Does the GOP have ANYBODY who can beat Obama in 2012?

I seriously don't think so, the way things are going with that party these days. The party is being reduced to its core of rabid nutcases, as moderates, some of the economic conservatives, and even level-headed conservatives seem to be jumping ship in droves. The more they drone on with this birther nonsense, they more they seem to be proving that they've been reduced to the crazies. Birthers are clearly on the fringe of conservative thought, yet the mainstream conservative movement seems to be giving them a big audience.

The only person whom I think can seriously defeat Obama in the next Presidential election would be somebody with a modicum of moderate political views, such as former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge or former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. However, as the GOP seemingly moves further and further to the political fringe, any hope for a moderate candidate like those three winning their own party's primary will go out the window. Look at how Giuliani fared in the 2008 Republican primaries where his campaign absolutely imploded. This year, Arlen Specter broke ranks with the GOP since he saw them moving further and further to the right, and that he had little hope to defeat his hard-right challenger, Pat Toomey.

So, the odds are that the GOP will probably end up with somebody like Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin as their Presidential candidate in 2012. Both of them are way too far to the right to have any real chance of winning on the national stage. If they stay true to their far-right ideals, then they'll end up losing the general election badly since they would alienate a good deal of the base. If they go to the center to become more electable, they'd end up pissing off their increasingly far-out base. The way things are going over at the GOP headquarters and in Freeperland right now, Obama's re-election looks pretty solid at the moment.

at this moment because there is no election at this moment. In Feb of 1991 George H W Bush had a 89% approval rating and no one could see any Democrat on the horizon to challenge him.

Over the age of fetus is a freeper

:rofl:

:sarcasm:

then he opened his mouth on the national stage.:rofl:
Oh that and his little indignant diatribe about the stimulus plan as he goes around Louisiana playing Santa handing out checks from the "State of Louisiana"...that were funded by the stimulus!
http://blog.nola.com/jamesgill/2009/08/james_gill_stimulus_feels_bett.html
>>>snip
Jindal vows to visit all 64 parishes in a staggering display of egotism he humorously styles his "Louisiana Working Tour." He has made a solid start, having descended on out-of-the-way burgs from Anacoco to Napoleonville, from Livonia to Opelousas, lavishing millions on local officials and assuring voters that he is one helluva fellow.

One helluva hypocrite is more like it. The money he hands out comes from the federal government, which in a column intended for national consumption, Jindal has lambasted for "just flinging stuff against the wall, in trillion-dollar chunks, to see what sticks."

Jindal has also poured scorn on President Barack Obama's "nearly trillion-dollar stimulus that has not stimulated."

But Obama's handout is where Jindal got vast amounts of the money he is shelling out on his tour.

In 2 years he has taken a state that was overwhelmingly Democratic for generations and turned it into a state that Obama lost by 20 points. He beats Obama by 14 points in a head to head poll in his own state. Despite the beat reporters dislike for his Governor, He still has higher approval numbers than Obama.

I did not say anything about what kind of job he was doing or if I would vote for him. The question was asked about who the GOP had who could beat Obama. Bobby Jindal is capable of winning in 2012. Republicans love him, Independents and Democrats will and have voted for him in droves.

If you think that anything in the story you linked will be remembered by 2012 then you are politically naive.

The disbursement/displacement of all of the NOLA survivors who kept that state blue was a huge help as well.
As well as the RW smears of Governor Blanco that the media perpetuated.
With some solace, the NOLA survivors have helped Houston go almost blue...and some say Texas will go blue this next election cycle.

OK, Katrina and the way Bush handled it made them all vote for McCain. Doesn't make sense.
Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2 to 1. Again, the question was simple and I believe that any Republican that can win statewide office in Louisiana and keep him poll numbers high can beat Obama.




http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/RegistrationStatisticsStat...

