I’m not sure I remember a political primary quite like the 2012 GOP primary. There have been primaries with weak fields (the 1988 Democrats, the 1992 Democrats, the 1996 GOP, the 2008 GOP), and there have been candidates who have gained traction, only to implode (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani). But there’s never been quite the combination of weakness and collapse that has been the hallmark of this year’s GOP matchup. Bachmann, Perry, and Cain all have spent time atop the polls, and all have seen that support fall apart. Meanwhile, the only candidate in the race with any legitimate chance of winning the presidency is despised by pretty much all Republicans.
This isn’t to say that one of these chuckleheads couldn’t come out of the pack and somehow beat Obama next November. We’re a long way from the election. If the economy keeps improving, I think it’s likely Obama wins reelection. But if Europe collapses, the economy tanks, and the GOP nominates one of its few credible candidates, Obama could lose.
All of those are big ifs, of course. First, the Republicans have to pick a standard-bearer. But who? Let’s play Power Rankings.
Republicans
1. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (Last Rank: 8 )
Newtmentum is running wild. He’s leading in several national polls, and at least one poll has him within striking distance in New Hampshire. Is Newt the Republicans’ Mr. Right? I don’t know, but he is certainly Mr. Right Now.
As Cain has slowly sunk, the anti-Romney voters have apparently begun to move to Gingrich by default. It makes a certain amount of sense. As I said way back in 2009:
That doesn’t mean Newt couldn’t get the nomination. In many ways, he’s the best sacrificial lamb in the race for the GOP. He doesn’t have a political future, so there’s no reason he can’t go out and get destroyed by Barack Obama in 2012. And like Tim Pawlenty, he allows the party to sidestep the rifts that a Romney or Huckabee nomination would expose. For those reasons, I can see Newt getting establishment support to prop him up as a bulwark against Huckabee and/or Romney, and I can see him getting the nomination in an effort to hold the party together.
This is why Newt is still hanging around: he’s a good compromise candidate. The establishment can accept him because he’s One Of Them, while the tea party folks like him because he’s a complete, raving asshole. And best of all, he’s not Mitt Romney.
Of course, Newt still has a ton of downside — from his work as a “historian” for Freddie Mac to his raving dickishness — which makes it possible his bubble could burst before Iowa gets here. He also lacks an organization, which could cause him to underperform in the Hawkeye state, even if he gets ahead of Cain. And if he gets the nomination, I think he’s easy pickings for Obama. But right now, at this precise moment, he’s the candidate with the best chance of winning the nomination, because the guy in the second spot is so despised.
2. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (LR: 2)
Let’s say that in a year or two, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., decided to start talking in populist terms. He’d run around the country quoting Paul Wellstone’s Conscience of a Liberal, and praising Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for his strong liberal economic views. He’d claim to be not just pro-choice, but he’d start advocating federally funded abortion. He’d claim not to be pro-gay, but he’d start advocating a constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage legal. He’d push for high taxes on the rich, demand increased spending, and he’d claim that his decision to oppose the public option on health care was a huge mistake.
Then he’d announce he was running for president.
Would you trust him?
Of course you wouldn’t trust him. You know who Ben Nelson is. You know what he’s stood for his entire political career. At best, you’d welcome his conversion while supporting anyone — anyone — else. Because even if you thought he was now sincere, you’d never quite know. And you’d know full well that if he was able to shake off a lifetime of beliefs over a year or two, he could shake off a year or two of beliefs in a minute.
And so it is with Mitt Romney. The Republicans don’t trust him. And why should they? Mitt once claimed he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy. He’s advocated state funding for abortion. He put in place a health care plan that was nearly identical to the Affordable Care Act. During his term as governor of Massachusetts, he governed as a pure centrist, or perhaps someone who was center-left. The Mitt who governed Massachusetts would fit comfortably in the House Democratic Caucus.
And so when he now claims to support Question 26 in Mississippi, or to be opposed to same-sex marriage, or to be eager to strike down Obamacare, who can trust him? Certainly not Republicans. Which is why, despite the inability of any candidate to demonstrate any electoral viability, Mitt’s poll numbers are dropping.
Quite simply, Republicans don’t like Mitt. They don’t trust him. They don’t believe in him. They may have to accept him by Hobson’s choice, but if they can find anyone — anyone — else, they will.
