From a PolitickerNY 2012 handicapping piece:
Mitt Romney: 2-1.
History makes him the favorite. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain all finished second in G.O.P. primary races before turning around and claiming the nomination the next time it came open.
Please, someone stop repeating this meme. It just doesn’t work.
Ronald Reagan “came in second” out of two candidates in 1976 after running a go-nowhere campaign in 1968. He took on an unpopular, unelected sitting president with some measure of credibility. Yes, I suppose he “came in second” last time and used his name recognition and standing amongst the conservative movement’s loyalists — which all of the 2012 frontrunners have, to some degree or another — to bolster his 1980 bid. But it must be remembered that not only was he the consensus candidate in 1980 — something that won’t exist in 2012 — but he was the only candidate in 1976 other than Gerald Ford. This will prove important below.
George H.W. Bush didn’t win the nomination because he came in second in the 1980 primaries. He won the nomination because he was Ronald Reagan’s vice-president. Period. Without Reagan’s legacy, it’s doubtful that he would have walked into the nomination as smoothly as he did.
Bob Dole is the exception that proves the rule. He came in second in the last set of contested primaries, but using the 1976 Reagan-as-heir-apparent line of thinking, why didn’t Pat Buchanan win the nomination in 1996, given that he ran against Bush in 1992 and mounted a credible campaign in 1996? And if it’s the last set of contested primaries — that is, no incumbent — that counts, then why is Reagan’s 1976 run counted?
What was George W. Bush? How, exactly, was he the candidate “next in line”? Hell, why wasn’t Pat Buchanan the next in line? He clearly came in 2nd in 1996. What about Jack Kemp? Could Jack Kemp have won the nomination if he ran? Of course not. Give me a break. Being the son of a former president does not make you the next in line. If so, is Jeb Bush the next in line, then? Do elected family members of former presidents trump former primary winners?
John McCain’s primary trimph was by no means inevitable. A few thousand votes the other way in New Hampshire or South Carolina and John McCain would have been eliminated. He walked a tightrope to the nomination. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain. He never even won a majority of the votes before Super Tuesday. One different move by Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee along the way and McCain could have been denied the nomination. What if McCain had lost South Carolina, perhaps leading to Charlie Crist and Mel Martinez endorsing Rudy Giuliani? What if Mitt Romney had won New Hampshire, leading to a Michigan blowout and a siphoning of votes from McCain in South Carolina, snowballing into a Florida win? To speak of McCain’s win as inevitable is history being rewritten under our noses.
So please: stop trying to square the circle of this next-in-line myth. It just doesn’t fit the facts.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Sorry Alex, but Romney will be the nominee in the 2012.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Alex,
If Romney wins, the truism is proven as the article states.
If Palin wins, the truism is proven since she was the VP candidate.
If Huckabee wins, the truism is proven since he won the second number of delegates.
Only if none of the Big Three win the nomination will the truism be proven false.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
#1
Aaron, you are cruel.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
2 – The facts are forced to fit the evidence. These people wanna smash that square into that circle. The eventual winner is forced to fit the criteria in some way.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:45 pm
#4,
And you point is….what, exactly? It is what it is.
What was that Serenity Prayer again?
May 21st, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I would ideally like to see Cheney run as I think that he could mop the floor with Obama, but I think that it is more likely that he will defer to Sarah and possibly get named Sarah’s Sec. of State.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Clearly no canidate is inevitable, however, I think the previous first tierers who have gotten the nomination shows that doing well in the primary is an advantage. I think it has to do with name recognition, conservative want to vote for people they’re familiar with. Of course being VP, or a President’s son helps a lot in the name recognition part.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:56 pm
5 – Well, we’d better just shut down the blog, then. It is what it is. No need to comment on anything!
May 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Knepper,
You still haven’t explained your thread below…help me out here bro.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
9 – Are you kidding?
It was a slow day, no comments, so…I posted Mitt’s name. Voila. Comments.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Romney and Huckabee are both next in line, technically.
Huckabee’s the frontrunner at the moment. The real question is whether the 30% support he has in the Republican party is a floor or a ceiling.
