And the Nomination Race Begins!

Remove all ads!

But wasn't McCain a moderate, at least in theory, and isn't Romney considered the most moderate of the Republican field this time around?

You nailed it - that's the only two times that a candidate lost a general election, and went on to later win the presidency. And really, the case of Grover Cleveland is an unusual one. Winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college is odd enough, but he was actually the sitting president, and holds the distinction of being the only president to hold two non-consecutive terms. The point being is that he was already a household name when he ran again in 1892 - heck he was a former president. And Nixon wasn't exactly a stranger to the US electorate either. He was Dwight Eisenhower's Vice President, so everyone knew who he was as well.

But there is a lot of truth in what Merlanni says. Generally speaking, it isn't the end of your political career if you lose a primary - there have been many instances where that happens, and they go back to being governor, senator, etc., and it's basically like they never ran in the first place. Perry will still remain popular as the governor of Texas, and Bachmann will go back to being in the House of Representatives - and likely win re-election if her post-Census district is as favorable as the one she currently presides over. A lot of times they even try to win the nomination again, four years later.

But typically you only get one chance at the top of the ticket. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. If you lost the last election, why run the exact same guy against the incumbent and hope for a different result with a second try? Nixon's run in 1968 is instructive here as well. He lost in Kennedy in 1960. But he didn't run against Kennedy in 1968, nor did he run against Kennedy's Vice President, Lyndon B. Johnson (Johnson opted against running in 1968, even though he was eligible for another term). So Nixon wasn't exactly trying the same thing again. He ran against Hubert Humphrey, who was a much weaker candidate than either JFK or LBJ. I'd say the 1968 was a lot like the 1992 election in that there was a strong 3rd party candidate on the ticket - segregationist George Wallace - don't laugh - he actually won a few states in the deep south. IIRC, Nixon won a plurality, but not the majority of the popular vote due to the presence of Wallace on the ticket.

 

Wow - haven't heard that name in a long time. (And seeing as how Thompson is dead, I guess that shouldn't be too surprising.)

The ironic part is that Goldwater, by today's standards, would actually be considered a moderate in the Republican party.

I put Jackson in the "winners that lost" category - i.e., winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. In that list, we can also include Sam Tilden and Al Gore. And Jackson got screwed out of the election. I believe Henry Clay threw his support to Adams in exchange for a position in the Cabinet. (Although it's been a while since I read up on it, I'm pretty sure it was at least somewhat shady of a backroom deal.)

 

I found this post over on Dave Weigel's blog pretty remarkable and thought provoking. Hope you enjoy.

I didn't really see the parallels between the two races before, but I kind of have to now. I suppose you could stretch any two situations for similarities to make such a comparison, but these are pretty stark in my view. Interesting.

 

I actually think the weakest comparison is that between McCain and Romney. McCain was more like the elder statesmen, and even though he hasn't been to the altar three times, he has been twice. McCain was in the Navy, was a POW, and then basically became a career politician. That's starkly different than Romney who traces his root prior to his political career back to the business world. I think the Santorum/Huckabee comparison is spot on, and the Perry/Thompson comparison works well too. Obviously Ron Paul compares favorably with himself. The other one I'd be a little concerned about comparing is Giuliani and Gingrich, because frankly, other than their number of marriages, there's not too much similar between them.

 

Overinflated sense of self importance, excessive demagoguery, side careers as Fox News pundits, serial womanizing and adultery while claiming a mantle of "traditional family values" ... I'd say Giuliani and Gingrich have quite a bit in common, actually.

I don't think the people in Weigel's piece are being suggested as perfect allegories, so I think nitpicking the differences misses the point. That both Romney and McCain "ran once before, came in second place, and won over the party's elite class without winning over its base," for example, is the important bit, and pretty indisputable. That the Republicans would essentially repeat the same unfavorable scenario 4 years later isn't something I think anyone would have expected even a year ago.

 

I thought "overinflated sense of self importance" and "excessive demogoguery" were required personality traits of all politicians. That just leaves "womanizing" which you seem to be saying is a bad thing. Womanizing and adultry from a Republican is a refreshing change ... as opposed to the 'closet gay' issues that normally surface in any Republican scandal. Not that I really care what a politician does in the bedroom, or on a bus, or an airplane, or a parked car, or in a public restroom....

 

Well, yeah, there's that... I was speaking of their political careers. Speaker of the House and Mayor of NYC don't have too many similar duties.

But I don't think comparing McCain's bid in 2000 and Romney's bit 2008 isn't a particularly good comparison either. Bush wiped the floor with McCain in 2000. Once all the negative ads came out prior to the primary in South Carolina that year, I do not believe McCain won a single state after that. That nomination race was over before Super Tuesday, so unlike in 2008, I never thought of it as particularly competitive. Romney did hang on until Super Tuesday in 2008, but it was actually Huckabee who was the last man standing with McCain, although that had as much to do with the luck of primary geography than anything - a large number of the Bible Belt states and Great Plains states vote on or prior to Super Tuesday, and that helped Huckabee quite a bit.

I think the most apt comparison that can be drawn from comparing what happened in 2008 to what is happening now is that the eventual nominee (McCain) and the presumed nominee (Romney) is the best that the Republicans have to run. They both are moderate Republicans - at least in perception, if not in fact - and the remaining candidates that had any realistic chance of winning are far too conservative to hold appeal beyond the Christian right.