Mitt has so far been having about as good a run as he could hope for, as potential challengers have collapsed along the way. But with each collapse, we see more and more clearly that Republicans are trying to find someone else to support. The flavor-of-the-week appears to be Newt Gingrich right now, and he may be the most dangerous candidate left to Mitt’s hopes. Newt is at least sort of credible. He’s not anathema to the right. He’s acceptable to the Wall Street wing. If Newt becomes the anti-Mitt, Mitt probably loses.
His best hope is that Cain avoids total collapse, but those hopes appear dim; Cain’s support appears to finally be falling off the cliff. If Cain can arrest his collapse before Iowa, or if someone else can rise, the rest of the field might be muddled enough that Mitt ekes out a win, closes things out in New Hampshire, and effectively sews up the nomination. But if Gingrich continues to rise, then Mitt is probably toast.
3. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (LR: 5)
Paul won’t get the nomination, of course. But as I’ve said many times, he’ll keep floating around, pulling around 10% of the vote in every state, occasionally saying something in a debate that makes his fellow GOPers uncomfortable, and then following that up with some bizarre goldbug argument. He could even win a state or two, given the churning in the race — Iowa appears within reach, at least for the moment — but he has t00 many views out-of-step with the GOP to earn the nomination.
A Paul win in Iowa would be hilarious, but ultimately, he’s not going to win the nomination, and if he fails, he’ll leave without causing much of a wake; his supporters are generally not going to go to anyone if he drops out. But he continues to remain a presence in the race, and as long as he keeps floating around 10%, he’ll keep showing up at debates and in forums, and that’s mainly why he’s running, anyhow — to push the party toward libertarianism. It won’t work, of course, because libertarianism is a childish, unworkable political system, but it’s better than the bizarre blend of state support for the rich and laissez-faire for the poor that the GOP currently espouses.
4. Herman Cain (LR: 3)
I guessed last time around that Cain would lose support. I didn’t expect it to be due to a sexual harassment scandal. But that, combined with his disastrous non-answer to the Libya question, has caused his support to crater.
Cain’s support is still in double-digits simply because the far right has not seen another viable alternative to Romney. Perry is a train wreck, Bachmann is Bachmann, Santorum has his Google problem, Paul doesn’t hate gay people or Muslims enough, and Huntsman is like Romney only more liberal. Given that it’s too late for a white knight, conservatives have held onto Cain as their life raft.
The question will be whether Gingrich’s apostasies and mess of a family life will keep the far right from embracing him. I don’t think it will; Newt has said all sorts of dumb things, but he’s got a three-decade career of being a douchebag of conservatism. That will count for something.
The best hope for Cain is that Newt’s lobbying and infidelity cause him to fall. If that happens, then Cain could end up rebounding and regaining his standing as the best candidate to stop Mitt. But I don’t see that happening. Even though the Republicans tried valiantly to prop Cain up in the midst of the his sexual harassment scandal, they know in their hearts that it’s dealt a fatal blow to his chances in a general election. Newt still has a chance; they’ll back him before they back a sure loser. And if Newt fails, they’ll find someone who isn’t Cain.
5. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (LR: 4)
Perry has had a collapse unparalleled in modern political history. Sure, Fred Thompson burst onto the scene four years ago and made some noise before disappearing. But Big Sleepy’s fall was not so precipitous, and not nearly as visible. Thompson fell slowly, because he wasn’t that exciting and didn’t run a particularly vibrant race. Perry has collapsed through gaffe after gaffe, horrible debate performance after horrible debate performance. His epic, never-ending debate gaffe was just the final nail in the coffin. It confirmed what everyone in the nation had already concluded: the man is not bright enough to be president.
Perry has a lot of money left, but at this point, I can’t imagine how he undoes the damage he’s done to his own image. Not only can’t I imagine him winning the GOP primary, I can’t imagine him winning another election, even as a Republican in Texas. Rick Perry’s political career is over; he talked himself to death.
6. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn. (LR: 6)
There were two candidates who could have been beneficiaries of a Cain drop-off. Rick Santorum was one, and Newt Gingrich was the other. And the GOP voters appear to have chosen Newt.
I’m not sure what it is about Santorum; whatever appeal he once had, it’s gone. I think it’s the vibe he gives off, an old-school fundamentalist vibe — one more of the 70s and 80s than today. Santorum feels like he would fit right in with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but that’s not the manner of today’s evangelical right. They’re more Bachmann — angrier, more strident, more in-your-face.