Romney has no chance. He has weak favorables, and they were even worse in early 2008, when he shut down his campaign. It’s pretty clear the GOP establishment and the media are propping this guy up. But once he actually faces the people, the air will come out of the balloon mighty fast.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
#10 — dude, a slow day? Obama and Cheney just gave major speeches on the War on Terror!
May 21st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
12 – I mean a slow day on the site.
For some reason, nobody wanted to post anything about the speeches.
I was asleep during the speeches…LOL.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“Next in line” doesn’t necessary mean coming second last time.
It means he/she deserves it and has paid his/her dues.
Clearly that is Gov Romney.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Wait till Aron posts that PPP poll…I’m stunned that Aron didn’t jump at that opportunity.
Where’s Kavon these days?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Flip,
Huckabee’s favorables among Republicans aren’t that strong if you are asserting that Romney’s favorables among Republicans aren’t strong. They both are around the 65-67% mark from the non-Rasmussen polls I’ve seen released.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:27 pm
#13, some of us work for a living.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Heath,
““Next in line” doesn’t necessary mean coming second last time.
It means he/she deserves it and has paid his/her dues.
Clearly that is Gov Romney.”
Why? He has what, 4 years total of elected experience? Running a business then the Olympics, then serving one term of elected office before a failed run for President isn’t exactly “paying your dues.” Shoot, it was only a few cycles ago that Romney swore off Reagan.
Paid his dues? Give me a break…….
May 21st, 2009 at 8:30 pm
17 – Hey, hey, it’s not my fault I’m a college kid out for the summer.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/5/20/VA/305
GOVERNOR – VIRGINIA (Research 2000/DK)
Terry McAuliffe 36%
Brian Moran 22%
Creigh Deeds 13%
GOVERNOR – VIRGINIA (Research 2000/DK)
McDonnell (R) 44%
McAuliffe (D) 34%
McDonnell (R) 42%
Moran (D) 35%
McDonnell (R) 45%
Deeds (D) 32%
May 21st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Alex,
I think you are pretty well on with the post. But the historical phenomenon of uncompetitive Republican primaries still begs an explanation. 2008 was RELATIVELY competitive, but we all basically knew who was going to win before the votes were tallied on Feb 5. McCain was certainly not inevitable, but with a couple wins, he turned into a steamroller. 1996 was marginally competitive, as Buchanan scared the crap out of the establishment with his NH win. But I can’t think of another year that was even remotely in doubt by the time NH’s votes were certified.
So why do you think Republican primaries tend to seem so inevitable in their outcomes, or at least quickly validate the early leader?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Alex,
“Hey, hey, it’s not my fault I’m a college kid out for the summer.”
Get a job.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Palin Maintains Stance on Stimulus Funds
Favors Local Control on Building Codes
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1860
Governor Sarah Palin announced today that, as previously stated, she will veto the $28.6 million in federal “stimulus” funds tied to adoption of building codes by municipalities.
“Alaskans and our communities have a long history of independence and opposing many mandates from Washington, D.C.,” Governor Palin said. “This principle of maximum self-government for local communities is also set out in our constitution. There isn’t a lot of support for the federal government to coerce Alaska communities to adopt building codes, but lawmakers can always exercise checks and balances by overriding my veto.
“Our 18 boroughs and unified home-rule municipalities, 145 incorporated cities, and individual Alaskans will continue to be free to fully exercise their discretion regarding local building codes. I do not support coercing our local communities to adopt building codes, which then act as a mandatory tax on Alaskans building or renovating homes or businesses.”
May 21st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
#8
Alex, I apologize. I honestly did not get your point. Now I see it. You were agreeing with me that people will twist the facts to fit the theory.
It is human nature to do that. People will always have a tendency to twist the facts to fit their theory. We see that all the time, especially in Politics.
You don’t like someone, you twist the facts to justify your dislike. You like someone, you twist the facts to justify your support. Whatever the real situation, people tend to twist things to justify their preconceived notions. It is very human to not want to admit that we were wrong, especially to ourselves.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Gingrich: Obama’s health care proposal will fail
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10406313
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says he thinks President Barack Obama’s proposed health care system will fail.
