GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
It’s still unbelievable, really. As you know, I am a young guy. It had been a foregone conclusion — ever since I’ve been involved in politics, really — that we’d be facing Hillary Clinton in 2008. It has been at once astounding and fascinating to watch the Democrats deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. It still hasn’t really sunk in. It’s one thing to see it coming and another to see it happen. She really did lose.
Amazing.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I cannot agree more Alex. It just amazes me to think that we are facing a candidate other than Hillary this November. How the mighty have fallen…
June 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
If Ed McMahon’s Beverly Hills mansion can go into foreclosure anything can happen.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I’m a democrat and i still can’t believe it. I also still can’t believe its not butter as well.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“I’m a democrat and i still can’t believe it.”
an extreme rarity on this site…
Anyway, we all know how Giuliani blew his chance at the nomination - he was too liberal for the party, and refused to compete in early states. But how did Hillary blow it?
June 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
There have been previous cases where the front-runner collapsed and didn’t win (Taft in ‘52 and Muskie in ‘72 are prime examples).
What’s different about those cases is that those candidates had been seen as the likely nominee for relatively short periods of time (four years max). Hillary has been eventual-nominee-presumptive for 16 years.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
This is just my opinion, but when the tide began to turn against the Clintons, when Obama began to get serious votes from africian americans it seems like the leaders,past and present, of the democratic party began to turn their backs on the Clintons. They did not fear the Clintons anymore. They had been holding their noses from the stink that Bill’s actions had created and now there appeared a refreshing new person to rally around. Hillary got torpedoed from the ghosts of the past.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
(Can we please drop the idiotic “Giuliani was a liberal” line?)
June 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
How many books are going to be written about this primary? Each one will have a different opinion on why Obama won/Clinton lost. I think its important to acknowledge the incredible campaign Obama ran - organization, fundraising, message control. As a management study it will earn a few books by itself.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“(Can we please drop the idiotic “Giuliani was a liberal” line?)”
If Giuliani had been a social conservative, and had not made NYC a sanctuary city, he would be the nominee.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Obama had initial momentum and had better team…but the strategy of getting the caucuses was huge. A caucus vote essentially made it more important than a primary vote. They targetted those and hung in there early and roade the post super tues momentum. Clinton and swung tide winning big 3 but it wasn’t enough.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I don’t think Clinton lost this primary-I think Obama won.
Clinton ran a fairly credible campaign with few major mishaps, but Obama inspired.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
While it may ultimately be a distinction without a difference, it should be noted that Hillary is not dropping out on Saturday, but merely suspending her campaign…just in case Michelle Obama’s ‘hate whitey’ tirade isn’t an urban legend, or Huckabee’s ‘joke’ ends up being more morbidly prescient than botched.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“If Giuliani had been a social conservative, and had not made NYC a sanctuary city, he would be the nominee.”
And he also wouldn’t have ever been New York City mayor.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I thought everyone had accepted the theory that Team Clinton was too arrogant to plan for anything post Super Tuesday.
Right along with Obama organizing in the caucus states. There was a great article today, forget where, explaining Team Obama’s delegate strategy. Very math based, district by district.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“I thought everyone had accepted the theory that Team Clinton was too arrogant to plan for anything post Super Tuesday. Right along with Obama organizing in the caucus states. There was a great article today, forget where, explaining Team Obama’s delegate strategy. Very math based, district by district.”
Ironically, they starting doing their best in impromptu mode.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
One thing that may become more evident now is the extent of quit–”under the table”—backing of Obama very early on by the Kennedy family and their network. A Democrat insider that I know who was not affiliated with either candidate pointed this out to me in early 2007. The indicator early on was Axelrod’s signing on with Obama; he is a long-time operative/associate of the Kennedys’. And don’t forget that even after all these years they still have a lot of influence in the MSM–which has been overwhelmingly favorable to Brockin. In many ways, this primary contest was a battle between two Democrat power dynasties and the Clinton’s lost.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
One strategy Team Obama used was, since the Dem party awards delegates based on districts, not to put resources in districts with even numbers of delegates. If there are 6 delegates in a district, he can lose 42 to 58, and still split the delegates 3/3. If there are 7, an odd number, he can win by 50.1 to 49.9 and get 4 to her 3.
They did that across the entire country.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
What a messed-up system.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Ah, it was the Wash Post. Here it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060304268_pf.html
June 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
When the history of this election year is written (and I imagine it will be written about often and for a long time to come), it will not simply be the Dem side that fascinates.
