Sunday, December 4, 2011
Sunday Question for Liberals
Are you hoping that the most moderate Republican presidential candidate wins the nomination (and is therefore more likely to be a less damaging president from your point of view), or that the most extreme candidate is nominated (and is therefore less likely to win the presidency)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
As annoyed as I am at Liberal Progressive politics, any additional power in the hands of the "Right" would be destructive to this country.
ReplyDeleteBACKSTORY OF THOUGHTS: BO wins ... likely has coattails ... best for USA. Cannot hope to predict if he'll have coattails, mostly due to difficulty predicting ability to fire up indepts to show up & help give him 4 more. THOUGHTS: Even a more moderate R will be pressured by "climate" in bizarro world of Rs, Rs being very conserv+extreme. I'll hope for the most beatable R against BO.
ReplyDeleteIf an R wins the white house, then I expect they will win both houses of Congress. This will be an unmitigated disaster. I'm hedging your question, but I don't think it matters much. Romney would be better than Perry, frex. but only in the second or third decimal place.
ReplyDeleteThe best and most qualified is Huntsman, but he is staunchly pro-business and thinks Paul Ryan's budget plan is good.
The electorate is so uninformed and misinformed that a Rethug might actually win. Craziness is no deterrent to the Rethugs. In fact, it's hard to tell this field from something made up by The Onion.
JzB
I'm feeling like the makeup of congress is going to pull either a moderate or an extreme Republican president toward the GOP center of gravity, so I'm hoping for the most extreme nominee possible - and then holding my breath until the election.
ReplyDeleteI'm with David Frum on this one (even tho I'm a liberal Democrat). I'd like to see an extreme candidate win the nomination and then get overwhelmingly defeated by Obama. All that is in hopes that perhaps it would finally get the crazy wing of that party to STFU.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of opening a mobile Newt 2012 Campaign Office in Iowa, that can be relocated to South Carolina and later primary states.
ReplyDeleteI could live with Huntsman. Yeah, he's a Republican, more conservative than he's given credit for, and I don't agree with him on a lot. But he at least seems reasonable enough that he won't just jam a hard-core right-wing agenda down our throats. Additionally, he believes in global warming/climate change, and that's the most pressing long-term issue. He probably won't run a scorched-earth "Obama hates America and wants to turn us into the Soviet States of America" campaign, either.
As for Romney, he's despicable in so many ways.
So basically, if it's not Huntsman, let the GOP pick a loser.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we live in a country where, apparently, the notion of any of these Rs winning isn't too absurd even to be discussed.
ReplyDeleteSmartypants @4:04, I haven't seen Frum quite say that.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm hoping somehow Huntsman is the nominee. As the only candidate with actual foreign policy experience, there's at least some hope he wouldn't be another W. On economic and social policy, pretty much any of those people will be radical conservatives because that's what their party demands these days.
ReplyDeleteI strongly root for the most moderate GOP nominee. I want to live in a world where the GOP nominates moderates. After all, Presidential races are always close - even 1984 Reagan didn't command anything close to 80% of the vote, after all.
ReplyDeleteI'll root for the extremist. The GOP is pretty far out there right now. It's best that they choose a candidate that reflects their values and let people have an honest choice.
ReplyDeleteIf they loose badly maybe they'll learn something from it.
As long as there is a real electability gap between the contenders, I'm rooting for the unelectable one. Even a "moderate" Republican would still be seriously dangerous for the country's future, and the policy differences between a moderate and a whackadoodle aren't that big. So I'm rooting to maximize Obama's chances of victory.
ReplyDeleteA bit of a different perspective, from outside the United States. There is considerable downside risk in electing an unsuitable President, as we saw in 2000 and 2004 (and to a much lesser degree under Reagan). In my view, the downside risk is too great to toy with the idea of wanting Obama to have an easier path.
ReplyDeleteObama has not shown himself to be an outstanding campaigner for the centre, or to motivate the left; if he were a surer thing I'd be more sanguine about him running against a crazy person (that is, the field outside of Romney, Huntsman, maybe Perry and I suppose Johnson although he seems to have abandoned the race)
Like Sahar, I would be much encouraged if the GOP would return to the vague direction of the center.
