2012 Elections

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:55 pm

Yeah, it's freaking early, but the changes, they are a-coming. First (that I've seen) out of the gate: Kay Bailey Hutchison is retiring when her term is up next year.

In a letter to supporters, Hutchison said the timing of her retirement announcement was aimed at giving "the people of Texas ample time to consider who my successor will be."

"I intended to leave this office long before now, but I was persuaded to continue in order to avoid disadvantage to our state," she said.
...
Hutchison, a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, has been a player on defense issues and served stints in the GOP leadership. Her Texas and Senate colleague John Cornyn called Hutchison a woman of vision and energy, "someone who represents the very best of the state of Texas."

Democrats have 23 Senate seats to defend in 2012, including those of two independents who vote with them, compared with 10 for Republicans. The Lone Star state is considered GOP territory, but Democrats vowed to fight.

"We look forward to running a competitive race in Texas," said Eric Schultz of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, calling Texas "one of several Democratic pick-up opportunities" in November 2012.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:02 pm

The big issue here is going to be redistricting. LA has lost 1 house seat, mostly do to the exodus from New Orleans, and they have to redraw all of the state and federal districts by the end of this year. I don't see this getting done without some major kickbacks and pet projects having money thrown at them. The plans being discussed right now include one district for the entire coast and another includes the entire Texas border in one district. No person I've heard speak likes either of these ideas for several reasons.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:43 pm

Vicki Kennedy has definitely decided not to accept Ted's seat. It was pretty much hers for the asking, and now there are no top-tier Dems interested in reclaiming it from Scott Brown.

With his star power and huge bank balance, he is likely to retain his job. Which is not entirely a bad thing, given the dearth of moderates in the R party. If you can't beat 'em, subvert 'em.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:18 pm

Lieberman's out

Saying his independent-minded approach to politics no longer “fit comfortably into conventional political boxes,” Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut formally announced on Wednesday that he would not seek a fifth term next year.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:39 pm

John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948) is an American lawyer and diplomat who has served in several Republican presidential administrations. He served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006 on a recess appointment.[1] He resigned in December 2006 when his recess appointment would have ended[2][3] because he was unable to gain confirmation from the Senate.[4][5]

Bolton is currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Fox News Channel commentator, and of counsel to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, in their Washington D.C. office.[6] He is also involved with a broad assortment of other conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Institute of East-West Dynamics, National Rifle Association, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Council for National Policy (CNP). Bolton is often described as a neoconservative,[7][8][9] though he personally rejects the term.[10]

In August 2010, Bolton suggested that he may run for president in 2012 because legitimate issues of national security should be more at the center of the national debate than they have been for the last two years.[11]

This guy is interested.......

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:30 pm

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Joe.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:10 pm

Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is out.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican leader, said today he'll retire and not seek a fourth term
...
Kyl made his announcement in Phoenix, explaining to the crowd he originally thought he'd only serve two terms but ran for a third in 2006 in order to keep the Arizona seat in GOP hands. "There comes a time when you have to consider other things," Kyl said. "This is the time ... to end my public service. There is nothing negative about this."
...
Republicans are likely to have spirited primary to nominate a successor to Kyl. The Club for Growth PAC, made up of fiscal conservatives, immediately began urging Rep. Jeff Flake to jump into the race.
...
Kyl, 68, is the Senate minority whip, the second-ranking leadership post behind GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

From his leadership post, Kyl has been one of the Senate GOP's fiercest critics of President Obama. Last year, he tried to block Senate ratification of a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. He also has criticized Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court, from his spot on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kyl is now the fifth senator -- two Republicans, two Democrats and one independent -- who has said he will retire. Yesterday, Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia said he would not seek a second term.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:20 pm

Never too early to start a running projection:

Code: Select all

State               Retiring Senator               2012 Outlook
===============================================================
Texas               Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)       Solid GOP
Connecticut         Joe Lieberman (I)              Solid Dem
North Dakota        Kent Conrad (D)                Lean GOP
Virginia            Jim Webb (D)                   Toss Up
Arizona             John Kyl (R)                   Lean GOP
===============================================================
                    Current Outlook:               Net 1-2 GOP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resulting Senate:   Democrats                      50-51
                    Republicans                    49-48
                    Independent                    1
===============================================================

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:00 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:Never too early to start a running projection:

Code: Select all

State               Retiring Senator               2012 Outlook
===============================================================
Texas               Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)       Solid GOP
Connecticut         Joe Lieberman (I)              Solid Dem
North Dakota        Kent Conrad (D)                Lean GOP
Virginia            Jim Webb (D)                   Toss Up
Arizona             John Kyl (R)                   Lean GOP
===============================================================
                    Current Outlook:               Net 1-2 GOP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resulting Senate:   Democrats                      50-51
                    Republicans                    49-48
                    Independent                    1
===============================================================

You're leaving out the Blue Dogs that are under threat.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:04 pm

Pyperkub wrote:

Fireball1244 wrote:Never too early to start a running projection:

Code: Select all

State               Retiring Senator               2012 Outlook
===============================================================
Texas               Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)       Solid GOP
Connecticut         Joe Lieberman (I)              Solid Dem
North Dakota        Kent Conrad (D)                Lean GOP
Virginia            Jim Webb (D)                   Toss Up
Arizona             John Kyl (R)                   Lean GOP
===============================================================
                    Current Outlook:               Net 1-2 GOP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resulting Senate:   Democrats                      50-51
                    Republicans                    49-48
                    Independent                    1
===============================================================

You're leaving out the Blue Dogs that are under threat.

I'm also leaving out the Republicans in states Obama is likely to carry, who are under threat. That's because that list only includes retirements.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:14 am

And Newt throws his hat into the presidential race. Heard this on the radio while driving yesterday. It also looks like Donald Trump is seriously considering doing the same, he went on one hell of a rant about China yesterday too.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:30 am

Arcanis wrote:And Newt throws his hat into the presidential race.

He is clearly delusional. I can't figure this one out. Is Nancy Pelosi in 2016 next?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:08 pm

malchior wrote:
Arcanis wrote:And Newt throws his hat into the presidential race.
He is clearly delusional. I can't figure this one out. Is Nancy Pelosi in 2016 next?

The Republicans have a weak field this time around. Centrist, establishment candidates (like Mitt) can't get any traction and extremists are unelectable. One hopes. I don't know who can bridge the gap there, but it seems like Newt might have a shot. The wingnuts like him, don't they?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:25 pm

Kraken wrote:
malchior wrote:
Arcanis wrote:And Newt throws his hat into the presidential race.
He is clearly delusional. I can't figure this one out. Is Nancy Pelosi in 2016 next?
The Republicans have a weak field this time around. Centrist, establishment candidates (like Mitt) can't get any traction and extremists are unelectable. One hopes. I don't know who can bridge the gap there, but it seems like Newt might have a shot. The wingnuts like him, don't they?

What they need is someone honest.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:12 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Kraken wrote:
malchior wrote:
Arcanis wrote:And Newt throws his hat into the presidential race.
He is clearly delusional. I can't figure this one out. Is Nancy Pelosi in 2016 next?
The Republicans have a weak field this time around. Centrist, establishment candidates (like Mitt) can't get any traction and extremists are unelectable. One hopes. I don't know who can bridge the gap there, but it seems like Newt might have a shot. The wingnuts like him, don't they?
What they need is someone honest.

They have someone honest. I really think Huckabee is a very honest, upstanding guy. He a complete fringe nutcase when it comes to certain parts of his philosophy, though. That kind of comes with the territory when you are an end-times evangelical. Apparently he's polling pretty well with likely primary voters at the moment.

Quaro · Post by **Quaro** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:41 pm

Newt doesn't have anything to lose. It raises his profile and he can go back to being a well paid talking head after.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:58 pm

Quaro wrote:Newt doesn't have anything to lose. It raises his profile and he can go back to being a well paid talking head after.

Yep. This may be his last chance in the arena. A loss would give him Goldwater cachet for the long haul.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:48 pm

gbasden wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
Kraken wrote:
malchior wrote:
Arcanis wrote:And Newt throws his hat into the presidential race.
He is clearly delusional. I can't figure this one out. Is Nancy Pelosi in 2016 next?
The Republicans have a weak field this time around. Centrist, establishment candidates (like Mitt) can't get any traction and extremists are unelectable. One hopes. I don't know who can bridge the gap there, but it seems like Newt might have a shot. The wingnuts like him, don't they?
What they need is someone honest.
They have someone honest. I really think Huckabee is a very honest, upstanding guy. He a complete fringe nutcase when it comes to certain parts of his philosophy, though. That kind of comes with the territory when you are an end-times evangelical. Apparently he's polling pretty well with likely primary voters at the moment.

Yeah and then he goes and insinuates thatObama is a foreigner.... that's not gonna fly.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:21 pm

Former Louisiana Governor and US Rep. Buddy Roemer announced the formation of an exploratory committing today. I doubt he will get any traction, but it looks like there will be a ton of people in the GOP primary.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:03 pm

Crabbs wrote:Yeah and then he goes and insinuates thatObama is a foreigner.... that's not gonna fly.

