2012 US Presidential Election Megathread!

[Jacob]

Paul gearing up to embarrass Romney and the GOP at the convention?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/ron-paul-delegates_n_1473035.html?ref=politics
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ron-pauls-delegate-antics-could-spell-trouble-for-gop-convention.php?ref=fpa

[CountDeMoney]

Paul gearing up to embarrass Romney and the GOP at the convention?

Thurston Romney the 3rd can do that on his own.

"My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that's finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."

Really, Mittens?  Really?

[jimmy olsen]

Romney raises $77 million in May, Obama only $60 million.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12105658-team-romney-rnc-announce-raising-nearly-77-million-in-may?lite

[11B4V]

I CANT CLICK ON THE LINK.

[jimmy olsen]

I CANT CLICK ON THE LINK.

Fixed.

[Viking]

I WONT CLICK ON THE LINK

[garbon]

I like how msnbc decided to not include arguments as to why this might be the case like other news outlets.

[CountDeMoney]

I like how msnbc decided to not include arguments as to why this might be the case like other news outlets.

They've explained it quite well, actually.

I expect Romney will lead in monthly fundraising from here on out.

[jimmy olsen]

Interesting. Looks like there's been some backlash against the lack of hope and change.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/06/08/scott-walkers-recall-victory-shows-barack-obama-may-be-bleeding-youth-vote_print.html

Scott Walker's Recall Victory Shows Barack Obama May Be Bleeding Youth Vote
June 8, 2012

Folks are still crunching the numbers coming out of Gov. Scott Walker's victory in Tuesday's Wisconsin recall, which is only producing more bad news for President Barack Obama.

In its aftermath the race is shaping up as a proxy for the president's potential performance against his likely opponent in the November 2012 election, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Wisconsin is critical to both campaigns, with Obama unlikely to be able to win without it and Romney much more easily able to reach the "magic number" of 270 electoral votes if he carries it.

What the president will be able to do depends in large part on how much of his winning coalition he can reassemble later this year. It's not looking good, especially among the younger voters who were such an important part of Obama's 2008 victory.

According to Crossroads Generation, a group dedicated to reaching young people with the messages promoting individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise, in the recall election Walker carried the vote of those under the age of 25.

"According to exit polling," the group said, "for voters aged 18-29, the Democrats' advantage among this group was cut in half compared to 2010. While Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett held a ten-point advantage among 18-29 year olds in the 2010 election, that gap was reduced to five points in Tuesday's election."

Younger voters were a significant presence in Tuesday's election. Voters under the age of 30, Crossroads Generation said, made up 16 percent of all voters in the recall election, a higher proportion than in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

"Wisconsin is a state where young voters make a big difference," said Crossroads' Kristen Soltis, who see the results as predictive for the fall. "When an election is focused on the economy and fiscal responsibility, my generation is ready to support candidates with plans for getting us back on track," she said.

If Obama is having trouble attracting younger voters to his coalition, as the results from Wisconsin suggest may be the case, then it will be just that much harder for him to go on to victory in the presidential race. The White House is hoping for a "base election," one in which each party turns out as many of its most stalwart supporters as it can while independents, moderates, and occasional voters stay home, as was the case in George W. Bush's victory over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Romney, on the other hand, looks to be running a campaign that broadens the base, reaching out to everyone who is unhappy with the way the president has governed over the last four years, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980. At the moment anyway, it looks like more voters help Romney while fewer voters are the key Obama's re-election.

   

[stjaba]

Jeb Bush gave an interesting talk at Bloomberg today. He stated that both Ronald Reagan and his father, George H.W. Bush would feel out of step in today's Republican Party. He said that he would have taken a budget deal that would have resulted in $1 in added taxes for every $10 in cuts- a proposition that every Republican presidential candidate rejected. In line with previous comments he's made, he also argued that the Republican Party should moderate its stance to immigration reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/politics/jeb-bush-takes-aim-at-fellow-republicans.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said his father, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan would find themselves out of step with today's Republican Party because of its strict adherence to ideology and the intensity of modern partisan warfare.

