Social Question

DaphneT's avatar

If Romney isn't elected this time, who is in the Republican Party stable to be presented as their candidate for president in 2016?

Asked by DaphneT (5681 points ) September 17th, 2012

Well, as stated. And why would any of the future choices be potentially better candidates?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

46 Answers

filmfann's avatar

Chris Christy
Jeb Bush
Voldemort

FutureMemory's avatar

I was wondering about this earlier today, actually. But for both sides. Who are the likely candidates for 2016?

Would the GOP go with Romney again in 2016, or possibly Ryan? What if Perry or that woman with the crazy eyes (what’s her name again??) want to give it another go?

And what about the Dems? Is America ready for Joe Biden for prez?

chyna's avatar

@FutureMemory No, for the dems it will be Mrs. Clinton. :-)

wundayatta's avatar

I would think Santorum would do pretty well. How old is Ron Paul? He’ll run again if he’s not too old. Maybe even Gingrich will run again. I’d expect Christie to throw his hat in the ring. Maybe even Scott Brown, as a more moderate version of Republican.

I’d love to see Clinton run on the Dem side. I always preferred her to Obama.

JLeslie's avatar

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Or, some really really far right person. Jellies gave a good argument on a Q of mine that if Romney loses the Republican party will take it as a sign that they need a very far right candidiate to win. I think it would have to be a southerner if they go with that logic.

DaphneT's avatar

Why would the Republicans interpret the Romney loss as a need for a very far right candidate? Wouldn’t the logical analysis show that a more moderate candidate would garner more independent’s votes? Do you mean the Republican base thinks Romney’s not right enough so they won’t vote for him?

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I would love to see Donald Trump run.

wundayatta's avatar

The argument is that you need a far right person in order to excite the base. Romney just wasn’t pure enough to get the base excited, and thus they couldn’t get good turnout. If they had an ideologically pure person like Santorum, they could get Republicans excited and get out the vote and win.

This is the argument. I’m not saying it’s a good argument. It is how they think, however.

JLeslie's avatar

@DaphneT I thought the same thing, here is my Q. But, since Romney has been prochoice in the past, and created a health care system very similar to Obamacare, and he is not an Evangelical bible belt type Christian, maybe they perceive him as not very far right.

Plus, add on he doesn’t realy speak their language I don’t think. He certainly doesn’t speak southern, and I also don’t think he adds in blessed and God and all the little catch phrases they look for.

jerv's avatar

On that side of the aisle, the only way to get a solid backing from your base is to be radical enough to lose most of the swing voters as well. Anybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh will lose a rather substantial portion of the GOP base.

However, here is another possibility; two Republican parties. See, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Colin Powell are all Republicans, but they are sane, rational people who do not seek to impose a strict Christian morality on us through legislation, nor do they want the wealth disparity to increase a hundredfold like the current crop of high-profile Republicans.

So I guess it all boils down to whether there is a schism in the GOP, and if not, whether or not they take their meds and/or just eject the Batshit Brigade.

Buttonstc's avatar

Well, if you watched the Daily Show coverage of the Repub. Convention, they’re predicting Jeb Bush :)

On the upside, he couldn’t possibly be as dimwitted as his brother :)

On the downside, he is a Repub. when all is said and done.

But personally, I think Chris Christie would provide the most potential interest and fun. He really doesn’t suffer fools (of any stripe) gladly. Now that’s entertainment.

And it would be interesting to see a Repub. candidate who wasn’t raised with a silver spoon in his mouth for a change. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

phaedryx's avatar

Republicans often go with the runner-up from the last round, e.g. Romney was second to McCain in 2008 and now has the nomination. That would make Santorum the guy to beat in 2016.

I think Hillary Clinton is probably the strongest in 2016 for the democrats right now.

fundevogel's avatar

I could see BobbyJindal throw his hat in for the primary. Don’t see him getting the nomination though. There’s no way Chris Christy doesn’t go for it.