I don’t recall a race with as many lead changes as the Republicans had (McCain, Giuliani, Romney, McCain), nor one in which a front-runner implodes, falls to the second tier of candidates, and then wins it all. In the past, stumbling as badly and publicly as McCain did was the end.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Democrats vote on identity politics- I hope it screws them over like it should. Obama is uniquely unqualified to lead this country, and that’s something that he can’t change in four months.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
You have to wonder if 2008 is a once-in-a-lifetime race, or the new standard.
Its also fun to play the “what if” game:
What if George Allen had won re-election?
What if Giuliani had promised to uphold the pro-life, pro-family stance of the party?
What if Huckabee had risen in the polls a month earlier?
June 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“What a messed-up system.”
The DNC primary?
I don’t know about that. The length will certainly cause problems for Obama in unifying the party (or maybe not, if tey put together the dream ticket), but he is a much better fit for the party than McCain could ever be for us.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“I don’t know about that. The length will certainly cause problems for Obama in unifying the party (or maybe not, if tey put together the dream ticket), but he is a much better fit for the party than McCain could ever be for us.”
Whether our system is messed-up (I don’t think it is, really) has no bearing on whether their system is messed up.
By the way, McCain can also win. Our system may not produce The Base’s Favorite Candidate, but it produced both a nominee in February and a winner.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I like winner-take-all because it reflects the Electoral College.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
#9, he had a semi-pro-life persona in 1989 when he first ran against Dinkins. He probably would’ve won in 1993 even with this semi-conservative persona, and if he were personally pro-life, this semi-pro-life background would’ve been enough for him to become fully pro-life for the 08 campaign. He went from a working-class pro-life catholic from Brooklyn to a sterotypical pro-choice liberal from Manhattan.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
actually for #13
June 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I love how people knock liberals in NYC. If it wasn’t for them, there would be no raods in the rednecks to drive their pickup trucks down. NYC pays so much more into federal taxes than they get back it’s not even funny. Maybe someone that runs that city might be worth listening to.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Easy for red state voters to not have to talk about compromise on the issues, eh?
June 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
#27, uh, I believe it’s the blue-collar conservatives from the outer boroughs (and the rest of the country) who build those roads my friend; not the Sex and the City ladies. It’s not the rest of the country’s fault that NY is inept in getting pork. Also, coming from Florida, you should know that NY has been contracting while the Sunbelt and the West have been expanding, putting more money into the Federal pot.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
#27, BTW, coming from MPLS, I would put MPLS’ cultural amenities per capita against NYC’s anyday. Just b/c we’re not on the coast doesn’t mean we’re rubes.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Rudy should have run on his law and order record and going after the mob and corrupt politicians.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Clinton has had zero chance since mid Feb. Can’t tell you how much money I’ve made on that fact.
The last 4 months have been a waste of time - except that Obama has been damaged earlier than he would have been.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Rudy just ran a baffling campaign in general. I wasn’t a big fan of Romney’s campaign; he didn’t let themes germinate long enough, so that they could become memes, and instead sort of picked up themes to suit the moment, but his campaign was leagues more coherent then Rudy’s. Leaving aside his abysmal primary strategy, what exactly was Rudy running on, narrative-wise? He was roundly ridiculed for talking so much about NYC, and relatively little about the future of the country. He ran a bit like Bill Richardson; a, “here’s my resume, review it at your leisure” style. At least Romney had themes, and fairly coherent ones, even if they shifted too frequently to take hold. Rudy had none at all.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Well, I have never been impressed with Hillary’s abilities from the get-go. Her sense of entitlement, failure to make nice with the base (not saying I’m sorry I was wrong about the Iraq War, general hawkish statements) and inability to plan and run a campaign doomed her.
What did surprise me was Obama’s rise to be the Anti-Hillary candidate this cycle. I’d a figured Edwards, Warner or even Gore to play that role.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:00 am
# 21: The what-if scenario is fascinating for this election.
AN ALTERNATE 2008 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY: WHAT IF..
—————————————–
Take the Iowa results as is (HUCKABEE), then
what if Rudy would have fought harder for NH and Obama supporters voted for Obama in that primary rather than cross over to vote for McCain? (narrow ROMNEY victory)
Keep Michigan and NV as is: (wide ROMNEY victories) which now starts to have campaign follow Team Romney’s vision. but…
McCain with no victories under his belt to date cruises into SC with even less momentum AND let’s say Thompson’s pathetic run for pres was even more pathetic: narrow HUCKABEE victory
Now Florida. Rudy’s battle ground. Let’s say he did a little better along with Romney and Huck. It may have been enough to bring Romney within striking distance. Probably not though, McCains real victory was pretty substantial. Lets award the what if FL contest to MCCAIN.
