2012 Elections

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue May 24, 2011 8:28 am

Not about 2012, but apparently, Biden is considering a 2016 run

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:37 am

Defiant wrote:Not about 2012, but apparently, Biden is considering a 2016 run

Predictable; VPs have a long tradition of carrying the torch for their outgoing president. Gore tried to distance himself from being Clinton III, but that was how the electorate saw him. Bush I was elected to be Reagan III. Of course all Republicans run as Reagan's heir, but Bush I could claim descent.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:59 am

Biden running in 2016, to my thinking, would be almost like giving the office to the other side. Also, Biden would be 73 on inauguration day in 2016. Reagan was just under 70 when he took office.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue May 24, 2011 12:05 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Biden running in 2016, to my thinking, would be almost like giving the office to the other side. Also, Biden would be 73 on inauguration day in 2016. Reagan was just under 70 when he took office.

He *has* to be considering it at this point. Sitting VPs of two-term presidents are widely expected to, and if he ever wants to be President than this is the best chance he's going to get (assuming Obama is re-elected, which is far from a given but important for this discussion). So he has to do his due diligence on this.

That said, unless Obama is running really high at the end of his term (say, approval ratings in the 70s, great economy, etc.), I'd be surprised if he does run, given his age, track record as a candidate, etc. But you never know.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Tue May 24, 2011 12:20 pm

Don't know a lot about TPaw yet, but good for him for telling those Iowans that they need to get off the federal ethanol tit.

Though he could have done it more forcefully. The whole ethanol bit is puppies. Money-wasting, environment-worsening, food-price-escalating, bogus-environmentalism, agrocorp-welfare puppies.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue May 24, 2011 12:23 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Don't know a lot about TPaw yet

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Tue May 24, 2011 12:26 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Don't know a lot about TPaw yet, but good for him for telling those Iowans that they need to get off the federal ethanol tit.

Though he could have done it more forcefully. The whole ethanol bit is puppies. Money-wasting, environment-worsening, food-price-escalating, bogus-environmentalism, agrocorp-welfare puppies.

Yes, I completely agree. I'm glad he's doing it, but it is a good bit of political calculus. He might irritate the Iowans, but if he helps convince voters in other primary states that he's not batshit insane like the rest of the Republican slate it's probably worth it.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Tue May 24, 2011 5:45 pm

Defiant wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:Don't know a lot about TPaw yet

It's been a long and tiring day, but that post made it all worthwhile.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue May 24, 2011 6:27 pm

Defiant wrote:Not about 2012, but apparently, Biden is considering a 2016 run

what, he'll be 112 then....geez.....

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue May 24, 2011 11:19 pm

Not 2012 but it doesn't deserve its own thread...

Democrats win NY-26, a previously "safe" Republican seat.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:08 am

It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

That said, there is one interesting question from this race that has national implications. By most accounts the democrat (Hochul) was able to largely flog the Ryan budget to a victory in this election. Will democrats be able to repeat this in other house races in 2012? What (if anything) will the GOP do to defuse this?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:16 am

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

To be fair, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. One or two special elections offer too little to make a prediction with, given that local politics or other factors could play a role. When you have a bunch of special elections, you get a better idea if there is a trend.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Wed May 25, 2011 10:35 am

Mr. Fed wrote:Don't know a lot about TPaw yet, but good for him for telling those Iowans that they need to get off the federal ethanol tit.

Though he could have done it more forcefully. The whole ethanol bit is puppies. Money-wasting, environment-worsening, food-price-escalating, bogus-environmentalism, agrocorp-welfare puppies.

Weird since he signed a bill requiring our gas to have 20% ethanol...State subsidies must be ok.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed May 25, 2011 11:41 am

Defiant wrote:
To be fair, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. One or two special elections offer too little to make a prediction with, given that local politics or other factors could play a role. When you have a bunch of special elections, you get a better idea if there is a trend.

And a number of recall referendums seem to be coming down the pike in Wisconsin and Michigan. I guess those are special special elections.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed May 25, 2011 12:05 pm

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012. Likewise, interesting to watch the GOP commentators flip the other direction.

Their mandate turned out to be narrower than they thought -- cut spending and oppose Obamacare. Abolishing Medicare to cut taxes on the wealthy wasn't part of the deal.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed May 25, 2011 6:34 pm

El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012.

