E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWe now know the 2010 winners and losers, and the election, for the most part, is over... just in time for the press and politicos to start breathlessly hypothesizing about the next one – and the all-important 2012 presidential primary.
But before you start filling out your GOP candidate brackets, it’s worth remembering the heady days of winter 2006, when Democrats had thundered to victory in the midterms and pundits were frenetically handicapping the upcoming contests in the race to replace President George W. Bush.
It’s safe to say the chatter in the weeks after that election was often short of terrifically informative.
In mid-November 2006, pollsters found that New York mayor Rudy Giuliani would run away with the Republican presidential nomination – especially if the second most popular GOP choice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, decided to pass on a run.
Few polls even included the eventual winner of the Iowa caucuses, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. And in at least seven surveys that month, Mitt Romney’s support languished in single digits, behind a man who eventually passed on a run -- Newt Gingrich.
On the Democratic side, a flurry of surveys in November 2006 showed Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by double digits. Also winning a substantial chunk of support was former Vice President Al Gore.
No public polls showed Obama with a lead over Clinton until early 2008.
Clinton, at the time, was being quizzed by reporters about rumors that she might choose to become Senate majority leader instead of making a presidential run at all.
The day after the midterm election, the Associated Press labeled then-Sen. Barack Obama “an intriguing wild card” in the ’08 contest, although it remained unclear whether or not he would run. But experts were also quick to muse about the unlikelihood that a senator – especially a freshman with little experience – could win the presidency, noting historical trends that favor governors instead.
Also that week, Sen. Russ Feingold, who had been talked about as a candidate, tweaked the prevailing conventional wisdom when he said he saw the Democratic surge as a sign to back away from a presidential run. “I saw the result Tuesday and thought ‘What a great opportunity to do my work in the Senate,’” he said.
And two days after the midterm elections, the first Democratic hopeful filed the paperwork to make his run official, declaring that the elections showed that people “want leaders who share their values, understand their needs, and respect their intelligence … that’s what I intend to do as president.”
That would-be nominee? Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Some speculated that Vilsack could win his home state caucuses – either negating their results entirely or launching him to national name recognition. He dropped out of the race with relatively little fanfare just three months later.
There was one early guess that turned out to be right -- after it was wrong, that is.
Sen. John McCain was considered the institutional frontrunner for the nomination in 2006, although many GOP strategists fretted that his bipartisan overtures on immigration and judicial nominations would scuttle his primary victory. Both turned out to ring true; his campaign barely had a pulse in the summer of 2007, only to be revived later in the year when he bested all of his rivals in the crowded GOP field.
Leave a Comment:
Mitt is the traditional, "next in line" and has money and an organization, but the tea party is going to have a big say in who the nominee will be. A LOT can happen in the next 18 months. A LOT has happened in the past 18...
I am still counting on Indiana governor Mitch Daniels.
We need somebody who has already saved a state, cut it's budget, tamed runaway spending, and remained popular enough tom win re election with 68% of the vote on the same night Obama barely carried the state.
Charisma? We have charisma. That is about all Obama has- not competence, certainly.
Interesting, though, that this site is now admitting that they do not know the republican field. Couple weeks ago, they were informing us that it was sad that the republicans had no presidential frontrunner.
NJNB,
He would have to step over Romney, and that just isn't done in the GOP...If the 2012 GOP convention doesn't turn into the 1968-72 democratic implosions, (and I have a suspicion that there is going to be one hell of a battle for the "soul" of the party waged over the next two years) then it being Mitch's "turn" he should be the top of the ticket.
This site isn't exactly the first place to go for politi...oh wait, that's their slogan, isn't it?
Well, we will see, dangerfield. We will see.
Should be interesting, though.
Mitch sounds like a guy I could vote for.
I'd love to see a debate between Daniels, Romney and Palin. They would utterly destroy the mama griz. I'd also like to see a challenge from the left in the dem primary. Feingold/Grayson in 2012? As a looney lefty myself, I'd love to see it. Feingold made the wrong choice when he dropped out before.