I worry that Obama doesn't have critical mass support from most liberals so they're looking for the least offensive conservative to get the nomination so they can vote for him. So I guess the best defense IS the most offensive GOP candidate, though it goes against my grain. I don't think the conservative masses can be counted on to have any common sense and Mr. (or Ms.) Wingnut will probably get elected by a nose, just like W did. (I'm an architect and in my experience you never show a client an ugly option because 9 times out of 10 that's the one they'll pick.)
ReplyDeleteI go back and forth on this all the time. I'd like to see the Tea Party thoroughly repudiated, and it might take a Goldwater/McGovern style presidential drubbing for that to happen. Also, I feel like even Mitt (Have It Your Way) Romney would basically rubber-stamp anything a Republican congress did, and therefore wouldn't be much less destructive to our policies in the present environment.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, I like our current system of government. Mitt Romney might be what he is, but at least he sort of preserves the usual norms; I'm much more worried that a President Gingrich or Bachmann might be so far outside the usual standard that the whole thing would go TILT.
This is one of those "Be careful what you wish for" things. I find myself worrying about whichever choice toward which I lean. Best just to root for Obama and leave the GOP's choice to the GOP.
I agree with people who have noted it's not clear how great the ideological gaps are between the candidates, but I completely disagree with the conclusion a lot of them seem to have drawn that there are no gaps of obvious relevance. Myself, I'm not rooting for "moderate (?)" as opposed to "conservative." I'm rooting for "likely to be minimally competent" over "has given no reason to believe that s/he wouldn't appoint Mr. Potato Head Agriculture Secretary."
ReplyDeleteI want competent and honorable and understand a conservative wants a conservative. I'd just like to see them able to lead the country without getting us into meaningless wars or do tax cuts without sense (our last Republican president). I'd just rather they were as good as can be and not dishonorable crooks
ReplyDeleteI'm someone who prefers two (or more, right) strong, competent parties competing with one another. Marketplace of ideas and all that.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, with this iteration, knowing how off-the-deep-end the Republican Party has already gone, let them nominate the craziest. There's no way Obama loses to Perry/Bachmann/Gingrich/Santorum. Take it to the bank.
I don't think ideological extremism and unelectability are 100% correlated, as your question assumes. I'd like to see a GOPer who represents "the id of the Republican Party," as Jon Chait would put it, and then goes down in flames.
ReplyDeleteclassicist, the Republicans wouldn't make Mr. Potato Head Secretary of Agriculture because he isn't an agribusiness lobbyist. As far as I know. (Perhaps if he drops enough money on the RNC, they'd consider him for ambassador to Ireland.)
ReplyDeleteOn the original question, and assuming there's no new economic contraction or crisis, I'll sleep better next year if the nominee is anyone but Romney. Besides the fact that Huntsman might at least be reasonable and the others are unelectable (again, see previous caveat), Romney has a serious character flaw. One thing we should have learned by now is that candidates pretty clearly telegraph how they're going to screw up once in office. Nixon was creepy and paranoid, and we got secret bombings and black-bag jobs and criminal coverups. Carter was a micromanager, hence not suited for dealing with major crises such as he unfortunately faced. Reagan was uninformed, detached and given to rhetorical excess, and we got Iran-Contra and several hair-raising years of nuclear brinksmanship. Bush I seemed forgettable, and was. Clinton was a guy who obviously couldn't keep it zipped, and sure enough, he didn't. Bush II was (a) clueless and (b) uninterested in facts and being "reality-based," and we got our recent fantastical Middle Eastern adventures. Obama was obviously a guy unwilling to drive a hard bargain and take the fight to the other side. I don't know exactly what Romney would do wrong in office -- it depends on what situations arise -- but mark my words, if he's president, something will go seriously haywire thanks to his cynicism and total lack of real convictions. (If Gingrich is president, everything will go wrong, but I think his flaws are such that they'll destroy him before he gets there. Remember, he's never actually won an election -- among people, that is, as opposed to party colleagues -- in anything larger or more diverse than a Southern suburban congressional district.)
I want the GOP to nominate the most unelectable rightwing crank they can, so Obama's chances of winning will be good. Yes, I'm talking about Noot.
