Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 16, 2011 9:42:51 GMT -5
Theough the process of elimination, Pawlenty is starting to look better every day. I definitely don't count out Mitt Romney, but George Will is probably right in saying the next POTUS is either going to be Obama, Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels. I guess Huckabee opting out is kind of big news? Is it? But I never thought he was going to run in the first place. And, as TC knows, I am NEVER wrong about elections. ;D |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,912
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 16, 2011 10:53:12 GMT -5
As George Will has probably pointed out by now, the GOP has a historical lineage of candidates with prior running experience; or, to put it anotherway, they have waited their turn. This is something Huckabee, the runner-up in 2008, could have leveraged but chose not to.
Since 1948, all but three two GOP candidates were incumbents or had run in some form prior to seeking the office:
1948: Dewey (nominee in 1944)
1952: Eisenhower (newcomer)
1956: Eisenhower (incumbent)
1960: Nixon (incumbent VP)
1964: Goldwater (runner-up in 1960)
1968: Nixon (nominee in 1960)
1972: Nixon (incumbent)
1976: Ford (incumbent)
1980: Reagan (runner-up in 1976)
1984: Reagan (incumbent)
1988: Bush (incumbent VP, runner-up in last contested race, 1980)
1992: Bush (incumbent)
1996: Dole (runner-up in last contested race, 1988)
2000: GW Bush (newcomer)
2004: GW Bush (incumbent)
2008: McCain (runner-up in last contested race, 2000)
Much like the Democrats in 1984, the lack of a heir presumptive from the previous cycle really puts the visibility of the GOP candidate at a disadvantage.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 16, 2011 11:05:18 GMT -5
"Much like the Democrats in 1984, the lack of a heir presumptive from the previous cycle really puts the visibility of the GOP candidate at a disadvantage. "
Possibly, but not necessarily. Had they gone back to the 2008 well - well, there weren't a lot of high cards in that hand. Huck alienated lots of people, and Giuilani took the money I gave his campaign and spent it on real estate in Florida looking for magic beans. Romney has the most name recognition (it's either that or *shudder* Ron Paul), and is the obvious choice if you want to go for the "wait your turn" theory, but he was strangely ineffectual last time and was quickly eclipsed by the McCain Express.
It's also worth mentioning that the above strategy didn't work well the last two elections - Dole and McCain both got thrashed - so maybe a new strategy is in order.
I personally believe that the entire election will be about Obama and his policies. If the GOP has a chance, it will be based on as many Americans as possible saying that they're worse off than they were four years ago and that Obama's the reason why. In that case, Daniels or Pawlenty may be a better choice - quiet, unassuming people who indicate that they're a clear alternative without having any negatives, thus making it as easy as possible for potential anti-Obama voters to vote for them without any concern.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 16, 2011 11:22:43 GMT -5
I guess Huckabee opting out is kind of big news? Is it? But I never thought he was going to run in the first place. And, as TC knows, I am NEVER wrong about elections. ;D Did anyone watch Huckabee's announcement that he'd be taking his talents to FOX News? I haven't yet, but from what it sounded like, it sounded fantastic - Slater from Saved by the Bell, Huckabee playing bass on Cat Scratch Fever with Nugent, and Donald Trump. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 16, 2011 12:18:18 GMT -5
The Trump circus is over: blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/trump-not-runninng-for-president.htmlOn Huckabee, I think he would have been a strong candidate. Also, when asked who's left in the race who shared most of his views, first name he mentioned was Santorum. Be interesting to see if the social conservatives move to Santorum. They will not move to Mitch. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 16, 2011 12:22:59 GMT -5
Trump was never serious.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 17, 2011 10:09:42 GMT -5
The Trump circus is over: blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/trump-not-runninng-for-president.htmlOn Huckabee, I think he would have been a strong candidate. Also, when asked who's left in the race who shared most of his views, first name he mentioned was Santorum. Be interesting to see if the social conservatives move to Santorum. They will not move to Mitch. Maybe if he was a newcomer, but I doubt there are any politically active social conservatives that aren't already familiar with Santorum. The fact that they favored Huckabee over him (maybe because he's Catholic?) doesn't speak well for his chances. What is going to be interesting in the primaries and beyond is the lack of southern representation by the GOP (I don't buy Herman Cain yet and Ron Paul's fanbase is national rather than regional). If there isn't a counterweight to high black turnout and Obama ends up winning Virginia and/or North Carolina again, I think you can call the election right then. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2011 10:23:50 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 17, 2011 10:34:58 GMT -5
Yeah, it's really not. Any hope of Newt injecting good ideas / raising the level of debate seems to be going *poof*. SMH |
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on May 17, 2011 11:10:06 GMT -5
As someone who used to refer to himself as a moderate republican, I find it distressing who you're no longer a "real" republican if you're not 100% in agreement on every republican talking point.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 17, 2011 11:29:57 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2011 12:10:38 GMT -5
In this situation, it wasn't even that Newt flip-flopped or that he disagrees with a Republican talking point, it was that he went on Meet the Press and actively tried to torpedo it. Olympia Snowe disagrees with a lot of Republican talking points, but you don't generally see her try to torpedo Republican initiatives. She just might vote against them.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 17, 2011 13:16:08 GMT -5
Newt never had a prayer of getting nominated but, at the rate he's going, he won't even be in the race in a couple of months.