Hmmm...interesting choices, however, you are all wrong. I cant tell you, or I would have to kill you
njnbnj, who in the hell is mitch daniels, have never heard of this person and i do follow along closer than most?
Republican governor of Indiana. Took office with a huge deficit and dysfunctional government. Balanced the budget, tamed the state workforce, and did it all while retaining enough popularity to be re elected by 68% of the electorate.
Mitch Daniels balanced the budget in my state of indiana buy privatizing government instituitions. He took state workers jobs and handed them over to the private sector. Lowering the governments spending thus lowering the budget. Don't get too carried away with what "he did". Also Indiana has had and continues to have one of the nations highest unemployment rates, mostly due to the auto industry. That has not been "fixed". It just goes to show that it doesn't matter which party you are for or against. Government cannot fix the economy..... Banks and lending institutions have to loan the money. There are plenty of hard working people with good jobs that cannot buy houses right now because the banks want perfect credit / no risk borrowers. The governments mistake was to assume that if they bailed out the banks and wall street they would then in turn do the right thing and loan the money out. Instead they used it to buy other banks and make a fortune as the stock market went from 8000 to 11000. Capitalizm is great as long and the people in charge have a sense of moral ethics. When they don't..... you get what we got. There has to be some control.
Kyla, he is the governor of Indiana......pay no mind to nojo her flights into reality are getting fewer and fewer.
You're starting to sound like Feisty.
Again...
How many times do we have to tell you that we've known NJNB and her bullsh!t longer than I care to admit..
Sorry if you weren't around then...
Hate to break it to you ED - but YOU don't have a corner on the snark market!
Like you said to me.. you don't own this board...
You can give NJNB all the hugs and kisses or what ever else it is she craves... the rest of us will continue to point out what a serial liar she is!
Nuff said!
The mid terms have just concluded. Too early to see just who will run for the nominations. just more MSNBC hype to refrain from talking about the Obama smackdown. The man just can't do "humble".
Fiesty, you are dummer than dog snot! Hopefully, you will have this comment removed fromt he board.
Gingerbread Mamma
You are at once helpful to someone who obviously has a loose definition of "closer than most", and a resentful gratuitous troll to someone else.
I therefore applaud you with one hand...
http://www.google.com/search?q=mitch+daniels+president+2012&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Now that's some funny stuff there little guy...
YOU of all people calling someone a troll!
Get down off the step ladder before you get ANOTHER nose bleed...
PS: How many teeth have you knocked out today of people that don't agree with you? Tough Guy!
Hillary will run in 2012.
This is doubtful... you have to remember that is she is part of the Obama administration (Secretary of State). If she ran, that would almost be like Biden trying to beat out Obama in the primaries. Rather, I think she'll stay on board the Obama ship and try her chances in 2016, whether or not Obama is re-elected.
Somehow, I can't imagine a 69 year old Hillary Clinton campaigning for president. Shades of Reagan and McCain.
She may not be around in 2016....have you seen her picture? She looks TERRIBLE!!!
Depending on the state of Afghanistan, Russ Fiengold. For the Republicans watch out for Chris Christie.
Condoleeza Rice and Marco Rubio would beat anything the Democrats put up against them. Talking her into running would be the tough part. She could sure repair the damage to the African American image that the current bigoted, egotistical, arrogant man that's holding the Office of President has bestowed upon them.
Bravo!
Your political acumen is second only to your insight as a social historian...
And all this time, I thought R. Kelly pissing on that minor, Ray Nagin ranting about New Orleans being a 'chocolate city' and the existence of Steve had been the major and recent blows to the image of American blacks, not Obama's presidency.
Thanks for clearing that up, Ron. Thanks so much.
