Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

[OldPhiKap]

Is anyone else just a little surprised O didn't have to endure a primary challenge? (R 1992, D 1980, D 1968).

Interesting question. Not sure who in the Dem party is strong enough to do it, and the examples you list are obviously the exception and not the rule.

Put another way -- who would really want the job right now? Even the big Repubs passed.

[A-Tex Devil]

The biggest thing to happen in the campaign today is that Perry has decided to stick around through South Carolina. Many pundits think this is a huge break for Romney as it continues to fracture the anti-Romney voting block. You have to think that at least 4 out of every 5 Perry voters in SC will be folks who would have otherwise likely voted for Santorum or perhaps Gingrich. If Perry gets even 5 or 10% in South Carolina (and he might do even better than that), then it is a major boost to Romney.

-Jason "I'm rooting for Gingrich and Santorum to finish 1/2 in SC with Romney in 3rd-- that would extend this thing at least through Super Tuesday" Evans

I still posit that Perry has the best chance to unseat Romney if he gets any momentum. But if he doesn't get top 3 in SC it will obviously be over for him. Perry is the only one that can keep up with Romney money wise.

[JasonEvans]

I still posit that Perry has the best chance to unseat Romney if he gets any momentum. But if he doesn't get top 3 in SC it will obviously be over for him. Perry is the only one that can keep up with Romney money wise.

Perhaps, but Santorum claims to have gotten a million dollars in the past 24 hours or something like that. Perry supposedly has $3.5 mil cash on hand. If Santorum finishes ahead of Perry in SC, I bet Santorum's coffers will be more filled than Perry's.

Of course, Santorum did little to show he is capable of being in it for the long haul today when he failed to qualify for the DC GOP ballot. He either needed to get like 296 signatures (shoot, just go to congress and get a bunch of aides and congressmen to sign) or pay $10 grand. He did neither.

-Jason "he missed qualifying for Virginia too -- what does he have against the Middle-Atlantic?" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

Perhaps, but Santorum claims to have gotten a million dollars in the past 24 hours or something like that. Perry supposedly has $3.5 mil cash on hand. If Santorum finishes ahead of Perry in SC, I bet Santorum's coffers will be more filled than Perry's.

Of course, Santorum did little to show he is capable of being in it for the long haul today when he failed to qualify for the DC GOP ballot. He either needed to get like 296 signatures (shoot, just go to congress and get a bunch of aides and congressmen to sign) or pay $10 grand. He did neither.

-Jason "he missed qualifying for Virginia too -- what does he have against the Middle-Atlantic?" Evans

Perry and Gingrich are suing to get their applications in VA approved. IIRC, Santorum didn't even submit one.

Santorum has serious sustainability issues.

[Bob Green]

My question is which issues will become the main focus of the primary/general election? With the economy, unemployment and housing market woes it would appear the American people are ready to focus on domestic issues, but we've heard that before and foreign policy still seemed to rule the roost in the end.

[snowdenscold]

My question is which issues will become the main focus of the primary/general election? With the economy, unemployment and housing market woes it would appear the American people are ready to focus on domestic issues, but we've heard that before and foreign policy still seemed to rule the roost in the end.

Not in 1992, so there is certainly precedent for what you say.

[Bluedog]

My question is which issues will become the main focus of the primary/general election? With the economy, unemployment and housing market woes it would appear the American people are ready to focus on domestic issues, but we've heard that before and foreign policy still seemed to rule the roost in the end.

Did it? In 2008, 57% of Americans said the economy was the most important issue when deciding who to vote for President. The war in Iraq was second at only 13% (tied with health care, another domestic issue).

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/polling/

[OldPhiKap]

1. Economy.
2. Iran.
3. Some crisis that is not apparent this far out.
4. Some personal social issue.

Probably in that order, depending on the crisis du jour come autumn.

[Wander]

My question is which issues will become the main focus of the primary/general election? With the economy, unemployment and housing market woes it would appear the American people are ready to focus on domestic issues, but we've heard that before and foreign policy still seemed to rule the roost in the end.

I think it depends on how good the campaigns are. To oversimplify a little bit, Republicans want it to be about the economy and Democrats want it to be about foreign policy. We'll see which nominee is better at directing the narrative.

[OldPhiKap]

I should add to my list: the Supreme Court is likely to rule on the constitutionality of "Obamacare" (I forget the real name, so no slight is intended by the moniker) in July. So healthcare will be a fresh issue (again) in the summer.

[blazindw]

I should add to my list: the Supreme Court is likely to rule on the constitutionality of "Obamacare" (I forget the real name, so no slight is intended by the moniker) in July. So healthcare will be a fresh issue (again) in the summer.

