Is It Too Early to Talk About the 2012 Presidential Race?

Steve West | September 30, 2010
I think not. This is what we do in DC - 365, baybeeeeee!

Scott Hardie | September 30, 2010
If Christine O'Donnell wins her Senate race, expect lots of speculation about a Palin-O'Donnell ticket. There's probably a lot already; I don't pay as much attention as I used to.

Steve Dunn | September 30, 2010
No way it's Palin, right?

I mean... no way the Republicans actually nominate Sarah Palin. I'm thinking Romney.

Steve West | September 30, 2010
Possibly but Palin made for better nicknames. Watch out for the return of Newt.

Scott Hardie | September 30, 2010
Newt strikes me as another Giuliani so far: Saying a lot of outrageous things to stand out, and getting a lot of early hype, but likely to fizzle out once primaries begin and the media realize that nobody takes him seriously.

Palin has a shot if the Tea Party movement lasts that long. Romney would fill in a lot of Palin's gaps as her running mate, and she would as his.

Samir Mehta | September 30, 2010
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | September 30, 2010
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | September 30, 2010
If Palin gets elected my wife and I will be leaving the country it's a discussion we have had and right now we're not sure about the where but we are certain that it will happen. I liked living overseas with coo-coo presidents a lot more than being stuck in the country with them

Scott Hardie | July 15, 2011
Now that Michele Bachmann has replaced Sarah Palin -- who has a two-hour campaign ad playing in theaters across the country and still can't attract as much attention as Bachmann, hahahaha I love it -- is it too late for me to revise my earlier statement and suggest that Romney and Bachmann team up as running mates to offset each other's weaknesses?

Jon Berry | July 15, 2011
I honestly find the idea that there are people that truly embrace Bachmann as a representative scary. How is this even possible? This isn't some simple thing about conservative vs liberal, I truly don't understand how someone could embrace mediocrity so much.

It may be too strong to say she's worst than Palin... but this begs the question, why are the three female Republican "stars" of the last few years totally... insane and misinformed?

Wouldn't it behoove to get a candidate that was idealogically their ideal rep but smart and well read enough to go against Obama?

Bachmann doesn't even know the history of her own country, despite citing it repeatedly!!

Tony Peters | July 15, 2011
the thing is Bachmann can easily win the GOP Nomination but has little chance of winning the presidency. Especially with the Independents outnumbering the Base on either side

Steve West | July 25, 2011
"Donald Trump is the most public asshole since Goatse and has done even more degrading things for fame. He's aligned himself with Birthers and turned the Presidency of the United States into an ad for reality TV, and that's just so far this year. The terrifying thing is that Trump is winning.

He's made such a joke of himself in the process that it's easy to miss the immense balls required to do what he does in public, and get away with it. At a certain point, you have to take a step back and marvel at the rap-sheet of dick-headed insanity he's managed to put together."

10 Stories About Donald Trump You Won't Believe Are True

Scott Hardie | July 31, 2011
Jon: Two big parts of Bachmann's appeal are 1) her walking the walk when it comes to her Christian values, from her husband's counseling center to her raising of many foster children, and 2) her anti-elitist streak. Richard Cohen criticized the latter better than I could, even if his Y2K analogy was a little specious.

I'm from the Midwest, and I've still never really understood the anti-elitism mindset in this nation (which may be a symptom being "one of them") -- if you strongly disassociate yourself from people who are educated, cultured, wealthy, and intellectual, does that not make you seem ignorant and impoverished? I get why would-be populists like Bachmann try to tap the resentment toward liberal snobs on the coasts, but I don't get how anyone living in NASCAR country can look at any member of Congress with her fancy clothes and personal staffs and expense accounts and think, she's like me, not like those others.

Jon Berry | August 1, 2011
It's the same type of weird hypocrisy when Bill O'Reilly criticizes the college, Harvard elite, despite himself going there, and tries to claim he's one of "the folks" despite living in a mansion in the upper class suburbs.

I don't get how, like you said, the elite sell anti-elite hate, and people buy it. And here, I mean elite in the sense of... the rich and wealthy, for there is little elite in Bachmann's case, or Rick Santorum.

Tony Peters | August 1, 2011
What I don't understand is how Bachmann who has spent most of her professional life either working for or on the government dole, has a leg to stand on when she speaks out against government

Steve West | August 1, 2011
Donald Trump is waffling over his decision to not run for president. There are already teabaggers, so that leaves room for douchebaggers.

Scott Hardie | August 2, 2011
The supposed big turn-off about elites is that they act like they know what's best for you, even though they come from a completely different value system. How are the faith-based policies of Bachmann and Santorum different? They want to tell you how you can't have sex and teach your kids about God in class. The lyrics are different, but song sounds the same.

That's not to pick on all Evangelical politicians, just the ones who complain about the secular elitist types who think they have all the answers. Nicholas Kristof penned a good essay this weekend that started off by explaining just how Evangelical leaders got such a bad name. And for the record, I do read plenty of other news sources besides the New York Times; they're not why I said that I haven't seen more critical assessment of Obama's strategy. :-)

Jon Berry | August 3, 2011
So... Obama just lost, right?

I mean... this Debt Ceiling fiasco, he just gave it all up, didn't he?

Scott Hardie | August 3, 2011
Pretty much. Democrats know what it feels like to be Pirates fans.

Scott Hardie | August 19, 2011
Am I the only one who thinks that Rick Perry's standing in the Republican nomination race is being drastically overestimated? He's consistently mentioned as being in the "top tier" of Republican candidates with Romney and Bachmann, despite only just starting his campaign now, but he has yet to debate them or face them in any contest, even a blatantly phony one like the Iowa straw poll. Fred Thompson tried this same last-minute entry game four years ago and was touted as an instant front-runner, then faded fast. Sure, Perry's got a lot of plusses in his favor when you analyze him, but so did Tim Pawlenty. Just because people want Obama gone pronto doesn't mean they'd choose another four years of Bush as the alternative. Maybe this is just wishful thinking because the idea of Perry running the country scares me, but I really think his overnight promotion to the "top tier" is bogus and his chances are a lot slimmer than they seem.

Tony Peters | August 19, 2011
I have heard it said that Perry is an unintellectual version of Bush (now that really is scary). All I see is Perry splitting Bachmann's base. He has economic problems that right now are being glossed over but the Texas Miracle is a fraud that contains facts that will piss off both the right and the left. But the real truth is that Perry is primary wet dream who is a General Election nightmare for the GOP. I can't think of a running mate who could balance out his flaws for the General

Erik Bates | August 19, 2011
[hidden by request]

Justin Woods | August 19, 2011
I agree with you Erik... He has always and will continue to be shit on, it's funny how the media can cause a front runner to be forgotten by the people.

Erik Bates | August 19, 2011
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | August 19, 2011
Ron Paul isn't a "Social" Conservative.......that alone discounts him from any real GOP power

Erik Bates | August 19, 2011
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 19, 2011
The shunning of Paul is a shame. During the debate a few days ago, he got passionate talking about the need to end the wars overseas, how there are human lives at stake and not just dollars, and the moderators' expressions made light of his going off-script. We live in a sick world when real human passion about the deaths of American troops is a subject of mockery, while plastic candidates with their rehearsed nonsense-speak are treated seriously.

For what it's worth, Paul turned me off with his first campaign ad, and not just with how silly his feeble voice sounds at the end after a minute of such bravado, the poor guy. What disappointed me is his rock-solid commitment never to compromise, suggesting that compromise is what ruined Washington and refusal to agree is what will get us out of the quagmire we're in now. Really? Is he fucking serious? Washington needs MORE deadlock and shutdown? Our leaders have a critical failure to compromise that's doing far more damage to our country right now than accepting a little bad in order to do a lot of good. The public is mad at Congress, so their solution is to vote out longtime incumbents who have relationships and know how to deal with each other, in favor of Tea Party freshmen who would rather break the government than budge one inch, then things get worse and the incumbents get even more blame and the cycle continues. Campaign platforms like these are great for getting elected and lousy for actually solving our problems.

Scott Hardie | August 23, 2011
Ron Paul supporters everywhere: "Ouch."

Scott Hardie | August 24, 2011
More analysis of why Paul doesn't get respect from the media even though other "unelectable" protest candidates do.

Erik Bates | August 24, 2011
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | August 24, 2011
sadly he is a crack pot regardless of the fact that I agree with a lot that he has to say.

Scott Hardie | August 25, 2011
Still more analysis of why the media ignore Ron Paul. Why don't any of these writers realize the obvious explanation, that covering Paul doesn't bring ratings? He's not a flashy figure whose mere mention will automatically attract attention beyond his base, like Perry or Bachmann now, or Trump or Palin earlier this year, or Obama last election.

I don't think Paul's chances of winning are as slim as many pundits claim. Obama was once considered an unelectable long-shot to beat Clinton, and all it took to change his media narrative was winning a few early contests. That's something Paul is within reach of doing this winter, as this last author points out even as he calls Paul unelectable.

Erik, I too want a candidate who is firm in his core beliefs and does not compromise them. The very reason that Obama has lost my vote is his breaking of his own principles when it comes to "enhanced interrogation techniques" and Guantanamo Bay. But that's not the definition of compromise in use in Paul's ad, which decries deal-making with Congress over the federal budget, giving Democrats something they want in exchange for something Republicans want. That's the kind of compromise that we need more of, not less of.

Tony Peters | August 25, 2011
With Perry surging ahead Obama's chances of reelection go up. No way will this country elect Bush on stupid pills Mind you I'm not really a fan of Romney either, Huntsman interests my conservative side but he splits the ever decreasing intelligent part of republican party and has no appeal to the fruitcakes

Scott Hardie | August 25, 2011
Since Obama presented himself so emphatically as the anti-Bush (even if he hasn't governed that way), does that mean that conservative voters desperate for the anti-Obama are embracing Perry as the return of Bush?

Tony Peters | August 25, 2011
posible but Perry has too many wackadoo moments for him to garner support among the general "centrist" population that makes up our country. he can win the nomination but that means nothing in the general

Scott Hardie | August 27, 2011
Maybe. When Perry first entered the race, I thought he had no chance and I said so above. He might still fade away in the coming months, but his now double-digit lead in the polls indicates that he's a serious contender. He's also shown that he's willing to fight very aggressively, using argument-ending character-assassination attacks that Obama is far too meek to fend off if they face each other in the general election. As one editorial put it, Perry "start[ed] his campaign with an attack on the patriotism of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke" and threatened physical harm against him, then "question[ed] Obama's love of country, and Obama responded with something along the lines of 'he's new to this, give him some time.'" Romney vs. Obama looks like two class nerds in debate club; Perry vs. Obama looks like the class bully pummeling the snot out of the class nerd on the playground. Perry's chances in the general election aren't so bad if he can make it that far.

Tony Peters | August 27, 2011
oh I don't doubt he can win the primary, the problem with the GOP is their base is waaaay out of touch with about 75% of the country. As bad a job as Obama has made of it he is still closer to what the majority of American's think than Perry can be. Obama doesn't need to say anything right now and nor should he. the GOP wolfpack will has almost a year to do all the damage to their candidate. Obama doing anything more than a gentle mocking gives Perry validation he has neither earned nor at this point deserves.

Scott Hardie | September 14, 2011
There's a pretty interesting project going on at Americans Elect 2012: They're a web-based non-profit that will collect votes from registered users on a ballot of self-appointed nominees. Whoever their users select to be their consensus candidate, they'll use their funding to put that candidate on the legal ballot in all fifty states. They're like a completely abstract grassroots organization that doesn't stand for any one thing except voter choice, seeing their mission as a stand against the major parties having too much control of the system. Whether you see any value in this may depend on your sense of principles versus pragmatism. I presume that they have some kind of system in place to prevent the usual online voting nonsense, so that we don't have another Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf or Mister Splashy Pants.

Steve West | September 14, 2011
Things do not bode well for the democrats in the next presidential election. Anthony Weiner's congressional seat was filled by the election of Bob Turner, a 70-year old, Catholic who has never run for public office before. Turner's historical data is significant only because of the demographics of the voting district - 75% Democratic and 40% Jewish. I don't think they've ever sent a Republican to Congress. This has to be a backlash against the president.

Tony Peters | September 14, 2011
nah it's backlash against weiner.......

Erik Bates | September 14, 2011
[hidden by request]

Steve West | September 14, 2011
We shall see...

Scott Hardie | September 14, 2011
To be honest, I never fully understood why "Weinergate" forced him out of office. Flirting and sexting online? Dumb. Denying it when exposed? Really dumb. But neither had any bearing on Weiner's ability to legislate or to represent the people of his district. He wasn't a "family values" candidate, however crappy it was to do that while his new bride was pregnant. New York's a liberal city; several polls showed that a majority of his constituents wanted him to stay in office. As near as I could tell, the pressure that ultimately forced him out came from fellow members of Congress, not from his district.

That's why I see it like Steve does. The long shadow cast by Weiner (hehe) masks the real political change of heart going on in that district, as is happening in many other places. Turner's victory is a clear sign which way the wind is blowing right now.

Samir Mehta | September 14, 2011
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | September 15, 2011
probably true Samir. the problem is we don't have a national project (war doesn't count) to build technology and provide a goal. the space race ran out of technological steam in the 90s. we aren't going back to space for a while so we need something else. the Private sector will drive the economy back up but they need a goal. Democrats have half heartedly pushed a new rail system but they've probabaly done more damage than good. Alternative energy would be a good goal but big oil owns way to many people so instead we just keep going down hill