It's a convenient time to dump on Obama. He'll be back and stronger than ever. What he's done already is an amazing American success story. People forget that. And he's smart. He'll figure it out. I don't think anyone has come into office recently with more and bigger problems to tackle. Things are rebounding and when jobs come back people will forget why they were bellyaching about Obama in '10.
Part of your comment is correct in that cestuart you said (what he has done is amazing), How he got elected is also amazing. This man is against America and seems ashamed that he is an American with his constant apologies to other nations. I have no idea who might run for President on the Repub side but I know there are a number of qualified people out there. The amazing part is that he has gotten our Nation into a position that has lost respect all over this world from not only US citizens but other countrys.
extend all Bush tax cuts permanently..........end of negotiations..................if they don't then the democrat controlled lame duck session will be responsible for tax increases on every American and that will be a reelection issue in 2012
It is my opinion that the influence of the "Tea Party Movement" certainly assisted the GOP in taking control of the House of Representatives - the push from the Movement could have been worth a dozen of the seats gained or more if viewed in isolation.
It is also my opinion that their selection of candidates as the election "moved up the ladder" to the Senate was simply disastrous. We all have inanimate objects that probably could have pulled off beating Senator Reid in Nevada - I'm still literally convinced former President George W. Bush (certainly President George H. W. Bush) could have run here and won. I really still don't know of anyone that actually voted FOR him (ok, maybe I don't hang out with all that many unionized workers). Everyone I've talked to that voted D voted AGAINST Ms. Angle (many of them also voted for Dr. Joe Heck...lol) - and she's been active in Nevada politics for many, many years - she's not exactly that "unknown out of the blue never been involved conservative outsider" that is the advertised face of the Tea Party Movement. Nor was Ms. O'Donnell in Delaware.
I find the input of that movement perhaps even less relevant to a higher office than Senator. Sure, conservatives from within the movement now perhaps have a greater voice during the candidate selection process - but I don't see a Tea Party Movement-backed Presidential candidate defeating a GOP-backed Presidential candidate in a series of national primaries...
The premise for this belief is simple math - if a candidate is mainstream enough to win the nomination, they're going to be the GOP candidate. If they're not mainstream enough to win (presumably selected by the Movement), of course - they won't win. You're not going to find an "outsider" candidate that can bring the entire country in line, and if they're just a regional or single-issue candidate, they're not going to carry the whole country. I doubt you're going to see the types of candidates you saw arguably cost the GOP control of the Senate in a Presidential election - and if you do, they don't make it through the first month or two of the campaign.
Billions of dollars were spent in the run up to Tuesday night. These expenditures are going to be analyzed - obvious mistakes were certainly made on all sides, and both parties (and several "movements") are probably going to try not to repeat them...lol
It is interesting that several of the Tea Party Senate candidates were the very people that the Democrats would have picked as opponents. Which Democrat, during primary season, wasn't rooting for Angle, O'Donnell, or Buck?
Ultimately, establishment Republicans won. Some, like Toomey, had Tea Party support, but the bottom line of this election was that the Republicans won Republican districts back, in a bad economy they won swing districts, and the Tea Party saved the Democrats in the Senate.
In the meantime, 27 of the losing Democrats had voted against Health Care Reform. Democrats voting against Obamacare were more likely to lose.
Republicans need to understand this election was about stopping obama and NOT a love affair with them.........there will be a third party candidate for certain (which means obama wins) if the same old republicans end up on the presidential ticket.............Romney is unelectable without tea party support and I am not certain he can get it...........he needs to start now working with them to see
3rd party challenges from the Libertarians on the right and the Greens on the left could make 2012 very interesting. And finally make the big guys take notice of the people for a change.
Here's How the Midterms will be Remembered 1,000 years from Now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlffdZtWOKc
Two things have caused the Democrats some serious problems with future elections. The recent Supreme court decision that allowed donors to fund politial ads without limitation, and the Democratic decision to force hedge funds to help fund a ,for the lack of a better term, slush fund to keep banks afloat shoud they appear to be in trouble. That would cost the Hedge Funds billions of dollars. Which party do you think they will support, now? Which Party do you think they supported in the last election? Take your time.
