Home › Blogs › Sean Oxendine's blog ›

Opening Up The Floor

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 17:23

I found this link from James Pethokoukis' (very excellent) blog, with some interesting questions.  My own brief answers are (1) probably, (2) look how Bush's presidency turned out (3) see 1982 midterm elections, (4) I don't think so.  He knows Republicans benefitted mightily from Bush not having a successor, (5) yes, but I don't think they will have an all-white-male ticket again, and (6) 2012.  What do you all think?

 

  1. Was this really the shattering of a glass ceiling?  If George H.W. Bush had won in 1992 and the field were wide open and the economy were in the toilet in 1996, would Obama and the campaign that he ran in 2008 have also won in 1996?  I think so.  What do you think?

  2. Why do Democrats still have to answer Republican questions, even when they win the election?  George W. Bush loses the popular vote and governs like he won a mandate.  Obama wins convincingly and he is somehow supposed to take it slow?  Not if he really does want to solidify a realignment.

  3. What happens if these new voters from 2008 are unemployed in 2010 or 2012?  I'm guessing they will want change again.  Obama has such a tough road ahead of him.

  4. If the Obama administration is going well in 2012, would Obama drop Biden as a running mate to set up a chosen successor for 2016?

  5. Will the Democrats ever nominate a white male for the top spot again?

  6. When will the Republicans nominate someone for the top spot who is much younger than his Democratic opponent?

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

So Jindal or Palin

Submitted by the foundation on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 19:06.

will be our nominee in 2012 given your answer to the final question?  Both of them will be portrayed by the media as right-wing zealots who have had exorcisms; I like both of them but we'll have to see how they progress, if they progress at all, these next three years.

Next Nominate a Legit Conservative Candidate

Submitted by stevetn on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 19:36.

Everyone keeps wanting to gloss over the fact that McCain was a big government candidate who only differentiated from his opponent on the Iraq war.

 

 

I'll bite

Submitted by Stinger808 on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 21:00.
  1. Yes
  2. If Obama overreaches, that "realignment" will be a wisp of smoke.
  3. Republicans will gain; it's a question of how much, and with what quality of candidates.
  4. I wouldn't be shocked if Biden were dropped in Obama's first term. That said, Obama won't want to have to deal with pressure to take on Hillary while she's still relatively spry, so yeah, he'd wait to add a "protege" in 2016.
  5. Yes, and I think they could even have an all white guy ticket again, partly because there's no telling what prospective candidates will be favored by future circumstances(people are candidates, not ethnicities or sexes) and partly because a failed Obama Presidency would "scare" them. That won't be fair (look at all the lousy white male Presidents we've had), but the Dems might be gunshy about a "multicultural" ticket in at least one future contest.
  6. Have we done this since 1904? If it's Jindal in 2012, then obviously "yes". Sarah Palin is only two and a half years younger than Obama, so I wouldn't call her "much younger" (yeah, that's quibbling). If not in 2012, then in 2016. If not by 2016, then maybe not in most of our lifetimes.

 

I screwed up on no. 6

Submitted by Stinger808 on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 21:04.

Bryant was two years younger than TR.

 

So when have we nominated a substantially younger candidate than the Dems? 1868?

Of course, I completely forgot about Dewey in '44 and'48

Submitted by Stinger808 on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 10:22.

Apart from that, we generally don't nominate substantially younger candidates.

answers

Submitted by Evil Conservative on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 00:44.

1) Glass ceiling? I’m assuming he means for non-white males. Then yeah and the feelings seem good so far. Obama in 1996? Key phrase in that question is “economy in the toilet” and add in campaign promising Change. So very likely.

2) Republican questions? I’m not sure what he means whether it’s about cultural issues or foreign policy or economics or other things. I think Republicans have dictated A LOT of policy the last 14 years so Democrats are inhereting a territory that Republicans have created for them like a war in Iraq, a top tax rate of 33% due to sunset, capital gains/estate taxes, abortion restrictions, gay marriage bans, etc. so the Dems have to answer how they’re going to navigate the terrain of conservative policies.

Obama needs to take it slow in how he "whips 'em" when those in Congress won't go along with him.

3) This question assumes these people were employable in the first place.

4) No reason to do this.

5) Absolutely.

6) Maybe HER Democratic opponent? It depends on what’s meant by “much younger.” 2012 probably won’t be it given how young Obama is now and I’m not sure it’s Jindal’s time in 4 years which is eons away. 2016 might be Jindal or Palin or soon-to-be Governor X we haven’t even heard of yet.

 

1) Yes 2) DC Dems are

Submitted by goodepic on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 01:25.

1) Yes

2) DC Dems are pansies, and the MSM has been scared by the hectoring from the conservative movement into only and always asking questions to the left.

3) Most of the new voters this time around were from groups that the Democrats won't have trouble keeping, blaming problems on a hangover from Bush's blundering.  Though a prolonged deep recession could easily depress turnout among those new voters and have basically the same effect as them switching sides.

4) I don't think so, unless he's caused big political headaches with one too many off the cuff remarks.

5) Of course.  As was said above, people win the nomination.  Who's got the charisma, and the right message at the right moment in history.

6) Who knows...  It seems very unknown who might be the Dem nominee in 2016, so maybe there won't even be space for much younger (like there wouldn't have been this year).  Palin doesn't seem like a real contender after her performance this time around.  What other young up and comers in the Republican party might have a real shot at the nomination in 2012?