Louisiana Secretary of State
"Statistical_StatewideParty: Statewide Registered Voters by Party and Race
For Registrations 7/5/2009 AND Status Both"

REGISTERED VOTERS
TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER
2,903,346 1,887,504 889,119 126,723


-------DEMOCRATS--------------
TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER
1,513,644 753,544 720,284 39816


-------REPUBLICANS-----------
TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER
742,032 689,079 25,006 27,947


-------OTHER PARTIES----------
TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER
647,670 444,881 143,829 58,960

and were "believed" to be registered in other states. They were purged from the rolls just prior to the 2008 election. Now that's a downer.
http://www.justdemocracyblog.org/?p=643
>>>snip
The federal government has found yet another way of disenfranchising poor Black residents of New Orleans. If losing their homes to faulty government engineering, enduring days of anguish and death due to an indifferent and sluggish federal emergency response, and forced to live in flimsy, formaldehyde infested trailer homes for now over two years was not enough, the government has once again smacked down the Black citizens of New Orleans.
The Louisiana government’s decision to purge the voting lists of those citizens believed to have relocated has been met with opposition by civil rights leaders and Black rights advocates. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has already filed a Civil rights law suit against the state of Louisiana stating that the voter purge has broken key laws set to protect the disenfranchisement Black voters in the state. Because of Louisiana’s history of racial discrimination before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, all voting changes in Louisiana and other Southern states must be approved by federal officials. In this latest case, Louisiana skirted this requirement and has undertaken the voter purge without seeking approval from higher authorities. The lawsuit set forth by the NAACP challenges the current voter purging taking place as being non-compliant with this rule, as the purge was undertaken without the necessary pre-approval of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The speed and efficiency with which the voter purge was undertaken did not allow for many registered voters to contest the decision. Although, even if the purge had allowed for disenfranchised voters to contest the decision, it is safe to assume that the struggling victims of New Orleans have so many worries on their plate, like basic survival, that many would not have been able to weave through the bureaucratic mess of reinstating themselves as active voters. As it stood, Voters were given one month to prove they had canceled their out-of-state registrations. After that, they had to appear in person at their voter registrar’s office with documentation that their non-Louisiana registration had been canceled. If they could not proof their right to vote in Louisiana within one month, they were taken off the voter rolls. By the end of the purge more than 21,000 people had their names dropped, with the majority being from neighborhoods that were hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina and almost all being Black.

After the purge of 2008 that the article mentions.

But the purge was in 2008. They had a month to get it straightened out before the election. It's been over a year. I'm sure they have been able to "straighten it out" by now, don't you?
Or do you think voting isn't important to "those people"?

1. The link that was given about the Purge was from 2007.

2. So purge happens and we have an election in 2008.

3. Reported numbers after the election are 2 to 1 Blue state in 2009.



Now if they had left them all on the roles and pretended they were all still in the state and Obama still lost by 20 points, I could understand you point.

Why would you question my commitment to suffrage. When did I ever say anything in favor of election fraud.

Still bringing it back to the simple question. The GOP could win in 2012 with Jindal. Accusing me of anything else is changing the subject.

He tripped at the starting line. Premature ejaculation. Cannon didn't fire...any euphemism that you wish to inject is acceptable.

His response to Obama's SOTU Address was pathetic (and I say that in my bestest sing-songy voice)...stage presence was even worse.

He "flip-flopped" on the stimulus. (already provided a link)

He is against government spending...(or is he?)
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/610
>>>>snip
In fiscal year 2008, his last hurrah as a U.S. congressman representing Louisiana before taking over the governor's mansion, Jindal scored big in the pork contest. He, sometimes in concert with other lawmakers, ended up bringing home $97,913,200 in bacon. That put him at the number 14 spot in Taxpayers for Common Sense's annual tally of the most successful appropriators in the House.


Not to mention--the republicans are the party of xenophobes, so that disqualifies him on the spot.

Flip flopping and hypocrisy has never hurt a candidate of either party. Most voters just don't keep track.

And how can he be a failed candidate for something he hasn't run for yet? Just because you don't like his policy doesn't mean that he can't win.

He was set up to fail in the SOTU response. How can you follow the newly elected president when his approval numbers are in the 80's and expect to look good. That is in the past and will never happen again. The next SOTU his numbers will be 50% +/- 5%.

