Who’s on second?
No, Hu’s on first.
I don’t know.
Third base!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M[/youtube]
One of the more silly debates over the 2012 process is who actually finished second. Why is this important? Because the GOP nomination traditonally goes to the next person in line and therefore the person who finished second will be the GOP Nominee in 2012.
Now, there are cases to be made for Palin, Huckabee, and Romney as the next in line:
Now, one can argue the merits of each person’s case. But perhaps, the best answer is that it doesn’t matter. Let’s take a look at the “Tradition” of the next person in line getting be the nominee. Unlike the 13 keys, this tradition doesn’t go back very far at all. The practice could be said to have originated in 1980 when Ronald Reagan became the nominee of the party. Though, anyone who thinks Reagan only got nominated because it was “His turn” in 1980 had better study their history a little better. Reagan had to fight to fundamentally change the GOP in order to get the nomination.
However, there’s some precedent to the belief:
On the other hand, there’s a big exception to the precedent:
So, we can’t say the runner-up wins every time. That leaves us with this: in 4 of the last 5 open Republican nomination contests, the second place finisher in the previous open contest became the Republican nominee. However, I think you can whittle this down even more. Did George H. W. Bush win the Republican nomination in 1988 based on the fact that he ran a Primary Contest in 1980 or did he win because he’d been the VP of a two-term President?
The three Vice-Presidents of two-term Presidents prior to Dick Cheney (Nixon, Bush I, and Gore) have all been the nominees of their party at the conclusion of their’s boss’ term. Bush’s bid for the Presidency eight years prior had nothing to do with his 1988 bid. Indeed, in 1980 Bush won Iowa but lost New Hampshire. In 1988, he finished third in Iowa, but won New Hampshire. While, Bush was next in line, he would have been next in line even had he not run for the Presidency in 1980, and just been Reagan’s choice at the Convention.
If we exclude Reagan and Bush, we’re left with this: two of the last three Republican nominees in open contests won the nomination because they were the runner-ups in the last contest. Do you really want to hang your hat on that?
What the trend points to is not a concern with numerical secondness, but rather with familiarity and a desire to follow the leader. Let’s take a look at both 1988 and 2000:
1988: Bob Dole finished second, he won 5 contests and 19.19% of the vote. His closest competitor was Pat Robertson who got 5%. No other candidate from 1988 ran in 1996.
2000: John McCain finished second, and won 31.23% of the Republican Primary vote and won 7 contests. His closest competitor in third was Alan Keyes who got 5% of the vote. Other than Keyes (who ran briefly in the GOP primaries but started way too late) no one else from 2000 ran.
Thus, both Dole and McCain not only finished second, they established themselves as clear known national leaders, far above their peers of also-rans in the GOP field.
I would suggest that Democratic and Republican nominating contests differ in one great respect. Democrats gravitate towards novelty unless you’ve got the sitting Vice-President or former Vice-President running. The Democrats’ history since 1972 has been one of nominating candidates with a degree of novelty to them: The Prarieland Anti-War liberal (McGovern), the unknown Governor of Georgia (Carter), the first Greek-American and a proud liberal (Dukakis), the first baby boomer (Clinton), a Vietnam War Vet who came back and protested the war (Kerry), the first Black President (Obama).
Republicans on the other hand go for established national leaders. Most of the time, it’s pretty clear who those national leaders are. You have Former Governors of the Country’s largest state with a wide national following (Reagan), you have the Vice-President of the United States (Bush I), you have the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate who also was the runner-up (Dole), the son of a Former President (Bush II), and a man who won nearly 1/3 of the Republican vote eight years prior (McCain.)
The choice Republicans will face is between two, maybe three people who by virtue of their participation in the last election have clearly established themselves as well-known national figures. Now, one may have the edge, but it’s certainly not going to be due to being “next in line” because they are all known quantities at this point.