ReplyDeleteI want a moderate republican who inspires absolutely nobody, who the political press thinks is going to walk into the White House, and who begins to implode in late September, 2012, when it becomes obvious that no one likes said candidate. I do not want a right wing crank who then lures a Bloomberg or someone into the race.
ReplyDeleteI want Romney or Huntsman to win because they've in the past displayed a baseline degree of competence -- that will limit the downside risk. But one would also want them to have to say the craziest possible things on their slog to the nomination -- that way they've hurt their electability and Obama has the best possible chance of winning.
ReplyDeleteThose who are wishing for a more "moderate" Republican are living in a dream world. Any Republican victory will result in a House and Senate that is even more conservative. There will be no moderate policy no matter which Republican is elected. We can kiss the EPA and all our safety nets goodbye.
ReplyDeleteIf you had asked this question last week, when unemployment was apparently higher, I would have said the moderate one, figuring the election was lost.
ReplyDeleteNow, I see unemployment trending up well (I know, it's not ACTUAL unemployment/underemployment, but it IS the number that will get repeated on the news!), with it down .4% this month, and 3 straight months of decent, water-treading growth.
If the economy can keep bumping along like this, Obama might have a shot against any of the nutjobs (ie, not Romney). I think that, right around here is where the nominee choice would matter. However, given the whole European house of cards, and what seems to me like China's imminent retrenchment, I'm just not comfortable with chancing the presidency to one of these loons.
So, I have to say that I'd prefer the Republicans nominated Huntsman, but that's impossible. After him, Romney, even though that's tantamount to throwing in the towel on Obama. Finally, after Romney, it doesn't matter. At that point, I'm just kinda hoping the courts save us (not from the election results, but from the policies), and that's a pretty thin rope.
I am hoping the most Newtish candidate wins because whoever that is couldn't get elected in a two man race to city council.
ReplyDeleteOutside of the great Newt hope, this doesn't seem like the best framing for what is likely to happen. I would love for the most extreme candidate to win so as to lose in the general, but the three candidates best described as extreme are Santorum, Bachmann and Paul. I don't think any of these could win the general, but I also don't think they could win the nomination. If one somehow wins the nomination, it seems like it would awesome because I hope the American public wouldn't go for them at all.
I would be concerned if the moderate Huntsman won the nomination because in the current economic climate I think there is a good chance he would thump Obama. On the other hand, he will never be nominated either.
That leaves us with Romney and Perry. I prefer the moderate Romney to the more extreme Perry because I think Romney would be an acceptable president and I don't think the odds against Perry winning are high enough to balance out the disaster his presidency would be.
I think Romney in some ways is a better contrast with Obama than the others. The crazier Republicans can play the populist card and pretend to be for the working class against the coastal elite. But Romney is the 1% personified (and a good old fashioned jingoistic militarist, to boot). I don't know if he'd actually make a better president than the crazies, he probably wouldn't fight the right wing but he at least wouldn't use the Oval Office as a Fox News gig.
ReplyDeleteWe do need to win back the "white working class", the right way, not by stupid Mark Penn culture war stuff, but through a clear contrast of economic visions.
My dream candidates for challenging Obama would be (in order) Sarah Palin, followed closely by Herman Cain, followed closely by Michelle Bachmann. Nominating any of those people would not only practically hand the election to Obama but in all likelhood would provide us with the most awesomely bizarre and entertaining campaign disaster ever seen. I think Newt falls in that category too, and as JB has put it, he's probably the most plausible of the implausible nominees. I think there's actually a chance at this point that he could get the nomination, though I'm not holding my breath. I still think that barring unforeseen circumstances, this is Romney's nomination to lose. And that's too bad. I think Romney has a serious chance of defeating Obama, and I think a lot of people are fooling themselves if they think he'll govern like the moderate he once was. Romney is the political equivalent of silly putty, taking the shape of whatever container he's in, and while I'm more comfortable at the thought of him with access to the nukes than I am with almost any of the other members of this clown convention, the fact is that he'll be a Republican governing in the age of the Tea Party, and we've seen how that goes, even for old hacks like John Boehner.