The Georgia Republican spoke Thursday at an event held by the Center for Health Transformation he created after levaing Congress.
Gingrich says plans Obama is supporting are beginning to fall apart. He says hospitals, insurers, drug companies and consumers will begin picking the plan apart as soon as they see what they have to give up.
Gingrich is a potential 2012 presidential candidate and said he’ll make a decision on a bid by January 2011.
He appeared during part of the program with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford who has speculation growing about his own White House hopes. Gingrich noted Sanford has a lot of fans around the country.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Yeah, I thought I’d have more time to post during the summer but I’d forgotten that I do absolutely no schoolwork during the school year. My 8-5 summer job is light enough to give me a lot of reading time, but I can’t easily type up 600 words essays when I’m supposed to be working.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Sanford’s being a team player, giving credit where it’s due…
Should Taxpayers Bail Out California?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520846,00.html
BECK: Governor, where were you on, for instance, Head Start, when George Bush said, “Hey, by the way, you need to do this Head Start thing”? Did you take that money?
Why are you against this spending now? Because that’s the charge against people these days, that — you know, all of a sudden — oh, now, you’re, all of a sudden, against spending.
SANFORD: Well, I’ve got a very well-chronicled voting record of 15 years in politics. You know, I was rated number one in the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and all the different merit badges that one earns, in making really, really tough votes back when I was in Congress. But the reason that so many of us have stood up as we have, is that this is a new windfall of money.
So, what we’ve tried to do in an executive branch role, whether it’s me or Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin or Rick Perry or go down the list of governors, is to say, all right, you can’t reinvent the wheel with regard to current government programs — Medicaid, et cetera, that comes into our state. But if you look at a brand new government program that, in this case, is billions of dollars that will very much undermine our ability to make our state more competitive over the long run, you better stand up and be counted.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
.So why do you think Republican primaries tend to seem so inevitable in their outcomes, or at least quickly validate the early leader?
Saying that Republicans fall in line soon enough — a fair enough point — is not the same as saying that the person fallen in line behind was the inevitable choice.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Imagine the idealogical shift that New Hampshire Republicans went through in four years from Buchanan to McCain…
Given our decreasing numbers in the Northeast (something that I believe will be confirmed by the 2010 midterms much to the chagrin of Alex Knepper despite our list of candidates), I wouldn’t be surprised if someone characterized as a “social conservative” first wins the state’s primary in ’12.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
You don’t like someone, you twist the facts to justify your dislike. You like someone, you twist the facts to justify your support. Whatever the real situation, people tend to twist things to justify their preconceived notions. It is very human to not want to admit that we were wrong, especially to ourselves.
That’s why I have no patience for “team players” in politics. I’ve written about it in the past…
http://race42008.com/2008/11/29/go-team-politics-as-sport/
May 21st, 2009 at 8:49 pm
marK,
As an alternative, you can make your theory broad enough or flexible enough that it will always work. The next in line theory seems to work that way. It implies a concrete and predictable pattern but really signifies nothing. What constitutes “next in line” is so fluid that any winner can retroactively be written into the script.
But as I noted in #21, it still begs the question why Republican primaries tend to be relatively predictable and anti-climactic. 2008 was an exception, but the Democrats STILL trumped us on the excitement front, big time.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Frum vs. Gallup, Pew, and FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics…
The pro-life delusion
By David Frum
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/96749/The_prolife_delusion
Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explains the poll’s big technical error. Gallup oversampled Republicans. At a time when only 1 in 5 Americans identifies as Republican, 32 percent of the respondents in Gallup’s survey group identified themselves as Republican. Franklin offers some interesting explanations of how this oversampling could have occurred. But what matters most are the consequences.
As the Republican Party shrinks, it becomes more conservative. Today’s shriveled GOP is much more pro-life than the robust GOP of years past. So if you oversample Republicans, you are oversampling pro-lifers. Sure enough, when you look at Gallup’s breakdown of its results, all the rise in anti-abortion feeling is concentrated among self-identified Republicans.