The bad news is ultimately for the Tim Pawlentys and Mark Sanfords of the world. This is going to be a very hard group to break into.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Adam Graham, you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel again over Romney.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Romney was 2nd.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I’m pretty sure Huckabee never passed Romney in delegates. And if not dropping out is the criteria, then Ron Paul is next in line I guess, because he never quit.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
What a ridiculous spin to try to suggest that Romney may not have been second.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/republicans_like_gop_s_conservative_direction_democrats_don_t
I’m just providing a citation to the #1 pollster in America the last two national election cycles, Scott Rasmussen. Don’t hate the poster, hate the pollster.
Someone should put up a Paypal account because I’ll make a $22 bet that Romney’s or Huck’s favorables won’t match Palin’s 52% in this poll. Everyone hates the republican party right now, McCain is probably the only guy who outpolls Palin nationally (I am one of the few people in the blogosphere who loves both McCain and Palin).
January 29th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Great link Tommy Boy.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Pretty much a meaningless poll because they included McCain and Bush as a contrast to Palin.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
It is hard to make the case for Huckabee here. Yes, he was the last one standing due to his hard-headedness. Romney saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out to support McCain. Huckabee stayed in for no apparent reason instead of getting behind the nominee.
If we are really looking for a number 2, it is between Palin and Romney.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I don’t believe Huck is a viable candidate with Palin in the fold; his “very favorables” aren’t strong enough. I’d say the four certain to throw their hat in are: Sanford, Pawlenty, Palin, and Romney. Darkhorses that could jump in and shake things up are Jindal, Huntsman, and Thune.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Huckabee’s chances depend on Palin not running, or weakening herself over the next three years.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I think people do not want to see another Huck vs Romney battle.
I think one will get their notice early who the people are going to favor. I’ll you speculate who that will be.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Odds are one of those 3 will be the GOP nominee in 2012, you got 3+ years to argue which one…well unless obama is flying in the polls and none of them run, than maybe somebody like dirk kempthrone (who?) wins the bob dole GOP lifetime achievement award, i mean nomination…
January 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
#8:
Hmm, I think my point was missed. It doesn’t matter who finished 2nd.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I wouldn’t count 1992. That leaves 2000 as the only year since 76/80 that hasn’t followed the rule – and that’s a pretty strong history. Even in 2000, Buchanan dumped the GOP and ran as a third party, so the value of that year in our calculations is questionable.
====
“If we exclude Reagan and Bush”
Why would we? I’m not in favor of disqualifying relevant data just to make a point.
====
…and there is very little argument for anyone OTHER than Romney to claim the second-placer status. Firstly, Palin did not run in the primary, but was instead a failed VP candidate. She joins the likes of Quayle, Kemp, Lieberman, and Edwards – not at all a prestigious or advancing group of people.
Romney got more delegates than Huckabee, and more votes than Huckabee in the primary elections. In fact, the ONLY evidence that Huckabee might be able to claim the second-place level is the projections used by the media before the convention to PREDICT how delegates would fall. All this, after Huck remained in the race several additional weeks in an attempt that nobody thought had a chance in hell of accomplishing anything.
Romney is second place, next in line, no question about it.
====
Does that mean he definitely will win the nomination? No, but I’m not about to bet against a 36-year proven tradition. Trends can be broken, but when 2008, which broke about every trend known to man, couldn’t break this, well, that says something…
January 29th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
“It doesn’t matter who finished 2nd.”
