WISHFUL THINKING ON POTENTIAL CANDIDATES
With respect to the very talented Mr. Dalke, who wrote this;
If Sanford decides to run and devotes himself to campaigning, a sizable war chest provided by these donors, coupled with a well-articulated message extolling the virtues of limited government and robust free-enterprise, could very well take the New Hampshire primary, which would put Sanford in a very strong position heading into his home state’s primary.
Governor Mark Sanford is not going to be the nominee in 2012. Neither is Jindal, Crist, Gingrich, Johnson, Petraeus, Pawlenty, Thune, Barbour, Paul and probably Huntsman.
Republican party primary voters are the most predictable voters ON PLANET EARTH (including Greenland)! Primary voters cast ballots based on simple criteria. NAME RECOGNITION and/or the perceived runner-up/next in line.
Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush and McCain were all considered ’next in line’ and carried name recognition within the party hierarchy and at grass roots levels. To borrow a line from an astute political observer, and friend of mine, “McCain spent 8 years pissing off the entire party and was still nominated!!!”.
There are only 4 realistic candidates for the 2012 nomination. They include; Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. All four can lay claim to the title, ‘Next in Line’ and all four carry heavy name recognition.
We all love to debate the possible scenarios (i.e. vote splitting) that could upset the natural course and determine a surprise pick for nominee, but that will just not happen. Modern history has only proven one thing….Republican voters are not risk takers and they typically check the most recognizable name on the ballot. Risk takers with low self-esteem, vote in Democratic primaries.
—
AN IOWA CAUCUS VICTORY IS USELESS TO ANY SERIOUS CONTENDER
The populist political glue-sniffer, Matthew Kilburn, posted a piece over at comMITTedtoromney on the importance of the Iowa caucus for Republican candidates (for Governor Romney). Initially agreeing with the majority of Mitt supporters in his article, Matthew seemed to purposely ignore historical evidence and strategic thought by arguing in favor of Romney competing in Iowa, as if it were a political craps game.
For an early state, Iowa’s record is about as good as anyone could ask for – it votes for the eventual winner about 50% of the time, comparable to New Hampshire’s record, though not as good as South Carolina (this makes sense, since SC usually cast the tie-breaking vote. – it should be noted that, apparently, there are only two tickets to SC, one from IA and one from NH).
No Matthew, South Carolina is not the tie-breaker. If you include the 2000 race (no contest) and previous Iowa caucuses that were ignored by large portions of the candidate field, Iowa has meant absolutely nothing in determining our nominee, and any qualified campaign manager would understand, the Republican caucus acts as a 4 year reunion/kegger for the media elite and pollsters. Democrats care about Iowa, based in part because their primary calendar is different. As for the Romney 2007-2008 campaign, if Mitt had skipped Iowa, he might have won New Hampshire.
A candidates decision on whether or not to enter the Iowa caucus cannot be played out like a game of spin the bottle, Matthew. Iowa is a major strategic decision that could cost a candidate the nomination, along with tens of millions of dollars worth of donations and/or personal fortune. Listen to the other Romney supporters…..it was and still is, a mistake for Mitt to enter that contest. Since South Carolina is an uphill battle for Mitt, he must win the first primary, and win it big. The fact that Romney (if his political instincts are as sharp as you claim they are), will skip Iowa in December 2011, will cause the media to downplay the election even more so and will prevent the eventual caucus winner from gathering any momentum.
SPEAKING OF MITT
Was anyone else impressed with how calm and polished Mitt Romney was on Larry King Live? He actually looked comfortable and at ease with himself. I watched the replay this weekend and I have to admit, Mitt seemed much more direct with his answers and he even softened his rhetoric when taking jabs at his opponents. His answer on the exaggerated AIG scandal was impressive and should be a talking point for every Republican official.
One surprising mention that seemed to evade the blogging world, was when Mitt revealed that he speaks with John McCain on a regular basis. Makes one think, doesn’t it?
Daniel McCarthy: “I Applaud” Unconstitutional Taxation
From the great abyss of Joseph McCarthy Republicanism, Daniel McCarthy, over at the American Conservative is celebrating the passing of the 90% corporate bonus tax.