And it was for this reason alone that I considered Romney as a favorite to win the nomination as much as a year ago. Not only has he essentially been campaigning since 2009, there was no one else on the Republican side that would be seen as a good alternative. I fully expected Palin to run, but let's face it, her odds of winning votes beyond the 25% of the country that absolutely loves her were pretty low. She's Tim Tebow without the ability to throw a football... which I guess is saying that she's exactly like Tim Tebow. Many other credible candidates said fairly early last year that they weren't running. About the only candidate that I expected to possibly challenge Romney was Pawlenty - and I still am surprised by how badly his campaign flopped.

The one thing I do truly find odd about the selection of Romney as the apparent nominee, is that I always assumed that one of the main planks the Republican would run against is Obama's heath care reform, but Romney is the least qualified candidate for that task, as he signed into law a pretty similar plan when he was governor in Massachusetts.

 

HA!

Totally agreed here. Just about anyone else would have been able to effectively attack the Affordable Care Act (I refuse to call it Obamacare...it's just stupid). Romney's become pretty good at telling bald-faced lies and standing by them,* so he'll likely continue to insist his policies are nothing like Obama's and will continue to gain traction with such claims until he addresses the contradictions. He'll avoid addressing the contradictions with all of his might, though. I also think he'll follow Palin's example and stick to friendly media outlets only and ignore everyone else.

* Example:

 

Good grief. "...and just like John Kerry, he speaks French." Pathetic. I almost wonder how the smears on Gingrich go... presuming he's taken seriously enough to merit such mudslinging.

 

There is a tendency amongst some Americans to see themselves as not only superior to the rest of the world, but nearly a separate class of people. The idea of learning about other countries and cultures smacks of degrading the American learner, because they have the perfect society and therefore there is no value in learning about their lessers. This attitude of proud ignorance really gets under the skin of some Canadians in particular -- we share the worlds longest undefended border and are a MAJOR trading partner, yet a good portion of Americans don't know the capital of the country. In fact, I had one American tell me that canada actually HAD no capital city -- she'd learned that in school! It is this mindset that is informing Newt's ridiculous attacks.

But really, all of this is moot. No Democrat is going to vote for ANY Republican candidate. The Religious Right segment of the Republicans will not vote for Romney due to his faith, so they will merely stay home. Moderates will look at a moderate from the Democrats and a Moderate from the Republicans and either stay home or go with the devil they know.

Which is a pity -- I am not the Romney expert that many are on here, but here's my take on the guy:

A: He was a fairly successful Governor of Mass. and his constituents liked him. I've not seen many people criticize his governance of the State.

B: He has endeavored to demonstrate that he is open minded and willing to change his positions if that will further the general good. For that, he is classified as a flip flopper.

C: He takes a lot of fire for his faith, which really disturbs me, but I want to make clear that I would be disturbed if he were a 7th Day Adventist, a Jehovah's Witness, or a Hindu and still taking the same degree of fire. There should be no religious litmus test for a political leader. It should be based on his past performance and personal behaviour.

I know for a fact that his LDS pedigree will be one of the nails in his Presidential coffin. To be honest, I'm surprised he's willing to be the Republican's sacrificial goat in the 2012 election. I do not blindly support him just because he's LDS -- believe me, there's plenty of LDS politicians I would cut off my ding-ding before casting a vote in their favor. In addition, I'm still quite fond of Obama -- I don't believe he's the devil the Right is making him out to be. I just find it sad that Romney is not being given a fair shake.

 

Well... yeah...look at what they have to choose from. I think a real moderate, like Huntsman, could go head-to-head with Obama, even among Dems. But look at how it tunred out for him. Hillary would have been a much better choice than Obama, IMO. Romney and Obama are really two peas in a pod.-- They only care about getting elected. If you think it is anything deeper than that, you are mistaken.

 

The talk around the campfire is Biden is going to get kicked to the curb as VP, and Obama is going to ask Biden and Clinton to switch jobs. Assuming Obama gets re-elected, Biden isn't a great choice as the nominee in 2016, and lets face it, 2016 is Hillary's last shot at this...

 

I've assumed an Obama-Clinton ticket for a while now -- iI don't think the Republicans can beat that with anyone. The Presidents approval ratings are tanking and Biden doesn't bring anything to a re-election ticket.

 

I'm not surprised in the least.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...romney-pegs-his-tax-rate-at-around-15-percent

 

I don't really like Newt, but this impressed me.

 

Yeah, just what we need. A President who won't stand up for civil liberties and a vice-president who's husband signed NAFTA. Welcome to the American "left"

 

Yes, because as we all know, women are incapable of having political positions which differ from their husbands'.

 

I suppose I should expand on my larger point. It's not specifically about Hilary furthering this process, it's that nobody within the Democratic party would dare stand up to corporate power for the betterment of society. I've listened to Hilary and i've listened to Obama and all the other Democrats and despite the flowery rhetoric, none have dared to go against the corporate powers that be. The mainstream left has turned it's back on the populace it claims to care about on every important issue. Progressive taxation? Nowhere to be found. Defense of civil liberties? Nowhere to be found. Corporate accountability? Don't make me laugh. The problem is more than just those things not happening, it's that they are not even debated among the pre-selected candidates for power we get to choose from at all. I submit that both parties are subservient to the status quo at this point in time and the status quo is a gradual process towards stronger plutocracy and a lower standard of living for the rest of us.