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, similar to my dad, they would have had a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don't — as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement," Mr. Bush said at question-and-answer session with reporters and editors held Monday morning in Manhattan by Bloomberg View.

"Back to my dad's time or Ronald Reagan's time," he said, "they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support that right now would be difficult to imagine happening."

Mr. Bush's comments help solidify his role as the Republican Party's leading voice of moderation at a time when many in the party — particularly Tea Party adherents — are calling for ever-greater ideological discipline. And he continued a trend this campaign cycle of big-name presidential endorsers going off script from the campaigns they support. Mr. Bush has endorsed Mitt Romney's candidacy.

Mr. Bush was careful to emphasize that he believed the modern-day Democratic Party was equally dug in on ideological and partisan grounds, saying, "this dysfunction, you can't say it's one side or another." And he said President Obama had failed to live up to his promise to be a transcendent leader, specifically pointing to failure to embrace the advice of the bipartisan deficit panel he created, known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

"It was purely a political calculation," he said. "He created Simpson-Bowles and then abandoned it at birth."

Mr. Bush stood by his assertion that he would accept a hypothetical deal — which all of the major Republican candidates including Mr. Romney rejected when asked about it during a debate on the Fox News Channel last year — that would allow $1 of revenue increases for every $10 in spending cuts. And, when asked to point to a moment of political courage of the sort he said Mr. Obama had not produced, he pointed positively to the budget deal his father struck in 1990, which included tax increases in spite of the elder Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" campaign pledge.

The deal angered many Republicans and is viewed as contributing to George Bush's re-election loss in 1992, but Jeb Bush said "that created the spending restraint of the 1990s; more than anything else that was helpful in creating a climate for sustained economic growth."

"He didn't win," he added, "but at least he did it."

Mr. Bush said he also hoped his party would improve its performance on immigration.

He said that Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee,  needed a different tone when it came to reaching out to Hispanic voters and should make immigration more of an economic issue than a legal one.

"Don't just talk about Hispanics and say immediately we must have controlled borders," Mr. Bush said. "It's kind of insulting when you think about it. Change the tone would be the first thing. Second, on immigration, I think we need to have a broader approach."

Mr. Bush added, "I do feel a little out of step with my party on this."

He also said that he doubted any president — no matter who is in office — could do much to improve the economy given the problems elsewhere. "I think we're in a period here for the next year of pretty slow growth; I don't see how we get out, notwithstanding who's president," he said. "We've got major headwinds with Europe and a slow down for Asia as well."

Republican leaders have accused Mr. Obama of playing a "blame game" for saying the European economic crisis was causing "headwinds" that is undermining the recovery at home.

I'm still on the fence between Obama and Romney, but I would vote for Jeb in a heartbeat if he was an option. He mentioned in a recent interview that after 2012 his window of opportunity was closing, but I see no reason he couldn't run in 2016 if Obama wins this year. Interestingly, some people have speculated that if Obama wins this year, 2016 will be Clinton v. Bush.

[derspiess]

I'm still on the fence between Obama and Romney, but I would vote for Jeb in a heartbeat if he was an option. He mentioned in a recent interview that after 2012 his window of opportunity was closing, but I see no reason he couldn't run in 2016 if Obama wins this year. Interestingly, some people have speculated that if Obama wins this year, 2016 will be Clinton v. Bush.

Hillary will need a serious facelift at that point, and I wonder if Bush name taint might still hurt Jeb.

I sometimes hear people talk about Biden in 2016.  I'm pretty sure he'll be put in a home by then.

[stjaba]

Hillary will need a serious facelift at that point, and I wonder if Bush name taint might still hurt Jeb.

I sometimes hear people talk about Biden in 2016.  I'm pretty sure he'll be put in a home by then.

People overplay the Bush taint. The American public has a pretty short memory when it comes to elections. Also, elections are often about voting against the incumbents as much as they are voting for the challenger. The 2010 Congressional election is a great example of that. I bet Jeb would easily won the Republican primary had he run, and would be polling better than Romney. He has all of Romney's strengths with none of his weaknesses.

