Now is as good a time as any to offer your predictions for who will be newly-sworn in President four years from now...

...as well as whom you HOPE will be elected as a change from The Obama Years.

Recent history sez that it will probably be a Republican.

I think Mitt should run again...third time's the charm and all...but he probably won't.  

Gov. McDonnell has a shot, if he can appeal above the manson-nixon line.  Christie, too, if he can lose some weight.  

Rubio has time and maybe shouldn't rush things...but he probably will.

2nd tier: Scott Walker, Rob Portman, Ted Cruz (jk...too nutty).

And maybe a 50/50 chance there will be a Bush in there somewhere.

 

Jindal, Daniels and Haley should be added to the list.

If the GOP looks inside, straightens itself out by focusing on the free market and dropping the social BS which gets in the way then they will win in a big way.  Who knows maybe Sen Brown would follow the Obama model of two years in the Senate and then run, prior two years counts or it could be two in the Kerry seat.

Romney is done he's embarrassed himself enough.

I'd still like to see Huntsman, but I'm not sure he'd do it again.

It would be nice if Hunstman ran, but I think he learned pretty quickly that today's GOP is no place for sane people who aren't complete @ssholes.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Huntsman? So, you want essentially a 3rd term for Obama?

as if Mitt wasn't a bad enou candidate.

 

I say we give a true conservative a shot.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

There aren't enough complete @ssholes and insane persons for someone you would consider a "true conservative" to get anywhere near the WH.

 

Phew.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Do you really see that happening...?  Honestly?

What's more is...I'm not even sure it can be done....not in this day and age.  Believe it or not, some of these issues are still important to people, especially younger ones.

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Yes, Huntsman was guilty in your mind of serving his country under Obama.

I'd say you never looked at his policies or positions; he was a fiscal conservative with a grasp on foreign affairs and business.  But he didn't buyin to the GOP social platform lock stock and barrel.  He wouldn't have PO'd the women although he was prolife and he wouldn't have alienated the latinos/hispanics as much as the platform.

I agree with others that Huntsman would make a great choice. I hope to see his name on the ballot in 2016. Other than that..my money is on either Hillary or Biden.

Hugo Chavez if, he's still alive.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Call me a hopeless optimist.

The GOP needs to adapt or die.  There are some smart up and comers who know that in the Republicans Governors Council, I'd like to see a bloodless coup and for them to wrestle control of the party from the exsiting leadership machine, like the aging Gov Sununu.

The jig is up.  Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility. Republicans have historically spent more and taxed less, resulting in larger deficits. Democrats have taxed more while spending less (but generally spent more efficiently). Stimulus spending was anomalous and crisis-driven (not policy- or ideology-driven). 

Take away the myth of the fiscally responsible Republican, and all you are left with is a party at war with women, gays, immigrants, and basically anyone who isn't a white heterosexual Christian.  They deny it all day long, but they can't hide it.

They're all unelectable for President.  Huntsman would have a much better shot running as a democrat.

 

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Governors Council? The Republican Governors Association has been led by reformers Gov McDonnell and now Gov Jindal.

Given Congress' low approval ratings, the GOP nominee will almost certainly  be a Governor. New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez is another definite possibility. She is already being smeared by the liberal media...

Poor Huntsman, the liberals 'pet' Republican. Jon, they only love you if you arent a real threat....like in 2010 and 2011, many liberals claimed Romney was a sane moderate and a good alternative to the 'right wing nuts" . Once he became a threat to Obama, they went after him.

If Huntsman, who is conservative on most issues,  actually ran and got the GOP nomination, the libs would claim he 'sold his soul to the right wing extremists' and go all 'class warfare ' on him , since Huntsman is from a family with billions.....being pro-life , he will be considered a General in the "War on Women"...

Castro- the one from San Antonio. He's being groomed as the hispanic Obama.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Yes governors "associaton", I had a senior moment.  The RGA is talking about revamping the party and focusing on free market priniciples while stepping back from some social issues; smart if they can pull it off and if not they will continue down a path of GOP irrelevancy.  You can't alienate broad swaths of the population and expect to be supported. The first ones to go are the practical middle, Reagan Democrats and women.  You also lose when you alienate the fastest growing segment of the population. 

Governors are invariably better qualified to lead because they are leaders and Martinez is a good option.

OK, Huntsman rankles you because:

1) he served our president and country as China's Ambassador, a role he was uniquely qualified for,

2) he didn't want to play in the conservative social platform BS (which alienates too many voters)

3) he's too moderate so he must be a RINO

The country isn't as conservative on a whole as you'd like it and the past election clearly shows it.  So what to do; modify your expectations and grab the central values of the party free market, small government philosophy or hold on to the social conservative policies that alienate enough moderates and lose.

Which gets me back to my position that the GOP needs to evolve or die.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Oh just be quiet. It's clear that the only people you support are people so far to the right that their anti-government stance borders on anarchism.

Huntsman served under Obama because he had the skills and experience to be the best person for the job. Because Obama is a pragmatist and not a party line idealogue, he had no problem sending an R.

The only thing not conservative about his policies was that while he supported a flat-tax without deductions/loopholes/etc., he did have a few tax brackets to suggest.