There were only 10 special elections in the 111th Congress that preceded the 2010 general election:

March 31, 2009 -- Kristin Gillibrand (D) is succeeded by Scott Murphy (D)
April 7, 2009 -- Rahm Emanuel (D) is succeeded by Peter Quigley (D)
July 14, 2009 -- Hilda Solis (D) is succeeded by Judy Chu (D)
November 3, 2009 -- Ellen Tauscher (D) is succeeded by John Garamendi (D)
November 3, 2009 -- John McHugh (R) is succeeded by Bill Owens (D) -- party switch to D
January 19, 2010 -- Ted Kennedy (D) is succeeded by Scott Brown (R) -- party switch to R
April 13, 2010 -- Robert Wexler (D) is succeeded by Ted Deutch (D)
May 18, 2010 -- John Murtha (D) is succeeded by Mark Critz (D)
May 22, 2010 -- Niel Abercrombie (D) is succeeded by Charles Djou (R) -- party switch to R
June 8, 2010 -- Nathan Deal (R) is succeeded by Tom Graves (R)

Only three party switches. And the only one that was referred to a "fluke" that switched from D to R was Abercrombie being succeeded by Djou in Hawai'i. And it *was* a fluke -- Djou faced two Democrats, who together took 58% of the vote; he slipped in with a 39% plurality. He was also defeated in November.

The other "fluke" was Owens winning in NY 23, taking 48% of the vote to the Conservative candidate's 46%, with the Republican receiving 6%. In November 2010, the results were effectively the same, though the Republican and Conservative shares swapped.

No credible commentators considered Scott Brown's win a fluke, attributing it instead (and rightly) to his better campaign, and voter dissatisfaction with both Washington and the state government in Massachusetts.

So what "fluke" GOP wins in special elections were you referring to?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed May 25, 2011 7:11 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012.

No credible commentators considered Scott Brown's win a fluke, attributing it instead (and rightly) to his better campaign, and voter dissatisfaction with both Washington and the state government in Massachusetts.

So what "fluke" GOP wins in special elections were you referring to?

I think you misinterpreted what he wrote. By "Flukish" he was saying that it was not indicative of a prediction, and were more based on local politics (more the horrible campaign by his opponent then national politics).

That said, it was flukish in your usage (or close to it) of the word in that analysts had pretty much predicted that it would be a safe democratic seat only a month or two before the election.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 25, 2011 8:15 pm

It'll be Romney, as I've said.

The only question is whom to pair him with.

What goes with starch?

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed May 25, 2011 8:22 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:What goes with starch?

Everything!

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed May 25, 2011 8:27 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:It'll be Romney, as I've said.

The only question is whom to pair him with.

What goes with starch?

I like Romney because (1) "Mittens" is a hilarious nickname, and (2) I get the sense that Mittens loves me so much that he's willing to be whatever he thinks I want him to be.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:31 pm

Fireball1244 wrote: No credible commentators considered Scott Brown's win a fluke, attributing it instead (and rightly) to his better campaign, and voter dissatisfaction with both Washington and the state government in Massachusetts.

Specifically, his D opponent (Martha Coakley) scarcely campaigned at all, so certain was she that the D machine would simply deliver the job to her.

Now Brown is so entrenched that the Dems can't find a credible candidate to run against him. Kennedy's seat is going to stay in R hands for awhile.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Wed May 25, 2011 9:59 pm

Scott Brown is against Paul Ryan's medicare plan.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_po ... ion=recent" target="_blank

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Wed May 25, 2011 11:54 pm

Wait he was for the plan before he was against it! Surely the Repubs would never vote for a flip-flopper!

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Thu May 26, 2011 1:39 am

Hints that Palin might be actually considering popping into the 2012 cycle. In a sense I hope she does, and i hope she gets crushed ...simply so is no longer a national presence.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55728.html" target="_blank

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu May 26, 2011 8:06 am

Grundbegriff wrote:It'll be Romney, as I've said.

The only question is whom to pair him with.

What goes with starch?

I'm guessing they'll pick Red Meat.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu May 26, 2011 10:36 am

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147806/Romne ... -2012.aspx" target="_blank

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu May 26, 2011 10:53 am

please pick palin, please pick palin, please pick palin...

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Thu May 26, 2011 10:54 am

Holman wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:It'll be Romney, as I've said.

The only question is whom to pair him with.

What goes with starch?
I'm guessing they'll pick Red Meat.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu May 26, 2011 11:03 am

Fireball1244 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:It's interesting to watch all of the democratic commentators who a couple years were arguing that the special elections that the GOP won were flukish and not predictive of the national electorate now arguing that the NY-26 election is a harbinger of 2012.
There were only 10 special elections in the 111th Congress that preceded the 2010 general election:

March 31, 2009 -- Kristin Gillibrand (D) is succeeded by Scott Murphy (D)
April 7, 2009 -- Rahm Emanuel (D) is succeeded by Peter Quigley (D)
July 14, 2009 -- Hilda Solis (D) is succeeded by Judy Chu (D)
November 3, 2009 -- Ellen Tauscher (D) is succeeded by John Garamendi (D)
November 3, 2009 -- John McHugh (R) is succeeded by Bill Owens (D) -- party switch to D
January 19, 2010 -- Ted Kennedy (D) is succeeded by Scott Brown (R) -- party switch to R
April 13, 2010 -- Robert Wexler (D) is succeeded by Ted Deutch (D)
May 18, 2010 -- John Murtha (D) is succeeded by Mark Critz (D)
May 22, 2010 -- Niel Abercrombie (D) is succeeded by Charles Djou (R) -- party switch to R
June 8, 2010 -- Nathan Deal (R) is succeeded by Tom Graves (R)

Only three party switches. And the only one that was referred to a "fluke" that switched from D to R was Abercrombie being succeeded by Djou in Hawai'i. And it *was* a fluke -- Djou faced two Democrats, who together took 58% of the vote; he slipped in with a 39% plurality. He was also defeated in November.

