If Your Candidate Does Not Win, Who Do You Want To Run In 2012?

Good question. This is not who I want to run, but I think Palin and Hillary are their party's frontrunners in 2012 right now if their party loses. Hillary will be able to come back triumphantly and say "see, you should have voted for me!" Palin has the excitement factor and will presumably use the next four years to really get familiar with all the national issues. She's sort of where Obama was in 2004 right now.

As far as who I'd want, I really have no idea. Preferably someone new and different that we haven't been talking about so far.

 

Sanford-Palin 2012! (And if by chance Palin continues to do badly enough in the media trying to defend McCain's record, then Sanford-Jindal 2012!)

 

And if McCain wins, my candidate choices stay the same, but they're flipped: Palin-Sanford. I really think McCain should only be a 1-term President.

 

Wes, you're a really smart guy. Do you have a post somewhere here explaining why you like Palin so much? I just don't get it.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=154456

Mostly because she's done more good in two years as governor for Alaska than the other 3 on the stage have done good for the country in their combined 60 years as Senator.

 

If McCain loses, there is no reason to think Palin will be any more than a 2-month blip on the radar. I give her close to zero chance of being the GOP nominee in 2012. She's almost been Quayled and will never live it down. She will be remembered as John McCain's joke of a VP choice that helped sink his candidacy. The only holdover from this year's GOP crop that will compete in 2012 is Romney. He and newcomers to the race would leave Palin in the dust. I think Palin knows her limitations and she wouldn't not seriously compete.

If Obama loses, it's hard to say about the Dems. All I will predict is the recriminations will be so nasty that anything could happen. Hillary could end up on top again or she could get a lot of blame for not supporting Obama enough. Either way, she will remain the most divisive figure in politics if she tries again.

I doubt Obama will run again if he loses. It would be a blown election (just like Al Gore) and he wouldn't recover from it. It wouldn't end his career, but 2012 wouldn't happen. One thing I'm 100% sure of: The Dem party would NOT allow a repeat of Obama vs. Hillary.

 

Agree.

I really do not see a long national political career in front of her.

 

This is a good point - I was still thinking of her from a "if she proves semi-competent" perspective. Given what she's displayed the last few weeks, she'll fade into obscurity if nothing changes. This debate is going to be huge for her.

 

LOL - no.

Your two principal claims are the following.

Budget cut in Alaska - OK fine - considering that Alaska has no income taxes and is basically a complete aberration as far as state government finances go, given that it's revenues are heavily tied to the price of oil, I don't really see this as hyper relevant. Not to mention the great Alaskan tradition of siphoning money from the federal government with an industrial strength hose.

And it's not unusual either. I hate to break this to you but many state governors are currently dealing with much greater budget cuts, under far more pressing fiscal circumstances. Ask Governors Corzine, Schwartzenegger, Paterson etc etc etc or Mayor Bloomberg

Earmarks/Corruption etc.

Earmarks? HOnestly you actually said this? It's pretty undisputed from the whole Bridge to nowhere fiasco that she's from the tradition of the Alaskan state politician feeding trough, learning at the foot of the master, Ted Stevens, and only turned against it when it became politically expedient to do so. Sorry but her credentials as a corruption figher are sketchy at best, as we speak she's trying to shut down the inquiry into her trooper firing thing. That's a corruption fighter? REally?



The thing you indicated may mean that she's suited to run for Harris County Commissioner. Not President.

I'm not going to bother comparing her to the other three and their legislative accomplishments because it's not worth the time because I suspect you would pull a 19th century "all regulation is bad!" argument out of your hat. If you really believe this after the events of this month, I have a portfolio of super senior secured credit default swaps to sell you.

 

Bloomberg for 2012 as an Independent is my choice!

 

Obama's young enough that he could easily run again anytime between 2012-2024.

In 2012, I do think it would be Obama because it's clear that the only way McCain can win is to smear and cheat. That, coupled with another 4 years of disastrous governing and a good chance of President Palin, and you could see Obama taking it in 2012.

 

If Obama loses, a darkhorse will likely emerge in the next four years. Someone like Montana governor Brian Schweitzer. I see him as a rising star in the Democratic party, with independent appeal.

If McCain loses, it's Romney - no doubt about it.

 

I think Mitt will be the Rebublican thing
though . . being a Mormon is a bit of a sticking point

I think Obama could run a few more times
but . . his 'newness' will have worn off
Unless he makes some dramatic legislation in the next 4 yrs
his Voice of change will be people looking at him as Same ole Same
[even if he not. . . you on the hill 5 years or so . .
You don't change the hill . .the hill changes you . .at least in the eyes of the people]

Rocket River

 

ron paul

 

Hillary would run and win presidency if Obama loses in 2012.

 

I voted for him in the primaries this year, but at 76?

 

Bill better start campaigning his heart out for Obama, if Hillary wants another shot. Since the convention, the Clintons (notably Bill) have been pretty half ass about it.

 

How about David Walker as an independent in 2012? Especially if the bailout a passed and we have a 2+ year depression starting sometime next year.

 

By 2012, I assume we'll have the technology that will enable me to vote for Mecha-Teddy Roosevelt.