Jindal Bows Out
| Wed Dec. 10, 2008 1:23 PM PST
JINDAL BOWS OUT....Is Louisiana governor and GOP superstar Bobby Jindal planning to run for president in 2012?
At a news conference Wednesday with Bob McDonnell, Virginia's 2009 Republican candidate for governor, Jindal was asked if he was interested in being president, AP reports.
His answer: "No."
Jindal said he's planning to run for reelection in 2011, something that would make pivoting to a national campaign logistically and politically tricky.
I'd say this confirms that Jindal isn't an idiot. Sure, it's possible that Barack Obama is going to crash and burn and turn 2012 into a Republican year. But what are the odds? Far more likely is that Obama is a shoo-in for a second term, and whoever runs against him will suffer the same fate as George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and John Kerry. The GOP will find someone to embark on this suicide run, but it will have to be someone both dumber and with a lot more jejune self-regard than Jindal. Palin 2012!
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Wed Dec. 10, 2008 1:14 PM PST.
Bob Kerry? Do you mean John?
I'm curious if this is the progressive consensus - to be so confident about Obama's first term. It's fairly easy for me to see a scenario where we're crippled by a recession, bailout after bailout uses up gajillions in resources (which get squandered in typical political hand-out fashion), and all this scrambling and spending means that the other parts of the agenda (Health Care, Carbon, etc) get the short end of the stick. Thus the Republicans ride in sweep up in 2012, and maybe even make gains in 2010. It may not be fair, but it's certainly a good possibility, no?
Withnail is correct. Bush I had crazy high ratings after the Gulf War I causing some of the most popular Dems of the day to decide against running (I'm looking at you Mario Cuomo) which in a very meaningful way made the Clinton presidency possible.
But what are the odds? Far more likely is that Obama is a shoo-in for a second term, and whoever runs against him will suffer the same fate as George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and Bob Kerry.
I think Obama will be reelected in 2012 -- at least that's what I would bet. And I'm basing this on what I think the economy will do (namely, begin to grow again at some point late in 2009 or in 2010). I did read somebody's analysis a couple of days ago, however -- I forget whose -- who was suggesting there's a very strong possibility of a 1980-1982 style double dip recession. It was one of the scariest things I'd read in a long time. The basis thesis was that the scale of the reflation needed to get our economy growing again will cause inflation that won't be cured by anything but a Volkerian rise in rates -- that will in turn precipitate a second recession.
Obama's reelection chances depend on all the events (many of which will be unexpected) that occur during the next four years. But if he's in a good position come Fall 2011, then the collection of no-hope wackos the GOP will generate should be highly amusing. Maybe Alan Keyes will want to give it a shot. Caribou Barbie can't hog all the limelight.
I'm not sure that the Republicans would win in 2012, even if the economy stays bad. They might, of course, but they'd need to get a plausible economic program. So far, their bright idea has been to lower or end the capital gains tax. Fat lotta good that'll do, and people finally seem to understand the futility (and self-interestedness) of their economic views.
Submitted by Petey (not verified) on Wed Dec. 10, 2008 2:49 PM PST.
"Barack Obama said the same thing in 2004."
Barack Obama said the same thing in 2006.
Bill Clinton said the same thing in 1990.
If Jindal says this after Thanksgiving 2010, it'll have meaning. This doesn't.
This has to make Huckabee the presumptive favorite, no?
Right up there, no doubt; I think he is the one GOP candidate who can unite its old-money wing (e.g. Romney) and the evangelical base (e.g. Palin). He currently may be perceived as too populist for the former, but watch him reinvent himself over the next year or two to make himself more palatable (just as Ronald Reagan did after his failed run in 1976).
Could Huckabee beat Obama in 2012? From a December 2008 perspective, probably not, but if things are still sluggish come late 2011, some may seek an alternative to Obama.
The GOP base is totally in love with Palin. No matter how much she screws up in the primary debates, I think she becomes the 2012 candidate.
Unless Obama screws up big time, or something terrible happens beyond his control, he wins again.
Then again, who thought in 2004 that the president would be Obama?
