FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Posted on 09/22/2007 10:37:04 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
You could be right about anti-Southern bigotry. Do you remember how well Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter in the northeast?
Ford did quite well in the northeast. He carried 4 of 6 New England states (CT, ME, NH, VT). Carried NJ and only lost NY by a margin of 52-48% (in fact, NY & TX's margins were nearly identical for Carter, as he carried both). These are percentages the GOP would kill for up there today.
We shall see. I’m still expecting a backlash in the state against the rodent majority that swept the state en masse in ‘06, but if that bigotry prevails, she’ll win narrowly.
I believe that Ford’s strong 1976 showing in the northeast was, in part, caused by a negative reacion to Jimmy Carter’s southern accent and background.
Partly, but also, too, it was a reminder that that part of the northeast was still generally GOP-leaning (at least in Presidential races). It shows how far things have gone in the wrong direction up there and in the right direction down south. :-\
Sununu is endangered, an incumbent Senator is never more vulnerable as when they are running for their first re-election. Also no one denies that the state is trending the wrong way (most states are right now).
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
I don't want to sterotype New England Republicans are all being elitist twits, but I'm afraid that is the case. New Hampshire will vote conservative (and I refuse to believe the state has from entirely GOP to entirely Dem in four short years), but they are NOT going to vote for a southern good ol' boy for the same reason Louisiana will vote for liberals like Slick Willie, LBJ, and Mary Laudrieu but not liberals like John Kerry or Al Gore. They perceive the candidate as an "outsider" to their region and don't feel comfortable with them.
Conservatives CAN win in New England. We have a conservative GOP governor in Rhode Island RIGHT NOW. "Unelectable", my ass. The GOP has been wildly successful in New England when we have guys like Reagan (California governor), Nixon (adopted New Yorker & former VP), Eisenhower ("old Kansas Republican like yourself"), and Coolidge (Vermont resident, VP & former governor of nearby Mass.) atop the ticket.
The only southerner we had atop the ticket who won was GWB, and he got NH by the skin of his teeth in 2000 (he has roots in Conn. & Maine), but then it went to the dark side in 2004.
This is why all the freepers who enjoyed kicking Tommy Thompson when he was down were only shooting the GOP's presidential prospects in the foot, as someone like Tommy "I grew up in Eloy, WI, the son of a gas station attentant") is a conservative who could win over New Hampshirites in a way the bible belt candidates can't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Both parties lose when they are stupid enough to nominate a Senator from a "safe state" whose appeals mainly to their parties base. (It doesn't matter if that candidate is a "celebrity" and very likeable either, as Bill Bradley was DOA outside of NJ)
It was true with Goldwater, it was true with Dole, it was true with Mondale and it was true with Kerry. Folksy southern GOP Senators don't have a prayer in New England and blue-blooded ivy-league liberal Democrats from the northeast don't have a prayer in the deep south.
Romney & Giuliani can win NH, not because they are RINOs, but because they've built up enough roots on the east coast that people there accept them. For some odd reason, freepers seem to enjoy pissing on any conservative who can win that area and gloating when they leave office, and so now we're left with only RINOs who are polling well there. You guys make not like that fact because alot of southern GOP senators would make terrific Presidents, but historical facts can't be ignored.
We are fortunate that the Hilderbeast is also an extremely polerizing figure representing the safe RAT haven of NY. The only way she wins is if the GOP neutralizes this disadvantage by ALSO nominating a Senator from a "safe" state who has limited appeal in swing states.
Unfortunately, it seems many of FR are intent on doing exactly that.
Fred's a likeable guy, but can he take Ohio, New Hampshire, and Colorado? That's what it boils down to. Goldwater may have been the ideal conservative leader but he was sure wasn't presidential material.
These are not good numbers for Hillary. If this poll is correct and holds up she will almost certainly lose this state to anyone but Fred. See, when it’s tied that low below 50, not enough of the undecideds will break for her to reach 50 because her favorable-unfavorables leave little margin for growth.
Yes, he did. But Ford was from the great lakes region. New Englanders will accept GOP candidates from the upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc.) They won't take GOP candidates from the deep south.