Katrina sent most of the democrats either to their graves or other states.

Please explain why you think otherwise?

They will not vote for Democrats in national elections for the most part. Their political affiliation has more to do with patronage than politics.

could have been said about the Democratic party up till 2008. They have the same long and storied history of nominating white and Christian candidates.

:toast:

He was supposed to help out the GOP, and there was a lot of early talk about his being a possible nominee, but I don't see that happening as the hatred and bigotry inherent in conservatism is really coming out of the closet, and everyone from Nascar Bubba to the higher-ups are pissed off about a non-white person being in the highest office of the land that they're not going to stack the deck so that the situation keep an older white man from being one of the candidates.

TlalocW

He's actually quite brilliant despite the kooky conservative BS he spews, and he'd chew up virtually any opponent up in a debate like Cheney did to Edwards, because he's got a mind for facts and figures like nobody I've ever seen in politics. When he is performing his job as governor instead of reading a script off a teleprompter, he is really impressive. His preparation and actions before Gustav completely blew away anything ever seen from Kathleen Blanco.

Ultimately, I think he won't win the Presidency the first time he runs, but it will be inevitable that he will indeed win it.

Jindal is 38 right now. They're not going to run him in 2012, and I'll gladly go down on paper saying I'm predicting a second Obama term to take us to 2016.

Jindal will be 45.

In 2016, the racism in the GOP will be at the boiling point after 8 years of Obama, and there's no way a non-old white guy will be nominated by their party at that point.

Scenario 1: A democrat keeps the white house in 2016. Leaving Jindal until 2020 to try his luck when he's 49.

Scenario 2: A republican (not Jindal) takes back the white house in 2016. That means Jindal will not run in 2020 either since that republican will be running for re-election meaning 2024 when he's 53.

Right now, the political junkies on both sides know who he is, but what about the electorate in general (particularly the GOP side)? If you asked them, except for the Louisianans, probably not many would know who Jindal is. What is he going to be doing until 2020 or 2024 after he's stopped being governor in 2016 (term limits), assuming he's re-elected? Senate might be nice if you could scrape off one of Louisiana's, who tend to hang on to their seats like barnacles on a ship.

His best bet would probably be to be the veep part of a ticket in 2016 and hope his administration lasts for 8 years when he could try for president.

Anyway, I've gone on too long. My point is, I only see a few narrow windows of opportunity in the near future for Jindal. And by the time they come around, there will probably be a new wunderkind in the GOP.

TlalocW

I guess you forgot about his latest antics with the stimulus check, etc.

assuming there is no Macaca moment.

and starting to turn away from the centrist positions he initially took as Governor and running fast rightward.
He is the one I see them grooming.
White, Southern, yeah, I see that.

I would never underestimate the GOP, which gets the equivalent of a billion dollar in kind contribution from Murdoch's media empire each year.

it doesn't have to be anyone of the 'regulars' either- they could find a mr./ms. perfect somewhere in their ranks next year, and easily build a campaign around them for 2012.

NOTHING is certain.

Bordering on the inevitable.

Were the national economy to notch up some and health care legislation be reasonably effective, the Republicans are left with nothing to squawk over. What would the basis of their objection be?

Plus, their field is demonstrably wobbly. Palin is scatter-brained. Jindal is a stimulus-denying exorcist. Pawlenty is ridiculous. Romney is rich and Huckabee is folksy, but both lost to the hapless John McCain in the 2009 primary.

The GOP isn't offering any ideas as a rationale for voters to choose them instead of President Obama.

but what President Obama and the Democratic Congress have accomplished by then. If the economy is doing well, if we've got a good healthcare solution, and if the deficit shows signs of decreasing, Obama will cruise to re-election no matter who the Repubs nominate. If none of the above, Palin could beat him.

At one point, George HW Bush had approval ratings near 90 percent, and Bill Clinton was a longshot candidate few took seriously, if they'd even heard of him. And this was over halfway into HW Bush's term.