Thats an opinion – perhaps a valid one – but its an opinion nonetheless, and one with very little backing from the facts.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
The Palin crosstabs according to Rasmussen (a bunch of conservatives must have deserted the party, hahah; everyone embarrassed to call themselves a republican these days):
Palin Favorables:
Overall 52%/46%
Very Favorable 28%
Somewhat Favorable 24%
Somewhat Unfavorable 20%
Very Unfavorable 26%
Republicans 84%/15%
Dems 18%/79%
Indies 61%/35%
January 29th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Palin is out. Too dim witted and helped McCain lose. Huck did finish second – six full weeks after Romney dropped out. Romney finished second, winning more than anyone else. Romney is de facto, the second and should be the nominee. Also, he’s the sharpest, best looking, has best values, best morals, best business experience. Best of the best. Wantta lose? Run Palin. Obama takes in in a landslide. You’ll also lose with Huckabee. Maybe even bigger than if you ran Palin. Wanna shot at winning? run the smart guy.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Of course Adam doesn’t think it matters who finished 2nd. This is just another another vain and transparent attempt to diminish Romney.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Or some of you Romneybots, Huckabeebots, Jindalbots, Pawlentybots, Sanfordbots are punching in “unfavorable” on Palin during Rasmussen’s automated calling to skew the results…hahahah. Someone made that claim to me the other day with respect to Romney’s polling last summer when he was at 42/48 on Rasmussen and that it was Huck’s people punching in “unfavorable” intentionally on Romney….hahahah
I’m just posting the numbers guys, don’t hate me, hate the pollster. Wonder if I can get into this Alfalfa club dinner…
January 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I don’t think Palin is out. She appeals to a lot of evangelicals, and also to Rush. I don’t think she will last long, but she’s has a strong following of supporters who don’t budge no matter what they learn about her.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I’m laughing at this one. You can’t be serious? This is a joke post, dragged out well ahead of the silly season. Righe?
Palin is a failed veep nominee. History shows these types have a political shelf life of a few months. President Gore, anyone? Huckabee (and Palin for that matter) appeal to a very small faction of the so called ‘base’. Romney appeals to all. Love him or hate him. He’s the one guy for the job. He’s got the experience, the looks, the great family and family support, the political experience AND the best part? He ticks off the far, far right just by breathing the same air. That’ in itself is worth putting Romney up, to watch the Phylis Schafly’s hypervenalate into a paper bag.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“The bad news is ultimately for the Tim Pawlentys and Mark Sanfords of the world.”
For 2012, perhaps. But I think they are in the position now that Huckabee and Romney were in before 2008. Pawlenty and Sanford are long shots to pick up the 2012 nomination, a strong if not successful run in 2012 will make them favourites in 2016 (assuming a second Obama term).
January 29th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Martha, I know you are right on that one! Someday, her star will fall, and fall hard. That’s the problem with those that believe their own press. When the dance is over, and the lights come back on, you find out you’ve been dancing with the devil.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Romney finished third in delegates, behind Huckabee. This is beyond dispute.
Romney finished second in votes because he had the $$$ to compete in a bunch of caucuses and primaries that nobody else bothered to show up to. That’s what happens when you spend $50 million of your own money.
Romney is smart, but not particularly charismatic. Remind you of anyone? Mondale? Dukakis? Kerry? Let’s not go down that road.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
#14:
Regarding excluding Reagan and Bush:
Why would we? I’m not in favor of disqualifying relevant data just to make a point.
Because Reagan didn’t win because he was the next in line and Bush won because he was Reagan’s VP not because he lost to Reagan in 1980.
Firstly, Palin did not run in the primary, but was instead a failed VP candidate. She joins the likes of Quayle, Kemp, Lieberman, and Edwards – not at all a prestigious or advancing group of people.
See post 16 and name the VP Candidate who had numbers like that among Republicans.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
“Because the GOP nomination traditonally goes to the next person in line”
A silly non-rule. It goes to the person who wins the most delegates. Having run second previously, or been a VP nominee, or similar attributes are good starting points because they aid name recognition, but they’re not guarantees of anything.
Palin, Romney, and Huckabee all have solid name recognition, which is a negative for people like Sanford and Pawlenty, but none of them is The Anointed One. The whole “heir apparent” thing is BS.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
He’s got the experience, the looks, the great family and family support…
Indeed, he comes from a rich and powerful political family. But tell me, when the heck did this country become an aristocracy?