Oh, right, and the fact that he doesn't hate gay people or want to leave all domestic programs to fight over a budget the size of the FBI's (note: 'domestic programs' here also includes FBI,DEA,CIA, etc) as did the Ryan suicide pact.

As for war on women, he's not subject to that criticism because he doesn't do vile things like suggesting there is "legitimate rape" as opposed to "rape, but not legitimate"....

...or perhaps calling women who think insurance should cover birth control wh0res, meanwhile stockpiling insurance-covered viagra so that they can be geezer wh0res themselves.

 

 

 

 

The truth is and history supports it; is that if, the party in charge fails to improve the peoples quality of life in 2 years and 4 years they will lose at least some power.

Based on this thread, it still seems like there are some issues to be worked out on the direction of the GOP.  I should say I don't think this is a bad thing.  The dems made some serious missteps in 2004 and were able to pull it together in 2006 (with W's help).  I have no doubt the GOP will try.

More immediate, though, is the "mandate" voters delivered in November that very clearly stated they want congressional repubs to work together with the senate and white house to solve some problems.  They do not have the luxury of just saying No to everything on the President's agenda.

Maybe it's not so much of an evolution as a recollection of the time when they could work to get things done for the better of the country and not just their re-election chances.

Like joe, I'm also hopeful, because progress on either the left or right cannot occur in a vacuum.  Ergo (painfully), the offense can't score any points if the defense can't make any stops.

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

 

Based on this thread, it still seems like there are some issues to be worked out on the direction of the GOP.  I should say I don't think this is a bad thing.  The dems made some serious missteps in 2004 and were able to pull it together in 2006 (with W's help).  I have no doubt the GOP will try.

More immediate, though, is the "mandate" voters delivered in November that very clearly stated they want congressional repubs to work together with the senate and white house to solve some problems.  They do not have the luxury of just saying No to everything on the President's agenda.

Maybe it's not so much of an evolution as a recollection of the time when they could work to get things done for the better of the country and not just their re-election chances.

Like joe, I'm also hopeful, because progress on either the left or right cannot occur in a vacuum.  Ergo (painfully), the offense can't score any points if the defense can't make any stops. 

 

 

Oh Matty,

47% don't give a shlt if, you think it was a mandate! It seems like a "mandate" would have seized more power when there was no power change at all.

"work together" is the operative word here. To be arrogant and say one side needs to do more to "work together" is simply ignorant.

If there is not a positive change in the quality of life for voters; dems may get schalacked again in 2014 just because they wield a vast majority of the power in Washington!

47% will vote dem, 47% will vote rep. It's all about turnout and the independents!

Its that simple.

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Actually, I said Huntsman was mostly conservative.  My point was that Huntsman is a moderate-leaning Establishment Mormon pro -life wealthy businessman,  similar to Romney in many ways. He looks so attractive now, maybe because Huntsman was coddled by the liberal media and wasnt eviserated with a billion-dollar smear campaign...

"....grab the central values of the party free market, small government philosophy or hold on to the social conservative policies that alienate enough moderates and lose."

Easy to say, not so easy to do...because it is the liberals who are in aggressive attack mode on social issues.

Virginia Governor McDonnell followed your advice: he won his election by 17 points, and is still very  popular based on his professed singular focus and success on economic issues. 

McDonnell did nothing for the evangelicals and religious conservatives, in fact appointed the first openly gay judge. He was and is criticized as a sellout by the more conservative elements. Nonetheless, he was smeared by Jon Stewart and the Left as "Vaginal Bob" on an abortion ultrasound bill he had no interest in; an ultrasound bill that was actually no different than the law in many other states.Without an ultrasound to dermine the age of the fetus, abortion thru the 9th month is what the reality is...

The mantra about 'moderates' used to be the same pitch about "win the Independents"...well, Romney did win Independents big, didnt do much good. 

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

You're not reading closely enough.

I used "mandate" in quotes as a hypothetical to indicate in some ways the electorate doesn't know what the he!! it wants or how to get it.

And yet, poll after poll showed that people placed more responsibility on congressional repubs for the impasse in DC.  This isn't anecdotal.  The only group with lower approval ratings than congress as a whole are the gop in congress.  The credit downgrade over the debt ceiling in 2011 cited congress as a whole, but everyone knew who was dragging their feet.

And here's another euphemism: "quality of life".  All that means is "what's in it for me"...what about MY job, MY paycheck, MY kids, MY guns, MY religion, MY precious sensibilities.  People need to wake the f^^k up and realize how lucky they are not to be knee deep in a rice paddy or shoveling manure.  Being born white and american is no f^^king accomplishment at all.

 

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

Yep, and the independents broke to the left in droves.  So, what does that tell you?

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:


Yep, and the independents broke to the left in droves.  So, what does that tell you? 

[/QUOTE]


Tells me they thought Obama either should have another chance or was the lessor of two evils or that there wasnt enough difference in the two to make a change.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

This post tells me you dont know what you are talking about...

Independents. In his Nov. 26 analysis, Bolger noted: “Romney won Independents by five points. That’s better than George W. Bush in 2004 by six net points. … Romney was the first national candidate in exit polling history to decisively win Independents and lose the election.” This paradox completely shocked the Romney team, as Slate’s John Dickerson reported three days after the election...