The following is part three of an extended series of posts that will analyze possible candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. These posts will take a look and who is likely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, not the general election. While 2012 may be long ahead, I will make these predication as practical and logical as possible.Today I will talk about two dark horse candidates, these may be names you are completely unaware of. Mississippi Govonor, Haley Barbour and former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Marco Rubio.
Haley Barbour
In all honesty, Barbour doesn't have too much going on for him at all. He does have executive experience which most successful presidential candidates have. He's also a strong conservative which the base loves. In the mid 1990s he was RNC chairman, a rather effective one too. He's from the south, which will be great in the primary election. He also comes off as charming, and he's not that old (he'll be 64 in 2012). On the flip side Barbour has a lot going against him. He's overweight and has a very thick southern accent, and while it's terrible, many Americans associate those things with a lack of intelligence. Among his party, he's unpopular. In July 2009, a Rassmussen Reports poll indicated that 34% of registered Republicans have a favorable view of him. However, 37% dislike him, which is the highest unfavorable percentage among 5 other possible Republican candidates for 2012: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty. Also, 21% of GOP voters would least like to see Barbour win the party nomination in 2012. Seriously, when you are losing to Cheney, there's a problem, but who knows, maybe he could change his image. There are also strong allegations that Barbour has personally profited from Hurricane Katrina recovery. Barbour has also received harsh criticism for his refusal to approve a bill to increase the cigarette tax and decrease the grocery tax passed the state House of Representatives. Mississippi currently has the third-lowest cigarette tax and the highest grocery tax—while being the poorest state in the country. Also Fred Thompson's campaign finance investigation found that Barbour, as RNC chair, was involved in illegally raising money from overseas sources.
Marco Rubio
Rubio is what I like to call the Obama of the GOP. Not only because he is very attractive and a minority (Cuban decent) but because he is very charismatic. Compared to every other possible candidate I've done so far, this guy blows them out of the water when it comes to speaking, the only one who comes close is Romney. I mean when I heard this guy speak, I knew this guy could possibly be some serious trouble for Obama down the road. He's also very young (he'll be 42 in 2012), don't forget, youth represents change. He is a very strong fiscal conservative, which the base will eat up. He also doesn't have any dirt on his record, and he's popular in his state, which is a big swing state. On the negative he has no name recognition, and if he doesn't become Senator in 2010 (he's running against Crist) he basically has no chance in hell. He also has no executive experience. He's a poor fundraiser, and like Bobby Jindal, he's Cathloic which could be a problem with the Evanglical base.
Conclusion
So there you have it, two dark horse candidates. Barbour is highly unlikely, and he really doesn't have anything going on for him. While his personality may seem charming, he's known around town to be quite corrupt. Plus he's an old fat white southerner, which is an image the GOP wants to get away from. But who knows, dark horses can get elected, and even win the presidency (Look at Franklin Pierce). Rubio is a serious force to be reckoned with if he becomes Senator. In fact, if he becomes Senator, and he chooses to run, I would put all my money on Rubio. But again, that's a big if, Crist will probably win the seat anyways. It doesn't mean Rubio will be out though, just down.
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Next Republican Presidenital Candiate (Part 2)
The following is part two of an extended series of posts that will analyze possible candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. These posts will take a look and who is likely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, not the general election. While 2012 may be long ahead, I will make these predication as practical and logical as possible. I will discuss the pros and cons of two potential candidates today, Florida Governor, Charlie Crist and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney.
Charlie Crist
Charlie Crist is a very strong candiate and is definatly on the radar. He has a bi-partisan record which most voters, even party members like. Crist is also seen by the media as an intelligent person, and a very rational politician, he's also a good public speaker. He is also a very popular govonor, in a big state, the Flordia delegates would be in the bag for him. Crist is planning on running for Senate in 2010, and if he wins, he'll be able to say he has legislative and executive experience, something very few candidates have both of. Recently, Senator Mel Martinez of Flordia has announced that he will be resigning his position which means Crist gets to replace him. Crist could appoint himself, or someone he could easily beat in a primary next year and hopefully beat the Democratic nomination (most likely African American Congressmen Meek). However, like evry candiate, Crist does have some drawbacks. He is sort of a moderate, which in a presidential primary isn't the best thing. There are some serious rumors that Crist is a homosexual, which doesn't help in the Republican base, though these rumors are not necessarily true, I do think Crist's sexuality will be a factor in his potential presidential run, and the media will talk about it.