January 29th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
15, But a whole lot of backing from common sense. There’s nothing magical about second place, yes historically those with second place get nominated, but that doesn’t mean there’s a bunch of people out there who are basing their vote on who came in second and if you can just convinc ethem that its Romney than they will vote for. If the race for second place was close than its probably going than the next primary will probably be close.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Adam Graham, I wouldn’t call the Romney family powerful, and Romney’s wealth is his own creation.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Adam Graham,
I think what 21 was referring to is Romney’s family being pretty much picture perfect, unlike the others. (We don’t hear of any dog killings or past pot-smoking, etc.)
January 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Every single one of you ROMNEY supporters that are giving adam a hard time, should be ashamed of yourselves. Romney is by all means the front runner, but Adam’s post was good. I for one agree with his assessment of the situation, and would agree that next in line isn’t what gets someone to be the front runner. If anything you should be applauding adams post and exclaim that it is romney that has positioned himself as a national leader.
But then again, I am talking to romney supporters. Quit drinking the cool-aid guys. It’s time to hop off the bandwagon and pick a candidate for their principles, authenticity, trustworthiness and finally their ability to establish themselves as a powerful presence nationally. If at the end of all of that you still come up with Romney as that guy….all the power to you. I for one, am not hopping on a bandwagon yet. I would love to see Jindal run, Huckabee run, romney run……not Palin she isn’t ready yet. I want these guys to run because i want to see how they handle a national campaign, how authentic they are, how deeply principled they are. I didn’t trust romney this last time. I might change my mind for 2012, but it is up to romney to convince me. First off, he needs to change his attitude towards those who were already squarely in the conservative camp before him. I found his answers on abortion to be very smug, in-authentic(is that a word?), and overall NOT what i was looking for. I would love to hear more from him NOW on the issues, because I think he is a very intelligent individual with great leadership skills.
Once again, you should be ashamed.
Oh and Martha’s dead right,
anyone with that name is obviously lost and has blinders on. I can’t stand reading this stuff anymore.
“11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”-1 Corinthians 13:11
Here is the great problem of 2012. So many people already have a camp. Get the hell outta here. For crying out loud. It’s too early, and NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE IMPRESSED ME YET! Let’s not sink our ship before we leave the dock.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
“The bad news is ultimately for the Tim Pawlentys and Mark Sanfords of the world. This is going to be a very hard group to break into.”
Unless they go into the contest with the intention of setting themselves up for 2016. In that scenario 2012 could be very good to them.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Correction: I did not mean to group all romney supporters together, though apparently after reading what I posted, it sounds like I did. I would like to apologize for that. I know a lot of romney supporters that don’t have blinders on, and have a genuine like for the man for a multitude of reasons.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:01 am
It’s funny that some of us are making assertions while citing recent polls as support (like me, I’m patting myself on the back) while some are just making arguments based on conjecture without any evidence to support any of their assertions. hahaha
IS IT 2012 YET!!!! I cannot wait; let’s just remember, the more we bash each other, the more the kooks at kos are laughing at us. Whether you are a moderate, conservative, center-right, whatever label you want to use, it seems that some people on this blog are more interested in bashing other republicans than Obama who is more liberal than Bill Clinton. This guy wants to cut spending on defense folks!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:07 am
could romney and huckabee join up? if they did form the ticket, would it even matter? maybe a long solid debate between mitt and huck is needed. a long battle that exposes them to a lot of the country, registers voters, and ultimately ends up with both on the ticket. huck locks in the south, even wins back the north carolinas and floridas, while mitt goes for michigan, penn, nh, nevada, colorado.
romney/huckabee, united for america???
January 30th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Romney needs Huck like a hole in the head.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:15 am
If Obama is re-elected, 2016 is Jindal’s. He’ll be the VP pick of anyone except maybe Palin in 2012 and will be on level with Bush 2000 as a presumptive favorite.