Also, the south does not need to have one of themselves on the ticket as long as the nominee shares most of the core values of the south. Realize this is a broad statement that does not intend to speak to all southerners.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2011 14:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 17, 2011 17:48:44 GMT -5
Pawlenty could be the John Kerry of 2012. In 2004 the Dems decided that they hated Bush more than they liked any of their candidates, so they picked a candidate whose one and only quality was that he could beat Bush. Will the GOP make a similar judgment in 2012?
Let's not forget that, despite running a godawful campaign, Kerry came pretty close to knocking off Bush in 2004. The strategy isn't without its merits.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 17, 2011 18:37:53 GMT -5
Pawlenty could be the John Kerry of 2012. In 2004 the Dems decided that they hated Bush more than they liked any of their candidates, so they picked a candidate whose one and only quality was that he could beat Bush. Will the GOP make a similar judgment in 2012? Let's not forget that, despite running a godawful campaign, Kerry came pretty close to knocking off Bush in 2004. The strategy isn't without its merits. On electability as a candidate quality (from 2004): www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/opinion/electing-the-electable.html?ref=davidbrooks |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 17, 2011 21:25:03 GMT -5
Pawlenty could be the John Kerry of 2012. Or he could be the Walter Mondale of 2012. Kinda boring Minnesotan sound familiar? |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on May 18, 2011 9:05:01 GMT -5
Pawlenty could be the John Kerry of 2012. In 2004 the Dems decided that they hated Bush more than they liked any of their candidates, so they picked a candidate whose one and only quality was that he could beat Bush. Will the GOP make a similar judgment in 2012? Let's not forget that, despite running a godawful campaign, Kerry came pretty close to knocking off Bush in 2004. The strategy isn't without its merits. On electability as a candidate quality (from 2004): www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/opinion/electing-the-electable.html?ref=davidbrooksI think there's a significant difference between TPaw-by-default and electing the "electable." The commonality is that a lot of Republicans are showing tepid support for Pawlenty because while he's not their preferred first choice, he's nowhere near as bad as everyone else in the GOP field. If this is his path to the nomination, this has the hallmark of a party settling upon a true compromise candidate rather than a repeat of 2004. The major miscalculation that Democrat primary voters made in 2004 was to reject their individually preferred candidates in favor of Kerry based solely upon a surreal projection upon the rest of America that John Kerry would be especially electable in the general election. I don't think the GOP "like" for Pawlenty is simply a function of his apparent electability, or at least no more than it was a function of Mitt's appeal in 2008. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 18, 2011 9:51:30 GMT -5
The major miscalculation that Democrat primary voters made in 2004 was to reject their individually preferred candidates in favor of Kerry based solely upon a surreal projection upon the rest of America that John Kerry would be especially electable in the general election. Kerry came within 2% of the vote in Ohio of winning the Presidency. Let's do away with the idiotic talk of "surreal projections", and "major miscalculations" - it was a close election, not a 2008 scrubbing. If anything, Democratic voters were dead-on right that he was electable, and he just came up short. Pawlenty will never be the nominee. If Pawlenty is the default, then someone else is going to emerge. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 18, 2011 15:34:38 GMT -5
|
|