I totally want Elizabeth Warren for the Democrats.

JLeslie's avatar

@Buttonstc He isn’t as dimwitted as his brother. He was my governor and I recentky saw him in an interview and he readily said where Republicans are idiots and where Obama had done well, but he also is definitely right leaning at the same time. When asked about immigration he quoted some stat that more people have been deported in the last two years than any time in the past, and that the borders are tighter now. What Republican has said that? He was very good during our hurricanes. He did away with affirmative action for government bids if I remember correctly. I actually tended to think affirmative action should be over with at this point in our history, but moving to the midsouth I sometimes am not so sure. Anyway, he was a mixed bag for me. I do think he has a brain in his head though, and I do believe he cares and is knowledgable about the big issues domestic and international.

glacial's avatar

@fundevogel I can’t wait until Elizabeth Warren runs.

I would be willing to bet it will be Christie for the Republicans. Regarding the possibility of two Republican parties, I don’t think they will dare to split the vote.

Jaxk's avatar

I always love to see what democrats think republicans should do.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk I think people are guessing at what might happen, not saying what republicans should do. Why not answer the question, so we can see what a Republican thinks, if one has not answered yet on the Q.

jerv's avatar

@glacial They may not have a choice. Just as many Conservatives will automatically vote against anybody with a D next to their name, many old-school Conservatives with brains are wondering what the hell became of their party. How that will play out…. who knows? But if a few who thought that the old Republican Party wasn’t getting things done can turn it into what it is, it’s also possible for the reverse to happen.

Four years is a long time, and I’ve seen many strange things happen in under four seconds.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie

It is impossible to guess what issues and events will take the stage in the next four years if Obama is reelected. Hell we may not even have elections once Obama is crowned king.

glacial's avatar

@jerv Republicans who want to start a second party will have to commit to playing a much longer game than just 4 years, I think. It would take a very long time for the extreme right-wing version to die a natural death. I suspect they would prefer to change the course of the existing party – the question is whether they have the power to do it.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Whatever.

ETpro's avatar

Great question, @DaphneT. My political crystal ball is notoriously inaccurate, but here is what it’s telling me. A Romney loss won’t be very consequential if it’s a narrow loss. After all, it is very hard to defeat a sitting president. But if he looses in a landslide, it’s going to likely touch off some soul searching within the GOP. Did he loose because he wasn’t extreme enough in his right-wing views, or because the Tea Party dominance of the party has made it a necessity to run so far to the right to retain your base you have no hope of appealing to the independents and centrists?

If they decide he wasn’t extreme enough, then even Paul Ryan may be damaged goods, because he’s denied much of his supposed “core beliefs” in boarding the Romney bus. Perhaps somebody like Michelle Bachmann, Jim DeMint, Bob McDonnell, Sheriff Joe Arpaio or even Joe the Plumber will get the nod. It might even be open for Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh. If they decide the far right cost them the election, they are probably facing a split, with a far-right party like the old Dixiecrats used to be and a pro-business, centrist party like the former GOP used to be emerging from the debacle.

It’s going to be interesting to watch, because after the breaking news tonight that Romney doesn’t even care about 47% of Americans, and thinks they are all lazy bums who only want free everything and have no initiative; he’s done. Stick a fork in him.

Buttonstc's avatar

@JLeslie

It’s good to hear that Jeb is a competent governor from someone with a front row seat (since you’re actually in Fla.)

And I wasn’t being facetious in the least about him having more brains than his brother. No question about it.

And he also has a healthy independent streak in him. I would expect him to be quite cognizant of immigration issues since his wife is Hispanic; not from Mexico, granted, but nonetheless definitely not a wasp.

Can you imagine the New Egland neighbor rich wasps with their tongues wagging (discreetly behind closed doors hopefully) when he starts getting serious abput marrying someone who’s definitely not part of the “establishment” into which he was born? Those old fogies are definitely not enthused about tainting the bloodline and such.

