The next president's religion

[Bull Moose Base]

I'm predicting a Catholic, so long as Obama is re-elected. Looking at the main contenders on the Democratic side (Cuomo, Gillibrand, Kaine, McCaskill), the majority are Roman Catholic. Same with the Republicans, with GOP Catholics including Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan.

Didn't know Gillibrand was.  Brian Schweitzer, Martin O'Malley and Joe Biden are too.  I don't think McCaskill will run. 

Marco Rubio seems to want Catholics to think he's Catholic and Evangelicals to think he's Evangelical.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/us/27beliefs.html

Pawlenty was raised Catholic but converted to Evangelical Christianity.

[Bull Moose Base]

Forgot Jeb Bush who is has also a convert to Catholicism.  I'd say it's more likely than any time in recent history but far from certain.  Warner, Hillary, Huckabee, Huntsman, Romney or Pawlenty are all reasonably plausible 2016 nominees who aren't Catholic (anymore, at least).  Rubio, if he finds himself needing to boost his approvals in Florida, he might start attending synagogue too and telling people he's not just Catholic and Evangelical you know.

[Bull Moose Base]

Warner, Hillary, Huckabee, Huntsman, Romney or Pawlenty are all reasonably plausible 2016 nominees who aren't Catholic (anymore, at least).

You really think Romney is a reasonably plausible 2016 nominee?  I mean, other than the scenario in which he's elected in 2012, and is running for reelection in '16, that is?

If Romney wins the nomination in '12 but loses to Obama, then of course he's as finished politically as Dukakis after '88 or Kerry after '04.  Whereas if he fails to win the nomination a second time (after having started out as the frontrunner this time around), I similarly think he's done.  I mean, by 2016, he would have been out of elected office for 10 years, and lost the nomination twice in a row.  And it's not like there's any particularly significant faction of the GOP that sees him as their champion, a la Reagan 1980.  Won't the party be ready to move on by then?

Well, there is the precedent of Dole who lost in 80 and 88 before being nominated at age 73 in 96. True, Dole was then senate majority leader and not a one-term governor 10 years out of office, and wasn't the frontrunner in 88 who blew it (like Romney would now be).  But I think having a recent "successful" losing campaign can make one seem fresher than their time out of office would suggest.  Like Nixon 68 and Reagan 80.  Reagan was a third-time candidate too in a way, come to think of it.

I do think if Romney narrowly loses the nomination or the general, he'd perhaps be one of the frontrunners for 16.  Dukakis didn't just lose, he was crushed, and was considered to have been a poor candidate.  Kerry wasn't technically finished after 2004 in that he was considering running again.  (It's been reported he even made John Edwards promise he wouldn't run in 2008 if Kerry did before agreeing to take him on as VP.  A promise which Edwards unsurprisingly broke before Kerry had decided not to run again.)  Kerry was sort of knocked out by the attacks (pretty clearly deliberate distortions imo) of his joke that if you don't study, you end up stuck in Iraq.  But for intents and purposes, yes, I don't think Kerry had a chance in 2008 had he run.  He never could have beaten Obama or Hillary.  And even without them, Edwards probably would have beaten him for a similar reason as Dukakis, albeit to a smaller degree: Kerry was bashed by Democrats as a candidate who dropped ball in general, who failed to connect, who responded too slowly to attacks on him.  He came close to beating Bush but Bush had under 50% approval and was considered beatable.  If Romney is losing nominee but acquits himself- say if Obama's approvals are above 50- I do think he'd be considered a viable nominee for 2016.  Gore was the frontrunner for the nomination for 2004 but obviously those were very rare and specific circumstances.  Anyway, if Romney does win the nomination, I bet it will reinforce the "next in line" meme in political reporting about the GOP primary.  At least, if he doesn't get crushed sparking a conscious rebellion against the pattern.  So that the "most likelies" for 2016 will again be judged to be previous presidential candidates like whoever was the runner-up in 2012, Huckabee, Romney himself.  I also think that's a possible outcome if say Palin somehow edges him out for the nomination in 2012- I think her status as last VP nominee could arguably preserve the meme- and then gets demolished by Obama which would couple "next-in-line-ism" (as far as public expectation of who is likely) with some establishment voices saying they need a nominee in 2016 with more appeal to Independent voters.    On the other hand, if Pawlenty or someone else got nominated, I think the next-in-line meme is effectively killed and instead it's a huge help for guys like Rubio, Christie, Thune.  (Forgot him. Another potential non-Catholic nominee.)

This has gotten quite long.  Anyway, in short, I think if Romney loses a primary as close as Hillary did or a general as close as Gore or even as close as Kerry but with mitigating circumstances e.g. a consensus Obama was almost impossible to beat, I do think it's possible he'll be in the mix.  But maybe you're right that the overriding issue is he doesn't inspire the kind of devotion from a certain faction as Reagan did in 1980 and should he lose, the party will be happy to write him off.

[Bull Moose Base]

Losing the general election pretty much automatically means that you'll retroactively be viewed as a "poor candidate".  (Again, with the exception of a Gore 2000 type situation where you actually win the popular vote, and thus were not really "rejected by the voters".)

I guess that's right.  I had speculated if Obama's approvals are over 50.  But if they were, unless it owed to a roaring recovery or Bin Laden kill-like event closer to Election Day, Romney would maybe  be blamed for not damaging Obama more and allowing his approvals to be so high.  It's hard to speculate on.  Kerry was the only close loser in the past 30 years besides Gore and he lost to president whose approvals were under 50.  I definitely agree if Obama is approved under 50 and beats Romney or anyone else, that person is finished.  Of course, if Obama's approvals are north of 50, he's pretty likely to beat Romney by close to 100 EVs if not more which would also retire him.

Yes, yes, there is the Nixon 1968 example, but of course that was still in the pre-McGovern-Fraser reforms era, when nominee the wasn't chosen until the convention, and it was mostly determined by party bosses.

Nixon's popular vote loss was so slim it probably approaches the Gore-Bush scenario in any case.

You also write that if Romney is nominated in 2012 and loses the GE, then it'll reinforce the "next in line" meme.  But how would Romney still be the "next in line" in 2016?  He would have been the guy who just had his turn, not the next in line.  The "next in line" would be whoever he beat for the nomination in 2012.

I think it could conceivably be a scenario like 2012 where who is "next in line" is ambiguous and the polls are led by 3 people.  This time it was the two runners-up from 2008 plus the running mate who was a bit of a phenomenon.  So, if Romney lost a very close one, he, the primary runner up, the running mate (if a different person) and Huckabee... all 4 could be poll leaders for 2016 throughout Obama's second term.  But most presidential losses aren't that close.

Also, I think someone like Pawlenty, who is more widely tolerable to the party and a lot younger, if he were nominee and lost to Obama by only a couple states, I think he'd be a strong contender to be the nominee again in 2016.  I think so for Romney too but he probably has less leeway given the suspicion of him in the GOP.  But your argument is persuasive.  It'd be a pretty narrow set of circumstances that would keep him viable if he didn't get elected in 2012.