Those are taxpayer dollars that these executives, many of whom are patently incompetent, are being given. The incentives created by the tax are all in the right direction: 1.) don’t continue to reward the bigwigs at AIG, Fannie, Freddie, etc.; 2.) don’t encourage talented people (if there are any) to stay with these zombie companies that already aren’t “viable” –it’s better that talented people go to companies that actually are viable; 3.) send a signal to other decrepit financial institutions that bailouts come with some personal pain (or at least deprivation of pleasure) for the receiver;
Since when do conservatives champion unconstitutional taxation, or any taxation for that matter? I understand the entire anti-NAFTA, anti-China, pro-manufacturing rhetoric from the Buchananites, but how can Mr. McCarthy (Daniel, that is) actually consider himself a conservative and promote illegal legislation, written by leftists in Congress?
It seems as if The American Conservative is encouraging illegal practices within corporate America, arguing that they should turn their back on compensation agreements negotiated with their employees. I thought the American Conservative was about promoting corporate honesty and loyalty to their domestic (legal) workers?
What Daniel and the media have failed to understand is that many of the bonus payouts go to middle-management and those in specialized fields, not just the Executive. Many private financial institutions have divisions that have remained profitable and those employees who have met their performance targets are entitled to their merit increases and bonuses, based on the legally binding agreements they signed with their employers. In fact, corporate America has extended bonus programs to hourly employees, through the implementation of attendance and productivity incentives.
Daniel McCarthy and The American Conservative should stick to the winning argument of opposing corporate welfare. At least then we do not have to penalize American workers and their families because of mistakes made by the President Obama, the Federal Reserve and CEO’s.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I don’t think McCain won the 2008 nom. because he was “next in line,” but because (1) he was heavily respected on foreign policy/defense issues, (2) he was the only Republican who scored highly with independents and had a decent chance of winning, and (3) the conservative vote was split by other candidates, leaving all the moderates for McCain.
Also…Jeb Bush in the final four? Sez who? The GOP would be suicidal to nominate him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
You’ve got to remember, Kristofer, that McCain almost didn’t get it. He also started 2008 with a less dominant position than any prior “frontrunner”. He was well recognized, but there were plenty of concerns over him, which despite his incessant efforts to placate were never really erased among certain segments. Gingrich, after all, is well recognized with plenty of good support, but you wouldn’t think he’d have a shot at it.
That’s why guys like Sanford and Pawlenty are attractive if our frontrunners have issues they can’t ditch. Romney could have won last year, coming out of nowhere, had he played his cards better, and I think 2012 sets up for something similar as our frontrunners, like McCain and Giuliani were, are good candidates but still provoke ample doubts. If a lesser known but still broadly conservative candidate starts to pick up steam, it’s going to be hard to stop him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
McCain won it largely because he was the sole moderate voice, while the conservative vote was split between Romney, Huckabee, and FDThompson (lets not mention Brownback or Hunter, ok?)
AS far as the importance of Iowa goes, it is useful sometimes. Bush cemented his stranglehold in 2000, while Dole’s win in 1996 foreshadowed his nomination. It is also a swing state come general election time, and so if you want to win the Presidency it might be useful ot to snub it for that reason alone.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Well, I suppose Jeb Bush is “next in line” in the Bush monarchy.
What entitles him to be the next in line nominee is beyond me.
However, the entire Next in Line premise is bullshit and has been shattered by Adam Graham here before.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I think this is a pretty good analysis. The next in line idea gets tossed around a lot, but really it’s about name recognition and comfort level. Republicans are, after all, conservative voters. It makes a lot of sense to me that Republican voters will tend to shy away from the shiny new candidates once flaws and such come out during the course of campaigning.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Obviously there is a 5th, by the name of Newt Gingrich. Jeb Bush can be put there on the basis of the 2000 primary result, where familial ties were enough for Bush 43.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Of course, if the theory is true, then lots of candidates will run this time in order to try and come 2nd and be in good position for 2016. I wonder if that is the thought process that Huntsman, Crist, Jindal are all making.