Maybe it’s something else. I don’t know. All I know is that whatever the GOP is looking for, it isn’t Rick Santorum. He’s done.
7. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. (LR: 7)
Our Michele is showing no indication of regaining her previous lofty heights. She remains an afterthought in the polls, and for whatever reason, she seems mired in also-ran territory. Which is, of course, where a ludicrously conservative conspiracy theorist backbencher belongs.
That Bachmann ever had a lead in the polls is a huge indictment of the state of the current Republican Party. Sure, someone like her can get elected to Congress — there have always been extremists, in both parties, who have managed to bubble up through the ranks and get elected from safe districts. But that’s the ceiling for them; they don’t get taken seriously for president, not by serious parties. The Republicans of 2012, of course, are not serious. And while Michele Bachmann may have been an awful candidate, she is — and I can’t believe I’m saying this — no less awful than the three men who have succeeded her as front-runner. Perry is foolish, Cain is vacuous, and Gingrich is licentious. Michele Bachmann may have spouted bizarre gibberish on Libya, but she would have spouted it immediately, and with fervor. She knows damn well what 37 agencies she wants to cut, and she sold out to Fannie Mae for far less money than Newt sold out to Freddie Mac. And say what you want about Michele Bachmann, but she is no flip-flopper. She’s held the same ridiculous positions her entire political career.
Michele Bachmann is superior in many ways to the men who have surpassed her in the polls. That should terrify America. It terrifies me.
8. Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman (LR: 9)
Huntsman is doomed for the same reason Huntsman has always been doomed: he’s far too moderate for the Republican Party. Don’t misunderstand me: Huntsman is not a moderate. He endorsed Paul Ryan’s debt plan, which would be seriously damaging to America. But he’s at least willing to entertain the idea that political parties should work across the aisle. He’s not dedicated to destroying the Democrats at all cost, even the cost of the nation itself. And for that reason, he will never get the nomination of today’s GOP.
The only impact Huntsman will have on this race is by possibly making things interesting in New Hampshire. Huntsman has gone all-in on the Granite State, and while that state will most certainly be his Waterloo, he could still cut into the support of fellow moderate Mormon ex-governor Mitt Romney. Cut in enough, and Mitt could find himself underperforming expectations there — and that could sink Mittens. Of course, more likely is that Huntsman gets his gentleman’s three percent, and vanishes until 2016.
9. Former La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (LR: 11)
Roemer rises because a few of his positive quotes about Occupy Wall Street have trickled into the mainstream media, so…that’s something, I guess. But running for president as a Republican opposed to money in politics is like running for president as a Democrat opposed to Social Security. Getting more money into politics is a core Republican value. Indeed, it’s arguably the glue that binds the whole coalition together. Roemer is right that money in politics is a problem, and that we need to find a way to regulate it. But he’s wrong to think that he’ll ever convince a significant number of Republicans of that.
10. Former N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson (LR: 10)
Remember Gary Johnson? He’s still running for President. Honest, he is. No, seriously — he’s on the ballot and everything. If you are heavily invested in smoking pot, you might have heard of him, or maybe not — it’s hazy. If you aren’t, you haven’t heard of him. Don’t feel bad. Neither has anyone else.
11. Jimmy “The Rent is Too Damn High” McMillan (LR: 12)
With the ouster of protesters from Zuccotti Park, a prominent challenge to the too highness of the damn rent has been eliminated. That leaves Jimmy McMillan to save the day, reminding Americans of a simple truth: The Rent is Too Damn High. And it is, my friends. It unquestionably is.
12. Fred Karger (LR: 13)
Karger gets an up arrow because I actually heard something he said about Florida’s GOP chair. I don’t remember what it was — he was upset, as I recall — and I’m too lazy to look it up. And I’m not sure if it was on the radio or Twitter or something. But still, I actually heard Fred Karger’s name mentioned by someone somewhere. That’s progress.
Democrats
1. President Barack Obama (LR: 1)
Obama’s nomination is assured, of course, but it should be noted that his polling is continuing to improve, and that he is looking much stronger going into 2012 than he was coming out of 2010. For this, he owes a huge thank-you to the Republican Party, which has managed to do just about everything conceivable wrong in the past year.
As of right now, I’d rate Obama’s chances of being re-elected as 70-30; if the Republicans nominate anyone who’s name doesn’t rhyme with “spit,” those odds go 90-10.