Submitted by m. bleicher (not verified) on Wed Dec. 10, 2008 9:09 PM PST.
"Then again, who thought in 2004 that the president would be Obama?"
Actually, he got a Newsweek cover story right around the end of 2004 that profiled him as somebody to watch and suggested that he could indeed become the next president.
"(It's) far more likely is that Obama is a shoo-in for a second term"
This seems very short-sighted. In 1990, with Bush 41's approval ratings so high after the Gulf War, SNL ran a skit of prominent Democrats (including Bill Bradley and Mario Cuomo) each saying why the other should run against him.
And after Bill Clinton's troubled start, with many missteps and concluding with the loss of congress in 1994, Jay Leno was referring to him as a "one-termer."
Things change quickly in politics. Obama hasn't even taken office and you pronounce him unbeatable in four years!
Yeah, and I hear Mario Cuomo's not running in 1992 because how can you beat a Republican who just won a war?
I realize you guys are ready to carve Obama's face on Mt. Denali (Rushmore's for second-raters), but maybe you want to wait till at least Inauguration Day 2009 before sticking your chin out and declaring 2012 settled?
Submitted by Mike K (not verified) on Thu Dec. 11, 2008 5:29 AM PST.
Kevin, you really sound foolish. I would suggest waiting until the economy starts to recover and see where you are. If it's 2012, Obama is toast. Bush I was done in by the recession in 1991. Recovery had begun by 1992 but it was too late and Clinton got the credit. The public's memory for this stuff is about 6 months long.
Submitted by Jim Treacher (not verified) on Thu Dec. 11, 2008 6:07 AM PST.
Please keep saying this kind of stuff. Please don't listen to the people who think you should at least wait until your guy is inaugurated in the first place.
You folks are amazing! It's still a couple of weeks before the inauguration, and you're talking about how Obama's a cinch to be re-elected? Puh-LEEZE! A dose of reality might be a good idea, but... oh. That's right. I forgot. You're liberals. Okay, "progressives," fine.
But for cryin' out loud, just come down off your little pink clouds of feeling for a change and see the world as it really is for once, 'k?
Bush I was done in by the recession in 1991. Recovery had begun by 1992 but it was too late and Clinton got the credit.
Actually, the economy had begun growing again not by 1992 but indeed by the spring of 1991 -- fully 18 months before Bush had to face the voters. It sucks to run for re-election during a recession or during a very tepid early recovery. Nobody has a crystal ball, but I have a notion that the severity and rapidity of our current decline could translate into a more-robust-than-usual recovery. The recession of 1982-1983, for instance, was a particularly frightening downturn, but led to rip roaring growth in '83 and '84. A similar dynamic was even in place in '29-'33; by the time FDR took the oath, US GDP was growing once again, and I recall reading some stats recently that showed the economy grew incredibly fast - something like 8% per annum on average -- during his first term.
Bandicoot,
Feelings? Shoot, I've already stated my rational analysis - Dems 2009-2016, things are still getting worse, Rep 2016, things get really bad, people get scared, so Rep 2020 and the next year is the revolution.
No feelings involved here, just a study of history and a knowledge of peak oil.
Comparing the times of expanding resource use to the times of stable and then declining resource use is silly.
You are, of course, assuming that Obama survives his first term or even makes it to the inauguration alive.
There are a lot of dingbats who hate him and there are a lot of guns in this country.
Put the two together and it looks like President Biden.
I've been thinking about this-- the sheer delusional hubris of it-- today, and again, I just have to marvel at the confidence that four years from now is preordained.
I mean, I look at the world today and the financial markets are screwed up, we're throwing money into assorted holes, Pakistan's trying to provoke a war with India, North Korea could dissolve at any moment into chaos and Iran, god, who knows what crazy thing they're up to. Oh, and the political scene our new president rose from is going into meltdown, and who knows what his role was? (Even if he's innocent as a lamb re Blagojevich, by next week Todd Stroger or Alexi Giannoulias may implode, causing him real damage.) And you feel like all that's such a cakewalk that we might as well not even hold 2012? Really? Can I have some of that to snort, too?