I think the main reason Jeb didn't run was out of concern for his family. His wife, who incidentally is Mexican, seems quite shy and like to stay out of the spotlight. She was involved in a minor scandal involving not declaring items to Customs when Jeb was governor.  Around the same time, his daughter was charged with doctor shopping and was treated for prescription drug addiction. Who knows what other embarrassing things have happened since Jeb left the limelight?

[Sheilbh]

I'm still on the fence between Obama and Romney, but I would vote for Jeb in a heartbeat if he was an option. He mentioned in a recent interview that after 2012 his window of opportunity was closing, but I see no reason he couldn't run in 2016 if Obama wins this year.

But could he win?  Wouldn't there be more interesting new talent ready for a Presidential campaign by 2016 - Rubio, Christie, Jindal etc?

[derspiess]

People overplay the Bush taint. The American public has a pretty short memory when it comes to elections.

IIRC, Bush's favorability numbers are still not above 50%, and usually by this point the 'old guy' memory is short enough to where people forget whatever foibles he supposedly had.   

Also, elections are often about voting against the incumbents as much as they are voting for the challenger. The 2010 Congressional election is a great example of that. I bet Jeb would easily won the Republican primary had he run, and would be polling better than Romney. He has all of Romney's strengths with none of his weaknesses.

Mitt was 'the guy' from the beginning.  In the GOP, the guy who came in second in the previous primary gets it the next time-- that's just how it works.  So it was his turn.  I think Jeb might have made a run and been the flavor of the month (or maybe two months), but I think Mitt is about the only moderate-ish guy who could've weathered the storm. 

I think the main reason Jeb didn't run was out of concern for his family. His wife, who incidentally is Mexican, seems quite shy and like to stay out of the spotlight. She was involved in a minor scandal involving not declaring items to Customs when Jeb was governor.  Around the same time, his daughter was charged with doctor shopping and was treated for prescription drug addiction. Who knows what other embarrassing things have happened since Jeb left the limelight?

I think he was wise to stay out-- there just seem to be some virulently anti-Jebites in the GOP that would have gotten the knives out early on.  I like him & would be happy be happy with him as the nominee were it not for the name association, which I think would be unfair but still a factor.

[stjaba]

But could he win?  Wouldn't there be more interesting new talent ready for a Presidential campaign by 2016 - Rubio, Christie, Jindal etc?

Bush would definitely be the favorite to win the nomination if he ran. He would have a huge fundraising advantage as well as name recognition advantage over any of the contenders. He would also neutralize Rubio to a certain extent because a lot of potential Rubio advisers/supporters/fundraisers are located in Florida, and and those individuals would likely support Bush over Rubio. Though, obviously Rubio is a Tea Party guy, whereas Bush isn't.

I can't really see Jindal being successful in a national campaign. He's from a small state, which is a disadvantage, and I'm not sure where his natural base support would come from. He's basically a competent technocrat, without that much charisma. He got very poor reviews a few year back from his state of the union reply speech, but apparently he was an effective surrogate in Iowa for Rick Perry, so perhaps he's improved. He's definitely got a great reputation, and he has a good story, but I'm not sure if that's enough.

Christie would definitely be a contender. I think the main knocks against him would be the perception that's he a moderate northeastern Republican. I also wonder how Midwestern and Southern Republicans would respond to his background and personality. Mitt Romney obviously was at a disadvantage due to his Massachusetts background.

If Bush didn't run, Rubio might be the front runner. His candidacy would pretty similar to Obama in 2008: young, charismatic Senator appealing initially to the activist wing of the party but with potential for wide base support as well, from a large state, minority, etc. Like Obama, Rubio does have a few skeletons in his closet. I think his biggest scandal had something to do with Rubio charging personal expenses to a Republican Party credit card. Rubio eventually paid it off, but it was controversial for a while. There's been talk that Rubio hasn't been fully vetted yet and there additional scandals to be uncovered, but obviously nothing too big has come out yet.