So, who takes the GOP Nomination?

[oiuyt]

Same question as the DEM thread -- Who takes the nomination for the GOP?

-B

[mrbiggs]

McCain seems to be trying to straddle the conservative Republicans and moderates.

He's got a reputation for being fairly liberal. According to votetoview.com however, he's one of the most conservative senators.

In May 2006 he met with Jerry Fallwell as well, which isn't going to win any liberal hearts.

I'll be surprised if he can pull it off.

[BrianH]

I'm wondering how all those social conservatives bellowing about Bill & Monica will deal with a Giuliani candidacy? ¡Oh, the immorality!

[introspective]

I don't think Rudi Giuliani stands a chance. Pataki doesn't either. I wouldn't know why except that no-one knows them except New York. Nominations usually go to Senators at least. New York still carries a reputation for hard-boiled, swarthy businessmen very entrenched into their own state. The Midwest and Southern states have usually carried the most weight over the years - they are seen as being 'middle' everything. Middle class, Middle America, Middleing to okay - Middlesex Louisiana, Middle of the Road, Middle to Mild. They're Middle Americans that do Middleing things. The South stands for Tradition. Pecan Pie, Catfish, Southern Authors, a Good Scotch Whiskey, Hemmingway. The Pacific coast is too new, they don't have a unique identity.

I have to lool at McCain. He wasn't strong looking before, but the others dont look American to me.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Let´s look at the previous winners of competitive GOP nomination races, to see if we can infer interesting patterns on which we can base predictions:

2000: George W Bush Position: Governor. Living in state: Texas. Born in state: Conneticut. Age at nomination: 53. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
1996: Robert J. Dole. Position: Senator. Living in state: Kansas/DC. Born in state: Kansas. Age at nomination: 73. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 3.
1988: George HW Bush. Position: VP. Living in state: DC. Born in state: Massachuttets. Age at nomination: 62. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 2.
1980: Ronald Reagan. Position: Governor, retired. Living in state: California?. Born in state: Illinois. Age at nomination: 69. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 2.
1976: Gerald Ford. Position: President. Living in state: DC. Born in state: Nebraska. Age at nomination: 63. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 2.
1968: Richard Nixon. Position: VP, retired ( current law firm partner). Living in state: New York. Born in state: California. Age at nomination: 55. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 3.
1964: Barry Goldwater. Position: Senator. Living in state: Arizona. Born in state: Arizona. Age at nomination: 55. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
1960: Richard Nixon. Position: VP. Living in state: DC. Born in state: California. Age at nomination: 47. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 2.
1952: Dwight Eisenhower. Position: General, retired. Living in state: ?. Born in state: Texas. Age at nomination: 62. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
1948: Thomas Dewey.Position: Governor, NY Living in state: NY. Born in state: Michigan. Age at nomination: 50. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 2.
1944: Thomas Dewey.Position: Governor, NY Living in state: NY. Born in state: Michigan. Age at nomination: 46. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 1.
1940: Wendell Wilkie. Position: Wall street Industrialist. Living in state: NY. Born in state: Indiana. Age at nomination: 48. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
1936: Alf Landon. Position: Governor, Kansas Living in state: Kansas. Born in state: Pennsylvania. Age at nomination: 49. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
1928: Herbert Hoover. Position: Secretary of commerce Living in state: DC. Born in state: Iowa. Age at nomination: 54. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 1.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Capt. Slo-mo]

1968: Richard Nixon. Position: VP, retired ( current law firm partner). Living in state: New York.

Hmmm...I wonder if the partners have noticed that Tricky Dick hasn't been been in for many meetings lately!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Let us see the average GOP nomination winner, based on the last 14 competitive GOP nomination races:
Position
President:1
P or VP(including retired):4
P/VP or member of govt.:5
P/VP or member of govt. or Governor:10
P/VP or member of govt. or Governor or Senator:12
Others: General, retired. Wall street Industrialist
Considering that there is no P or VP running this time, we have to base predictions on the other 10 cases. The median power level of them is governor or above.