Obama's challenge; GOP opportunity

Submitted by johnson springs on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 07:50.

  1. Glass ceiling, yes. Country was not ready for an AA candidate in 1996. He would not win nomination.

  2. Voters want action and change. Right track/wrong track numbers are worst ever. Obama has a rough road between the deficit hawks and the stimulus people. We will find the answer to the question of whether he can really lead very soon. If he goes slow he's a one term president. If he goes fast ineffectively, he's a one term president.

  3. Obama supporters will continue to support him through hard times if he is able to demonstrate and communicate the steps he is taking to make things better. If not he is screwed.

  4. No, that is a GOP formula. Democrats do it differently.

  5. Yes, Democrats will certainly nominate a white man for President again. In fact, I think it will be a long time before another person of color is nominated again.

  6. If our infatuation with FDT is any indication, it will be a long time.

     

 

Colin Powell

Submitted by NStevens99 on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 10:01.

Colin Powell may well have won the presidency in 1996, if he had chosen to run. Michael Barone has made this argument a few times, and I tend to agree with it. This is not exactly proportional to the question asked, but I'm not convinced that the country "wasn't ready" for a black president in 1996.

My answers:

1. Yes, absolutely the shattering of a glass ceiling. I am skeptical of an "Obaman" campaign winning in 1996 because of the sheer importance of technology in Obama's win. It's hard to mobilize youth voters--the Internet made that much easier.

2. Bush would have been better served to take moderate positions on certain issues; in the end, his radical actions created something of a liberal backlash, the consequences of which we are seeing now (does anyone think that the left-wing blogosphere would have developed so strongly if Bush were a bit less controversial?). Prudence is sensible; there is the notion that this is a "center-right" country--I have become a tad skeptical about that notion, but we'll see how things turn out.

3. Obama has indicated that he will "never lie about the challenges we face," or something to that effect. It's an interesting test--few presidents seem to opt for this road, so he might be able to hold onto a large share of his current support (who seem to be convinced of his greatness already). My guess? The Dems lose a bunch of seats in 2010 no matter what, but I think that will be more the Congress' doing than Obama's doing.

4. I think this is possible. Slide Biden to SecState, bring in a Tim Kaine or Brian Schweitzer in 2012 as VP? It's not typical, but Obama may want to give one of those folks a leg up for 2016. I would bet "no" if I had to, but I am not discounting it entirely.

5. Ever again? Yes. This is a silly question. I do think that all-white-male tickets are probably going to be a rarity for the Dems for a while.

6. Much younger? Well, it would be impossible for someone to be "much younger" than Obama in '12, so not until 2016 at the very earliest. But with Palin and Jindal both potential candidates then, I think it's possible we'll see a young Republican candidate soon. The Republican "bench" is very, very young at this time, I think.

1-6

Submitted by gardel va on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 13:56.

1.  Powell didn't think the country was ready in 1996, and he had better insight into the situation than any of us do.

2.  There are really two answers to this question.  Does Obama have to answer Republican questions?  Yes, he needs to address legitimate concerns raised by Republicans if he expects to solidify Democratic gains and minimize Republican ability to block his agenda.  One of Reagan's great strengths was coopting Democrats, and when he could not do that, addressing the substance of Democratic arguments (not simply belittling them as "socialism") so that the electorate understood his reasons.  That does not mean going slow.  Obama campaigned on change, and put forward a specific agenda.  He's going to have to deliver, or have a good reason for failing to deliver, if he expects to keep his job in 2012.

3.  The in-power party almost always loses seats in the midterm election.  Several iffy Democrats scraped in this year, and without a popular presidential candidate on the ballot in 2010, they'll have trouble.  As for 2012, Bush is so widely loathed that Obama would probably have a great deal of success in blaming the Republicans for any continuing ills -- like Roosevelt did with Hoover again, and again, and again.

4.  Dropping Biden would probably be a smart move so there's a clear successor in 2016.  It'd be tough to do, but Obama has shown an ability to be tough.

5.  There will certainly be a white male at the top of the Democratic ticket soon, and maybe even in 2016.  I agree that we're unlikely to see an all-white-male Democratic ticket for quite a while, but I think the same holds true for the Republicans, who really have more to prove in the inclusiveness department.

6.  The Republican tendency to award candidates who've struggled up through the ranks (think Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Dole, and McCain) means that it's unlikely they'll ever have someone REALLY young at the top of the ticket.  However, the Democrats do sometimes fall in love with old folks like Ann Richards, so we may someday find a 60-something Republican campaigning against a 70-something Democrat. (Hillary in 2016?)

Re: #3

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 17:19.

I don't think this is quite right.  Roosevelt was able to win in 1934 and 1936 because he came in as the economy was bottoming out. In 1938, the economy turned sour, and Democrats got shellacked, and Roosevelt effectively lost control of Congress.  Had Hitler not invaded Poland, Roosevelt probably would have lost in 1940.  Same thing with Reagan/Carter in the 1980s.  And let's not forget that without a financial collapse in September, the Democrats may well have lost this one.

this is why i think #1 is so idiotic

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 17:22.

except for president bush, who did whatever he pleased economically,

most presidents have done not much for their own economy, and a good deal for the next president. Including carter and reagan.

I find it highly unlikely that the whole recession would have lasted four years under BushI