It is often said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In America these days there appears to be a growing uncertainty amongst those who want President Obama defeated in November 2012 as to who would be the best Republican candidate.
Obama’s foot soldiers in the mainstream media are convinced that Jon Huntsman is the best candidate for the GOP. Any serious person should be most wary of their opinions because their ultimate goal is clear.
But still, the question of whether a true conservative candidate is electable is running through the minds of many on the Right. Several recent polls suggest that the likes of Bachmann and Palin cannot defeat Obama. However, if we look back 31½ years ago, something very interesting can be found. Back then, 7 months before the election, polls indicated that Jimmy Carter lead Ronald Reagan by an enormous 25 percentage points. Yet we all know what eventually happened.
The America of 2012 is arguably in a lot worse financial shape than in 1980. Indeed, life was not grand back then either, with unemployment & interest rates through the roof. While the latter is not the case right now, the former definitely is. Plus, America’s overall fiscal position is in much worse shape, with its debt at truly frightening levels.
Can a true conservative candidate get elected President in 2012? With America’s financial situation in terrible shape, and getting worse, and a sitting president unwilling to deviate from his Far Left Spend-Spend-Spend mantra, the odds seem probable.
h/t Mark Levin & Ken Kulak
I always say, if you are just going to nominate someone who is going to vote with the democrats, ehen why even bother? That is why Christine O’Donnell was the right candidate over Mike Castle. Castle would have been like having no republican candidate at all, just two democrats.
It is too late for the last anglo superpower. Too many now are dependent on the Government, including the ones that truly are concerned: The TEA party supporters for whom the majority are boomers and pensioners.
The western world is broke, tied at the hip by globalization with a paper tiger (China) buying most of the debt.
The US Federal Reserve will keep printing money for now and it’s partner, the IMF will keep “stimulating” until the paper tiger gets enough military might and says goodbye Greenback bucks.
The big picture…?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_gov_spending_histry_by_function_1902_2010.png
Regardless of candidate, I am wondering why I don’t hear more about government spending as a % of GDP. We hear a lot about how the “ultra rich” aren’t taxed enough, but overall government has managed to take more and more of what people earn in total.
This appears to be true for most western nations, but it’s hard to find a chart with nice breakdowns like this for other countries.
There is this publication:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/62918/sample/9780521662918wsn01.pdf
Which has the basic percentage for a number of countries charted over the past 100 years or so.
Canada would be:
1920 16.7%
1937 25.0%
1960 28.6%
1980 38.8%
1990 46.0%
1996 47.7%
According to Wikipedia, in 2011 Canada was at 40%. Not sure if that’s being calculated the same way though.
I’m just a bit surprised that Googling this didn’t lead to a bunch of articles on various sites we like to frequent. 🙂
Ron Paul, Perry, and Romney fare well against Obama: Gallup Poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
Without closer examination of the Republican candidates, anyone racing against Obama has a chance. The man has so tanked the country that only the weakest-willed voter would take a chance on him again.
Just my thoughts.
Sorry but I can’t disagre with you more greyone. Having Mike Castle, Sue Lowden, etc. as candidates would be have been like having a GOP controlled Senate, and having Harry Reid living out a quiet retirement in Parhump. It would mean GOP Committie Chairman, instead of just “Ranking Member” status. It would mean we control the agenda of the Senate. Think what that would have meant during the recent debt limit fight.
One of the first rules of politics is that a drastic need for acation does NOT equate a need for drastic action. Example, Amelia Earhart may have only about 5 miles off in her navigation, a fraction of a degree. That error REALLY needed to be fixed,(not fixing it proved fatal after all) but fixing that error wouldn’t have require a massive overhaul of everything with lots of drama and panic, just a small course correction. It’s the same thing with surgery, you cut the tumor out of the patient, but you don’t chop off whole limbs if you don’t absoultely have to.
As for the 1980 Campaign comparison, I think the analogy misses out on Reagan’s unique personal appeal, something Bachman and Palin don’t have. Reagan could be funny, but he was NEVER “goofy”. He always maintained a sense of dignity. In the debates with Carter it was obvious that even though Carter was the POTUS, Reagan was the adult in the room.