The other "fluke" was Owens winning in NY 23, taking 48% of the vote to the Conservative candidate's 46%, with the Republican receiving 6%. In November 2010, the results were effectively the same, though the Republican and Conservative shares swapped.

No credible commentators considered Scott Brown's win a fluke, attributing it instead (and rightly) to his better campaign, and voter dissatisfaction with both Washington and the state government in Massachusetts.

So what "fluke" GOP wins in special elections were you referring to?

Yeah, my comment was poorly phrased. One, I didn't mean "special" elections, but rather off-year elections. Second, I didn't mean "flukish" so much as "related predominantly to local conditions and not reflective of broader national trends." Also, I didn't say anything about whether the seats changed parties, so I'm not sure why that's in there.

So for example, when Republicans won the off-year gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, for example, Republican commentators were saying that this reflected the American people generally rejecting the Obama agenda, while democratic-leaning commentators said that it was just due to local politics and good/bad candidates in those particular races. By contrast, when the democrats won some special house elections in 2010, now the positions were reversed.

With the democrats winning NY-26, it's meainingless (due to the Chris Lee scandal, due to GOP infighting, due to a third party candidate, etc.), or it reflects a decisive rejection of the GOP agenda.

Not that one side isn't right. It's just that I bet that had the election turned out differently, the Weekly Standard would be trotting out data/arguments about how it meant that the public was rejecting democrat scare tactics, while the New Republic would be saying "well, it's a strongly republican district."

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:40 pm

Defiant wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:Don't know a lot about TPaw yet

TPaw Confuses Remus with Romulus

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu May 26, 2011 9:25 pm

Romney announced that he is going to announce tomorrow. Stop the presses!

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu May 26, 2011 9:28 pm

Kraken wrote:Romney announced that he is going to announce tomorrow. Stop the presses!

Was the announcement of the announcement previously announced or did he just spring this?

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Fri May 27, 2011 3:01 pm

Guiliani leads a new CNN poll.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55838.html" target="_blank

Most relevant thing is that he's headed to NH this weekend. You dont go there unless youre actually considering a run. I think he might make a pretty good candidate for the republicans. I'd think out of all the names bandied about....he could probably sway the most centrist votes...with romney potentially coming in 2nd. A lot of the other names in the field and coming from hard, right positions....with guiliani he'd be coming in from more the middle ground of hte republican areas. Plus the fact that he's got big pull in NY...might cause the Dem's to play defense in certain areas there. Be interesting if he tosses his hat in the ring.

Gallup poll though showing Romney & Palin up front
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147806/Romne ... -2012.aspx" target="_blank

Question I have about either polls is if they gave a list of candidates to choose from, if those lists were pretty much declared canddiates, or if they were people's responses.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri May 27, 2011 3:16 pm

Meh. People were saying pretty much the same thing about Guiliani before his 2008 run, which tanked pretty badly. I don't see what's different this time, only now he has the additional stink of having been a badly failed candidate.

I think he just benefits from not having been talked about yet as a candidate, which has meant that people aren't yet saying bad things about him. If he jumps in, he'll flop again.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Sat May 28, 2011 9:55 am

Defiant wrote:TPaw Confuses Remus with Romulus

Pathetic. How is this guy taken seriously as a possible president?

I think it would be fascinating if current buzz is correct that Rick Perry will enter the race. That would completely change the Republican field as a whole.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:51 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Defiant wrote:TPaw Confuses Remus with Romulus
Pathetic. How is this guy taken seriously as a possible president?

I think it would be fascinating if current buzz is correct that Rick Perry will enter the race. That would completely change the Republican field as a whole.

i dont think rick perry can win a general...his talk last year of seceding and stuff...plus elections in general are won in the middle. I think a ton of these candidates are too far right to win a general elections (Pawlenty, Palin, Bachman, Paul, Gingrich) I dont think can win. I give romney the best chance...but i think they can paint him as a flip-flopper and will enough republicans hold their nose and vote for him?

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:24 pm

It's looking like Michelle Bachmann will enter the race.

Yes!

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:29 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:It's looking like Michelle Bachmann will enter the race.

Yes!

For anyone who doesn't realize how great this news is, allow me to refer to you the excellent Michelle Bachman thread on QT3. Just start on the first page and luxuriate in the madness.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:27 am

You won't think it's funny or great news when she wins Iowa.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:31 am

El Guapo wrote:You won't think it's funny or great news when she wins Iowa.

Yes I will.