And being a losing VP candidate is certainly not a good way to become “next in line”. Dole took years to win the nomination after 1976, while most others have sunk without trace.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Republicans Aren’t Doing Better–Democrats Are Doing Worse
by Michael Barone, US News & World Report
Why I am depressed
by Scott Johnson, Power Line
Rasmussen Reports: 50% of Tennessee Voters View Obama’s Budget Unfavorably
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/tennessee/toplines_tennessee_likely_voters_march_16_2009
Politico: Murky report card for W.H. transparency
Congress isn’t feeling much heat from Obama’s ‘army’
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
We certainly have a lot of strong thoroughbreds in our stable, any one of which we could ride to a glorious victory in 2012. That said, the “next in line” theory definitely needs to be taken into consideration. I think that Mitt probably has the most to gain from this strategy of claiming the “my turn” mantle although McCain set up Palin nicely as his successor. Mitt needs to take a page from Dole ca. 1995 and make the appeal to primary voters that it is his turn and that he may not have another opportunity to run due to advanced age – this strategy and appeal worked for McCain, Dole, and Reagan among others.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Thanks for those links Aron, looks like Obama is going to struggle to win Tennessee in 2012!
Any thoughts on the subject of the post?
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Alex, I knew that would be your answer, which is why I did not support Rudy.
Sorry buddy, you only have 3-4 choice and you dislike all of them…live with it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“McCain set up Palin nicely as his successor”
Are you saying that the electoarate is so in love with McCain that they will back his chosen horse?
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Thanks Ngthagg,
No sense in denying history!
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
JayPe,
Haven’t you been paying attention, McCain’s made a bit of a comeback in the last few weeks and is leading the opposition on the economy – I’m not his biggest fan, but he is seeing somewhat of a revival.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Good analysis Kristofer. Thanks for being intellectually honest unlike Alex on this issue.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
One of the sidelinks in Aron’s post really impressed me, so I’ll throw it up. To me, it makes the revitalization of our party even more relevant. We can’t lose our focus.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/thoughts-about-depressed-americans/
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The entire next in line premise is bogus.
What was George W. Bush next in line for?
George H.W. Bush didn’t get the nomination because he was “next in line” from 1980. He got it because he was Reagan’s vice-president.
The only “next in line” people were Ronald Reagan, after he’d already run twice, and John McCain, who very well could have lost — he only won based upon early plurality votes. His was pure luck!
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Good analysis Kristofer. Thanks for being intellectually honest unlike Alex on this issue.
WHAT issue?
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Another Reality Check…
China calls for new reserve currency
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I dont think Alex was being dishonest, I believe he just disagree’s with me.
–
Alex, some could make an argument that Dole was next in line in 1988….and if Bush had not gone negative in the NH primary, Dole may have been the nominee.
If you believe that Bush only became nominee because he was the V.P., why did Quayle not become the nominee in 2000?
I believe we may be facing (in 2012) a combination of the 1988 and 2000 primaries. Remember I said;
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Alex, its not entirely bogus. It is true to say that the last winner of a GOP primary who came from nowhere is 1964 Goldwater. Since then the GOP have picked:
- an ex-VP (Nixon in 68)
- a sitting President/VP (Ford in 76, Bush41 in 92)
- a guy who came second the time before (Reagan in 80, McCain in 2008)
- an ex-VP candidate (Dole in 96)
- son of fmr President (Bush43 in 2000)
Compare that to the Dem field, where a guy regularly comes from nowhere (e.g. Obama, Clinton, Carter – and that’s just the ones who win the general!)
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
At this point, I believe it nearly impossible to predict hour Iowa will go. The social conservatives are going to be split. Many of them are not going to like the fact that they bailed on Mitt in the last few weeks. They see now that Huckabee was just a pawn, though unknowingly on his part. So, I think Mitt will get a pretty nice portion of them, Palin certainly will, and I think Huckabee will still have some that go with him again. So, it will be split, with some lesser candidates also getting some. So, probably a bigger factor will be who gets those who are not socially conservative. Mitt will get a lot of the fiscally conservative vote. I think Mitt will do well with the more moderate wing of the party also, but will give up some of them to people like Pawlenty and Huntsman. If Gingrich gets in, I think that hurts Mitt Romney most. Probably Mitt gets hurt with the Jindal vote also, because we will essentially be giving up some who vote for competency. If Gingrich and Jindal are not in, I think Mitt actually has a good chance to win Iowa.