State of residence
The beltway dominates, with 5 living in DC and a further 4 from NY. Two from Kansas, 1 each from Texas, California and Arizona.

State of Birth
Northeast: Conneticut, Massachuttets
Midwest: Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Michigan*2, Indiana, Iowa
West: California*2, Arizona
South: Texas
The Midwest dominates, with 7 (50&#37 of the nominations. The South is not a fertile ground for GOP presidental candidates.

Age at nomination
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 55, 62, 62, 63, 69, 73
The median age is 54.5, with half of them being in the age range 49-62.

Previous presidential campaign experience
0: 5 times 1: 2 times 2: 5 times 3: 2 times
The median is 1.5 previous presidential campaigns, and the average is 1.14. Only one of these 14 managed to win the election without previous campaign experience under his belt.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Well, you know, it will have to be Jeb Bush, in order for the hyperventilations of certain members of the left about "dynasties" and "the end of the Republic, the advent of the Empire" to be lent weight...

Seriously, it's a crapshoot at this point IMO. The eventual nominee may not even have declared yet.

[introspective]

Then it's either a Govenor or a Senator. The other pattern: being born one place, and running in another place. That would put Pataki in the running at least? What about the ethinic thing of Pataki - so Itlay? Do you think he would stand much of a chance? You may not know how the Italians were seen between 1930 - 1970 in New York. They were seen as being vegetable farmers with goat crap hanging from their coveralls. And the chicks - like my aunties never shaved their armpits. Only the wasps shaved. It was the shaving things. Finally we gave in and bought a gillette.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


This is how the present pack lists up:
Sam Brownback: Position: Senator. Living in state: Kansas/DC. Born in state: Kansas. Age at nomination time: 50. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
The new Alf Landon/Bob Dole. Uh-oh.

Jim Gilmore: Position: Governor, retired. Living in state: Virginia. Born in state: Virginia. Age at nomination time: 57. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
No close historical comparison.

Newt Gingrich:Position: Speaker of House, retired. Think Tank fellow. Living in state: ? Born in state: Pennsylvania. Age at nomination time: 63. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
Closest historical comparison: Richard Nixon, who went on to win the election.

Rudy Giuliani: Position: Mayor, retired. Living in state: NY. Born in state: NY. Age at nomination time: 62. Previous White House campaigns as P/VP candidate: 0.
Closest historical comparison: Cross between Ronald Reagan and Thomas Dewey.


More to come next day!


Peter Gustafsson

[cl00bie]

I don't believe John McCain will be able to cement the Republican base. His major problem is his position on life / family issues.

Newt, OTOH, has name recognition, crafted the "Contract with America" that leveraged the Republicans into control of both houses of congress for 12 years.

He's also going to wait until the last minute so he won't be as "bloodied" as the other candidates.

I would prefer Brownback, but I don't really think he has a chance. I will still vote for him in the primary, though.

[Inquartata]

McCain's oft-cited support amongst independent voters may be waning:

http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index...ype=Columnists

His height will also be a detriment with voters who have been trained by the media to look for telegenic qualities in their candidates.

Frankly I do not see a Republican on the national scene who has the name recognition and the necessary experience and campaigning ability that several of the Democratic ones have. I am afraid that if the Republicans are going to win it's because the Democratic candidate ends up shooting himself in the foot somehow. ( Fortunately the Dems are really good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the last Congressional elections notwithstanding. )

[dcmdale]

I kind of tipped my hand in the DEM discussion.

I think that this is McCain's nomination to lose. If you have been watching him over the last 6 years, he has been collecting a ton of political IOU's for this race. While endorsements and IOU's don't translate directly into votes, they often translate into $$$ (or denial of it to others), opportunities for quality exposure, "momentum," and access to organizational resources (critical in a national race--you *need* experienced state campaign managers/staff in every state).

