In 2012 will we see a repeat of 1912? Or will we get a Republican Bill Clinton?

[indrights4ever]

I see more similarities for the election of 2012 with the elections of 1968 and 1980.  Johnson was very successful legislatively (as has Obama) expanding government and presiding over a difficult war, the economy was basically flat-line and obvious civil unrest throughout the nation. 

President Carter was elected following a traumatic national scandal (Watergate) and had a major foreign affairs issue at the close of his presidency (Iran hostage crises). 

The Republican party was certainly weakened following the 2008 financial collapse, but had already lost key battles during the 2006 election including House control.  The 2012 election has qualities of 1968 in the fact that there is still a continuing war, the economy will still likely be flat-lined, and as we saw in 2010, there is still a sense of a need for change, but not the kind that Obama (or Johnson/Democrats echoed in 68') is pushing.  The Obama administrations ineptness in Foreign affairs reminds one also of Carter, mainly the sense of 'deer in the headlights' non action, similar to 78'-79'.  The fact that 30-years of inaction on a cohesive, 'progressive' energy plan will certainly impact this nation in the short term, eerily similar to 78'-79'.

One final thought on 2012, don't underestimate the Supreme Court decision in 2010, Justice Alito caught the ire of the president (and Dems) because this will certainly swing the power of $$$ back toward the center, because the big government/big union $$$ dominated in 2008.

Cheers.               

[indrights4ever]

As far as the second part of your question, Bill Clinton's presidency was a bit quirky to say the least.  Former President Clinton I'm sure considers himself (and I'm sure Secretary of State Clinton does as well) to be a 'progressive' big government president.  Certainly, during his first two years his administration was able to pass several key legislative programs that allowed for the federal government to expand its control.  The worse, and key loss, for his administration was the national health care debacle (Hillary care), which opened the door to the Repubs and their conservative influence, basically for the remainder of his presidency.  President Clinton won reelection in 1996 mainly because of 'echoing' conservative ideas (remember the Dick Morris triangulation approach) and an extremely weak challenger, uh, Bob Dole.

You remember Bob don't you?  Why do you want to be president?... Well, I'm .... Bob Dole.  Huh?  Yeah, I'm .... Bob Dole.  Bob Dole.......Senator Bob Dole.  It's my turn, right?

Now, as far as 2012, the Repubs are unlikely to lose the House, they may not pick up the Senate, but unlikely to lose the House.  This is key because so many incumbents will be pushing the conservative message, echoing the message at the top of the ticket (perhaps?).  With the conservative movement 'within' the party bolstering their message, it is very unlikely a third party will emerge out of the Republican Party.  The Democrats HAVE the White House, and unless Obama decides NOT to run, no serious third party candidate will emerge out of their party to even come close to Obama.  So, I don't see a "Ross Perot" out there in the weeds, Ala 1992, unless of course, Obama has a Billionaire out there that's pissed off at him .

Bill Clinton emerged as a candidate after 12 years of a Republican in the White House, this is key.  The Dems also did not have any major victories prior to the 1992 election-as Repubs will in 2012 (Ala 2010) and Bill had to face a sitting president whose approval rating was very high (Bush was in the 80's following desert storm).  Bill had to run decisively to the middle once he became the nominee.  I don't see any Republican running left of center and getting the nomination, because of 2010-tea party-ism, and that is what the candidate did in 2008 (McCain was a left-center Repub's wet dream candidate).  The Repubs won't elect the same type of candidate in 2012.  No, I see the Repubs electing a former (or sitting) governor who is somewhat conservative, with a strong background as a fiscal reformer.  That means no Trump (wet blanket), no Gingrich (although a reformer), and no Santorum (although a conservative).