far greater than Nader's.

As for Clinton and Nixon, well, I can certainly see, especially taking into consideration Jeb Bush saying that they shouldn't underestimate Obama's likelihood of getting re-elected.

[Penelope]

Ah, I see, well, a third party emerging from the Republicans is a lot more likely than a third party run from the left, mostly because the left has no figures that are in any position to challenge Obama anywhere near as successfully as Teddy Roosevelt did Taft. More than likely, if there is a third party run, it'll be from the Tea-Party faction of the GOP, and any states they came close to winning would probably be hand delivered to Barack Obama.

[indrights4ever]

I see more similarities for the election of 2012 with the elections of 1968 and 1980.  Johnson was very successful legislatively (as has Obama) expanding government and presiding over a difficult war, the economy was basically flat-line and obvious civil unrest throughout the nation. 

President Carter was elected following a traumatic national scandal (Watergate) and had a major foreign affairs issue at the close of his presidency (Iran hostage crises). 

The Republican party was certainly weakened following the 2008 financial collapse, but had already lost key battles during the 2006 election including House control.  The 2012 election has qualities of 1968 in the fact that there is still a continuing war, the economy will still likely be flat-lined, and as we saw in 2010, there is still a sense of a need for change, but not the kind that Obama (or Johnson/Democrats echoed in 68') is pushing.  The Obama administrations ineptness in Foreign affairs reminds one also of Carter, mainly the sense of 'deer in the headlights' non action, similar to 78'-79'.  The fact that 30-years of inaction on a cohesive, 'progressive' energy plan will certainly impact this nation in the short term, eerily similar to 78'-79'.

One final thought on 2012, don't underestimate the Supreme Court decision in 2010, Justice Alito caught the ire of the president (and Dems) because this will certainly swing the power of $$$ back toward the center, because the big government/big union $$$ dominated in 2008.

Cheers.               

[Bull Moose Base]

Bienvenidos Newbie.  Obama's approval in his own party is much, much stronger than LBJ's or Carter's was; they both faced very serious primary challenges (in '68 enough to force the incumbent from the race) that Obama will not.

As for the OP, if the GOP nominates a more centrist candidate there is a chance of a Tea Party third party.  They don't like a 2nd term for Obama but if it's pretty likely anyway, they might like it plus irrelevancy even less.

[indrights4ever]

As far as the second part of your question, Bill Clinton's presidency was a bit quirky to say the least.  Former President Clinton I'm sure considers himself (and I'm sure Secretary of State Clinton does as well) to be a 'progressive' big government president.  Certainly, during his first two years his administration was able to pass several key legislative programs that allowed for the federal government to expand its control.  The worse, and key loss, for his administration was the national health care debacle (Hillary care), which opened the door to the Repubs and their conservative influence, basically for the remainder of his presidency.  President Clinton won reelection in 1996 mainly because of 'echoing' conservative ideas (remember the Dick Morris triangulation approach) and an extremely weak challenger, uh, Bob Dole.

You remember Bob don't you?  Why do you want to be president?... Well, I'm .... Bob Dole.  Huh?  Yeah, I'm .... Bob Dole.  Bob Dole.......Senator Bob Dole.  It's my turn, right?

Now, as far as 2012, the Repubs are unlikely to lose the House, they may not pick up the Senate, but unlikely to lose the House.  This is key because so many incumbents will be pushing the conservative message, echoing the message at the top of the ticket (perhaps?).  With the conservative movement 'within' the party bolstering their message, it is very unlikely a third party will emerge out of the Republican Party.  The Democrats HAVE the White House, and unless Obama decides NOT to run, no serious third party candidate will emerge out of their party to even come close to Obama.  So, I don't see a "Ross Perot" out there in the weeds, Ala 1992, unless of course, Obama has a Billionaire out there that's pissed off at him .

Bill Clinton emerged as a candidate after 12 years of a Republican in the White House, this is key.  The Dems also did not have any major victories prior to the 1992 election-as Repubs will in 2012 (Ala 2010) and Bill had to face a sitting president whose approval rating was very high (Bush was in the 80's following desert storm).  Bill had to run decisively to the middle once he became the nominee.  I don't see any Republican running left of center and getting the nomination, because of 2010-tea party-ism, and that is what the candidate did in 2008 (McCain was a left-center Repub's wet dream candidate).  The Repubs won't elect the same type of candidate in 2012.  No, I see the Repubs electing a former (or sitting) governor who is somewhat conservative, with a strong background as a fiscal reformer.  That means no Trump (wet blanket), no Gingrich (although a reformer), and no Santorum (although a conservative).              