In bad times people look for adult leadership. They look for someone they respect, someone who has “Gravitas”, who engenders respect as a serious person, someone who is stable, thoughtful, who means what they say and who the bad guys will actually be afraid of. Regan had that. Lady Thathcer had that. Perry has it. Romney looks like someone who has it. As much as I like Palin, neither she, nor Bachman, nor Gingrich, nor Santorum, nor Ron Paul have that.
A true conservative CAN get elected in 2012, but not a nutty one.
The reason the right has such a hard time come elections is because the listen to the left biased press to much. After doing so not being confident in their stance the try to fit in leftist policies into their platform. This is a straight out losing proposition. You can not out socialize a socialist. Stick to the right leaning platform and start talking the truth about what the progressive socialist agenda really means. People are not dumb. They will recognize the truth and we will win.
Huntsman looks like Jimmy Bakker and sounds like the average Democrat in denial.
His “consensus science ” remark alone was enough to alert any conservative that this guy is another red tory,and the U.S. needs him like they need another four years of Obama.
Maybe these unwieldy Nations have outgrown their usefulness,and it’s time to split up into smaller constituencies that believe in whatever,capitalism,socialism, communism,fascism,and run their Country the way they like,without asking others to enable them.
The current incumbent,and the Opposition candidates give little hope for any real solution to the USA’s mess,just more of the same old.
Polling at this stage allows disinterested voters to show preferences not related to reality. They know it isn’t the real thing. Bachmann, Paul, or Palin actually running against Obama is a different proposition and I question the integrity of anyone close to the Republicans voting for Obama over anyone (man, woman, or beast) winning the Republican nomination. Allowing the media to sway the nomination process is how they got McCain. He was DOA and even if he had won, the US would be no better off today.
Polling at this stage allows disinterested voters to show preferences not related to reality. They know it isn’t the real thing. Bachmann, Paul, or Palin actually running against Obama is a different proposition and I question the integrity of anyone close to the Republicans voting for Obama over anyone (man, woman, or beast) winning the Republican nomination. Allowing the media to sway the nomination process is how they got McCain. He was DOA and even if he had won, the US would be no better off today.
I can’t find the link to this but it’s still very interesting…
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota,
points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds:
“In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned
by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy”
phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy,
with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached
the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s
– and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
@ Osumashi Kinyobe
Good thoughts except people with some understanding of the fiscal situation are outnumbered by folks that want their freebees and food stamps.
Republican means facing reality and pain.
Democrat means handouts and more nanny state.
Logic means nothing when the OJ Simpson jury votes.
What is SDA’s opinion on Gary Johnson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Personally I agree with many of his positions, and as a bonus he even climbed Everest 😛
I still think Bachman and Palin have no chance. They just say too many stupid things. Ron Paul would be the best person for the job, but he’s not electable either. I don’t know enough about Perry yet, but you can be sure the left will characterize him as a gun-toting Jesus freak if he wins the nomination. I’m simply amazed that the Republicans can’t find someone of Stephen Harper’s calibre – calm, intelligent, educated, and forceful without being bombastic.
I still think Chris Christie would be the best man to run, but he’s ruled it out; I think he’s biding his time for 2016.
Oh, and William in Ajax, thanks for those statistics. Very thought provoking.
I see, PeterJ.
My point was that people are so fed up with Obama, anyone could fit the bill for president. This is not to say that the candidates in question are qualified or not, only that four years is a long time.
I’m a conservative white male and I’m still looking for a good candidate. Romney & Huntsman…. I might just stay home for the difference it would make. Palin & Bachman ….. U.S. is still not ready for a woman president. Paul & Cain….. good VP material.
Perry, jury still out on him but I’m not overly enthused. Point is, a real leader has not yet come forward. Very disappointing for people like me.
Only a President that will be perceived as a crazy evil nut-job in the eyes of the media will have the focus to get the job of shrinking government done. Why are people looking for perfection in media relations. Stephen Harper is shrewed, nuanced and can handle the media but he hasn’t done anything but grow government and debt in a nation where even the F…… Liberals balanced the budget. A squishy, well spoken, reach across the aisle, moderate Republican President will only attain the honor of presiding over the final chapter of the republic.