I certainly hope not, but a disturbing number of the likely Republican primary voters also believe he's a Kenyan born Muslim regardless of the evidence.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:00 pm

Nate doesn't think much of Newt's chances

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:12 pm

This Globe columnist isn't especially astute, nor is the Globe itself known for its incisive attention to Republicans. But for your amusement here is Scott Lehigh's handicapping of the GOP field so far.

If you start with the assumption that a candidate must have a plausible path to both the nomination and the presidency, the prospects of the might-be candidates fall into three categories: Believable, conceivable, and unachievable.

His conclusions:

Unachievable: Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann

Believable: Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.

Conceivable: Mike Huckabee and Jon Huntsman.

Read the column to see how he arrived at those conclusions.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:02 pm

Kraken wrote: Jon Huntsman.

Who? I'm a Poly Sci geek that loves following politics and I've never heard of this guy before. Someone with no name recognition is considered plausible for the nomination?

It's too bad, because from that brief blurb he souns like a reasonable, rational moderate Republican. That in and of itself probably means that he hasn't a hope in hell with Repub primary voters.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:52 pm

gbasden wrote:
Kraken wrote: Jon Huntsman.

Who? I'm a Poly Sci geek that loves following politics and I've never heard of this guy before. Someone with no name recognition is considered plausible for the nomination?

It's too bad, because from that brief blurb he souns like a reasonable, rational moderate Republican. That in and of itself probably means that he hasn't a hope in hell with Repub primary voters.

Presumably declaring his candidacy would command at least some name recognition, given his rather impressive resume (popular ex-governor, ambassador to China). But yeah, if reasonable people think he's one of the more palatable contenders then he hasn't got a chance in hell without star power to overshadow his reasonable politics.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:25 pm

John Ensign (R-Nev.) is retiring:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), facing an ethics investigation stemming from an affair with a campaign aide, will announce Monday that he won't seek reelection, a Washington source confirms.

Just two months into the 112th Congress, Ensign is the eighth Senate incumbent to opt out of running for a new term, out of 33 seats up in 2012.

The announcement is welcome news to national Republicans who have admitted the two-term Republican would be vulnerable in the race. GOP Rep. Dean Heller, who won three statewide elections as secretary of State, is considered the party's best candidate to retain the seat.
...
The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee said in a statement that the seat was "ripe for a Democratic pickup," citing trends in voter registration and the presence of President Obama at the top of the 2012 ticket.
...
Ensign will become the third Republican to announce his retirement. Four Democrats and one independent who caucuses with the party have announced they will not seek reelection. Republicans need to win at least three seats -- pending the outcome of the presidential election, which would determine a tiebreaking vote -- to win back a majority in the upper chamber.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:22 am

Obama starts his reelection campaign

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:44 am

The most interesting question in MA isn't the presidential race -- Obama will win this state in a landslide -- but what happens to Ted Kennedy's seat. So far Scott Brown is walking the tightwire so skillfully that he is the most popular politician in the state, even out-polling the governor. The Dems have vowed to reclaim their rightful place but haven't managed to recruit a credible candidate after all of the eligible Kennedys declined it.

We're also paying attention to Mitt Romney, our former governor, as the only Republican who might give Obama a run for his money (not here...Mitt was an awful governor...but nationally). Romney's strategy is tolay low and build his war chest until the flamboyant nutjobs flame out, and then step in looking presidential.

Donald Trump has been generating headlines by questioning President Obama’s US citizenship. Newt Gingrich has ex plained that his infidelity was a byproduct of all the hard work he was doing for the country he loves. Michele Bachmann said the Shot Heard ’Round the World was fired in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, the former Massachusetts governor is traveling the country lining up campaign contributors, and making a tiny number of public appearances in early primary states, compared with his possible rivals. He has eschewed fiery speeches, Tea Party rallies, and the apocalyptic imagery.

“Every passing day that Donald Trump or Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich do and say things that are, to many, embarrassing, is a good day for Mitt Romney,’’ said Steve Lombardo, a Washington-based Republican consultant who advised Romney’s 2008 campaign but is not working for any candidate so far this year. “It’s yet another reason for the governor to stay above the fray in talking about big issues that affect voters, and not directly engaging the president in a personal way.’’

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:16 pm

Defiant wrote:Obama starts his reelection campaign

In his campaign, Obama will stress the economy, healthcare reform and efforts to wind down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and we won't get fooled again.