But, I don’t think Iowa is a big factor this time. We’ll see.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
This next in line idea. Just because it doesn’t fit with your dreams of Huntsman or Giuliani winning the nomination doesn’t invalidate Kristofer’s analysis. And no, Adam did not shatter this idea. He wrote a thoughtful analysis that is unsubstantiated by history.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Illinoisguy,
You make a good point(s), but I do not believe for one moment that socons will allow both Huckabee and Palin to run.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Alex, I feel bad for calling you dishonest on your birthday. I am sorry and hope you have a good rest of the day.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Illinois,
I agree that if Newt gets in he hurts Romney the most as they are the two strongest idea men. If Newt stays out I think it’s mostly a two person race between Palin and Romney. But there is still three years for one of the second tier stars to rise more so who knows for sure.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“I do not believe for one moment that socons will allow both Huckabee and Palin to run.”
And how pray will they do that if both decide that they want to be President?
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
#27, Huckabee will not raise a dime is Palin runs.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
if*
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
If you believe that Bush only became nominee because he was the V.P., why did Quayle not become the nominee in 2000?
Because Bill Clinton was the president in 2000?
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Kristofer, given the animosity in some quarters against Palin, and concern about her electability, I am sure Huckabee will raise money just fine.
Socon’s don’t automatically all line up behind one candidate. We know that because if they did Huck would have won the 2008 primary. Just enough socons went to Romney and then McCain (once the dust settled). In the early days, a trickle of money wen tto both Huck & Brownback – although both held the same niche in the field.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
#31,
We will not see a repeat of 2008, in 2012. I can promise you.
The conservatives will line up behind a candidate early, just like with Bush in 2000.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
The whole “next in line” thing is crap.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
#33, explain?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Neither of the Bushes were “next in line” from previous primaries.
W was not next in line.
HW was a sitting VP. His nomination had nothing to do with his 1980 run.
McCain never won “next in line-style” blow-outs. He barely won the deciding contests as it went! Romney or Rudy could have easily been the nominees!
Reagan is the only “next in line” kind of nominee we’ve ever had in modern times. And it was on his third run!
(So who’s Next in Line in 2012? The VP or the 2nd Place Primary Finisher? A: Neither, because the Next In Line theory is bogus.)
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
28, Huck doesn’t need money, he’s got miracles. Huck will run with or without money. Besides, Palin’s supreme court pick made a lot of her supporters kinda mad – Huck will be waiting in the wings for Palin to blow it a few more times.
The guy is an attention hog, and he still has all those pastors. Palin is not going to not run simply because Huck is.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
28 – Huck didn’t raise a dime last time and he still managed to play spoiler.
35 – HW was a sitting VP who was ALSO next in line from the previous primary. Quayle never made a run in 2000.
McCain was next in line, he won narrowly instead of easily because he spent the next 8 years pissing off the base.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Oh and there’s little doubt Dole was a “next in liner.” He just had to wait a lot longer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Alex,
You are interpreting ‘Next in line” as the runner up of the previous primary. This is not the care.
Bush (2000) became the favorite because of his name recognition and the belief by many that he was the natural predicessor to his father. The same applied to Herbert-Bush, Reagan and McCain.
Actually, you are wrong again. Reagan lost both Iowa and Michigan, as did McCain in 2008. Bush lost NH and Michigan in 2000.
So I am not sure what you meant by blow-out??
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Kristofer (34) — Alex pretty much answered for me.
By the way, if you want to push the N-I-L theory (I think I’ll just refer to it as “NIL” from now on, since it comes up so often), you needn’t exclude ‘64, because Goldwater came in second at the ‘60 convention (he got something like 5 votes on the roll call).
NIL is just a theory that twists actual events to fit the theory. Nixon wasn’t NIL in ‘68 — he’d already had his turn. Rockefeller or Scranton was NIL. But since they didn’t get the nomination, they’re conveniently ignored. Actually, Rockefeller was the true NIL in ‘64, since he was considered Nixon’s main competition in ‘60. That didn’t happen, either.
Quayle did indeed run in 2000. So he was NIL, right? He announced in April 1999 and withdrew in September because of zero support.
The Republican party does have a respect for experience and consistency, which will give an advantage (but that’s all) to those with a record of service and accomplishment. But there is no “next-in-line” rule. Sometimes the NIL wins, sometimes not.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
It seems, Kristofer, that you are concocting a self-fulfilling prophecy. You look in hindsight and apply the broadest-possible criteria to “Next in Line” so that anyone who’d ever been heard of before could be interpreted as Next in Line.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Ron Paul — he was the last one standing.