If Pawlenty or Sanford run in 2012, it should to win.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:25 am
#37:
Anyone who runs should run to win. If you go in thinking, “Maybe, I can set myself up for 2016, people will be able to tell.” Plus, setting yourself up for 2016 means that you plan to spend a year of your life losing the Presidency and then commit another (nearly 2 years) to win it.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Don’t have a problem with Adam’s post (and that is probably a first). Then again, I think he is just stating the obvious. The GOP does have, at least for the past few decades, a history of picking the next in line. I also think there really is not a clear next in line this time. While I am a Romney supporter — I have often wished the GOP could break from that recent past and, if not Romney, do a better job analyzing the candidates and be open to newbies.
As I’ve said before, way too early. That said, Palin has a real challenge to prove she has the gravitas for the job (especially in a general). Huckabee, in the unlikely event he were to win the primary, would cement us as a REGIONAL party. Just analyze last year’s election results, he has such a low appeal (often getting only single digit results and finishing in 3rd and 4th place in so many states) in so many batteleground states he would be a disaster.
Gingrich has the negatives of hillary, is smart–but simply a dirtbag in his personal life.
Sanford couldn’t talk himself out of a paper bag.
Jeb would be great but his name likely makes him a non-starter (but i may be wrong about that).
Pawlenty–at least he dumped the mullet but is just boring.
Rudy could never get out of the primary
Not a whole lot to get really excited about. Time to look around a lot more (in the event Romney does not run).
January 30th, 2009 at 12:35 am
35: You need Mitt in Florida, not Huck. Just look at last year’s primary. McCain had to pull out a last minute Crist endorsement to beat Romney in Florida. Huck cam in a distant 3rd or 4th. One of the reason’s i like Romney’s chances is the primaries demonstated his wide appeal in all regions of the country. Use to have all the numbers close at hand but just look at the primary results state by state. i really belive Huck, on the other hand, would simply cement us a regional party — essentially the south minus Florida. His appeal is simply a segment of evangelicals and thats it. Romney on the other hand, demonstated he can do well in the south and has broad appeal in the west as well as other regions. (and please, don’t tell me how huck did so well among the blacks in Ar
January 30th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Sorry about the double post-hit the wrong key.
And I forgot–I do really like Jindal.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:03 am
My proposal:
How about a Romney / Huckabee ticket?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Actually, I saw bill proposing the same thing.
The beauty is that Huck is relatively young, and so I could see him being VP for 8 years and then President for another 8!
January 30th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Romney/Huckabee would never happen. And I know, look at Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush, etc. But simply never happen.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:38 am
I do get a kick out of those that say Romney should pair up with Huckabee or Palin. Does that mean Huckabee or Palin can’t win without Romney? But Romney can win without Palin or Huckabee.
So, why take the chance? Romney ought to run wild with someone like…Sanford, or Hutchenson.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Two words come to mind when thinking outside the box, if Romney chooses not to run.
Mike Levett.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:41 am
I would love a romney/huckabee ticket in some form. For sure to beat Obama, we need a southerner on the ticket. Obama pulled a rabbit out of the hat winning states in the south. Democrats are traditionally weak down their unless they put a southerner on their ticket, or if they pull the clinton/gore move which was ingenious. They pulled apart the south, and it was great political saavy. Obama/Biden is a northern/midwestern ticket. How did they win the south. Obama is unique, and we have to combat that.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:42 am
romeny could not run with Levett, although that would be a killer team. Why? Because it’s hard enough to get one Mormon elected. Imagine a twofer LDS ticket! I’d love it. But geez, somone in Colorado Springs my cough up a frog or something.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Never huckabee. Never. Romney would never run with him, after he cheated in VA to deprive Romney of his win. I certainly would not encourage it either.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:56 am
“Knickers in a twist” = Best. Commenter. Name. EVER.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Tommy Boy, thanks for the approval numbers. This is a good sign for Mrs. Palin, if she is doing this well among Independents.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Good post, Adam. Excellent points about Reagan-Bush and Buchanan.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:03 am
This is a great fisking of the conventional wisdom, Adam G.
Unless I’m mistaken, the axiom comes to us from none other than Bill Clinton. I can’t find the direct quote to be sure, but he’s generally cited as having said, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line,” which shouldn’t be too surprising if you consider how self-congratulatory such a statement would be from that revolting narcissist. On the humorous side, though, it was fun to note that the Hillary campaign was based on having the Democrats fall in line rather than in love. Way to go, Slick Willy!