Ron Ron Ron...............the time for lying about everything is OVER the dems spent $1.3B the repubs spent $800M (you can google it or go to any left wing news org)
the dems money always come from unions
John, exactly what did I lie about? I don't believe I said the Republicans out spent the Democrats. I said the Democrats hurt themselves with the Hedge funds. Do you disagree with that assessment, or are you just inclined to call people liars? I'll clear it up for you. It is my opinion that the Democrats have been hurt by the 2 things that I listed above. Does that make me a liar, or make you an A$$.
they should extend all the bush tax cuts , but , then the democrats should drill it into the american voters minds that this is what the republicans want . The tax cuts didn't create any real jobs when they had them for ten years, what makes people think that they will work now. No, when they had those tax cuts for ten years , the flood gates opened up for them to move american jobs overseas , and they did . They will still move jobs overseas and take the tax payers money and run just like they did before . And then I wonder what the american people will think then about the republicans letting big corporations rape this country twice within twenty years. And it will happen.
Stoneemall, could you enlighten me. what was the total GDP figures for the period of 2000 til 2008. How many jobs were lost during that period? Somehow I remember 7 of those 8 years being pretty good. Am I wrong? Help me out.
They were all service sector jobs, you know minimum wage or slightly higher, manufacturing and good paying tech jobs were lost. Have you ever tried to call a tech for hewlett- packard, dell, microsoft ,I did and every time I did ,I talked to some one from India . Things that were manufactured in the U.s. are now made in mexico or china . Example , go to North Carolina and try to find a textile mill or furniture manufacturer , They're gone , have been for a few years . Let me ask you this , what jobs do you think are still in this country, Textile , Steel producers , furniture manufactureres. I worked at a furniture manufacturing plant before I became disabled ,guess where my plant is now ,Mexico, the reason it moved to mexico was so they could compete with american furniture company's that moved them to , China. I , personally and a lot of my fellow workers are benifactors of this free trade with china. And the gdp ,let me ask you this , what happened to it , and don't blame Obama , put the blame where it belongs , Wall Street, I don't know about you ,but my wife and I lost half of our savings thanks to the unregulated greed of wall street.
Interesting; gather the malcontents on both sides into one force. If we could keep from killing each other, it just might work :)
This was meant to be a reply to independentthinker.
overseas, overseas, overseas...puke.
If, as an example, an American company made bricks...and that American company put a factory in Liechtenstein or Angola to make bricks - and all those bricks that they made ended up being used in construction projects in...well...Liechtenstein or Angola - did we really lose any American jobs? We can all admit the cost of building those bricks in America and then the further expenditure of time actually shipping them to Liechtenstein would make it much more EFFICIENT to not do it that way.
So, if an American automaker builds a plant in China, builds a bunch of cars, and turns around and sells them in China - did we really lose any American jobs? What about a heavy equipment manufacturer? Someone who builds turbines?
Nobody's going to go out on a limb and say that all of the overseas movement of capital by American corporations is due to simple factors like shipping - but I'd love to see some statistics on just how much of the "relocation" that everyone is harping on is due to stuff like this. It's not always just about the $ - although if I produced bricks and I could manufacture them for $0.10 a brick in Mozambique or $1.00 a brick in the good old US of A, I'd have some thinking to do.
And, well, what about corporations from foreign countries that build manufacturing plants here for the same reason? Should we not be inviting them here to do that sort of thing - employing Americans as they do?
You make some good points Rob. I especially appreciate your last paragraph. The problem I have is the republicans and democrats have incentivized company relocation to other countries through tax policy. I believe we need to stop this incentive. Why reward companies for moving jobs overseas?
Why reward companies for moving jobs overseas?