The feeling is mutual, southerners simply will not vote for New Englanders (although JFK managed to steal a few states by putting a Texan on the ticket and rigging the votes, and winning ballots that just said "Straight Democratic Ticket" in the south). Southerners will occassionally elect a communist RAT to office in a southern state, but only if he's appeals to the locals.
The old southern-new England coalition the RATs put together during the days of Woody Wilson and FDR is long gone.
I truly believe an unapologetic conservative could win the electoral votes of states like Maine, New Hampshire, and Conn. in today's world, but it won't be guys like George W. Bush, George Allen, or Fred Thompson.
Maybe if we end up with the Hilderbeast as President the GOP might wise up and nominate Don Calerci or Tim Pawlenty for President in 2012, who knows?
“This is why all the freepers who enjoyed kicking Tommy Thompson when he was down were only shooting the GOP’s presidential prospects in the foot”
I never kicked Tommy Thompson. In fact, I posted some positive threads about him, thinking he had something positive to contribute to the race.
With Tommy out of the race, I'm afraid the only candidates left who can point to a truly steller conservative record AND have a base in a state that won't automatically go GOP are Tancredo and Hunter... both of whom are extremely unlikely to ever win the GOP nomination. :-(
Everytime we hear about "the next Reagan", I'm more convinced than ever that Ronald Reagan was the best President we'll see in my lifetime. A man like him comes around only once in a generation.
Sununu won the GOP nomination, not because he had accomplished anything in life or had any kind of steller record in office, but because of his perceived "electablity" against Shaheen. I have no doubt Sununu would gotten crushed in the 2002 primary if "the polls" had shown him losing to Shaheen worse than Smith was.
Now the situtation is reversed and Sununu is the incumbant who refuses to step down despite mounting evidence that the seat will go RAT with him as the nominee. In fact, in some studies, he's polling worse against Shaheen than Smith ever was! Why isn't he taking his OWN advice from five years ago? There's no reason for Sununu to stay in the race except that he's a hypocrite and he's incredibly vain.
It's still possible for a Republican to win statewide in NH, but not one who's main qualification for office is "my daddy was Governor" and who Shaheen can beat over the head and tie to Bush & Iraq (and ironically, Sununu is now voting with the RATs on Iraq to try and distance himself) We simply need a likeable rising star in NH with no ties to the discredited GOP establishment in Washington. In other words, the antithetis of Sununu.
Do guys honestly believe that NH has become so incredibly RAT-leaning in just four years (it was 100% GOP controlled in 2003), that "no" Republican can win there? If so, explain why guys like Romney and Giuliani are "electable" there. And I hope it's only the "only RINOs can win" arguement, since conservatives have won scores of races there in the past.
If not, then the problem lies with Sununu, and the NHGOP old guard. And we need to correct that.
But they voted for Clintoon twice. He was an authentic "good ole boy." I dislike greatly the attachment of it to Fred. Good ole boy politics is the epitome of back-slapping corruption that was the result of one-party rodent control here in the South post-Reconstruction. Fred sought to bring that down here in TN.
"Conservatives CAN win in New England. We have a conservative GOP governor in Rhode Island RIGHT NOW. "Unelectable", my ass."
True, although in Carcieri's case, he won in 2002 because the rodents insisted on putting up for a THIRD time the politically toxic far-leftist Myrth York. A Jesse Helms would've won the Governorship of RI with her as his opponent. In fact, solely because of that was why RI defied the usual progression of RINO to rodent Governors. RINO Lincoln Almond should've had a Dem follow him, but thanks to York, the state went with an even more Conservative Governor. That's the model a lot of FReepers thinks is the norm if we simply elect RINO Governors to get more Conservatives later on, when it isn't. It just almost never happens that way.
"The GOP has been wildly successful in New England when we have guys like Reagan (California governor), Nixon (adopted New Yorker & former VP), Eisenhower ("old Kansas Republican like yourself"), and Coolidge (Vermont resident, VP & former governor of nearby Mass.) atop the ticket."
Yes, but you're talking about 1984, 1980, 1972, 1968, 1960 and 1924, respectively, and the dynamics are far different today. Even from as recently as 1984 and 1988. As for Coolidge, who inherited the job, having read up on him, he had a lot of the anti-Southern elitist bigotry about him. But in those days, he reviled the one-party South, which was well justified. Much how we revile the out of touch New England today with its equally statist one-party regimes.