I suspect that if the Republican candidate tells it like it is, promises to cut spending and live within their means, the entitlement minded sheeple will re-elect Obama. Nothing alienates a voter more than taking away his/her handouts. Just ask Greece.
Actually, people like http://www.shadowstats.com/ claim that under Carter-era record keeping, the USA has higher inflation and higher unemployment now than during the Carter years.
The system for measuring both were changed over the years, and the numbers we have today are not really comparable to old numbers.
John Chittick:
WTF are you talking about? Harper paid down debt in both 2006 and 2007. He could have done more, but he decided to give us more of our own money to spend by cutting the GST from 7 to 5% over two years, and implementing income tax cuts. If he’d kept the GST at 7%, he’d have had an extra 6 billion a year to cut down the debt. But he kept his election promise instead (and in the process, put all future governments in a box – think any government that raises the GST will get re-elected?).
Things kind of changed in 2008, and Harper and Flaherty showed the flexibility to deal with the situation, arguably better than any OECD country.
William in Ajax
That is the result of the US bizarre “electoral college” system…
Still OBOZO got only 52% of the popular vote(not a landslide in a 2 horse race) and his base is weakening…
The hard hard lefties are not satisfied that he did’nt do more(worse).
The blacks and entitlement crowd didn’t get their unreasonable expectations fulfilled…that gal is still waiting for her car payments and mortgage payments and she is pi$$ed. The illegals are still illegal…
This election is important globally. Imagine a world where the US reduced to the statis of Argentina…..
Reagan won in 1980 because he embraced conservative policies and clearly communicated them.
Carter successfully communicated lack and limitation.
Obama is better at communicating that message of failure then Carter was.
Thus, Cheney could beat Obama.
Imagine a world where the US reduced to the statis of Argentina…..
Posted by: sasquatch at August 24, 2011 12:31 AM
We no longer have to imagine. We are there and pretending it is not happening. Almost a third of all mortgages underwater. 45 million on food stamps. The real unemployment figure estimated at over 20%.
Unforseen consequences for outsourcing thousands of factories and kicking millions of well paid workers to the curb, only to become instant liabilities chasing dreams that have moved to China and India. All the great minds in Washington know where we are at but have no idea where we are going. What worked in the past is not working now. Expectations from government meant little more than soup kitchens in the past and now the expectations are all inclusive to rival a living standard just slightly below what is considered middle class. Good luck to any politician that wants to go back to the soup kitchen model. The nanny state was created by activists and activists never quit unless forced to quit. I don’t see the will in Washington to bring the ship back to a even keel. The entitlements are all so entrenched, yet unaffordable , that only common sense will save the country. That is the rarest endowment of the political mind. People like Ron Paul have some of the solutions, but those solutions are bitter medicine and the voting public is not ready to accept the fact that the unsinkable USA Titanic is actually going down. Obama is denying that the ship has even hit a iceberg and is still blaming the Bush construction company for the noticeable list in the water.
The very simple fact that gold is over $1900. per ounce tells us that the rats have already deserted the ship. I expect the ship to keep sinking over the next 15 months and then we will see if democracy can limp into port or slide beneath the waves. Neither Obama or Romney is the answer……..but we still have 15 months.
Maybe.
KevinB
Harper’s record, as you alluded, has been one of government growth. Since Goodale’s last Liberal budget, program spending (through the 2011 budget) has risen 59%, and the debt has increased 21%. Canada’s economic resilience can likely accommodate that size of temporary structural government growth (witnessed by a balanced budget projection within the reasonably foreseeable future). Canada can therefore afford that kind of “conservatism”. The US cannot, as Peterj (is that you, Jaws?) has pointed out, Atlas is more or less shrugging and will only recover from the painful shrinkage of the entitlement and regulatory leviathan.
Obama can run on his record, or he can run against Bush, but he’s not going to win.
He said we had some bad luck. We’re going to elect someone with better luck. The stench of failure is on him. It wouldn’t matter if he had the answers. He is done.
Posted by: John Chittick at August 24, 2011 1:25 PM
Not Jaws but I’ll take that as a compliment. Have not heard from him since WS shut down. You are certainly correct in that Atlas is shrugging.