2. Randall Terry (LR: 2)
Terry continues to get absolutely no traction, but that’s okay; his main goal is to run disturbingly graphic anti-choice ads during the Super Bowl. Of course, everyone thinks the fetus-picture people are a bunch of douchebags, even most conservatives, so I welcome that. Far from being shocked that surgery is messy, Americans will draw the conclusion that anti-choicers are assholes. Which they are.
Falling Out:
Ralph Nader (LR: 2)
Nader and Cornell West missed the deadline to get anyone on the ballot to challenge Obama in New Hampshire, and they’re unlikely to succeed elsewhere. For all their griping, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are behind Obama, and while I have no data to back this up, my guess is that the overwhelming majority of those most disaffected with Obama still understand that challenging him in the primary is a disaster waiting to happen.
In a way, I think Occupy Wall Street sucked the wind out of Nader’s sails. They conclusively demonstrated that there are other, more effective ways to get a politician’s attention than mounting a primary challenge. And Obama’s embrace of their core message undercut the emoprog argument that Obama is a secret Reaganite.
Whatever the reason, any hope of a primary challenge against Obama has fizzled. This doesn’t mean Ralph might not mount yet another independent run for the White House, of course. He’s like Pat Paulsen, only he isn’t funny.
Ron Paul could EASILY get the Black vote and the Youth vote if he would make “legalize it” his primary platform to run on.
I mean how many Black and young people even know that Paul wants to free all the druggies, both dealers and buyers, from jail and legalize ganja and all recreational drug use? Not many.
Believe me, if he’d be MORE outspoken about that – they’d come out IN DROVES to vote for him.
Even assuming that were true, how much impact do you think that would have on the overall vote?
I thought Terry had decided anti-gay activism is where the money’s at (plus, the anti-abortion groups were not very happy about his personal life, IIRC).
So now the Republican front-runner is a guy who wants to end child labor laws.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving party.
mythago, are you talking to me? Ron Paul would not run on an anti-gay platform. He better not anyway if he’s truly “small government”!
As a Libertarian he could’ve run on the Democratic ticket but for some reason he chose Republican and perhaps catered to “conservatives”. Bad move. He should’ve made his catch phrase “Legalize It” with Peter Tosh’s song playing in the back ground. Believe you me, he would have cleaned up.
It’s so cute how Paul’s devotees think he could win. I had this exact conversation at work today. My question is: Does Paul’s consistent voting in the 5 to 10 percent range mean nothing?
I wouldn’t underestimate Newt vs. Obama.
I think Obama has the advantage – he’s much more likable – but many of Newt’s disadvantages will not be nearly as bad as some people think. (The personal life baggage has been exaggerated, and is very old news with little traction. His policy flip-flops and embrace of some ideas repugnant to hardcore conservatives may well make him more acceptable to centrist voters; hardcore there-is-no-AGW is a winner with the base, but a loser elsewhere, so he has less stuff to defend there than other candidates. He is pretty dickish, but that can be a positive if he has proper handlers. Yes, he hasn’t got a big organization, but that is a pretty easy thing to fix once you’re the candidate.)
And in a debate, he is very very very good. A lot better than Obama, who managed to draw or narrowly beat John “huh?” McCain. Obama cannot afford to look dumb or scared, and Newt would be the one Republican candidate capable of making him look dumb (if Obama agrees to substantive debates) or scared (if he doesn’t).
(I’m not a Newt partisan, by the way, I think he has a lot of problems as a candidate…this is just my assessment of his real chances. Personally I’m still hoping for a meteor strike at the convention that takes out all the candidates, followed by a Chris Christie draft. Come on meteors, do your stuff!)
Robert @6: I think you misunderestimate both Gingrich’s ongoing personal baggage (which plays for both sides) and his tendency to say really stupid shit without having thought it through first.
What personal baggage does he have that’s ongoing?
The old stuff just won’t play. If Obama brings it up, he is legitimizing the idea that bad decisions from 20 years ago are relevant; ok, let’s talk more about Ayers and Wright, then. If the media bring it up, they will be perceived as being loyal partisans to the Democrats; it will please Democrats but won’t move any voters.
A significant portion of the “stupid shit” he says comes across as stupid only to the people who wouldn’t vote for him anyway. You guys think Sarah Palin was stupid for saying “drill, baby, drill” but that mockery didn’t cost McCain any votes. (This is a bipartisan fallacy, not a slam on lefties.)