"The only southerner we had atop the ticket who won was GWB, and he got NH by the skin of his teeth in 2000 (he has roots in Conn. & Maine), but then it went to the dark side in 2004."
The latter largely because they were supporting the regional candidate AND the collapse of the freshman Republican Governor who couldn't do much of anything for the ticket.
"This is why all the freepers who enjoyed kicking Tommy Thompson when he was down were only shooting the GOP's presidential prospects in the foot, as someone like Tommy "I grew up in Eloy, WI, the son of a gas station attentant") is a conservative who could win over New Hampshirites in a way the bible belt candidates can't."
C'mon, Billy, nobody was kicking Tommy. Most people didn't even realize he was a candidate (and the fact is, he wasn't a serious candidate. Neither was Gilmore of VA). He's a fine fella, but he wasn't going to be winning bubkas.
"I've said it before and I'll say it again. Both parties lose when they are stupid enough to nominate a Senator from a "safe state" whose appeals mainly to their parties base. (It doesn't matter if that candidate is a "celebrity" and very likeable either, as Bill Bradley was DOA outside of NJ)"
TN has only been a "safe" state since after 2000. We voted for Clinton here in the '90s and this was never a solid GOP state (although it becomes that more and more). The simple fact is that Fred IS the best candidate in the field. Nominating a competent but uninspiring nominee is a recipe for disaster. Tommy and Gilmore would be prime examples of that.
"It was true with Goldwater,"
Goldwater, after JFK's assassination, was under no illusions that he was going to win. So he was NOT a serious candidate in '64.
"it was true with Dole,"
Dole was the competent but uninspiring candidate. I supported him, but he could've won if he had opened up. He has one of the most biting senses of humor and is quite engaging when he wants to be. I remember after he did the talk show circuit in late '96 and early '97 after the election that the universal reaction was, "Wow, if I had known he was that engaging, I'd have voted for him." Dole only needed Perot's support and supporters, and he would've beaten Clinton in almost all the states that Dubya carried in 2000.
"it was true with Mondale and it was true with Kerry."
Both were challengers to incumbents, with similar problems as Dole. Nobody was going to topple Reagan in '84, period, and Mondale was a logical choice as the fmr VP to run against him. If anything, Kerry stopped the barking moonbat Deaniacs from causing a national implosion in '04, and kept the damage to a minimum. With Dean as the nominee, Dubya would've picked up probably several more states.
"Folksy southern GOP Senators don't have a prayer in New England and blue-blooded ivy-league liberal Democrats from the northeast don't have a prayer in the deep south."
Since ANY GOP candidate at the moment has only a realistic shot at NH's 4 EV's, we shouldn't fret much about appeasing a section of the country that largely hates Republicans, anyhow. They can either get with the program, or we can win elsewhere.
"Romney & Giuliani can win NH, not because they are RINOs, but because they've built up enough roots on the east coast that people there accept them."
We stand to lose more elsewhere with those two than we would gain. Some FReepers don't understand that.
"For some odd reason, freepers seem to enjoy pissing on any conservative who can win that area and gloating when they leave office, and so now we're left with only RINOs who are polling well there. You guys make not like that fact because alot of southern GOP senators would make terrific Presidents, but historical facts can't be ignored."
With politics and candidates, nothing is necessarily all written in stone. Senators make look like losing candidates, but next year, there will be two of them facing off, like it or not.
"We are fortunate that the Hilderbeast is also an extremely polerizing figure representing the safe RAT haven of NY. The only way she wins is if the GOP neutralizes this disadvantage by ALSO nominating a Senator from a "safe" state who has limited appeal in swing states. Unfortunately, it seems many of FR are intent on doing exactly that."
Billy, Tommy isn't going to be the nominee. You need to suck it up and deal with it. De facto Fred bashing won't get you anywhere.
"Fred's a likeable guy, but can he take Ohio, New Hampshire, and Colorado? That's what it boils down to."
I'd say he'll carry CO, and he only trails by 1% in OH currently. If CA does the electoral college split, he could lose OH and still make up for it with all of the individual CA votes. He might also carry MI because of the extremely unpopular rodent Governor. You need to stop panicking. We'll do fine.