The Affordable Care Act ruling will be a monumental one. I'm actually thinking about camping out in front of the SCOTUS to hear some of the arguments (unless there's a SCOTUS-barred attorney that wants to sponsor my application to the Supreme Court Bar--I hear you can select which date you get sworn in).

If the SCOTUS rejects the Affordable Care Act, healthcare will be a huge issue in the election. If they don't, Obama can use that decision to show that all that fight was worth it in the end, linking it to the economy, budget and all the other issues that are hot-button this election cycle.

[Duvall]

My question is which issues will become the main focus of the primary/general election? With the economy, unemployment and housing market woes it would appear the American people are ready to focus on domestic issues, but we've heard that before and foreign policy still seemed to rule the roost in the end.

What years did you have in mind for that? Foreign policy elections tend to be the exception, not the rule.

Barring some unforeseen event, I cannot see how this election will turn on anything other than the economy.

[OldPhiKap]

The Affordable Care Act ruling will be a monumental one. I'm actually thinking about camping out in front of the SCOTUS to hear some of the arguments (unless there's a SCOTUS-barred attorney that wants to sponsor my application to the Supreme Court Bar--I hear you can select which date you get sworn in).

If the SCOTUS rejects the Affordable Care Act, healthcare will be a huge issue in the election. If they don't, Obama can use that decision to show that all that fight was worth it in the end, linking it to the economy, budget and all the other issues that are hot-button this election cycle.

Rule used to be that if you have been a member in good standing of your state's highest court for three years, you could apply. PM me if you need more info. I actually had a cert petition granted about 15 or 16 years ago and we got to go argue it (I briefed, sr. partner at the time spoke). Heck of a lot of fun.

They also had a "15 minute bar" or somesuch that folks can cycle in to the court and watch. But the line is long and you're not sure what you will see.

I think the ACA will be an issue even if it is upheld. There has been such a furor whipped up about it, and FoxNews will be beating the drum for months after any decision.

[A-Tex Devil]

The Affordable Care Act ruling will be a monumental one. I'm actually thinking about camping out in front of the SCOTUS to hear some of the arguments (unless there's a SCOTUS-barred attorney that wants to sponsor my application to the Supreme Court Bar--I hear you can select which date you get sworn in).

If the SCOTUS rejects the Affordable Care Act, healthcare will be a huge issue in the election. If they don't, Obama can use that decision to show that all that fight was worth it in the end, linking it to the economy, budget and all the other issues that are hot-button this election cycle.

Is there a swing on the court anymore? Knowing the justices proclivities for predictability to party lines in highly politicized cases (alliteration!), as opposed to actual law and their prior opinions (Bush v. Gore being example numero uno), it seems the outcome is preordained coupled with a blistering dissent.

I am not familiar enough with the arguments against the mandate to know where I come out, but if it's a 5-4 like I expect, I can probably tell you what that 5-4 will look like.

[Bob Green]

Did it? In 2008, 57% of Americans said the economy was the most important issue when deciding who to vote for President. The war in Iraq was second at only 13% (tied with health care, another domestic issue).

It seems my memory is short as there is no doubt President Obama ran and won on a domestic agenda in 2008. The headlines on the major news websites this morning are all about President Obama announcing his intentions to cut the defense budget:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...from-military/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politi...ift/index.html

"The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense," said Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif. "This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs," McKeon added.

The announcement also comes amidst frequent criticism of the president and his defense priorities from his political rivals, including candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.

I believe most folks would agree the defense budget could use trimming, but the disagreement arises when the discussion turns to how to utilize the "savings."

Hopefully I am not stepping outside the established boundaries of this thread, but it seems impossible to discuss the candidates without addressing the issues.

[blazindw]

Rule used to be that if you have been a member in good standing of your state's highest court for three years, you could apply. PM me if you need more info. I actually had a cert petition granted about 15 or 16 years ago and we got to go argue it (I briefed, sr. partner at the time spoke). Heck of a lot of fun.

They also had a "15 minute bar" or somesuch that folks can cycle in to the court and watch. But the line is long and you're not sure what you will see.

I think the ACA will be an issue even if it is upheld. There has been such a furor whipped up about it, and FoxNews will be beating the drum for months after any decision.

Yea, I'm 4 years deep, so I'm probably going to apply anyway. I always thought you needed a sponsor as well, but I'll have to double check to see what the current rules are.