More seriously — who was second place? Romney or Huckabee? So we have three (I’ll leave Paul aside) reasonable claimants to be NIL. Do they thus cancel each other out? Do they lose their NIL-ness if there are too many of them?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
#43,
That is our goal for the next 3 years. Based on historical evidence, will it be Palin, Romney or Huckabee?
#42, It may be Romney or Huckabee….I, like you, have to deal with that.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Lets adjust NIL and apply the following principle:
The winner of the GOP Primary in x will be someone who had national name recognition in x-4. Ok?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I’ll go along with that, with the insertion of the word “probably”.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
its not so much ‘next in line’ as it is name ID. having already run, you are known by more people and dont have to spend as much time and money introducing yourself.
this works differently for jeb, who would have to reintroduce himself and rebrand his last name.
whether or not jeb could win in the general, the reality is he can build a primary machine to match or excede anyone in the field, including romney. he can draw catholics, evangelicals, and register record numbers of hispanics.
as of dec. 2008, W’s approval in flordia was 29%, Jeb’s was 65%. he can outrun W. the question is will he.
the fact is ron paul ran last time, and if he and the libertarian wing gave their blessing to sanford, he would definately be in very strong shape to win. sanford can rally enough typical big doners, plus paul-esque online fundraising. plus SC is vital. looking at everything in his favor, i think sanford is fast becoming the most likely ‘new’ name to overtake the known candidates romney, palin, huck.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
another important point, if palin does not run, then huck becomes a very strong contender and maybe even early frontrunner: he is a more natural populist, has already proven he can beat mitt in iowa and SC, and will have higher name ID this time. so if your mitt, dont you need both palin and huck in the race to triagulate a victory?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
In marketing terms, Jeb Bush has a severely damaged brand name, which is worse than a totally unknown brand. Jeb Bush has no chance in ‘12, and may have no chance ever, unfortunately.
It’s too bad he didn’t beat Lawton Chiles in ‘94 — I understand the family expected him to be the NIL, not his brother.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
If it was a straight shoot out between Mitt & Huck I would expect Mitt to win. Mitt is stronger in the MidWest, West & North East vs Huck in the South. Plus Mitt is going to raise a ton more money.
In ideological terms, Mitt is more palatable to the socons than Huck is to the ficons. That would probably be enough to win it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
#47, tim
Excellent point. Many of us underestimate Huckabee. As he is a natural populist, he may become the front-runner and the nominee for two reasons.
#1 Palin does not run (as you said)
#2 The economy faulters and we reach 10% unemployment.
If the economy fails to recover in time for 2012, Obama may lose the populist card, which Huckabee is a natural to replace.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
JayPe,
That would be the generqal thought, although my views on this have been changing.
#1 – Huckabee’s base is not shrinking, but Romney’s has been. Romney’s more secural base has been more to the Democratic party or registering as indy’s.
I don’t discount Huckabee’s ability to win in 2012.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“Huckabee’s base is not shrinking, but Romney’s has been”
I don’t agree that Romney’s base has been shrinking. He is arguably one of the two most prominant GOP economic players out there (with Sanford’s high profile stouches). As the likes of Politico note, he’s been making all the right moves with his PAC work.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
#52,
I agree, but secular economic conservatives have been leaving the Republican party for the last 5 years, but the # of socons have been growing within the party.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Gingrich will never be POTUS. He looks kinda shaggy and 70’s, not to mention he has a history of fidelity problems. Moreover, he’s smart, a thinker, but not a do-er. Can anyone really see him in the driver’s seat? Same with Huckabee, he appeals to a few excitable people, but is kind of self-absorbed like Obama….wait, that means he could be elected. But I don’t think it would be good for the country. I like Jeb Bush, but I can’t see continuing the dynasty. Palin and Romney are the most likely, and maybe Mrs. Jindal, but not her hubby.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
53 – I don’t see secular economic conservatives picking Obama over Romney. They may not change registration, but that still means they can vote in NH.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
#55 – If Romney is our nominee, I hope you are correct. If the economy does not improve, my fear is that we lose more of our populist leaning supporters.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Huckabee’s core supporters are going to be sticking with him for a long time. They have a different agenda then just putting a Republican or fiscal conservative in the White House and they will not sacrific their support of Huckabee for any broader goals of other Republicans. Huckabee’s casual supporters, however, appear to be sluffing off.