The only problem republicans in the face of that rhetoric, and it's a very serious problem, is that the last round of elections saw a ton of governors and senators and reps with Rs after their names get elected as "moderate" republicans who then proceeded to go right off the deep end. I don't know how it will play out nationally, but I can tell you right now that Michigan doesn't care for Obama but I'll also bet there is absolutely nothing he can do to lose this state as this state hates Snyder, probably more than they hated Grandholm whom they somehow let govern for more than one term. It never ceases to amaze how much me we elect officials we hate.

It goes back to finding an honest ("moderate" meaning keeping the moral legislation light and the corporate servantry on the downlow) republican. We'll see if it's possible. I'm likely to go back to 3rd party decision making after these last two presidential elections have left me bitter at myself.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:31 pm

LordMortis wrote:It goes back to finding an honest ("moderate" meaning keeping the moral legislation light and the corporate servantry on the downlow) republican. We'll see if it's possible.

Sounds like Obama to me.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:51 pm

Here's an analysis of Obama's chances, although I have some skepticism given that the author seems to think Perot cost Bush the election.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:06 pm

Jessie Ventura said today that if Ron Paul ran, he wants to be the VP.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:05 pm

If the Republicans offer a reasonable candidate, they will win (barring a miraculous economic recovery). If not, they lose. The problem is that I don't see any reasonable Republicans yet.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:07 pm

There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm

Defiant wrote:Here's an analysis of Obama's chances, although I have some skepticism given that the author seems to think Perot cost Bush the election.

Sure he did. You think the majority of those Perot voters were going to vote Clinton? Perot campaigned on spending and most of those concerned about spending are conservatives.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:22 am

gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?

Who?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:31 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
gbasden wrote:There are some reasonable Republican candidates, but what are the odds they will get through primaries seeming run by the tea parties?
Who?

Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:34 am

Grifman wrote:
Defiant wrote:Here's an analysis of Obama's chances, although I have some skepticism given that the author seems to think Perot cost Bush the election.
Sure he did. You think the majority of those Perot voters were going to vote Clinton? Perot campaigned on spending and most of those concerned about spending are conservatives.

I disagree with that generalization. I even voted for Perot, then for Clinton. Never mind the characterization that conservatives are better on spending issues as Clinton-era budgets were better (which I attribute in large part to pay-as-you-go financing).

I would much rather rely on Nate's analysis of the relative swings in Obama's approval ratings than historical trends.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:36 am

Pyperkub wrote:Yes please. Name me one who will stand up to a microphone and state that evolution is not just a theory.

Even further most of the field right now are either birthers or bashfully avoid the subject.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:23 am

Grifman wrote:
Defiant wrote:Here's an analysis of Obama's chances, although I have some skepticism given that the author seems to think Perot cost Bush the election.
Sure he did. You think the majority of those Perot voters were going to vote Clinton? Perot campaigned on spending and most of those concerned about spending are conservatives.

First off, deficit reduction isn't a conservative-only issue, as seen in Mondale's and Dukakis's campaigns.

Second, even more than the deficit, Perot's supporters wanted a strong economy.

But even Perot supporters were more concerned with the overall economy and jobs than with getting red ink off the federal ledger, according to Times exit polls taken Election Day, 1992.

Third, perhaps even more than the economy, Perot's candidacy was about change. Who do you think embodied that more in the main party candidates?

Exit polls showed that Perot drew his support from both sides (as well as people who wouldn't have otherwise voted)

If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A964958260" target="_blank

Polls show Clinton leading by 20+% before Perot reentered the race:

The survey of 637 likely voters taken Sunday showed the Democratic Presidential nominee with 58 percent support to Mr. Bush's 37 percent. The sample had a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/22/us/th ... -poll.html" target="_blank

Perot's support gained while Clinton's eroded and Bush's remained stagnant.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:53 am

Defiant is correct -- Perot drew disaffected voters from both Bush and Clinton in about equal shares. Moreover, Clinton's lead in the states that he won was so significant that Bush would have had to take a supermajority of Perot's voters to win. None of the exit polls indicated that was possible. From the available data, it appears that had Perot not been in the race, Bush might have won Georgia, Montana, New Hampshire and Ohio, worth 41 more electoral votes than the 168 he won with Perot in the race.

Here's a spreadsheet that I built that allows you to plug in percentages of Perot voters voting for Bush, Clinton or Other, and view the recalculated results. You'll find that it's hard to create a realistic scenario where Perot voters put Bush over the top:

http://s195335120.onlinehome.us/files/1992noPerot.xlsx