Is there a swing on the court anymore? Knowing the justices proclivities for predictability to party lines in highly politicized cases (alliteration!), as opposed to actual law and their prior opinions (Bush v. Gore being example numero uno), it seems the outcome is preordained coupled with a blistering dissent.

I am not familiar enough with the arguments against the mandate to know where I come out, but if it's a 5-4 like I expect, I can probably tell you what that 5-4 will look like.

Basically, it will come down to Kennedy. Most assume that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will come down on one side, while Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan will come down on the other. Kennedy is the only real swing vote left.

[OldPhiKap]

Is there a swing on the court anymore? Knowing the justices proclivities for predictability to party lines in highly politicized cases (alliteration!), as opposed to actual law and their prior opinions (Bush v. Gore being example numero uno), it seems the outcome is preordained coupled with a blistering dissent.

I am not familiar enough with the arguments against the mandate to know where I come out, but if it's a 5-4 like I expect, I can probably tell you what that 5-4 will look like.

I think Justice Sotomayor has recused herself. There were also calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself due (I think) to work his wife did on behalf of some party opposing the law, but I do not know the specifics and do not know if he has announced any plans to recuse or participate.

Justice Kennedy is typically seen as the swing vote, with a bloc of four conservative judges and four less conservative judges (I do not know any lawyer who thinks that Federal judges, outside of the 9th Circuit in California, are "liberal").

Could end a 4-4 tie, although these things tend to be 3 majority opinion, 2 who join opinion for different reason, 1 who likes the majority analysis but disagrees with the result, 2 who disagree with everything, and 1 who thinks the issue is not procedurally before the court.

[gus]

I think Justice Sotomayor has recused herself. There were also calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself due (I think) to work his wife did on behalf of some party opposing the law, but I do not know the specifics and do not know if he has announced any plans to recuse or participate.

Justice Kennedy is typically seen as the swing vote, with a bloc of four conservative judges and four less conservative judges (I do not know any lawyer who thinks that Federal judges, outside of the 9th Circuit in California, are "liberal").

Could end a 4-4 tie, although these things tend to be 3 majority opinion, 2 who join opinion for different reason, 1 who likes the majority analysis but disagrees with the result, 2 who disagree with everything, and 1 who thinks the issue is not procedurally before the court.

Wouldn't a 4-4 tie affectively affirm the law? Wouldn't Roberts then vote on the winning side for a 5-3 decision, retaining the ability to write the ruling?

[Mike Corey]

I think Justice Sotomayor has recused herself. There were also calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself due (I think) to work his wife did on behalf of some party opposing the law, but I do not know the specifics and do not know if he has announced any plans to recuse or participate.

Justice Kennedy is typically seen as the swing vote, with a bloc of four conservative judges and four less conservative judges (I do not know any lawyer who thinks that Federal judges, outside of the 9th Circuit in California, are "liberal").

Could end a 4-4 tie, although these things tend to be 3 majority opinion, 2 who join opinion for different reason, 1 who likes the majority analysis but disagrees with the result, 2 who disagree with everything, and 1 who thinks the issue is not procedurally before the court.

Justice Sotomayor has not recused herself, nor have there been serious calls for her to recuse herself.

Perhaps you meant Justice Kagan, who served as U.S. Solicitor General prior to her current gig? She also, however, has not recused herself. Justice Thomas will not recuse himself, either.

As Blazin noted, the swing vote--and he does remain a swing vote--will be Justice Kennedy.

The Circuit opinion to read, if you're into such things, is the one penned by Justice Sutton on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Sutton is a Justice Scalia protege, and according to Mr. Scalia, is the best law clerk he's ever had. Sutton wrote the majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Act.

Will it sway some of the more conservative justices? We shall see. The only one that needs to be persuaded, however, is Justice Kennedy.

[OldPhiKap]

Wouldn't a 4-4 tie affectively affirm the law? Wouldn't Roberts then vote on the winning side for a 5-3 decision, retaining the ability to write the ruling?

Not an expert on this part of federal appellate law, but I thing a 4-4 split would generally leave the ruling of the lower court intact. Problem here is, there is a split amongst the circuits.

More likely would be an opionion with four against, three in favor, and Kennedy writing a separate opinion that dictates the impact of the ruling.

Having said all that, I am hopeful that the decision will not be split and there will be a healthy consensus, one way or the other. I do not believe that the judges are politically motivated, although their outlooks on life are certainly shaped by some core principles that may align with one party or the other.

Mike, perhaps I was thinking about Justice Kegan. I have not been following the issue closely; got enough law junk on my desk as is.

But perhaps we're getting a little far afield of the topic (my fault, perhaps) so that's about all I've got to say on the matter.