Agree wholeheartedly, 100%. Any tax policy that would give an American corporation incentive to move those operations overseas (if the playing field is truly level and there are no other reasons for moving overseas) should be done away with for sure... As should any tax policy that penalizes an American corporation trying to compete on an equal footing with a corporation from another country in another country.
Exactly ,make free trade , fair trade. I'm from ohio, a democrat , a conservative democrat. But every time senator voinavich a republuican ,would run for office , I'd vote for him . I voted for him when he was our goveenor. This is what he did for ohio when he was govenor. He went to japan , and Compromised with japan this way ,since jobs from ohio were going from ohio to japan he negotiated a deal with honda to build two big assembly plants here in ohio and they are still going strong , that's all I'm saying , we should tell congress to go ahead and extend the tax cuts, but if any corporation that receives these cuts move any of their jobs overseas , they lose the tax cuts.
I am from Ohio too. Look at the state now. The Democrats got totally wiped out. They lost all of the state offices. They went from having 11 of the 18 House districts to now having 5 all around Cleveland. The only major Democratic office holder is the very far left Senator Sherrod Brown. He is up for re-election in 2012 and it doesn't look good for him. We lost far more jobs to southern states than we ever did to asia. The Democratic governor couldn't get Honda to build it's two newest assembly plants in Ohio. We need to address having one of the top three highest business tax rates in the country.
Rob and Indy – you are both right. Here is the true problem and why a solution is more elusive and actually not a partisan issue. Consider US based versus EU based companies. Boeing versus Airbus, SAP versus Oracle, Shell or BP versus Exxon and Nestle versus Mars. These are all large successful companies that want to do business in global markets. All want to sell in the US and Europe and return their profits back to their headquarters. All have some jobs that are consolidated for efficiency and may reside in cheap labor markets or in other cases in their home territory. All the US based companies are at an immediate disadvantage. The profits from their overseas operations, selling their goods and services are taxed at different rates with the US among the highest in the world. This is due to tax policy on profits from overseas operations. If it were not taxed, the proceeds would be returned into the US headquarters. Due to the high tax, each of these company executives, who are accountable to their shareholders, must consider expanding their operations overseas as opposed to returning the dollars, pay the tax and either investing them in people, products or even a dividend or share buyback. Since the tax is a waste compared to spending more dollars overseas, a better value for the shareholders, the dollars end up creating jobs overseas. Even small projects will get funded overseas just because they need to spend the dollars and attempt to evade the tax.
Since the tax has been in place for a long time and we are in a budget deficit mess, the logic of rolling back corporate taxes is now, and will continue to be extremely unpopular. The genie is out of the bottle and this one area has more to do with the loss of jobs in US companies than almost any other. Even companies that outsource IT operations to India or manufacturing to China still have the base of their operations in the US.
The medicine is actually a change in the tax policy. (Even though it is extremely unpopular and we are in a desperate budget situation.) If you take the time to review each of these global companies and how they compete with each other, it becomes easy to see why their executives make decisions to grow outside the US instead of returning their profits to the HQ. Shell, SAP and Nestle create jobs in their home geography with their overseas profits. The US companies do not.
I couldn't have possibly said it better myself, and you certainly know that change in policy is what my last paragraph was hinting towards...:)
Now, how do we truly educate 300+ million Americans about this without it becoming a Tea Party Movement v Organized Labor pissing match...? ;) The uninformed partisan rhetoric (both sides) on this issue consistently makes me want to puke.
I think if it was presented to the taxpayers / voters as a contrast between competitors, such as the examples I listed above, it would make more sense to people. You can trace the need for new taxes to fund programs back generations. Unfortunately it is a long time later that we learn the cause and effect. The tax on profits from overseas operations seemed reasonable at the time. Now it can be traced directly back as one of the primary reasons why Senior executives for large companies leave the dollars overseas and spend them there on projects and people to avoid the tax.