So I’ve found it disappointing to hear GOPers repeating the remark about themselves. As you point out, it is a weak generalization at best. It has no predictive rigor to it. In 1996, for instance, you point out that Dole was arguably the next in line thanks to his 1988 second-place status. But why wouldn’t Dan Quayle be considered “next in line”? Or the second runner up to Bush in the 1991 GOP primary, Pat Buchanan?
Moreover, the claim only works for Dubya if you base it on family, of which George was the eldest child and “next in line.”
And on the Dem side, would anyone claim that the party fell in love with Mike Dukakis in 1988? Or with Bill Clinton in 1992? In Bill’s dreams, perhaps.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Romney/Sanford.
Our team!
January 30th, 2009 at 8:54 am
If there is anything I have learned in my life, it is: “Never say never”. I think it is remotely possible for a Romney/Huckabee ticket. But first, Mike would have to be cured of his “Foot in mouth disease”.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Please, Romney would never in a million years team up with Huck. It’s impossible for at least 2 reasons, the first being political suicide. He needs Huck like a hole in the head. The other is that Huckabee doesn’t deserve the time of day from Romney after all his dirty deeds.
If Romney wins the nomnination, he will select someone with character, competence and the ability to attract voters. That ain’t Huck.
Romney is no fool. Learn it, love it, live.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Please, Romney would never in a million years team up with Huck. It’s impossible for at least 2 reasons, the first being political suicide. He needs Huck like a hole in the head. The other is that Huckabee doesn’t deserve the time of day from Romney after all his dirty deeds.
If Romney wins the nomnination, he will select someone with character, competence and the ability to attract voters. That ain’t Huck.
Romney is no fool. Learn it, love it, live it.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Romney-Huckabee ticket.
Would not campaign for.
Would not contribute to.
Would not vote for.
I would love to analyze such a thing, though.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:55 am
See, even Martha and I don’t always agree.
Like I said, its a remote possibility but, very remote.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Hi ya, Illinoisguy. You do believe in miracles if you think Huck can be cured.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Alex, do you ever sleep?
January 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I slept from 7:30 last night until 5:00 this morning! I almost pulled a 24-hour sprint but I fell asleep right before the class which was to top it off…oops. Hope my professor isn’t mad. That’s the second time I missed it already. Both times were due to illness, in a way: I was up all through the night the night before last because I’d slept all of the previous day due to illness. But then I wanted to attend a Steele event with the College Republicans yesterday so I decided to stay up for that, and then one thing led to another and I was up for, well, ever and…blehhhhhh
The important thing is that I’m up and I’m here now. :-*
January 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I mean I’m a robot.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Romney finished third in delegates, behind Huckabee. This is beyond dispute.”
No it isn’t. Huckabee only “led” Romney in delegates using projections used by the media that were, in no way official, and he couldn’t even get to that point without dragging the campaign out several more weeks.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:15 am
“Here is the great problem of 2012. So many people already have a camp. Get the hell outta here. For crying out loud. It’s too early, and NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE IMPRESSED ME YET!”
Which explains why YOU are not in a camp. Romney has impressed me greatly – same with Martha and ILG and the other Rombots.
Similarly, people have been impressed with Palin, Jindal, Huck, and Sanford….
January 30th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Romney has impressed me greatly
You don’t say…
January 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Adam…
Thanks so much for the Who’s on First clip. You know, 34 years, and I’m finally seeing it for the first time after hearing about it fer so long. Funny, funny stuff.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:44 am
The race ended on 2/05/08 so Romney was second but if you count all the delegates Romney had before he realese them then you have Romney in second, again.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Some observations:
I’m tired of Huck/Palin/Romney. If it weren’t for the brilliant postings of Alex Knepper, I’d probably stop reading this site altogether.