Good for him. I’ve always respected him for following his heart and not kowtowing to societal attitudes about whom he should or should not marry.

But as I mentioned, my main discomfort lies with that silver soon and also how the other members of the Repub. party would be changing him once he became a serious candidate.

Look what happened with Romney who had a good track record as a moderate while Gov of Mass and quite progressive for a Repub.

Now he’s pretty much the opposite (since he realized that being a thoughtful progressive moderate just wasn’t going to fly in today’s party and wouldn’t bring in the bucks from influential rich donors.

Would the same befall Jeb should he be a serious candidate. Who knows? Only time will tell.

But I have a hunch Christie would just up and tell them all to take a long walk off a short pier :) gotta love his bluntness and moxie. Kind of like a pit bull :)

Remember that old joke from Sarah Palin about what’s the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull?.......lipstick

Well, what’s the difference between a politician and a pitbull?,,,,,,the last name, Christie. He’s far more pitbull than he is politician.

:D

ucme's avatar

Please make Trump run for office, that monkey’s arse atop his head could be his running mate.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@DaphneT The “independent voter” is largely a myth. While there are voters who are registered independent, who consider themselves independent, almost all are “partisan independents” who lean one way or the other, even if they’re pretty critical of the party they lean towards. What we might call “real” independents are not only usually a small enough percentage to not really swing the vote, but also are not all going to turn out to vote, and many of them are actually so independent because they are so apathetic to politics and have no interest in voting. So winning elections tends to be more about firing up your base enough that they actually vote, actually go to the polls, actually mail in the ballot, and you actually get their votes.

tedd's avatar

@Jaxk You’re in for a long 4 years, cuz I got bad news buddy… Obama is winning this thing.

Now as far as the OP and statements since.
-Trump may run, but he’s not getting the nomination.
-Romney will be doubtful to run again. He’d be almost 70, and the Republican party hasn’t been fond of putting up guys who lost the last election for the last 30+ years.
-The big names right now are Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Huntsman, Rick Santorum, maybe a few others.

The problem or curiosity I guess, will be which way does the Republican party tack if/when they lose this election. Do they continue to veer right, or do they swing back to a more moderate stance. Guys like Santorum, Ryan, and Rubio are more to the right (at least economically), whereas guys like Bush or Huntsman are more moderate. Which way the party veers after this election will have a strong role in deciding who the nominees are next time around.

(also you have to imagine that someone you’ve never heard of will show up and and make a run for the nomination)

JLeslie's avatar

@Buttonstc I don’t live in FL anymore, but I did then. I agree with just about everything you said. Have you seen Jesse Ventura making the rounds about his new book? He calls the Republican and Democratic party gangs, and that the candidtates have to answer to and protect the gang first and foremost. This is what my parents keep telling me, that I can’t vote for Romney, or any Republican, because it gives more power to the Republican party, even if there is a feeling that the particular candidate is reasonable. They feel once elected the candidate and we are screwed, because they have to bow to the party. My dad was a Republican for 40 years, not anymore. He is the most left wing person out there now. More extreme than my mother and myself by far, and we have always been democrats.

Jesse Ventura said that he thinks the first thing that should be done is remove the part tags from the voters ballot. Great idea in my opinion. That way people would actually have to know something about the candidates, they could not just easily vote party.

And, then of course we have to get rid of the corporate money that is donated to these elections, it’s disgusting. He pointed out that it allows for foreign companies to buy our elections.

I have a feeling Barbara Bush was probably pretty easy going about Jeb marrying who he married, maybe the whole family. George Bush was very moderate, even left leaning on immigration. Barbara was pro-choice, and even Laura Bush is moderate on some issues, much more so than the Georges.