Romney’s support appears to be growing as it looks like most of his supporters from 2008 are sticking with him for now and many others are “giving Romney a second look.” We must not forget that he also got a good share of Socon support, which I think he still has. All bets are off, however, if Obama gets lucky and the moderates are happy in 2012.
I may be wrong, but I think Palin’s support is transitory. There is a large group in the Republican party that is shopping for “their” candidate and they have not found him/her yet. They pulled Fred Thompson into the race last time and then scattered when he faded with many going to Huckabee but some to Romney and others. When Palin appeared they grabbed onto her enmass. I think they could easily drop Palin like a hot potatoe if their collective conscious latches on to another candidate. In other words, I think Palin’s support at this point is fickle.
So while Huckabee remains the choice of a rather stable section of the Socons, Palin is currently in vogue, and Romney is slowly expanding his support, there is the very real possibility of an X-factor candidate who could change everything almost overnight.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
40, you have to be kidding, Kris. If the economy falters, the country is NOT going to go populist. They are going to go to anyone with credibility on the economy. And that sure as hell isn’t Huck. Please.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
My opinion is that Obama is going to continue to overshoot, and it’s going to tank the economy even more. Perhaps the market will recover in spite of Obama, but in any case, I feel that it’s likely we will have some national security events that Obama will mess up on. He’s already a joke on foreign policy. Surely this will also be a factor in 2012.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:04 am
BTW – Palin is all hat and no cattle, just like Fred. Fred was an idea, so is Palin. When reality hits, there’s not much there.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Martha, I would agree with your logic, but there is a populist backlash ongoing against corporate American.
I do not agree with it….but it is happening…
March 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am
What if?????
McCain pickes the one person that helped him the most in the last election to endorse?
Mitt Romney.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:11 am
“Martha, I would agree with your logic, but there is a populist backlash ongoing against corporate American.
I do not agree with it….but it is happening…” BINGO, while it is a bit simplistic to equate populism with anti-corporatism, populism tends to be stronger in bad economic times. It does not take a whole lot of studying of American History of the studying of other histories to see this.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:27 am
…except we now have what we term a ‘populist president’. He’s one of us, remember? He can go out and have a beer, shoot pool, and double date on date night.
Next time, go for the gold, not the bronze. I don’t want a president who is ‘just like me’. I want one with true standards, morals, family values, experience, education. The whole package. I want someone like Romney. All others, they are just knats on the elephant.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Not a bad point Knickers, I do not want a President exactly like me either and since I do not drink beer anyways, I will not be looking forward to drinking with a candidate. However, we ignore the power of populism at our peril.
March 24th, 2009 at 7:48 am
McCain won because of the open primary system and winner take all primaries in states like NY. Michael Steele should be focusing like a laser beam on fixing the prinary system so that only republicans decide the nominee.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Last I checked, Huck had a devoted following among conservative voters in the southern states. Try comparing the states he won in the primary with the states McCain won in the general if you have any doubts.
Palin will have to sound really smart not to fade into obscurity. She needs a book. Since I haven’t heard boo about a book deal, things don’t look good for her. That, and hardcore conservatives like my mother voted against McCain because of her. I would be interested in how she currently polls among red state evangelical women.
Mitt still looks like the guy that fired you from your last job. He may win in the non-Southern states, which would give him the nomination but not the general.
Don’t even get me started about Mr. Newt or anyone named Bush.
A three way race for the nomination between Palin taking the west, Mitt the North and Huckabee the south could keep things going for a while.
As for Tennessee – that was a McCain state. If people are doing number runs on whether Obama may win it things are worse than you think.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
67 – It doesn’t matter what Mitt looks like, Obama is going to look like the guy who taxed the company you worked for out of business, because he will BE that guy. Also, Palin IS writing a book.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
[...] – a site that I am no longer welcome at because of my views – and even less thrilled when I found the article in question to contain both a personal attack (referring to me as a “The populist political [...]