Mitt Romney
Romney is obviously a front runnner, many Republicans say that if he were the nominee rather than McCain, Barack Obama would not be president now. Romney is very popular among fiscal conservatives which is a great thing in a presidential primary. He also is an excellent fundraiser, and he has a lot of money himself, he should have no problems with money. He is an excellent debater, probably the best debater in the 2008 Presidential Primary debates, and a great speaker too. Romney has a few problems however. for starters, he's a Mormon, which for many Evangelical voters is a strong negative. In Iowa, Romney lost to Huckabee, even though he out spent him 20 to 1 (also don't forget, Mitt didn't get second to McCain, Huckabee did). I personally believe this was because he was a Mormon and many voters in the primary were uncomfortable with that which is a shame. Romney also did horribly in the South, which is a major problem. Of course, being a multi millionaire isn't something many voters can relate to, and he's beginning to get a little old.
Conclusion
Crist is an obvious front runner even if he doesn't become a Senator, defiantly keep an eye out on him. Romney might be the most overrated candiate of all, because although he's qualified and what not, him being a Mormon will haunt him forever. But I certainly wouldn't count out Romney (expect to possibly see him on the bottom of the ticket). Don't put your money on Romney, put it on Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Charlie Crist
Charlie Crist is a very strong candiate and is definatly on the radar. He has a bi-partisan record which most voters, even party members like. Crist is also seen by the media as an intelligent person, and a very rational politician, he's also a good public speaker. He is also a very popular govonor, in a big state, the Flordia delegates would be in the bag for him. Crist is planning on running for Senate in 2010, and if he wins, he'll be able to say he has legislative and executive experience, something very few candidates have both of. Recently, Senator Mel Martinez of Flordia has announced that he will be resigning his position which means Crist gets to replace him. Crist could appoint himself, or someone he could easily beat in a primary next year and hopefully beat the Democratic nomination (most likely African American Congressmen Meek). However, like evry candiate, Crist does have some drawbacks. He is sort of a moderate, which in a presidential primary isn't the best thing. There are some serious rumors that Crist is a homosexual, which doesn't help in the Republican base, though these rumors are not necessarily true, I do think Crist's sexuality will be a factor in his potential presidential run, and the media will talk about it.
Mitt Romney
Romney is obviously a front runnner, many Republicans say that if he were the nominee rather than McCain, Barack Obama would not be president now. Romney is very popular among fiscal conservatives which is a great thing in a presidential primary. He also is an excellent fundraiser, and he has a lot of money himself, he should have no problems with money. He is an excellent debater, probably the best debater in the 2008 Presidential Primary debates, and a great speaker too. Romney has a few problems however. for starters, he's a Mormon, which for many Evangelical voters is a strong negative. In Iowa, Romney lost to Huckabee, even though he out spent him 20 to 1 (also don't forget, Mitt didn't get second to McCain, Huckabee did). I personally believe this was because he was a Mormon and many voters in the primary were uncomfortable with that which is a shame. Romney also did horribly in the South, which is a major problem. Of course, being a multi millionaire isn't something many voters can relate to, and he's beginning to get a little old.
Conclusion
Crist is an obvious front runner even if he doesn't become a Senator, defiantly keep an eye out on him. Romney might be the most overrated candiate of all, because although he's qualified and what not, him being a Mormon will haunt him forever. But I certainly wouldn't count out Romney (expect to possibly see him on the bottom of the ticket). Don't put your money on Romney, put it on Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Next Republican Presidential Candiate (Part 1)
The following is part one of an extended series of posts that will analyze possible candidates for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. These posts will take a look and who is likely to win the Republican Presidential Nomination, not the general election. While 2012 may be long ahead, I will make these predication as practical and logical as possible. I will discuss the pros and cons of two potential candidates today, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Bobby Jindal
Jindal is not your average politician. For starters, he's very young and has a fresh face, this is a good thing, youth in politics transcends well with voters because often times they are more likely to believe new ideas can come from new politicians. This was one of the main reasons Obama not only beat McCain, but Hillary as well. Jindal also comes from a very modest family background, he is a first generation American who's parents came from India, he represents the American dream, hard work leads to good reward. From a regional perspective Jindal is a good (not great) candidate, he may not be from a swing state, or even a swing region but he is from the south and a moderately large state (he also polls pretty well in his state), which represents a strong constituency in the Republican base, he will need those delegates. Jindal is also known for being a staunch conservative, which in a general election may not be best thing; however, in a primary race it is very important.