GracieT's avatar

@tedd, I pray to God that you are correct. I have many friends whose minds are made up already. They WILL vote for anybody except Obama, probably including Hitler if he were to live again. The hatred of these people is unlike it has been in any other election. I don’t understand why they feel this way, but they do. If someone asks the reason for this, the overwhelming reason given is the economy. Unfortunately I can’t talk with several of them because I will get so mad I forget how to disagree and instead of an honest debate I will turn into a little kid and try to one-up their every remark. I know that it would be better if we discuss the issues, I just want to convince them that I am right.

wundayatta's avatar

@GracieT And yet the polls are showing your state narrowly in favor of Obama. So your friends may not be the majority.

GracieT's avatar

@wundayatta, it may be a small lead, but I have been seeing/hearing so many ads for Romney, and what I have become fearful of is Romney being like a turtle- slow and steady wins the race.

tedd's avatar

@GracieT Obama has actually widened his lead here in Ohio over the last few months. It’s closed up a bit since the convention ended but he’s still up to the tune of 4–5 points on average. The economy in Ohio is doing much better than the national average, and the car industry was particularly aided by Obama’s auto-bailout, which is really doing him well in the polls in the northern part of the state, where most of that industry is. Fivethirtyeight.com is currently giving Obama roughly a 73% chance of winning Ohio. For comparison, they have M*chigan as 96% Obama, Pennsylvania as 93% Obama, Nevada 84% Obama… or conversely, Indiana 92% Romney, Montana 88% Romney, Missouri 89% Romney, etc, etc.

(Virginia comes in at 61% Obama, Florida is 59% Obama, Colorado 66% Obama, etc, etc)

glacial's avatar

@tedd Now the question becomes whether or not these people are allowed to vote.

Jaxk's avatar

@tedd

“All that glitters, is not gold”. We have a long ways to the election and things like the Arab uprising will have an impact. We have reason to be worried but not to give up. If your right we’re all in for a long four years. And to the candidate for 2016, it would be more likely that a eloquent speaker will emerge to take the nomination rather than thier position on the political scale. There are a few of them waiting in the wings.

tedd's avatar

@Jaxk Hey that’s why it’s a 73% chance in Ohio and not a 100% chance. Romney could still definitely win. The odds are just increasingly not in his favor, and his “plays” of late are not endearing more people to him, and may even be outright alienating some people from him.

And we’re in for four years that just won’t last long enough :).

Jaxk's avatar

@tedd

Actually I don’t really disagree with your assessment. Most people are voting against the candidate they don’t like rather than for the candidate they do. Oh sure, Obama has his hardcore support as does Romney but the general population is not satisfied with the last four years. Obama has done a good job in painting Romney as evil and if Romney can’t pick his game in the next few weeks, he’s in trouble.

The last four years lasted plenty long enough and I don’t see the next four going any quicker :-(

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk I think most of the elections in teh last couple of decades have actually been referendums. However, if Romney does turn it around, I see big trouble. Things are pretty tense here as it is, and a small part of me can’t help but think that it won’t take too much more to start some major civil unrest.

Besides, I dealt with 8 years of W, so you can deal with 8 of Obama :p

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv

I find it interesting that you would say we are on the verge of some major civil unrest yet want for more years of the same. Personally, I’d like to see some improvement and that means changing course.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk Which is exactly why I don’t want someone like Romney! You seem to ignore the things that the Republicans pushed/protect that got us to where we are and prevent things from improving, and now you seek to put out a fire by dumping Thermite on it.

Notice how the more we get towards the ideal of zero taxation and Laissez-Faire economics, the worse things get for the majority of Americans? Stagnant wages, rising unemployment, rising poverty… but so long as GDP and corporate profits are up then the economy is just fine.

Now, I’m not saying the the Democrats have it right, but they have it less wrong. Or is your idea of a Utopia a place where the class divide is as great or greater than during Medieval times, where you were either royalty or (more likely) a half-clothed wretch living in a hovel? I believe in a fair days wages for a fair days work, but looking at the numbers, most people are getting a fair days wages for two days worth of work while a few are getting a fair decades wages for a fair hours work. Is the income gap justifiable? Only if you believe that non management does absolutely nothing of any value; manufactured goods make themselves, food cooks and serves itself, etcetera.