These executives make more money than us, they are probably part of that top 2% we always hear about. But they are usually just as patriotic as anybody else. With the real difference being the skills to do a cost / benefit analysis of where to spend the profits. Here in the US less the tax or do a project with them elsewhere and not pay the tax. What would you do? Does it make you evil or unamerican to make smart investment decisions?
It almost seems that the only solution would be a globalized tax policy, and I don't see that flying with anyone. Somehow we have to get corporations to want to bring the jobs back, but in our increasing globalized society, I'm at a complete loss on how to do this.
Here's How the Midterms will be Remembered in 1,000 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlffdZtWOKc
With all these commentators, bloggers, analysts and anyone and everyone who thinks they know a little bit about politics giving their oppinion on the election. I am curious??? What did the average vote cost the Republicans vs Democrats? Who got the most bang for the buck? Who wasted their treasures? Somebody must have figured this out by now. It would be most interesting and probably an insight into what it will cost to buy a vote come 2012.
Way too much money with little bang for the buck. The republican and democrat establishments will be content to throw their feces at each other for the next 2 years. Each party knows they will get power back. The repubs screw things up for a few years, the voters get tired of it and vote in the dems. The dems screw things up for a few years and the cycle continues. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Until we get over our 2 party metallity, we will remain in our collective psychosis.
Marco Rubio is the Democrats worst nightmare. A well spoken, articulate Hispanic conservative who can appeal to the Hispanic population. He wouldn't have to take the majority of Hispanics, just make a large dent with 35-45%. What do you bet that the Democrats have a team of private detectives looking for Marco's "Anita Hill". Rubio has "winner" written all over him on a national basis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYZpZn4ERbQ&feature=related
Now, I know where that Shovel ready billions went. Oblaba shoved down the Teachers and their Unions.
That's why the 5th Horseman lost his shovel. He lied about the Shovel ready stimulus. Now, I heard through
the Red Vine that he is now flourishing a VETO PEN. Ready to do battle with those pesky Conservatives.
When Oblaba came into office ,I think I heard him saying that he would clean up the corruption in
government and in the country. Did I hear Corrupt Cuomo ,Stone Face Brown and Prince Harry saying
the same? Well, I'll be waiting. I'm a patient guy. Sure, they'll clean up those states like how Oblaba did
for two years.
Palin/Plumber 2012!
What really did the Dems expect from the resutls of the last election. Just one look at Oblaba and you
can predict the outcome. They picked a ghost to be President. A phantom, a man whom nobody knows
anything about. No one knows where he comes from, where he was born where are his educational
papers, nobody seems to know him in college. In Chicago he was virtually unknown and was seen
hammering pamphlets with his shoe heel in its streets, whilst Palin was Governor of Alaska. He has no
concept of managing a crisis, he antagonises everyone he comes into contact with, he is a blabber mouth
and the only thing he seems to know is to sigh documents that no one understands. He has never run a
business, never owned one, never managed a payroll, never supervised anyone. He comes directly from a
black hole, appearing on the landscapes of America and in his wake a leaves swaths of misery, broken
homes, lost jobs , financial ruin, and even though he campaigns well most of the ones he supported lost
their seats. Oblaba is a fast moving comet of doom that smashed into the heartland of America and left a
trail of tears. Fancy vacations from Mallorca to Mumbai has left the Treasury high and dry. Now ,with one
last throw of the dice he has left the Democratic Party in ruin. All of his colleagues in crime are gone. But
Oblaba only cries for their loss not for the sad state he has left the country in. All his speeches have this
central theme, a sympathy for lost comrades and their seats and ignominous tales of health care ,cap and
trade, huge financial debts, a weakened military and foreign appeasement of dictators. What has he
achieved for these last two years? Oblaba has achieved one thing. 'I,the President' and ignored the
wishes of the American people. Two years of wasteful administration. But I think all this has fallen on
deaf ears. We haven't heard the last of 5th Horseman.