ReplyDeleteIs it wishful thinking to consider the best-of-both-worlds possibility that the most moderate/reasonable/competent GOP candidate wins the nomination, but in doing so manages to fatally compromise his electability, having taken on extremist tactical positions?
ReplyDelete@PF
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's wishful thinking at all. The Tea Party has already dragged Romney way to the right, and although if he wins the nomination he'll attempt to pivot to the center as all nominees do, he might not have such an easy time shaking off some of his past remarks, and he'll still be under considerable pressure from the right, just as McCain was in 2008. While I think that overall he'd make the strongest nominee of the bunch, Perry might actually be stronger among Latinos, and Romney's recent attempts to demagogue on the immigration issue against Perry and Newt might come back to haunt him.
I think Obama might well triumph against Romney in the general election--I'm not writing off his reelection chances. I just think that it won't be easy to tell who the winner will be until well into next year, at least. If Newt somehow gets the nomination, we can just grab the popcorn.
I don't think Obama has much of a chance in this election, and either of Gingrich or Romney, albeit they're both unprincipled, careerist political hacks, will defeat him. So for you lefties then, it comes down to, which is best for the Left?
ReplyDeleteI'd say Gingrich. His honeymoon is gonna end 30 seconds after he's sworn in. EVERYBODY is gonna hate him, even if they turned away from Obama. You can see the way Congress is turning away from Obama now, and they'll continue that path with Gingrich. He'll be blunted, and his voice will become background noise, as Obama's now. The Congressional Left will be able to manage his appointees to effect, and he'll be channeled into his wonkish box, managing the bureaucracy, signing bills, with approval ratings same as Obama's.
Naturally, that instantly translates into a restive electorate, and the first offyear election becomes ripe for Left pickups in Congress, and will certainly minimize their Senate losses in 2014.
Then Hillary takes over in 2016. It's the perfect deal.
With respect to those who say that if a nutty right-wing Republican candidate loses, maybe this will lead the GOP to be more moderate, forget it!
ReplyDeleteIf Obama wins--and unlike some people here, I think that is a reasonable possibility provided the Euro crisis does not result in another 2008-style meltdown--the GOP base is going to say "We blew it because we didn't nominate a real conservative." Of course this will be true if Romney is nominated, but it will also be true if Gingrich is nominated (some conservatives who are willing to forgive/forget Gingrich's heresies now because they favor anyone-but-Mitt will suddently remember them if he loses to Obama) and even if Perry makes a comeback and is nominated ("he lost because conservatives wouldn't vote for someone who called them heartless on illegal immigration").
Moreover, this "we lost because we weren't conservative enough" meme will only be strengthened when the GOP on a very conservative program does well in the 2014 midterm elections, as they probably will, since progressives do not turn out much in midterm elections under a Democratic president (unless he is threatened by impeachment as in 1998).
So no matter who the GOP nominates in 2012, if he loses, the nominee in 2016 will be at least as conservative.
this thread has drifted onto a different, though related, topic, which is: if obama is going to lose, should he lose to an extremist crazy who will put the country off the extreme right for good?
ReplyDeletewhile it is tempting to wish the heightening of dialectic contradiction til the GOP implodes and a Democratic utopia is left behind, I remember having the same thought about Bush - and what tends to happen is that the Democrat then elected has sky-high expectations that he can't meet. And we're back to square one.
Given this, if Obama will lose i'd prefer huntsman or (realistically) romney. to come back to the original question though, I'd prefer Newt was nominated. As great as it would be for romney to get nominated then reveal so scandalous past not unearthed in previous presidential/gubernatorial campaigns, the question Jonathan asked is getting at the fact that Romney would be more likely to win, holding other things equal. And as much as I'd like to have my cake and eat it, with Romney such scandal is not guaranteed. It is with Newt. I have enough faith in the US electorate not to vote him into office. Hell, even the GOP hate him. But then, I would never have thought he'd be in with a shot of the nomination, so if he gets it maybe anything can happen. which is really quite scary.
I'm with smartypants, swain and bmoodie (and other like thinking commentors). If the GOP wins, we're screwed no matter who the GOP nominee is; if Obama wins, then the GOP will only start to move back to the center if they have an unequivocably "conservative" nominee. Gingrich meets that perception, Romney doesn't.
ReplyDelete