So now we are up to Tsunami Tuesday with exactly what the pundits had predicted: a real race between 3 closer matched candidates, changing everything. MCCAIN a little above 57 delegates, HUCK a little below 57 dels and Romney pretty close behind with maybe 47-49 delegates. Very close race.
Going into Tsunami Tuesday, McCain would have appeared weaker and Romney and Huck, stronger. I dont see a lot of change that day BUT lets make two minor what if modifications: Huck wins OK and MO. He was close in both in reality but with more “MO” he may have claimed them, depriving McCain of another 78-80 delagates and setting up a Demographic Storyline on why can’t Romney win outside the West, Huckabee the South and McCain the big urban states. Final results: 545 McCain, 217 Romney and 251 Huck (much better than what happened).
Then let’s say Romney fights on to the Potomac Primary, drawing additional votes from McCain, costing him VA to Huck and maybe DC to Romney. We’ll give Mac, Maryland. Then a weaker McCain, a stronger Huck and barely alive Romney (who had already dropped out in reality) slog on to Ohio/Tx. Romney makes Ohio a must win state. Final talley this stage: McCain 101, Huck 99 and Romney 16
At this point, pundits begin to wonder if any candidate will be sucessful in winning the 1100 odd delegates to attain nomination. McCain would still be ahead with a little over 700 delagates, but Huck would be close behind with a little over 400 and Romney picking up the rear with 280 or so. Im estimating at this point.
At this point the Ohio/Texas primaries would have been make or break for BOTH parties. Aside from NH, (which my scenario went Obama) the same story line would have been present on the Dem side as what happened in reality, with Hil needing to win both to survive (esp since she lost NH narrowly). With McCain nowhere near nomination, Rush doesnt initiate Operation CHaos and rightwing talk radio continues their losing pitch for Romney (ever listen to Hugh Hewitt at that time?) Result: RI and OH go McCain, more narrowly with Romney coming in second in all. Romney does collect a few delegates from OH and RI for his troubles, depriving McCain of a wider victory. More importantly he wins VT narrowly like neighboring NH collecting all delegates. Both lose Texas to Huckabee, (allowing Huck to pick up MS a few days later). The aftermath: Huckabee wins the day with 103 delegates, McCain 101 and Romney about 25 or so.
The headlines after march 4 is “when will it be over for the republicans?” This is further reinforced when Hillary having lost Texas soundly and barely winning Ohio suspends her campaign under pressure. At this point McCain would have 800, Huckabee 500 and Romney about 300.
Then what? At this point only 400 delegates remain up for grabs for the GOP nomination. McCain would have to run the gamut to win the nomination, to which seems unlikely given Huckabees strength in the upcoming MS and NC primaries. In any case, Romney drops out and McCain and Huckabee slog it out to the bitter end. Huck wins MS, IN, NC, NB and KY, for 207 delegates and McCain wins the rest and collects 200.
With the Republican primaries now over, no candidate received the necessary 1191 delegates to win the nomination and worse, an insufficient number of superdelegates exist on the GOP side to put mccain over the top.
Journalists get excited by the prospect of a first brokered convention in recent history…
————————————–
Conclusion: Republicans (and John McCain) got very lucky this year.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am
www/act.blog:
If Giuliani is a liberal you are an IDIOT. And it is because of republicans like you that we have nominated the weakest candidate.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
A popular prediction back in January 2007 was that Richardson and Brownback were going to be the spoiler dark horses. I have a friend that worked senior staff for the Edwards campaign (which, by the way, may have flopped harder than everybody except for Fred Thompson) and he gave me the two wrongest (not a word) predictions I’ve ever heard in politics- and I’ve heard some bad ones- that not only was John Edwards confident that “infighting between Obama and Clinton would give Edwards the nomination by Super Tuesday,” but he said of the entire democratic field, the candidate that scared him the most was Richardson.
I hope he got fired and laughed at and publicly tarred and feathered by everyone he spoke those horribly incorrect predictions to. And I hope he never plays the NCAA basketball pool for money.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“but it produced both a nominee in February and a winner.”
..which means very little if that “winner” isn’t going to do the party much good. Now, if McCain wins, Republicans are going to have to spend half their time fighting back his liberal policies on immigration and the environment.
—
“Conclusion: Republicans (and John McCain) got very lucky this year.”
I don’t know. Having McCain as the nominee, and a nominee earlier, gives us a better chance to win, but it does verry little for the long-term. McCain doesn’t have some broad agenda that we can pick up as our new theme, nor does he have the power to seriously reform the party.
John McCain is ok in the short term (at least in terms of winning), but he could very well leave us stuck in four or eight years.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
> “Having McCain as the nominee … does verry little for the long-term”
Translation from the Act-ese: “Having McCain as the nominee does not benefit Romney.”