But like I said, I am well aware of his limitations as a candidate. I just don’t think it would be the slam dunk that Jeff does. I’d say Gingrich would be a stronger candidate, slightly, than McCain was, on balance, and McCain came fairly close to winning against an untarnished Obama who didn’t have a relatively disaster-filled Presidential term on his record.
Robert @8: The bills at Tiffany’s are not old. And the problem with the old stuff is that it has very good play. Adultery may piss people off on the other side of the aisle, but serial adultery while refusing to pay child support pisses off left and right, and I don’t think many people will forgive it anytime soon. The stupid-shit problem is that his stupid shit is not very clever. “Drill, baby, drill” is not a wonky, policy-lecture statement of the sort Gingrich likes to spout. Honestly, outside of the Beltway I’m not sure whose favorite he is supposed to be. (As for Palin, I can’t speak on behalf of All Libruls but I don’t think the consensus was that “drill, baby, drill” was politically stupid. Wrong, but not something that hurt her in the slightest with her base.)
We disagree about the play his personal life will/would get…liberals are not going to be able to attack him on that without looking pretty hypocritical (and yes, I admit that Newt was pretty damn hypocritical in going after Clinton while doing similar things). Conservatives aren’t going to attack him on it because he’s been married to the same woman for a long time and has, in the vernacular, “moved on”.
Yes, if you take his ex-wife’s word for it, he didn’t support his family. But that means that she didn’t like the support she had, not that he was actually not doing anything. I’m in the middle of a similarly bitter divorce; if you take my wife’s word for it, I’m a serial child porn user addicted to drugs, and my wife (just like Gingrich’s) filed court papers saying I wasn’t supporting her. (Hint: she is lying about all three things. My wife, that is, I don’t know Newt’s wife.) Things said by bitter ex-spouses ought to be taken with a huge pile of salt. I don’t think anyone has established that there was a court order that he disobeyed, have they?
The Tiffany issue seems similarly non-operative. OK, he bought his wife and/or himself a lot of pricey jewelry. And? If he were Ralph Nader it would play, but Republicans are supposed to live well. If he declares bankruptcy to get out from under the debt, that would SURELY play…but I just don’t see it being an issue. Nobody gives a damn about Obama’s expensive vacations, either, outside a few frothing righties. (It’s hysterical to read some of the “now he’s dooomed!” blog posts that my side tends to get into whenever Obama does something expensive. OMG, the leader of the free world spends public money when he travels!!!!)
Most of the criticisms of his life that I’ve seen have been of a similar bent: they are things that, like Obama’s travel costs, will harden people who already hate him but will seem kind of irrelevant to people making up their minds. I think his past political issues and ethical complaints are more likely to shake undecideds.
I do think you are right that he has a hard time with his mouth. But I don’t think that wonky policy ideas are going to be fatal to him. If you can’t get it into a soundbite, it isn’t likely to sway a lot of voters. High-info voters like you and me, maybe, but tragically we only have one vote apiece. Well, it’s tragic that I only have one vote, anyway.
I don’t think anyone has established that there was a court order that he disobeyed, have they?
You mean that he was held in contempt of court? Don’t think so, but he was certainly lax about payments to his first wife and their children. Really, this is not “one of Newt’s exes said blah to a journalist” – his assholery is pretty well-documented and he admits to some, but not all of it, in typical euphemistic terms. (And no, whatever one thinks of Clinton, liberals are not going to forgive him for posturing about adultery while he was banging the woman he would leave his second wife for.)
The problem with his wonky policy ideas isn’t merely that they’re stupid, it’s that they’re unmarketably stupid. “Drill, baby, drill” is catchy and memorable and links right into the views of Palin’s base. Long, rambling speeches of the sort you might hear at a college party at 2 am do not make for great soundbites.
“Republicans are supposed to live well” – that works with a Horatio Alger story, or when ‘living well’ simply means the guy eats at steakhouses, but half a million dollars on charge to Tiffany’s for a career politician? Srsly? That doesn’t scream “folksy, down to earth guy who understands the little people”.
I truly think he’s doing as well as he has in polls only because he hasn’t, yet, said anything really inflammatory as compared to some of the other candidates.
