Posted under Election 2012 & The South
UPDATE # 1 BELOW:
UPDATE # 2 BELOW:
Do the Republicans really want the White House in 2012? If they do, they have a funny way of showing it.
Two of its major contenders for the nomination are practically wallowing in their unelectability. Class clown Rick Perry is either a genetic goofball, or prepares for presidential fashion shows (they’re not debates!) by getting higher than a kite – there’s just no other way to explain this. And Herman (“You’re so Cain”) Cain must be the most arrogantly ignorant candidate for president ever (“Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan”).
But there’s always Mitt Romney, some say. Yeah, the liberal who’s inspired a growing conservative movement within the Republican Party to stop him from winning the nomination.
Last night was good for the Republicans, at least in the South. In Virginia, Republicans now control the governor’s office and the legislature. Republican Phil Bryant won his bid for governor of Mississippi.
So I wonder – is the Republican strategy to focus on its base in the South, let Obama win, and allow him to further alienate conservatives as he tries to consolidate and expand his leftist agenda? The backlash could be so vigorous that the shellacking of 2010 would look like a day at the beach.
We are indeed living in interesting times. (For background on the “winning by losing” strategy, read this and this.)
UPDATE # 1: Obama Back to Even With “Generic” Republican Candidate:
President Obama now essentially ties, 43% to 42%, a “generic” Republican candidate when U.S. registered voters are asked whom they are more likely to vote for in the presidential election next year. This marks a change from October and September, when the Republican candidate was ahead, and underscores the potential for a close presidential race in the year ahead.
UPDATE #2: And as for what we can expect from a second Obama administration, I refer you to a political analyst who’s as good as any other so-called expert, Chris Rock. (Warning: language!)
Matt Weber on 10 Nov 2011 at 3:15 pm #
I wouldn’t give the Republicans enough credit to do something that actually benefits anyone. I think they genuinely have no good candidates at the national level. If the economy doesn’t improve I think they win by default, but Obama has a decent chance if it does.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 10 Nov 2011 at 6:36 pm #
Matt Weber,
I would never accuse the Republican Party of doing anything to benefit the country.
What I’m speculating is that they’re giving O enough rope to hang himself in the hope they can position themselves to reap the rewards of a vengeful electorate – all for their own gain, of course.
Julian on 10 Nov 2011 at 9:45 pm #
Given decent odds, I’d bet good money that Obama wins next year, perhaps even easily. The economy will have to get even worse for the candidate from the stupid party to win.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 10 Nov 2011 at 10:01 pm #
Julian,
True, and I bet Obama can jimmy the system enough to pull out another win. There’s certainly not enough passion on the Republican side to rally sufficient support to beat Obama – not unless he pulls a monumental blunder.
IanH on 11 Nov 2011 at 3:51 am #
I don’t think Obama needs to jimmy the system at all. The system, as it currently exists, is working in his favor in every way. All he has to do is keep making empty promises to his core supporters and they’ll keep lavishing him with praise. Nothing will make them abandon him.
As for the GOP, they just suck. I’m sorry, but they just suck. The fact that they continue to advocate keeping troops in Iraq despite overwhelming opposition speaks volumes about where their real loyalties lie.
Kirt Higdon on 11 Nov 2011 at 1:57 pm #
It often looks like the Republicans are trying to lose (think Dole and McCain) but I don’t attribute this to any too-clever-by-half strategy to win by losing. It’s simply a case of institutional inertia, ideological commitment, and lesser evil voting. These factors are also present with the demos in slightly different mix.
If Obama wins (at the moment better than a 50/50 chance), but the Republicans keep control of the House and perhaps take the Senate or increase their numbers in the Senate, that may be the best thing for the country – better than Romney winning and getting Republica majorities in both houses. With either Romney or Obama, we’re screwed on foreign and national security policy but government gridlock would at least put a moratorium on massive new social engineering programs. I am not, BTW, giving this as a reason to vote for Obama. I’ll likely vote 3rd party as I did last time or not at all on the presidential line.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 11 Nov 2011 at 2:22 pm #
Kirt Higdon,
“With either Romney or Obama, we’re screwed on foreign and national security policy but government gridlock would at least put a moratorium on massive new social engineering programs.”
Absolutely, though I think Romney would be worse on national policy because he’d have automatic support for his wars from rank-and-file conservatives.
Sam Stevens on 05 Feb 2012 at 3:25 pm #
I couldn’t agree with you more. Now that the four republican nominees are all going to the convention, it’s clear they are in reality trying to throw the election. None of the nominees want to win, they seriously want Obama to win so he can further destroy our country.