"Goldwater may have been the ideal conservative leader but he was sure wasn't presidential material."
Goldwater was a Libertarian. And as I said, no serious student of history acknowledges that he was running to win in 1964. I would've loved to have seen what kind of campaign he was going to wage against JFK. That election would've ended up far differently (if you'll remember, JFK's approvals were headed south by the end of '63. His assassination did more to boost his approvals than anything else. Otherwise he was little better than just an average President domestically and poor on foreign policy).
My point is that the electoral map has changed dramatically from 1976. Republicans were competitive in nearly every state in 1976, and 1980, 1984, and even 1988. Starting in 1992, they weren't anymore. There are at least 15 states that will not be voting Republican under almost any circumstances (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, & WA). It's sad, but it's the reality. Tommy Thompson wouldn't change that equation, and neither would Rudy or Precious Willard.
"Maybe if we end up with the Hilderbeast as President the GOP might wise up and nominate Don (Carcieri) or Tim Pawlenty for President in 2012, who knows?"
Neither Carcieri or Pawlenty could even carry their own states as Presidential candidates. If the Dems put up Dave Freudenthal of WY for President, he wouldn't be able to carry his own state, most likely. Some of these states will vote for Governors opposite to the majority party, but they won't do so for Senators and Presidents. That's just how it is, and pretending it isn't so won't change the equation.
It’s Fred’s generation now. We need to accept it and help him win. Bellyaching about a failed bid of a lackluster candidate won’t help the cause.
I don’t entirely agree with the last part of posting # 35. If Fred Thompson chooses a well-liked northern running mate, he might be able to pick off one or two Gore/Kerry states. Tim Palwenty could deliver Minnesota to Thompson. His approval ratings are much higher now than they were when he was reelected last year. Norm Coleman would also be a good choice. It’s unfortunate that Tommy Thompson isn’t interested, as he would be an asset in his home state. And I find myself wondering, would Judd Gregg be a good choice? I don’t know much about him, other than his being conservative and a strong vote-getter in NH.
The polls showing Sununu losing badly were bull$hit, Billy. There’s only about a 5% difference between them, and over a year to work on it. Sununu is the only one who can keep that seat in the GOP column. He already beat Shaheen before, and retread candidacies don’t always work (take a look at MN when everyone thought the massively unpopular Wellstone would get flogged by Rudy Boschwitz coming back — didn’t happen).
I have no idea why you keep humping the likes of Bruce Keough, who couldn’t even win the Gubernatorial primary (nor bothered to run for it last year when he’d have had a clear shot), and is about as untested as they come. If he wants to prove himself, let him take out Hodes or Shea-Porter. He’ll make his bones that way.
I wish I could believe that, but I just see absolutely zero chance of that occurring. MN has been the single most (currently) consistently rodent states nationwide since 1976 (really, since 1960, with 1972 being a fluke). Pawlenty may have huge approval ratings, but these states and voters compartmentalize the races from state and federal. It's why the "popular" Weld couldn't upend the "unpopular" Kerry for the Senate in 1996. We need to shore up the states that Dubya carried in 2004. Do that first and work on picking up other states, but MN is not a top priority because of its history. MI is far more likely to fall to us, and I'd rather target it.
"It’s unfortunate that Tommy Thompson isn’t interested, as he would be an asset in his home state. And I find myself wondering, would Judd Gregg be a good choice? I don’t know much about him, other than his being conservative and a strong vote-getter in NH."
Gregg ran in the '04 election and did quite well -- but he had zero coattails (couldn't help Dubya or Gov. Benson). Much like the NH equivalent of Dick Lugar, who was unopposed last year, but was unable (or unwilling) to help out all those vulnerable incumbents we lost in the state last year. So at best, Gregg is lackluster. As Billy would say, he's part of the "old guard."
OK I can give you that. But it doesn't take much of a population shift to change the color of a state. Especially in northern NE. Ex governor Jean Shaheen is running for the senate and she will probably get the seat. Their supreme court is fixin (southern venacular for gittin ready) to proscribe to the legislature how school taxes have to be apportioned. Not the bastion of conservatism it used to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.