After a divorce, there may be a support order. If he violated that order, that is a huge issue. “Lax about payments” – says who? I’ve googled around, and I see his wife saying it, and people reporting that his wife said it. His own statements seem to be a rather jerkish thing he said about why he left her. “My ex didn’t pay me as much as I think I deserve” is going to be a wash; a lot of divorced women will say “that fucker” and a lot of divorced men will say “get a job, ma’am.”
Unmarketably stupid speeches that can’t be put into a soundbite by his opponent aren’t going to HURT him. Fine, they won’t be of any help to him either, but so what?
“liberals are not going to forgive him”…true. Liberals also aren’t going to vote for him, so it doesn’t matter.
“That doesn’t scream “folksy, down to earth guy who understands the little people”. But he isn’t running as that guy. “I love my wife enormously, and one way I show it is by buying her beautiful things, sometimes more than was perhaps wise, but I just love her so much.” will be the storyline. A debt of between $250k and $500k, even for luxury items, is not that much for someone worth millions. If he was doing it while in public service, it could play, but he was/is a political consultant and author in the period in question. And he paid it off years ago, so who gives a shit?
He’s doing well in the polls because of two main factors, other than the anyone-but-Romney factor Jeff accurately diagnoses: one, seeing Perry and Cain stumble and flop has made Republicans realize that we really do need to run someone who is articulate (particularly against Obama) rather than another folksy have-a-beer-with-me guy, and two, he has a long resume and some significant accomplishments (from a conservative p.o.v.). He hasn’t LOST standing because he hasn’t said anything stupid yet, but “haven’t made mistakes” doesn’t make your numbers go up, it just keeps them from going down.
You’re doing an excellent job of convincing me that the case against Newt is waaay more convincing to the people who would never vote for him in a million years than it is to people who don’t know yet.
Jake, I’m not a “devottee” nor am I a voter. Just an observation that a candidate who was for legalizing drugs would be a HUGE hit with Black people (he could’ve come up with catchy soundbite like “the war on the war on drugs” – because the African American community has been hit the hardest by Reagan’s “war on drugs” which is ongoing til this day), and HUGE hit with young people and other freedom lovers.
But he chose to run as a Republican and to cater to the right wing conservatives instead of Blacks and Youth – those who could’ve held him up as “hipper and blacker than Obama”.
BAD POLITICAL MOVE on his part.
There are more right-wing conservative voters than there are black and young voters.
Although I read something recently that said we had just shaded over into a majority of people being opposed to the drug war, the great bulk of those people just think that the drug war is a bad idea or is badly thought-out or badly-managed; “legalize it” would lead to them saying “yeah, that sounds good” rather than them saying “woot! mortgage the house, Martha, we’re sending this guy all our money.”
Black people are indeed disproportionately affected by the drug war (poor people more than black people per se) but I also think it unrealistic that this very mainline Democratic constituency would sign on to the Fed-busting, gold-bugging, foreign-aid-ending, libertarian branch of the Republican party just because the candidate said he’d stop busting black kids for minor drug deals.
And, per the first paragraph, even if they did, so what? Say you somehow magically reverse the polarity of the black vote, so Ron gets 90% of it. That plus the (usually pathetic) youth vote – a lot of which is already going to Paul – might come up to a whopping 10 or 15 percent of the electorate. Add that to Ron Paul’s organic 10% (at best) support in the general population, and you have about a quarter of the voters.
The candidate who has a quarter of the voters solidly behind him gets crushed in a landslide.
Good debate performances? Really? He seems to spend most debates attacking the media and complaining that the debate format doesn’t just allow him to go on at length about whatever subject he feels like talking about on that day.
McCain came fairly close to winning against an untarnished Obama who didn’t have a relatively disaster-filled Presidential term on his record.
In what sense did McCain come “fairly close” to winning against Obama? Obama won by the largest margin in any presidential race since 1988. Dukakis! McCain was Dukakis.
Newt is nowhere near the candidate McCain was. For all Angry McNasty’s issues, he has a compelling life story, a history of honorable service to his country, and a fair amount of charisma, albeit of an unorthodox style. Additionally, going into 2008, he had a reputation as a moderate, a uniter, and a decent person.
Newt has none of this. He’s associated with divisiveness and petulance. He quit in 1998 because his own caucus was preparing to stage a coup against him. He’s prickly at best, a raging jerk at worst, and that comes through loud and clear. His own partisans compare him to Nixon; that’s not a good thing.
