Republican Presidential Candidates

[cos]

I've been saying it all year, so before the number dwindles too much more, I'll post it: All of the Republican candidates are unelectable in the primary. Not a single one of them has a chance of winning the nomination. And yet, if they're the ones running, one of them will.

This was true back when Herman Cain, Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Sarah Palin, were part of the set. Still true now. None of them can win it, but apparently one of them will anyway.

Comments

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

Depressing, but at least if none of them can convince the most fanatical part of the Republican core to vote for them (because no one else is going to bother to vote in most primaries), the chances of them actually convincing the swing voters and non-fans to vote for them in the real election are low.

[kirin]

As much as I want that to be true, what the fanatical Republican core wants and what swing voters want are very different things. And with the most obvious Tea Party Crazies flaming out one by one, whoever's left may end up looking moderate by comparison, to the casual eye.

On the slightly brighter side, even though Obama has been disappointing as a chief executive, he is a pretty brilliant campaigner, so he may be able to grab some swing voters back in the run-up, especially against an opponent with a lot of exploitable weaknesses.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

Sure, but the current candidates have been trying so hard to appeal to the fanatical base and one-up each other on the crazy scale, they're going to be easy targets when it's time to convince the swing voters. It's hardly a locked-in victory; Obama's disappointed an awful lot of his core voters, too, and there's unlikely to be another serious Democratic contender. However, I do think the current reality-TV craziness of the Republican campaign is going to be easy to exploit.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Is this bad or good for Obama?

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

I have this perception, that might not be true, that this is a little bit good for the progressives in the democratic party. My reasoning being that if the Republicans put forth a strong "Centrist" candidate (in quote because what passes for "Center" these days seem very far Right to me), then the Democrats would try to compete for the centrist vote by also swinging even further Right than they already do. Because the Republicans are mostly putting up nut-jobs I think the center-swing voters may be more likely to vote Democrat, which means the White House may hold on to at least one or two left-of-center positions... maybe. And if the White House does that the Left-leaning democrats might not stay away from the polls in disgust. So, ultimately, my guess is good for Obama, and possibly good for actual Democrats, too.

Cos, does that sound about right to you?

[cos]

Neither, really, IMO. I've been expecting Obama to win re-election since before he won his first presidential election, and long before we knew who the candidates were going to be on the Republican side this year (Sarah Palin wasn't even on the national stage yet). The only time my expectation wavered somewhat was earlier this year when the economy seemed poised to maybe get much worse, which if it happened, could give some Republican (almost doesn't matter which Republican) an opening. But even then, I still thought it was pretty likely he'd be re-elected.

The fact that the Republican nominee is going to be someone who couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination (but got it anyway, because nobody else could either) is, I suppose, helpful, but it'd take a really extraordinary Republican candidate to beat Obama IMO. Only Obama, by stumbling in some really giant unexpected ways, can really defeat himself. I don't expect that to happen, though it's not impossible.

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

I feel like it's probably gonna be Romney.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Which is annoying. He's not batshit insane, but he IS completely without any moral center.

I lost all respect for him when he started running against Massachusetts while still our governor. And when he threw Kerry Healey under the bus. Healey could have run on her accomplishments as Leut. Gov, but she didn't, because she was being nice to Romney, and letting HIM take credit for the stuff that SHE did, and he did NOTHING in return.

So, yeah. No loyalty, no moral core. Currently standing for all sorts of stuff I despise.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I feel like it's 2007 all over again, only with the parties switched. Which is really weird if you know Republicans, they're known for being cohesive in a way Democrats just are not (that authoritarian streak and all). In a normal election cycle Romney would have long since won. (I'm pretty sure he's going to win this time, which makes me want to gnash my teeth - no one that nakedly power-hungry should be allowed in the White House, no matter what their party affiliation is).

Between how Republican primary voters are reacting to the Republican candidates (at least in polls) and the support of the Occupy protests, it seems like the general mood in the US re:politics is dissatisfaction with a side of anger.

[cos]

In the context of what I'm saying here, it's like the opposite of 2007, when we had a Democratic field with multiple credible candidates who I could easily see winning the nomination - though some of them seemed much less likely when considered in the context of a field that had some candidates much stronger than they were.

Romney cannot beat Obama in the general election unless Obama screws up in huge and surprising ways, though.

[pseydtonne.livejournal.com]

I'm starting to think The Onion nailed it by declaring the GOP wants Obama to get another term so they can keep blaming him for every problem. If they didn't, they'd've found a fully-formed adult somewhere.

Newt? They threw him under the bus for being what they wanted. Now he's back and saying even crazier things than you'd expect from a man with a doctorate. Bring back child labor? Really? No, he just wants to provoke and that means he can't pay attention.

Romney? Well, we already know. Jon Stewart did a great job of showing him trying to hide a past of being who he was when he was our governor. He gets the nod by default unless Sam the Eagle runs.

Oh man, that'd be the best debate ever: Obama versus Sam the Eagle from the Muppets. Seeing his cameo in the movie made me laugh so hard.

What's going to happen when the old-money GOP try to take their party back to moderation (in about ten years)? I mean, the old money folks do not actually believe that Jesus will be arriving on Tuesday or they wouldn't invest in T-bills.

Once this "I can out-Reagan out" phase ends... eh, never mind. I might as well be saying "when Moshiach comes".