Alright folks, we're nearing that time again, the American presidential elections. Some of you might be wondering why almost two years out from the actual election day this is even being brought up, a fair enough question really.
It all begins with the Shadow primary, a time when potential candidates begin testing the waters for the next election cycle. Often years in advance, such as John McCain who announced his Presidential Exploratory Committee in November of 2006. This period of time before the official primary season begins can be make or break for politicians, as they rush to gain endorsements early on from high level party members, ideological groups and money from political action committees.
Because of this factor, the 2012 election process really began this year as major Republican players like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty and John Thune all began testing their potentials. As candidates start making trips to places like Iowa, form exploratory committees, or plainly talk about running we will get a sense of who is running and what their likelihood of making it through the primaries will be.
For now though, information will be scarce, and things will be mostly speculative in nature, but as months go on all of this will develop into a more coherent and substantive discussion.
The Iowa Straw Poll is an event sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa and has historically winnowed the field the presidential candidates the summer before the actual nominating process begins. That means that one year from now, the presidential field will probably contract, just like it did in 2007, 1999, and 1996.
With all of that in mind, TheIowaRepublican.com polled 399 Iowa Republicans who consider themselves likely voters. We wanted to see what they think about the potential field of candidates as the 2012 presidential nomination gets underway.
Also keeping in mind that the primary process this cycle is not only a Republican affair, but that President Obama could plausibly see a primary challenge as well from the more progressive wing of the Democratic party. But that it is unlikely at this point.
It is becoming a very likely reality that she will run for the presidency in 2012, given her celebrity status amongst a large part of the Republican party. What she doesn't have support from though, is the educated intellectual crowd in the GOP, who tend to support Mitt Romney.
What's interesting to note out of both of those graphs is that Huckabee falls second in both, it will be curious to see, given his levels of support in Iowa, whether or not he will be the 'compromise' candidate in the primary seasons. His more soft spoken, intellect driven rhetoric mixed with his evangelical and more moral driven ideological stances. He's not been the firebrand of the populist movement, but he has talked up some of the basic Tea party points, a sign that he's been paying attention to the way the wind is blowing in the GOP.
Yeah, that will leave him rather scarred as a candidate in the primary system, especially with the healthcare system in Massachusetts that opponents like Palin and Gingrich will rail against him on. 2012 will be a very uphill battle for him as he stands out as the most liberal of the potential nominees on the spectrum so far.
Also keeping in mind that the primary process this cycle is not only a Republican affair, but that President Obama could plausibly see a primary challenge as well from the more progressive wing of the Democratic party. But that it is unlikely at this point.
The most intriguing bit of that article:
He's prevented a second great depression, rescued Detroit, bailed out the banks, pitlessly isolated Tehran's regime, exposed Netanyahu, decimated al Qaeda's mid-level leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan, withdrawn troops from Iraq on schedule, gotten two Justices on the Supreme Court, cut a point or two off the unemployment rate with the stimulus, seen real wages for those employed grow, presided over a stock market boom and record corporate profits, and maneuvered a GOP still intoxicated with failed ideology to become more and more wedded to white, old evangelicals led by Sarah Palin.
The best thing to happen to Obama would be Sarah Palin winning the primary's, or any other Tea Party candidate really. Maybe it's a good thing they're going batshit crazy?
It might be, but that's purely conjecture for the time being. It's hard to say what that 'failed ideology' will spawn into if the Palin campaign gets accepted by the GOP wholesale and what the general election would produce under said circumstances. It might lead to a triumphant Democratic sweep or to a Republican win, it's really hard to say.
Taking polling from last month and projecting that into a 'sure thing' for one person or the other is a bad modus operandi for the primary elections, because it doesn't mean anything this far out. What pre-primary or primary Sarah Palin looks like as opposed to general election Sarah Palin may be completely different things. And, given the factual retention of the American public on politics I wouldn't bet on a lot of those differences to be given much focus or care when they go to the ballot box in a little over two years.
These things are important ideas to think over before, say, in Michigan we jump ship in the Republican primary and vote for Sarah Palin thinking there's no way she could win in the General.
If 2012 Palin is anything like 2008 Palin, we will be just fine. I do think Gingrich may be the most solid contender. He can certainly gather enough Republican support to make a strong showing, but I'm sure in the general election we would here a whole lot about his shut down of government under Clinton.
I still think Obama is going to win a second term. And if he does, I sincerely hope he starts swinging to the progressive side.
Obama won the state by almost 17 points with a heavily Democratic turnout two years ago, but here he even dominates in an electorate in which Democrats and Republicans are in equal proportion, at 35% each. He routs Sarah Palin, 56-35; Newt Gingrich, 52-37; and Mike Huckabee, 51-39. In an interesting test of a race that will not happen, Obama also beats popular incoming governor Rick Snyder, who himself scored an easy victory last month, 49-38. But Romney trails only 43-47.
Something that I'm sure will be interesting to myself and Mongo, but only of marginal interest to the rest of you. But it brings up the interesting dynamic of how Romney might fair in the primaries, he is a native of Michigan - his father George Romney, the former governor of the state. And, he won in the state's primary in 2008 by a rather large landslide. This would all seem pretty indicative of a clear cut environment for him to win in, but that is not the case.
Sarah Palin, who began her book tour 'Going Rogue' in Grand Rapids in 2009, has a relatively large following in the state as a whole. The Michigan 'Bible Belt' which includes Grand Rapids, the third largest population center in the state, is home to the more evangelical elements. The state has traditionally been a center for the Libertarian ideology, with a number of militia groups and a growing number of Tea Party related groups.
There has also been a large falling out with Romney in the state over the past few years, as his 2008 NYTimes Op-Ed 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' was understandably poorly received with conservative and liberal factions alike, as the auto-makers still stands as the largest industry in the state.
With all of these inset factors, it is interesting to see him garner as much support as he does, although it is important to note that this survey was done amongst voters as a whole and not based on party identification.
This is why I hate the primary system. If the GOP had the singular choice, it would probably select Romney on account that he can actually win the election. What we would end up with is a moderate Republican with a proven track record of compromising with Democrats.
And whether anybody thinks that Obama would still be better than Romney isn't relevant. I think we'd all just prefer a world where we're electing two individuals who are willing to compromise.
Well, for all of it's flaws, I'll take the primary system over the old political machines and bosses deciding who gets the nomination. The system, while not truly as corrupt as it is often portrayed, was deeply flawed as well. Given the issues with both systems, I would rather have a part in the process than none at all.
Actually, the way I see it is that politics in America have been dragged so far to the right then subsequently bludgeoned senseless by the Tea Party truncheon that what was once moderate is now far to the left.
That would be a great idea, and we've already tried that with the 1974 amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971. The amendments created a public financing system for federal campaigns, structured the FEC, as well as set limits on the amount of money that could be spent overall.
A 1976 SCOTUS case, Buckley v. Valeo, overturned the provisions of the '74 law that limited the spending of campaigns and determined that spending money in political campaigns is a facet of "free speech" and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment.
The financing system is still in place, and had been used relatively often in Presidential races until the 2000 election when George W. Bush opted out of the financing system and raised almost 200 Million dollars, well past the previous records. Since then, opting into the public finance system has been rarely used, only recently in 2008 did John McCain decide to do so.
