An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

In the Year 2012, the Republicans…

If you’re already thinking ahead to 2012 — and, honestly, who isn’t? — check out Chris Cillizza’s post at The Fix on “ten Republicans to watch.”

The big names, of course, are Palin, Romney, and Huckabee, but only Romney makes the list, and rightly so. As I have said before, I think Palin’s star will fade markedly over the next few years. Huckabee will continue to be a leading figure among the theocrats, but I suspect Republicans will go for old-fashioned pro-market economics in 2012, not radical social conservatism. Romney has the business-oriented bona-fides, but of course he just isn’t all that trusted among Republicans, and certainly not among conservatives, as we saw in the primaries. He’ll have the will, the money, and the organization, not to mention the Mormon Church, which proved its influence in the Prop. 8 vote in California, but I think both the party establishment and grassroots activists will look elsewhere.

There are some interesting names on the list, but, to me, the stand-outs are Eric Cantor, Mark Sanford, and John Thune. Jindal, a party celebrity, is at the top of the list, and conservatives certainly seem to like him, but he strikes me as one of those figures who will always be the future of the GOP, never the present (to borrow that fantastic line from The Contender: “You’re the future of the Democratic Party, and you always will be,” President Evans (Jeff Bridges) tells Governor Hathaway (William Petersen)). Given how Republicans like to scare up public fear of the Other (e.g., Obama as somehow un-American), it would be interesting to see how they would respond to a serious run by Jindal, but they’re likely to go with someone more typical, not a “new face.”

Cantor, being Jewish, is an Other, too, but, as I wrote back in August, he’s got a lot going for him. Meanwhile, Sanford and Thune are solid conservatives who have already made names for themselves on the national scene. Thune, like all senators, will suffer from being just one of 100, while Sanford is the new chair of the Republican Governors Association. (Note that Bush had the solid support of Republican governors for his 2000 run, as this 1999 article by Margaret Carlson at CNN.com shows. It helps to have them behind you, and, in a few years, if not already, they may prefer Sanford to Palin.)

Others will emerge, of course, but, as of right now, I’d say Cantor, Sanford, and Thune are the ones to watch (with Sanford most of all). That is, when you’re not still watching Palin.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

  • superdestroyer
    Who cares about th eRepulbicans in 2012. They will lose more seats in the House and SEante in 2010 and after redistricting in 2010, will lose even more more seats in the house in 2012. No matter who they nominate, the Republicans will not get one more black, hispanic, jewish, gay or single female vote than the Repubicans received in 2008. Since married whites will be a smaller portion of the population in 2012 than in 2008, the Republicans will have even lss chance of winning then.

    The next relavent president election will be in 2016 when Obama successor will be choosen sometime between the Iowa caucuses and the Democratic SuperTuesday primaries since by 2016 the entire Republican nominating process will be irrelevant.
  • I really think 2012 is too early for the Republicans to reverse their "downward momentum," so to speak. But I disagree with superdestroyer that the election of Obama and a broad Democratic majority in Congress means the end of the two party system. There have been instances in the past where the same party has controlled the executive and legislative branches, and yet the two party system remained intact. (Shameless self-promotion: I already wrote about the Republicans' future right here.)
  • AsherJ
    PattonGuy, but the present is quite unlike the past, in terms of demographics. You have expanding demographics, blacks and hispanics, who are completely bought and paid for by the Democrat Party, since those two voting blocs have managed to leverage their vote as a whole into massive resource transfers to themselves. Note, that I am not morally condemning this behavior since it is perfectly economically rational.

    The Republican Party needs to get 70+ percent of the vote just to compete nationally and I don't see any current Republicans going about looking for a platform to achieve this.
  • kritt11
    When the Democrats have been the majority party in the past, they have seldom rubber-stamped the president's policies. The Carter years and LBJ years come to mind. I'm sure Obama will start with a great honeymoon. Then factions will split the Democratic party and the Blue Dogs may side with the Republicans if policy gets too liberal.

    Also- I believe that there was a great anti-Bush vote in the last two elections, and many seats in the GOP were lost because members chose not to run again or were enveloped in scandal. Eventually, the Democrats will face some losses from the latter two. I have no doubt the Republicans will be there to capitalize.
  • msultfs
    We're in deep trouble. Obama is a Socialist and is completely ruining this country
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice/Joe Gandelman | Designed by Elegant Themes | Customized by Tyrone Steels II/Enxit Group, LLC