I live in South Carolina. I watched Sanford’s State of the State speech. I’ve watched his every move for 6+ years now. And I think he’s a moron. An ideologically pure, honest man. One of the few left in politics today. But not up to the intellectual task of the Presidency. South Carolina is in a hole that it will likely never come out of. We’re practically a third-world country compared to the rest of the United States. And Gov. Sanford’s leadership has certainly not helped the state at all. Could a fan of Governor Sanford explain to me the national appeal?
January 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
i think the odds favor a romney/jindal ticket. jindal reelection bid will leave him unable to run for president, but a vp nomination the following summer will fit much better and set him up for 2016.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I’m not from SC, but I’ve never viewed Sanford as a moron, I’ve just never believed that he actually had the willpower to mount a successful drive for the Presidency.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:52 am
#71, I would not phase it that way, but that is pretty much my opinion.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:55 am
“and set him up for 2016.”
You mean 2020…
===
And I agree -Jindal seems like a likely VP contender, though his relative youth and inexperience (he is considerably younger than even Mrs. Palin) pose risks, particularly after Palin’s dismal performance, and particularly if Obama does poorly…
Romney needs a southerner as his VP, but it appears as if it will be difficult to find an experienced, middle-age person to fill the role. Crist doesn’t help with the base, Barbour and DeMint are too old, and Jindal is too young…
January 30th, 2009 at 10:09 am
i think obama showed that if it sounds like you know what you are talking about, experience matters little. the fact is jindal may be the smartest politician in the country, and will have served 4 years in congress and more then 4 in executive office, not to mention a number of other government positions like healthcare sec.
romney/jindal would allow the gop to go on offense on the economy and on healthcare. the x factor is can romney and jindal sell themselves on national security.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:42 am
If it weren’t for the brilliant postings of Alex Knepper…
Well, thank you.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
“Why is this important? Because the GOP nomination traditonally goes to the next person in line and therefore the person who finished second will be the GOP Nominee in 2012.”
If the GOP ever hopes to again to be competitive, we need to drop this “whosever next in line” crap. Geo. H.W. Bush was “next in line” in 1988. OK, he won, but his term was lackluster, squishy, and we saw what happened in ’92. Bob Dole was “next in line” in ’96. Another horrible performance. The rule didn’t apply in ’00, and we won the presidency. McCain was “next in line” in ’08, and we saw what happened.
My position: Whomever is “next in line” in ’12 should be rejected for the nomination.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am
“Palin is out. Too dim witted”
Calling conservative Republicans “dim witted” (e.g., Reagan, GWB) has long been the favorite tactic of the left. The fact this pops little tactic constantaly shows up on a “Republican” site is nervewracking. So, stop going there.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:18 am
One thing I’ve not seen discussed on this board is why Romney was seemingly despised by the rest of the field of candidates in 2008? Maybe “despised” is too harsh a word. “Not respected” is probably more appropriate.
Can’t say it would be wise to nominate a candidate in ’12 who neither earned the respect of his opponents, nor connected with most Republicans.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am
My2cents, what if the “next in line” is the most qualified by far? The only thing that matters to me is choosing the best possible candidate.
Did you hear the 6 minute Sarkozy prank on Palin? Have you heard or read most of her answers to the press? Of course she’s going to be call dim-witted.
People defend her by comparing her to Bush and Reagan. She’s not in that category, though. Bush is no dummy – even if he’s not the best communicator. Palin cannot communicate at all, and has done little to reveal above average intelligence.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Final point: While I admire Sarah Palin, I believe she needs to prove she deserves the nomination in 2012. Same for Romney. Same for Huck. Same for any Republican aspiring to run next election. Nobody has “earned” the claim on the nomination. And no one should get the nomination by default because they are “next in line.”
January 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
My2Cents. Newsflash: Romney was the person to beat in 08. He was everyone’s target, not only his opponents, but the DNC and the MSM.