McCain is undoubtedly following a very standard strategy: appeal to the party core during the primary season, then cut for the center after the nomination. Right now, he messaging is emphasizing his relationship to traditional conservatism and Republican values--something that has been questioned within the GOP. (Example: Yesterday, I received an email from his national committee on the occasion of Reagan's birthday discussing how Reagan inspired McCain and others to become involved.) He is emphasizing budgetary restraint, free enterprise, etc. Presumably, post-nomination wrap-up, he will be pointing to his views on social moderation, clean government, anti-partisanship, etc.

I don't think Iraq will be any more difficult for McCain than for Clinton. I suspect that McCain will be saying, "Yes, we should have gone in. When we did, we did an excellent job of beating their army. But we forgot everything we ever knew about winning the peace. Point #1 in 'winning the peace' is providing security and stability in the occupied region."

McCain is not a shoo-in. He has a famous temper and his melt-down in 2000 will not be easy to shake. He probably will never be trusted by the religious right under any conditions. Undoubtedly, he will try to mend some fences there, but if they aren't mendable, it isn't like the religious right has a strong candidate to challenge him. And, then, in the general election, he can point to his rejection of the religious right as evidence that he is middle-of-the-road.

[Maeve_Mari]

Although "darling" of the Congress from 1995 through 1999 Newton Leroy Gingrich has a history of far too many personal, professional, and ethical issues and violations, many of them pretty much publically known, to allow him to get through the tenacious electoral process.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Although "darling" of the Congress from 1995 through 1999 Newton Leroy Gingrich has a history of far too many personal, professional, and ethical issues and violations, many of them pretty much publically known, to allow him to get through the tenacious electoral process.

First of all: what it is with unusual font and bolding a whole post? Where did the ads come from?

All those issues and violations are things that make those who do not want to vote for his party even more angry about him.

However, this thread is about the nomination, a process within the GOP party and whose who like it. What reasons are there to believe that Gingrich will be hurt among thosed who vote in GOP nomination elections? Could it not be so, on the contrary, that those voters like anything that angers DEM voters, and will give him extra points precisely because he did stuff to DEM politicians and causes?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Maeve_Mari]

Hi!




First of all: what it is with unusual font and bolding a whole post? Where did the ads come from?

All those issues and violations are things that make those who do not want to vote for his party even more angry about him.

However, this thread is about the nomination, a process within the GOP party and whose who like it. What reasons are there to believe that Gingrich will be hurt among thosed who vote in GOP nomination elections? Could it not be so, on the contrary, that those voters like anything that angers DEM voters, and will give him extra points precisely because he did stuff to DEM politicians and causes?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Font? I have no idea where that came from, but I couldnt change it so I left it!

Newt? I'm thinking two area primarily would hurt his chances of getting the GOP nomination.

His personal background includes three marriages (go check to see how many US Presidential candidates have messy divorce histories) including the very public dumping of his first wife as she lay in the hospital recovery room following cancer surgery. Republican right/Christian majority men and women frown on men who allow their dalliance hit the headlines.

And second, his performance in Congress at the time before he resigned, between the ethics charges and his obstinate attitude caused the Republicans their largest seat loss in decades. He left as a dark character in Washington and I'm not sure which current Republicans would want to risk sidling back up against his poor legacy when there are other, less memorable candidates they could support.

Of course it is just MY OPINION on who could get the GOP nod. I'd truly welcome a Newt candidacy for President in 2008. I think he'd give a good race to any other candidate in the win for the White House!

[scrapinpeg]

I'd like to see someone not of the Vietnam/Baby-boomer generation get the nomination. I'm really REALLY tired of that particular generation's heavy-handed domination of politics, which has gone on for far too long. Someone younger than 50, please!

[Inquartata]

I see that the old saying from the 60's, "Never trust anyone over 30", has been updated in some people's minds...

[scrapinpeg]

I see that the old saying from the 60's, "Never trust anyone over 30", has been updated in some people's minds...

How about "never trust anyone who would have said 'never trust anyone over 30'."

[mrbiggs]

I don't trust anyone over 23. At most.