The Governor does have some tough hurdles to get over. For starters he wasn't always a Christian, until Jindal was 15, he was a Hindu. This could put off Evangelical voters who a large chunk of the Republican base (and 40% of Republicans in Iowa, the very first contest). Also even though he is a Christian, he is a Catholic who are seen by many Evangelicals as spiritually misguided. His parents are still Hindu, this could be another conflict for Jindal. His faith is going to have to be something he will have to confront on the campaign, which could turn into a huge distraction. Being a former Hindu, and a practicing Catholic will instantly turn off thousands of Evangelical voters which will be a major problem in Iowa and south Carolina, two very important contests. Another problem with Jindal are his speaking abilities, many people question if his speaking abilities are good. His response to the President's State of the Union address was widely seen as poor by conservatives and liberals.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich is a very experienced politician which helps him in many ways. For starters it has made him an excellent speaker, aside from Sarah Palin (whom I will speculate about her chances in the future), he is probably the most charismatic speaker who actually has a shot. It's not just public speaking either, it's his off the cuff stump speeches and interviews too. Gingrich's experience is responsible for the strong connections he has who will help him fund raise, which is very important in an election (The money will really help in New Hampshire). His experience has also made him very politically aware, Gingrich is an intellectual. Similar to Jindal, the former Speaker comes from the South (Georgia) which is helpful geographically. And while Gingrich is a Cathloic like Jindal, he was always a Christian, and will probably not have the same problems Jindal will have in that area.
Newt's long political career is filled with a lot baggage. In 1992, Gingrich bounced 22 checks when he along with other congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, this is something that certainly can cause trouble. Gingrich also has had his fair share of problems with women which could cause problems with the Evanglical base, he was married 3 times, and he pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. That's just the surface of the Gingrich scandals. He's also old, we all remeber what happened to the last 72 year old who ran for president, he lost in an electoral landslide. Gingrich has also been a staunch defender of the Bush Administration, which in a post 2008 political landscape is very unpopular.
Conclusion
Jindal and Gingrich are both very unique candidates, as well as talented politicians but they both are extreme. One is too young, the other is too old. Gingrich is involved in moral scandals and Jindal is going to have a serious conflict with the religious right because of his past. They aren't totally out of the question, I mean they aren't dark horses (Chuck Hagel, Mark Sanford, etc.) but I certainly wouldn't put my money on them.
Bobby Jindal
Jindal is not your average politician. For starters, he's very young and has a fresh face, this is a good thing, youth in politics transcends well with voters because often times they are more likely to believe new ideas can come from new politicians. This was one of the main reasons Obama not only beat McCain, but Hillary as well. Jindal also comes from a very modest family background, he is a first generation American who's parents came from India, he represents the American dream, hard work leads to good reward. From a regional perspective Jindal is a good (not great) candidate, he may not be from a swing state, or even a swing region but he is from the south and a moderately large state (he also polls pretty well in his state), which represents a strong constituency in the Republican base, he will need those delegates. Jindal is also known for being a staunch conservative, which in a general election may not be best thing; however, in a primary race it is very important.
The Governor does have some tough hurdles to get over. For starters he wasn't always a Christian, until Jindal was 15, he was a Hindu. This could put off Evangelical voters who a large chunk of the Republican base (and 40% of Republicans in Iowa, the very first contest). Also even though he is a Christian, he is a Catholic who are seen by many Evangelicals as spiritually misguided. His parents are still Hindu, this could be another conflict for Jindal. His faith is going to have to be something he will have to confront on the campaign, which could turn into a huge distraction. Being a former Hindu, and a practicing Catholic will instantly turn off thousands of Evangelical voters which will be a major problem in Iowa and south Carolina, two very important contests. Another problem with Jindal are his speaking abilities, many people question if his speaking abilities are good. His response to the President's State of the Union address was widely seen as poor by conservatives and liberals.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich is a very experienced politician which helps him in many ways. For starters it has made him an excellent speaker, aside from Sarah Palin (whom I will speculate about her chances in the future), he is probably the most charismatic speaker who actually has a shot. It's not just public speaking either, it's his off the cuff stump speeches and interviews too. Gingrich's experience is responsible for the strong connections he has who will help him fund raise, which is very important in an election (The money will really help in New Hampshire). His experience has also made him very politically aware, Gingrich is an intellectual. Similar to Jindal, the former Speaker comes from the South (Georgia) which is helpful geographically. And while Gingrich is a Cathloic like Jindal, he was always a Christian, and will probably not have the same problems Jindal will have in that area.
Newt's long political career is filled with a lot baggage. In 1992, Gingrich bounced 22 checks when he along with other congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money, this is something that certainly can cause trouble. Gingrich also has had his fair share of problems with women which could cause problems with the Evanglical base, he was married 3 times, and he pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. That's just the surface of the Gingrich scandals. He's also old, we all remeber what happened to the last 72 year old who ran for president, he lost in an electoral landslide. Gingrich has also been a staunch defender of the Bush Administration, which in a post 2008 political landscape is very unpopular.
Conclusion
Jindal and Gingrich are both very unique candidates, as well as talented politicians but they both are extreme. One is too young, the other is too old. Gingrich is involved in moral scandals and Jindal is going to have a serious conflict with the religious right because of his past. They aren't totally out of the question, I mean they aren't dark horses (Chuck Hagel, Mark Sanford, etc.) but I certainly wouldn't put my money on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)