He was despised/feared/targeted for destruction because he was the most formidable candidate.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
#79. Let me say that 8 years of incessant, unreasonable, and pathological Bush-hatred by the left and the media (but I repeat myself) has left me raw. I see most of the anti-Palin sentiment as similarly incessant, unreasonable, and pathological. So, perhaps I’m over-reacting. But I don’t think so.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Bush is no dummy. No and neither is Mrs. Palin! PDS is almost the new BDS, it is almost funny in some respects.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Romney was the person to beat in ’08? When did he ever lead in the polls? Rudy was the favorite through 2007. Thompson had a boomlet toward the end of the year (if you believe Rasmussen). Huck was arguably had a right to claim frontrunner status after Iowa. McCain eventually moved to the fore after NH, leading to a win in SC, and by Florida was the clear frontrunner, essentially securing the nomination after Feb. 5th. The only thing Romney led in was campaign warchest.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The Choir Rombotic require their guy to be “second” because of Clinton’s insulting hypothesis that the GOP always chooses on the basis of “next in line,” not on the basis of merit.
What a nice way for His supporters to slap Him in the face with a back-handed compliment.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am
My2Cents,
Why do you suppose Romney was everyone’s target? You need to do the math, here. The DNC put out over 100 releases on Romney and a handful for McCain and Huck. All of the GOP guys were fighting Romney. Every one of them. Okay, Fred said a couple things about Huck. Whoopie. But Rudy knew Romney was his main opponent, Huck knew it, and McCain knew it.
Do you remember when Howard Dean admitted after the primaries that Romney was their real fear? It’s not rocket science.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am
MarkG – Romney came in second to McCain because we have open primaries. Otherwise he would have won — based on merit!
It’s hard to argue against the facts, isn’t it?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Is this why you prefer to use unfalsifiable conjecture?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Actually, if “last man standing” makes you Second Place, then your man would be Ron Paul. Or, if “most money raised” makes you Second Place, then your man would also be Ron Paul.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
#89 Most money raised would be Mitt or Rudy. Ron Paul only started raising decent amounts in the last quarter.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Occasionally the candidate who was “next in line” has won the presidency. But it’s hardly something to base a campaign on. Keep in mind that some of the candidates who were “next in line” got that way because they ran an unsuccessful campaign for the nomination. Is a losing campaign really the best way for a candidate to introduce themself to the nation?
How did Bob Dole get to be the “next in line”? By losing the 1988 nomination, after having lost the 1980 nomination and been the losing VP nominee in 1976. How did John McCain get to be “next in line”? By losing the 2000 nomination. So anyone who brags that their candidate is “next in line” for 2012 is just emphasizing that either their candidate lost the 2008 nomination or lost the VP race.
I am also concerned that going with the “next in line” has tended to get us candidates who have been noticeably older than their Democratic opponents, which has not necessarily been a positive for us.
In 1992, George Bush was 22 years older than Bill Clinton, which was the largest age gap between major party nominees in U.S. history.
Then, in 1996, Bob Dole was 23 years older than Bill Clinton.
In 2000, the age gap was almost eliminated when George W. Bush was less than 2 years older than Al Gore, and in 2004 Bush was 2 years younger than John Kerry.
And in 2008, the age gap returned when John McCain was 24 years and 11 months older than Barack Obama.
Moral of the story: Let’s stop breaking the record for largest margin of age of one nominee over the other nominee. We’ve done that in three of the last five elections, but it hasn’t worked too well for us.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:17 am
#91:
The only potential candidates we have younger than Obama are Palin and Jindal.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I’m not saying we need to select someone younger than Obama, just someone who is not much older than him. How much is “much”? I can’t say, but we ought to consider that in selecting our candidate.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Adam, you corrcetly point out that George H. W. Bush was really nominated in 88 because he was VP as opposed to because his run in 1980. Couldn’t the same apply to Dole, whose nomination in 96 my owe more to his senate leadership then to his run in 88?
Because then we’d basically have one example only- McCain.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
[...] punditry. We could argue over who actually finished second, but as I’ve explained before the next in line meme is pretty much useless for this [...]