So how about we change course by taking government back from corrupt elitist ideologues, end bad policy, and do what has actually created prosperity in the past? How about we change course by allowing people to vote instead of barring those who don’t agree with your agenda from the election booths? How about is we stop legislating what is/isn’t acceptable romantic involvement between consenting adults instead of passing legislation based on Leviticus?

We both want to see improvement, @Jaxk, and I feel that we start improving by halting our decline. You want smaller government? Get the CEOs (and clergy) out of DC and leave the governing to only people who were hired (or rather, elected) to govern. You want economic gains? Supply and demand won’t work when too few people have enough money to create demand; abandon an economic theory that was discredited over a century ago and proven to be a failure within the last few years.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv

Yes, let’s do good things and stop doing bad things. Now there’s a political platform we can all get behind. Unfortunately, I think we need a little more meat on those bones. You say supply and demand doesn’t work. I assume you mean capitalism. A rather strange idea since it has been the source of not only our success but the success of every western country. Even communist countries like China were stuck in poverty until they decided to try a little capitalism. So we should abandon that system and try, I guess communism? I don’t suppose you could come up with an example of where that has brought prosperity to anyone other than the governing elite. Hell, forget prosperity, show me where it has not brought death and destruction. I understand you’re caught up in the Marxist dream but it doesn’t work. There is no Utopian dream world where no one has to struggle. Unskilled labor is less valuable than skilled. Jobs like McDonald’s are not intended to be a career, they are starter jobs or second jobs. It’s how the kids just out of school, get thier start.

I understand your argument, you want to raise the bottom by limiting the potential at the top. You think that will make a better society and I think it will stifle innovation and growth. I think we’ve done pretty well over the past 250 years and grown an economy the likes the world has never seen. I’m not ready to thrown it away in favor of a system that has brought abject poverty, death, and destruction over the same period.

It is amusing that you say the GOP thinks things are just fine. Hell, it is the Democrats that are telling us things are fine, the GOP is screaming for a change of direction. Over the past 4 years we have higher unemployment, lower wages, higher poverty, more people on welfare, more debt, and the predictions are that we will go right back into recession if things don’t change. How the hell, can you support an administration that has that track record? It boggles the mind.

tedd's avatar

@jerv I just wanted to note that depending the fire, thermite would not ignite when being exposed to it. Thermite is actually extremely stable and requires combustion sources in the thousands of degrees in order to ignite.

:)

jerv's avatar

@tedd I work in a foundry; it isn’t hard for me to find at least three things hot enough without even looking. I guess I work enough around that sort of thing to occasionally forget how cold normal fires are.

@Jaxk Capitalism can work, but not the way we’ve ben doing it. Maybe I’m foolish for wanting sustainability. And the only limits I want to place at the top are those required to keep the ready of the country from becoming a Third World nation. Communism fails, and often for the same reason that our brand of Capitalism is failing; corruption, and exploitation.

I know too many people who have degrees that are forced into “starter jobs” by the economy we’ve had recently. I’ve seen too many people fall behind because they don’t even get cost-of-living increases while their management takes ever increasing bonuses.

What I want is for everybody to be able to afford to live self-sufficiently; when fifty hours a week won’t keep you off of gpus stamps, something is wrong. I want the lower half of us, those with household incomes under $55k/yr, to have enough disposable income to increase demand for goods and services, thereby reducing unemployment, and getting money circulating.

We did well for about 200 years, meh for a while, and rather poorly in the last few decades. If like to see us back on top. I want this wave of anti-intellectualism to end. I want markets that compete by offering innovative products at competitive prices rather than through litigation over intellectual property, or just plain old monopolies.