To paraphrase Norma Desmond in “Sunset Boulevard”: The pro-life movement isn’t bigger—it is the Republican Party that has gotten smaller.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“Gallup oversampled Republicans.” Really David?
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/04/republican-id.html
Taegan Goddard points to a couple recent national polls showing the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans down around 20%.
I don’t think there’s much doubt the GOP is a big old mess right now, but I don’t think it’s that bad either.
We’ve polled in eight states over the last two months and all of them had at least 28% of voters describe themselves as Republicans….
linois, Delaware, and Minnesota are all pretty darn blue so if they’re averaging 29% of voters identifying as Republicans the true number still has to be somewhere in the 30s.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Sure enough, when you look at Gallup’s breakdown of its results, all the rise in anti-abortion feeling is concentrated among self-identified Republicans.”
But what about Pew David?
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abortion-gun-control-opinion-gender-gap
“There has been notable decline in the proportion of independents saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases; majorities of independents favored legal abortion in August and the two October surveys, but just 44% do so today. In addition, the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans saying abortion should be legal declined between August and late October (from 67% to 57%). In the current survey, just 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should legal in most or all cases.”
May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Tommy Boy,
I thought pro-life increased dramatically among independents and moderates as well.
Not that you are compelled to defend Frum.
Anyway, even if he is right about Gallup, how does he dispense with Foxnews and Pew?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Alex,
“Saying that Republicans fall in line soon enough — a fair enough point — is not the same as saying that the person fallen in line behind was the inevitable choice.”
Right, but why are our Primaries so much more predictable and boring than the Democrats? Is that just the nature of a conservative party?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
TwitterView: Marco Rubio, “In It To Win It”
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/05/twitterview_mar.php
@thehotline: “How would a Sen. Rubio’s voting record differ from a Sen. Crist’s in DC?”
@marcorubio: “no on cap/trade,stimulus&judge turned lawmakers, yes to flat or fair tax,balanced budget & ct judges who interpret law”
@thehotline: “Do you have any disagreements with Sen. Martinez’ voting record? If so, what are they?”
@marcorubio: “would not have voted for immigration bill. Secure borders and fix legal process b4 we can move on to other parts of issue”
May 21st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Tommy Boy,
I think Frum is giving us a good example of the sort of fact twisting discussed above. He wants a whiter, wealthier, more liberal Republican Party. So he can’t really have the fight for life succeeding now can he?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I’m hopeful about the increased pro-life numbers, but I must admit to being a little skeptical about such a dramatic change over a year.
I believe in the “culture of life” concept, so the fact that more people are comfortable with being pro-life is an important first step.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
37 – Its good to know a little more of where he stands on the issues.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
40 – There’s always Google.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:05 am
The key is not “came 2nd last time” but “was known to the electorate 4 years prior”
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 am
42 – That has nothing to do with being next in line.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:35 am
Not that I find that convincing, anyway, given that Mittens could have won in ’08 had he done a couple of things differently.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
True, what if Thompson had dropped out before South Carolina and Huck had picked
those votes up instead? Also, overall, ROMNEY CAME IN THIRD IN DELEGATES. Saying
that caucuses don’t count is so Hillary Clinton.
I’m wondering, who was the force behind getting Michael Steele the Chairmanship?
Ask that person who is going to be the nominee – or one of his flunkies.
I remember asking a DNC employee in 2003 who would get the 2004 nomination.
She was sure it would be Kerry. I don’t think she was guessing.
I’m not saying there is any GOP Illuminati, what I am saying is that party
staff have a good idea who the party leadership at the state and national
level are going to back – especially in the situation where you will be running
against a popular President. So, if Steele put Steele in, he might know. If
someone else put Steele in, that person would definitely know. This of course
makes the race a research question rather than a politics or policy question.
Anyone know any current RNC staffers?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
[...] getting really tired of beating down this myth. Let me pull up a past piece of mine: George H.W. Bush didn’t win the nomination because he came in second in the 1980 primaries. He [...]