Seeing how it is February 2011, I’m going to make some predictions about the 2012 presidential election.
Hell, John Edwards announced his candidacy on December 28th, 2006 and Clinton announced her run on January 20th, 2007 (two years to the day before the Inauguration). Obama announced his run four days from now in 2007. Mike Huckabee was the first Republican to announce his candidacy on January 28th, 2007.
http://xkcd.com/500/
Republican candidates are too afraid to throw their hats over the wall and declare themselves a candidate out of fear of being perceived as a Washington insider (I’m pretty sure your past involvement with Washington will do more damage).
These are the people Wikipedia have listed as potential Republican candidates in 2012:
CNN gives a few less:
My complaint about CNN; Why the Hell do they have Cheney listed as a potential candidate? He has stated time and time again that “If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve”. (I would like to know why a man against being president agreed to be Vice President, you know, the next in line if the President dies, resigns, or is incapacitated.) Even CNN admitted that he doesn’t want to be President.
So here is my analysis of the Republican candidates:
Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum are unelectable. They are too far-right and too divisive to be elected. If one of them does win the nomination, a lot of people are going to be turned off and turnout will plummet. People are sick of Palin. Gingrich’s past will surely come back to bite him (both politically and personally). And Bachmann and Santorum are too far off in right field to appeal to independents. Bachmann’s “the census will be used to place us in internment camps!” and her non sequitur “Obama’s trip will cost $200 million a day!” will show/has shown the public how crazy she really is. With America’s rise in tolerance for homosexuals, Santorum’s far right stance on the issue could portray him as out of touch. I like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. He's friendly and is embracing a new more left form of evangelicalism. I however think he is a little too religious for office.
I think a Moderate Unknown will have the best chance against Obama. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Republicans are going to go for moderation after being far right, extremely literal interpretation of the Constitution, small government to the point of going back to 1890 helped them win back the House of Representatives. The Libertarian Ron Paul might see his chances for nomination improve as long as the Tea-Party idiots still sway the national voice. The biggest liability for Mitt Romney might be his support for his healthcare reform as Massachusetts Governor that strongly resembles the national Healthcare reform (the one that had Republican support until Obama liked the idea).
To the Democrats:
I do not see a strong opposition to Obama within the Democratic Party forming. The last time we saw a serious primary challenge to the sitting president was back in 1980 against Democrat Jimmy Carter. Ted Kennedy put up a strong fight against incumbent Jimmy Carter but ultimately lost to Carter. Carter would then lose to Ronald Reagan, who had four years earlier in 1976, put up a serious primary challenge to Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, lost to Ford, who then lost to Carter. Although the liberal wing of the party seems upset that Obama has been compromising with Republicans (sometimes too much, but I think he is seeking good ground with Republicans and is now doing more to win over the independents lost in 2010) but I don’t see the liberals seriously challenging Obama.
I think Obama has a good chance at winning re-election. His approval ratings are higher than Reagan’s or Clinton’s at this time in their Presidencies (of course, George H. W. Bush had great approval ratings at this time but lost). I think the economy will continue to improve this year and next, leaving little to criticize (It takes more than two years to fix the economy, Palin…). His speech at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson Shootings won over much praise, even from Conservatives. I think his plans to reform the Tax Code and the overall effort to bring the debt under control will help show him as a moderate willing to work across the aisle and win back the independents.
I feel the biggest threat to his re-election will be if the Healthcare overhaul is struck down by the Supreme Court. It’s in the air whether it will be or not. If it’s struck down, his chances of re-election I feel are pretty slim. He might get some points for working with Republicans to get a new bill but he and Democrats will look pretty stupid. If he wins, he’ll get a slight boost that will probably fade by Election Day.
I'm unsure how the Senate will turn out in 2012. 23 of the 33 seats up for re-election are held by Democrats or Independents who caucus with Democrats.Who knows how the Democrats will look in 2012. Again, healthcare and the economy will be the decider. Democrats currently have 53 seats (including the independents) in the Senate, so they will only need to lose four seats in the elections to lose control. Most Democratic Senators are from states that heavily rejected Democrats in the last election cycle, so many seats are in danger. I don't think the House will switch back or see any major gains by any party. Of course this all depends if the US defaults on its debt and we see another government shutdown. That could ruin any Tea Party momentum.
The Democrats need to go out and sell their principles to the people using Obama’s charisma. They need to go out and reverse the public’s incorrect perception they are getting from the right, like “government takeover of healthcare”.
This is my Prediction for 2012:
Purple: States won in 2008 that will most likely go to Republicans
Light Blue: States that could easily go Republican but Democrats have a good chance at keeping. States like Indiana, Colorado, and Iowa have a better chance at going Republican than the other light blue states. With that, Obama will have 282 and Republicans will have 253.
On a technical note: Instead of a "winner take all" system, Nebraska and Maine divide their electoral votes. You get one vote for a congressional district and two votes for winning the overall state. Obama won Nebraska's 2nd District, while McCain won the other two districts and the state as a whole. Obama won all of Maine's Congressional districts and the state. Due to the census, the districts may not look the same by 2012 in Nebraska but as they did not gain or lose a member of Congress, the districts may not change.
By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ID – 77%, ME — 77%, MT – 72%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, OK – 81%, RI — 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT — 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA — 74%, and WV – ‘81%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, OR – 76%, and WA — 77%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com