And I think you ignore how much of our problems are due to Republicans enacting/defending bad policy, and engaging in extortion to get anything (even roll call) done.You seen to be of the opinion that amplifying the bad policies will work out, just as allowing the rich to get richer would cause them to invest in such a way that led to job creation.

tedd's avatar

@jerv Yah same here, but like you said… your typical fire… like a camp fire… it isn’t going to be igniting thermite, lol.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv

Yeah, that’s what I’m all about, amplifying bad policy. Like trying to get an energy policy that might help to lower the cost of gas. If we lower the cost of gas by $1 our economy will get an injection of $378 million per day. The AAA average for America is about 15,000 miles/year or for that $1 dollar decrease about $1,250 per month back in your pocket. Would that help? Is that the bad policy I’m amplifying? Should I be screaming for electric cars that the Average American can’t afford and doesn’t want? Is that the good policy you think I should be supporting?

There are a lot of ways to get to our goal. I don’t agree with your path and you don’t agree with mine. But unless we discuss specific issues, we’ll never reach any consensus or even know where and why we disagree. Saying I support bad policy and you support good policy is pretty fruitless.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk I am a fan of electric cars. They have more range than most Americans drive in a day, far lower energy costs, and would not put as much of a strain on our power grid as you would think. Replacing even a fraction of our gas-burners with EVs would help. For what I pay for 25 miles worth of gas, I could recharge the White Zombie enough times to go over 1000 miles.

How about adding tax brackets for those >$500k, $1m, etcetera, and leaving others alone? Add in a tiered Capital Gains (15% of the first $X, 20% after that) and close the loopholes that allow the richest composites to pay zero, and we could solve a few problems too.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv

I could give you thousand reasons why I don’t like them but I am sure a few of you do. Apparently not enough to make them viable but a few.

I see your tax plan is a compromise from what either the Democrats or Republicans are proposing. That’s a start. I am thoroughly convinced we need to stabilize the economy first. That means not changing the tax rates. I’m not completely unreasonable though, I wouldn’t mind changing some of the loopholes that create a lot of the inequity your talking about. Such as the way we tax hedge fund managers. For some odd reason we allow a long term capital gains rate on what should be taxed as normal income. That’s preposterous. We also allow commodity gains to be taxed as long term when by their very nature they are short term. They should be taxed at normal income rates. Both seem to fall under this ‘Carried Interest’ hole in the tax code. No problem plugging that. But I have a problem with saying if you earn $1 million that you need to pay a minimum. If I lose a million one year and make a million the next, making me pay tax on what is essentially zero for the two years seems unreasonable. And if I build a business, throwing every penny I earn back into it, I would like to have the sale of that business available for my retirement. If the government takes half I end up on welfare which means the government will pay back what they got from my taxes. Everybody loses but some how we think that’s fair.

My general feeling on this is that we should let the economy recover, neither raise nor lower taxes until the economy can stand another hit. After that we can try to make the system more fair. I’m not saying I would agree with higher taxes even then but I wouldn’t rail against them as I do now. Right now I disagree with both Romney (lower taxes) and Obama (higher taxes). I think they both agree with closing loopholes but it’s hard for me to agree since neither one has said which loopholes they want to close.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk I won’t digress too much about the EV thing beyond saying that any $25,000 car that can run a ¼-mile in 10.2 seconds, get 90–120 miles on a charge that costs less than a gallon of gas is a good thing. I use $25k as that is how much it would cost to replicate the White Zombie, the world’s quickest street-legal EV. And this despite Chevron being dicks about teh patents on large-format NiMH battery packs.

My general feeling is that the Bush-era tax cuts were only partially successful; part of them mitigated the harm done by other parts. I agree that we should probably not mess around too much until things stabilize, but I think that some of the cuts that generally only apply to the top tiers were a bit steep and should go away as per the sunset provisions that were in there when they initially passed. To do otherwise is like keeping a tourniquet on after a wound is already healed.

The most important think is to get the two parties to stop all the dick-waving and do their fucking jobs! Their job is to do what is best for our nation, and if them compromising in order to do something good instead of holding the nation hostage unless allowed to further their own agenda is what is required, then that is what they should do. And if they can’t do that then we should do what any employer would do; fire their asses without benefits.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther