Thune in 2012?

You knew this was coming! Chris Cillizza at WaPo's The Fix again considers Senator John Thune as a possible Presidential candidate in 2012. According to Cillizza, the Thune people are assuring everyone that Senator Thune "remains entirely undecided and his decision will be heavily shaped by what he hears and sees in the coming months." That assures me that Thune and his organization are taking the possibility very seriously.

Cillizza lays out some of the strengths and weaknesses of a Thune bid, and I can't quarrel with any that he offers. I would approach the question rather differently.

For better and for worse, the Republican Party is more organized in its nominee selection process. That is to say that the national and state party organizations tend to weigh in on the selection in a fairly scripted way. John McCain got his head start from the fact that he was more or less the next in line, and that counts for a lot in Republican nominations. George W. Bush got his head start from the fact that Republican Governors knew and liked him better than anyone else the national party could think of. His father, like McCain, was next in line by virtue of being Reagan's VP. Reagan, like Romney, had sought the nomination before and was a well-known and well-loved national figure.

By that standard, Mitt Romney looks like the most viable candidate for nomination. For Thune to beat Romney out, something would have to happen on the Republican side that would be similar to Barack Obama's rise. Two factors made the latter possible.

First, a substantial part of the Democratic electorate was deeply dissatisfied with Senator Clinton. In retrospect, it is easy to see why. Can one imagine that Ms. Clinton would have pushed healthcare reform a second time, let alone pushed it through?

Second, Barack Obama presented a uniquely compelling personality: articulate, African American, and, best of all, with so little history that one could project almost any hope onto him.

John Thune would come to the race without any of the structural advantages that propelled earlier candidates to the nomination (other than his rise in the senate leadership); nor does he have any established base, geographic or otherwise. He would have to gamble on the possibility that the Republican establishment and the electorate are looking for an alternative to business as usual. That is not farfetched in the current climate.

Like Obama, Thune would have to depend on his own personal presentation. That is not farfetched either, but it is a bit of a stretch. The Senator is intelligent and articulate. He looks good on camera. He's tall. Taller candidates tend to win. Unlike Governor Romney, he has very little baggage to weigh him down. He is a solid conservative. The National Journal ranks him as the sixth most conservative Senator. That will appeal to Republican conservatives across the board, just as Obama appeal to the Democratic liberal core. Is all that enough to get Republicans to abandon their persistent instincts and nominate him?

One can certainly imagine a Thune nomination. Whether the stars are really aligned in favor of such a thing will only be known if he indeed decides to throw his hat in the ring.

Comments

[Guard]

I believe President Obama will be reelected in 2012 despite who the Republicans nominate to run against him...just a deep-held feeling.

[Bill]

You're quite right that the GOP frequently nominates the guy who's next in line, and Guard may very well be correct that Obama is going to be re-elected in 2012. Assume both of those are true and it makes a very strong argument for Thune to get into the race. If Romney is the nominee in 2012 I think it's very reasonable to imagine Thune coming in second, setting him up to be the nominee in 2016.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Guard and Bill, I am not at all certain that Obama will get re-elected in 2012. When the "deficit reduction panel" comes out with their recommendation for a new value-added tax (VAT) like they have in most of Europe, and assuming that the Congress takes it up in 2011 (resulting in a massive fight), people will suddenly and rudely be shocked into the realization that this President, and his administration, have been determined all along to impose European-style "social democracy" in the United States.

Ken, thank you for this post. It caused me to realize that John Thune might well make a good candidate for President in 2012. It also caused me to contact his Rapid City office and go on a protracted rant about the value-added tax (or VAT, as it's often called). I said to the person on the phone, "Please tell Sen. Thune to start making all kinds of noise about this danger +right now+. I hereby issue a Hurricane Watch. In December it will become a Hurricane Warning. Mark my words.

Not a bit to my surprise, the person on the phone had never even heard of a VAT -- until I defined it for her and warned her of its dangers.

I plan to follow up with snail-mail letters to Sen. Thune, imploring him to make this into a big issue and warn the American people about it immediately. This could become a winning issue for Republicans this fall, and also in the Presidential election in 2010.

And to President Obama and his crew I say, "You want a VAT? GO FOR IT!!" We Republicans will be waiting cannons loaded and powder dry.

[KB]

Guard: Not that it matters, but you could well be right. In fact, I think that the best thing for Obama's reelection would be for the Republicans to take control of Congress this year. Then he can triangulate so fast that we will think Ms. Clinton won.

Bill: A Thune run might pay off as you say, if he comes in at least second. If he really wants to be President, he should go for it. But it will jeopardize his position in South Dakota. We are suspicious of our delegates when they go national.

Stan: I imagine that Thune would oppose a VAT, but keep making those calls. Believe me, Congresspeople take them into account.

[Stan Gibilisco]

The following letter will go out from the Lead Post Office to Senator Thune's Rapid City office on Monday morning.

+ + +

Stan Gibilisco
P.O. Box 293
Deadwood, SD 57732
www.sciencewriter.net
[email protected]
605.722.1232

April 5, 2010

The Honorable Senator John Thune
1313 West Main Street
Rapid City, SD 57701

Dear Sen. Thune:

A brand new value-added-tax (VAT) has been suggested by a few academics and lawmakers as a possible source of revenue for dealing with the budget deficit. Some people have suggested that such a tax be set as high as 25 percent, although I got the idea that a more likely figure would be 10 to 15 percent.

In my opinion, a VAT is not a good way to derive the revenue to pay for our budget woes. I would rather see the income cap for application of Social Security taxes removed, so that people pay this payroll tax no matter how much money they earn. Alternatively, the Medicare tax could be increased by 2 or 3 percent. But no tax increase, no new tax, no nothing, will work unless the government curbs its appetite for spending.

In the current environment, a VAT would constitute the fiscal equivalent of giving booze to an alcoholic in detox.

Because a VAT manifests itself to the consumer as a flat-rate sales tax, it is regressive. Unless generous exemptions or zero-ratings for certain transactions and products are included, the VAT strikes hard at low-income people, retirees on fixed incomes, and sole proprietors with small profit margins. The VAT could also prove grossly unfair to anyone who could not pass the tax along to clients or buyers.

But you know all of this, I am sure. I can only hope and pray that you oppose any form of VAT as an option in the United States of America, now or ever.

Please watch the evolution of VAT discussions. Several of President Obama's advisors favor the implementation of a VAT. I supsect that if the American people vote in a Republican majority to the House this fall, the Democrats will attempt to ram a VAT bill through during the lame-duck session, bolstered by the inevitable recommendation for a VAT from the President’s “deficit reduction panel.”

Most people I talk to do not know what a VAT is, let alone how it will personally affect them if implemented, and even less how much damage it could inflict on our economy, both in the short term and in the long term.

Please educate people about this issue!

Please make a lot of noise about it right now!

Warn the American people about the hurricane that’s coming their way!

This issue could constitute a winning ticket for a Republican candidate for President in 2012. All that person will have to do, if the VAT comes into existence, is promise to repeal it in 2013, and the people will elect him or her by a landslide.

Sincerely,

Stan Gibilisco

[Jack]

Thune is not interested in anything that would aide South Dakota voters. More laws need to be passed? Existing laws need to be enforced. If there is smoke there is fire. How many more people get away with this? The answer would shock you. On December 30th, 2009 an online application for a credit card at First Premier Bank in Sioux Falls SD. Using her daughter's name, a real Massachusetts social security number, a fake birthdate, her address and daughter's place of employment. She got a credit card in her daughter's name and promptly went over the limit. First Premier had to write the entire amount off when Experian notified the company the account was opened illegally. Taxpayers and people that actually pay their bills will pick up the loss. This is after the Yankton Sheriff did a investigation on her for identity theft using her daughter's identity. The South Dakota Courts condone identity theft, hiding it from the public. This is not the only case of this happening, but not prosecuting gives the State good numbers.
All the federal laws involving fraud and id theft being broken at whim. Is this incompetence or corruption?

[Daisy]

I hope Obama does not get reelected in 2012. He is the WORST president on the face of the earth. He is a walking nightmare.

[Alex]

God help us if this creep is elected in 2012.

[bonncaruso]

As one who does hardcore electoral statistics, I can tell you that Obama has the better hand of cards for 2012, no matter how you slice it.

The economy was actually taking another hit in 1936 as FDR firmly whipped Alf Landon 60-40.

In 1964, the economy was sputtering and the south was pissed off over the Civil Rights Act and still, LBJ won a massive landslide, 61-39 over Goldwater.

At this point in the game in 1982, Reagan’s numbers were even a tick lower than Obama’s are now. And Reagan came back to win a 58-42 landslide in 1984.

Bill Clinton’s numbers at this stage of the game in 1994 were under Obama’s, and his health care initiative had FAILED. The GOP of 1994 was also better organized than it is in 2010. And Clinton came back to trounce Bob Dole by 8 points in 1996.

GWB43 does not fit the re-election pattern as well. His popularity numbers were soaring after 9-11 and yet his re-election was a lean win against John Kerry, who (many do not know this fact) got the highest percentage of a losing candidate fighting against an incumbent in the entire history of the Union.

Winning percentage changes:

FDR increased his PV% by 3 points in 1936 over 1932.

Eisenhower increased his PV% by 2.2 points in 1956 over 1952.

We cannot compare Nixon correctly, as he went from a 3 man race in 1968 to a two man race in 1972.

Reagan increased his PV% by 8 points in 1984 over 1980. 1980 had a third party candidate (Anderson), who did get 6.6% of the PV ala Perot in 1996.

Clinton, in 2 three-man races, increased his PV% by 6 points in 1996 over 1992.

GWB43 increased his PV% by 3 points in 2004 over 2000.

FACIT:
Obama is poised to pick up between 3-5 points in 2012 and add 5 to 8 states to his column.

Only 4 times in 114 years has an incumbent been turned out of office, and in 3 of those four occasions, the incumbent was a republican:

Hoover in 1932
Ford in 1976
Carter in 1980
Bush 41 in 1992.

In most cases, the incumbent was re-elected and only in the case of Woodrow Wilson was his re-election win leaner than his initial win.

Many wish to compare Obama to Carter in the hope that he will also be a one term president, but statistically, the comparison to Ronald Reagan fits much better most of the time.

The 1st amendment guarantees us all the right to as much propaganda as we want. But demographic and electoral statistics tell me that the probability of Obama winning a LARGER landslide in 2012 than he won in 2008 is extremely high.

I did a complete statistical analysis to this in late 2007, here is the study:

http://rosenthalswelt.blogspot.com/2007/11/1904-2004-end-analysis-part-4-two-term.html