[wilji1090]

Well, I suppose it could be worse, I mean we've got Dan Quayle 2.0 aka Sarah Palin considering a run which idk, sorta scares me because I know nothing about her.

As for Obama being compared to LBJ, that is perhaps the most analytical comparison one has given and quite honestly I'm impressed, I've either seen Obama hailed as FDR 2.0 or demonized as Carter 2.0. I think the guy's got a LOT of faults, but then what person doesn't. Now, I actually wouldn't mind seeing another Obama term, but at the same time I wish people especially on Fox News, would get off their high horse about the man being a socialist. I mean, if Barack Obama is a socialist then he's a rather POOR socialist I think.

Still, I think it'll an intriguing election especially if Obama is re-elected, and personally I think the man has a decent shot at it.

[Хahar 🤔]

no

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now if McCain had won the election in 2008, we might have had a chance of having a 1912 in 2012, but the only way we could conceivably have a repeat of 1912 in 2012 now is if we repeal the 22nd Amendment so that George W. Bush could get the GOP nomination because of being friends with the dealmakers and the Tea Party hadn't settled on a candidate, but one of them continues the fight. (Note this puts W in the role of Taft and the Tea Party in the role of those backing Roosevelt and LaFollette.) 

[Person Man]

Now if McCain had won the election in 2008, we might have had a chance of having a 1912 in 2012, but the only way we could conceivably have a repeat of 1912 in 2012 now is if we repeal the 22nd Amendment so that George W. Bush could get the GOP nomination because of being friends with the dealmakers and the Tea Party hadn't settled on a candidate, but one of them continues the fight. (Note this puts W in the role of Taft and the Tea Party in the role of those backing Roosevelt and LaFollette.) 

Then again, the Bull Moose Party was the moderate wing of the GOP, not the radical wing of the GOP. Maybe McCain's Neoconservatism and Palin's cultural nationalism would have been enough to generate a moderate backlash. There would have been no party anyway because there would be no racial populism or entitlement reform backlash to cause it. It would have been very interesting to see what McCain would do with two liberal SCOTUS vacancies, an economic teetering on full-flung depression, Iran and the 2011 Intifadah.  - Now that's a timeline.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The election 2012 seems to be most like is 1996. Most of the potential candidates with the best chances against Obama (like Thurne or Jeb Bush) aren't running and an inoffesensive sacrifical lamb will be the Republican nomination.

[NHI]

I see more similarities for the election of 2012 with the elections of 1968 and 1980.  Johnson was very successful legislatively (as has Obama) expanding government and presiding over a difficult war, the economy was basically flat-line and obvious civil unrest throughout the nation. 

President Carter was elected following a traumatic national scandal (Watergate) and had a major foreign affairs issue at the close of his presidency (Iran hostage crises). 

The Republican party was certainly weakened following the 2008 financial collapse, but had already lost key battles during the 2006 election including House control.  The 2012 election has qualities of 1968 in the fact that there is still a continuing war, the economy will still likely be flat-lined, and as we saw in 2010, there is still a sense of a need for change, but not the kind that Obama (or Johnson/Democrats echoed in 68') is pushing.  The Obama administrations ineptness in Foreign affairs reminds one also of Carter, mainly the sense of 'deer in the headlights' non action, similar to 78'-79'.  The fact that 30-years of inaction on a cohesive, 'progressive' energy plan will certainly impact this nation in the short term, eerily similar to 78'-79'.

One final thought on 2012, don't underestimate the Supreme Court decision in 2010, Justice Alito caught the ire of the president (and Dems) because this will certainly swing the power of $$$ back toward the center, because the big government/big union $$$ dominated in 2008.

Cheers.               

Good point.

[DS0816]

In 2012 will we see a repeat of 1912? Or will we get a Republican Bill Clinton?

Somehow I feel like 2012 is going to be a repeat of 1912.
…

Your thoughts?

Get well, soon!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     People appear to be more & more dissatisfied with the parties as time goes on, but they don't seem to be there yet. I don't think a serious third-party candidacy is in the cards at this juncture.

     A Republican Bill Clinton seems somewhat more likely, though the increasing polarization of the electorate makes me think that a moderate nominee is not in the cards. On the other hand, with the increasingly likely possibility of neither Huckabee nor Palin in the race, it's hard to say what will happen.