Cross-posted on Horse Head Soup:
I know, I know. It's ridiculous to speculate on an election that is still almost two years away. But it's so much fun! And besides, the New Hampshire primary is only 415 days from now...
On the Republican side, the stage could be set for a real bloodbath. At least three prominent names are already more or less assumed to be running -- Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee -- not to mention a score of lesser known or less likely possibles, including Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, John Thune, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, and Ron Paul. That's a pretty crowded field.
As it stands right now, the first scheduled contest of 2012 is New Hampshire on January 24 (the Iowa caucuses are set for February 6). On balance, that would seem to be an advantage for Mitt Romney. The former governor of neighboring Massachusetts is well-known to Granite State voters. In 2008 he came in a fairly close second to John McCain (31% to 37%) in the state, where the Arizona senator was wildly popular and had invested a tremendous amount of time and resources. Huckabee polled a mere 11% -- his brand of Christian conservatism doesn't sell well in New England. The big question mark is Sarah Palin. How does her dog and pony act go over in New Hampshire? It's hard to say. But as a New Englander myself (I live only 10 minutes from the NH state line), I would say that Palin's shtick probably isn't as effective here as it is in the heartland. And with a near-favorite son in the race (there are even rumors that Romney plans to change his primary residence to his NH vacation home), would other candidates be more likely to simply write off New Hampshire altogether and focus their early energies on Iowa and South Carolina?
I think Iowa is where it could get really interesting, and really messy. Each of the Big Three has an advantage there. Huckabee won the state with 32% of the votes in 2008, and Romney came in a respectable second at 26%. Both of them have invested a good deal of time and energy in the Hawkeye state since then. But Palin regularly draws large and enthusiastic crowds at appearances in the state, and with her name recognition and presumed resources, you've got to assume she'd be a strong contender.
Then there is John Thune. Iowa is where he could really become a factor. As senator from right-next-door South Dakota he could enjoy an advantage in familiarity and local credibility that might undercut the more well known candidates. On the other hand, he could also split the the social conservative vote with Palin and Huckabee and throw the election to Romney.
One of the big X factors is where the Christian right will fall. Who will win the support of their kingmakers, most importantly James Dobson? Palin is undoubtedly popular, but she also comes with a lot of baggage, and polls suggest that she would have a tough time winning a general election. Huckabee too is well liked, but he is not without negatives, not least of which his release of a convicted felon who went on to shoot and kill four Seattle-area police officers. And Romney is likely to be viewed with suspicion because of his Mormon faith, not to mention his history as an ideological chameleon. That brings us again to Thune. A devout evangelical Christian with an attractive young family, the SD senator is a favorite of the Dobson crowd. He is young, handsome, and likable. He could almost have been genetically engineered in some secret Focus on the Family laboratory to be their ideal presidential candidate. And a strong finish in Iowa could give him momentum going into South Carolina (another state where Christian conservatism carries a lot of weight) and beyond.
The GOP traditionally gives their nomination to the next white guy in line. That would be Mitt Romney. But this might be the year that sees the death of that venerable old-boy tradition. Romney could still emerge the victor, to be sure. But it is likely to be a fight, not a coronation. And Republicans fight dirty. I would expect the skeletons in everyone's closet to be dragged out -- Palin's legal troubles and shady activities as governor of Alaska, Romney's past support for abortion rights and his signing of a health care bill virtually identical to the hated "Obamacare," Huckabee's aforementioned connection with a cop killer. There is plenty of fodder for things to get really ugly.
Another big question is Sarah Palin. Does she even want to be president? I'm not so sure. She certainly likes the attention. But there is nothing in her history to indicate that she possesses either the interest or ability to shoulder the responsibilities of the presidency. I think that what Sarah Palin really wants is to be a celebrity, and that makes me wonder. It's not hard to imagine her mounting some quixotic third-party bid for the presidency under the Tea Party banner. That would give her all the spotlight she seems to crave without any chance of actually having to be president.
Speaking of third party candidates, there is also Michael Bloomberg to consider. It is widely rumored that the New York mayor is considering an independent run for the presidency. A recent poll suggests that a Bloomberg candidacy would help President Obama, but who can say? If the economy continues to be dour, dissatisfaction might be enough to push a large number of voters to a "third way" candidate. Ross Perot, after all, garnered nearly 20% of the vote in 1992, when the economy was not in nearly as bad a shape as today. A strong Bloomberg candidacy could even result in the election being thrown to the House of Representatives, where the Republican nominee would enjoy a distinct advantage (each state delegation gets one vote; in the next Congress Republicans will control 33 state delegations while Democrats will have only 16, with Minnesota evenly split). And what if both Michael Bloomberg and Sarah Palin mounted independent campaigns? The mind reels!
Imagine the following admittedly far-fetched (but not impossible) situation: In a four-way race between President Obama, GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Michael Bloomberg, no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes. The election is therefore thrown to the House, who must choose between the top three vote-getters. As mentioned, the House favors the Republican, but there is no guarantee that the Republican nominee would necessarily be in the top three. Or what if both Romney and Palin were in the top three? Who would the House pick?
It gets even weirder. While the House would choose a president, the Senate would choose a vice president, this time from among the top TWO candidates. So you could end up with President Sarah Palin and Vice President Joe Biden (I'd love to sit in on those Cabinet meetings!). Finally, if the House was unable to choose a president by inauguration day, the Senate's pick for VP would become president. I wonder if Joe Biden ever thinks about that? Heh.
But let's set aside improbable speculation. How does the Democratic side look in 2012? Obviously, there is a sitting Democratic president, and no sitting president in modern times has ever been denied his party's nomination (although Lyndon Johnson might have been, had he not withdrawn from the race). But presidents with low approval ratings have faced primary challenges, and if current trends hold President Obama could face one too. Names that have been suggested include Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, and Dennis Kucinich. The odds of any of them successfully wresting the nomination from Obama seem remote, to say the least. But historically a primary challenge is a harbinger of doom for an incumbent president. Just ask Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.
But there is another possibility to consider. What if President Obama decided not to run for re-election? Admittedly, that seems unlikely. He has given no indication that he is seriously entertaining any such notion. Still, it's hard to imagine that the thought hasn't at least crossed his mind. The bitterness and rancor of the last two years would be enough to make anyone wonder why they ever wanted the job in the first place. And you wouldn't be human if the idea of leaving it all behind to write books, make speeches, and spend time with your family didn't hold some appeal. In that case Hillary Clinton would undoubtedly step in to fill the void. In fact it's hard to imagine what Democrat would even pose a serious challenge to her. And Clinton would likely prove to be a formidable candidate in a general election, as disenchanted Obama voters might view it as a kind of second chance.
I don't seriously expect that to happen. Barring something unforeseen, the Democratic nominee in 2012 will be Barack Obama. Who he will face, though, is very much in question.