Ultimately, while I think the “guy you want to have a beer with” thing is silly, Americans don’t. And Gingrich comes off as the loudmouth know-it-all at the end of the bar that everyone tries to avoid. Had Gingrich run against Obama in 2008, he might have lost 45 states; as it is, I strongly doubt he can win. Indeed, I strongly doubt any Republican in the field other than Romney (and Huntsman, if he somehow miraculously gets the nomination) can win.
Clinton beat Dole by more and about the same margin that Bush beat Dukakis.
But I wouldn’t call 2008 particularly close, either.
@ pocketjacks … I wasn’t counting those because of the whole plurality thing. Lots of folks don’t like to think that Clinton “really” won because he didn’t get over 50 percent.
Um, what? I’ve no intent on voting for Ralph Nader, but I’m waiting to see something prove the truth of this statement. Like, say, changes in voting patterns in Congress, which is all that really matters when you’re talking about getting a politician’s attention.
Well, by “young people” I mean anyone under 60 and some old hippies over 60. There’s alot of people out there smoking pot and/or using it for medicinal purposes in which case they have to get a cumbersome prescription for it and pay high prices.
I think by catering to the potheads he could have gone a long way.
^^^And lets not forget the meth heads and the convenience and small groceries that sold, knowingly or unknowingly, the ingredients for making it that got unfairly shut down. There’s a huge constituency out there for this.
What to speak of small organic dairies and farms that are selling raw milk and raw meat that are getting invaded by SWAT teams and closed down by the Feds.
Paul could’ve gotten alot farther than he did by catering to these people than to mainstream Repubs in suburbs.
He could have done a OWS tour and catered to the protesters too.
He chose the wrong demographics.
I’m pretty sure there are a lot of Americans, some of them black, who still believe that the country would be in even worse shape if no efforts were made to stop people from using drugs.
When Robert wrote
‘
he was absolutely correct. Now, the Democrats and those to their left would undoubtedly agree with Paul’s position wrt the War On (Some) Drugs – as they do now -, they would also find most of the rest of his platform to be dangerous, immoral and unhinged. As they do now.
Libertarians have no traction with the left because current day Libertarians, in general, are farther to the right than the rightwards careening GOP. Sure, there are some issues on which they agree with Democrats and those to their left. But their overall position is anathema to the Dems. Your opinion, CCC, has no factual support. At all.
“I’m pretty sure there are a lot of Americans, some of them black, who still believe that the country would be in even worse shape if no efforts were made to stop people from using drugs.”
Who said no efforts? We don’t need government to do everything for us. Culture, family, spirituality and socialization can do much more.
Robert @12: I, too, did some Googling, and seriously, this was not just ‘the fucker should have given me more money’. (I understand, without any sarcasm, that you may not be in a place to assume ex-wives are anything but greedy, lazy-ass bitches, but really.) As for half a million on jewelry just being something nice for his wife, ask John Edwards how well the “but I can afford it” spin worked with his $400 haircut. Really,
Jeff is right; Newt completely fails the beer factor. He’s used to being a bomb-thrower and getting fluffed by Beltway pundits. That’s not going to carry Ohio.
Well, by “young people” I mean anyone under 60 and some old hippies over 60.
You can’t be serious.
“Well, by “young people” I mean anyone under 60 and some old hippies over 60.
You can’t be serious.”
I am. People my grandparents age (80 and over) feel some kind of way about legalizing drugs. People my parents age (60s) have smoked pot and experimented with psychedelics in their youth. From 60s on down we don’t want to be controlled in our private lives. We are less authoritarian.
Everybody under 60 is both young and in favor of legalized pot? Now I know you’re trolling.
I just wanted to point out that, I’m sure unintentionally, Michele Bachman, the female candidate, is the only candidate you ever referred to by their first name. I don’t like her but that doesn’t mean she should be trivialized for being female in that way.
Char, that’s not correct: he also refers to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney by their first name alone at least once in their respective sections. As far as I can tell, Michelle Bachman is unique only under the more restrictive filter of being a candidate whose first reference in their section is their first name alone.
Char —
My referring to Rep. Bachmann as “Our Michele” is a shout-out to her Minnesotaness; I’ve been writing about Bachmann since she was a state senator, and I refer to her as “Our Michele” because she is. Similarly, I usually referred to former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as “Gov. Timmy.”