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.
“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.
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).
George W. Bush’s New England roots notwithstanding, he was viewed as a Texan first, second and third, and he carried New Hampshire in 2000 (as you mentioned) with 48%, and then improved his performance in southern NH (the Boston suburbs)to get 49% statewide in 2004, which fell just short of winning. I think that if Fred Tgompson is the GOP nominee he can be competitive in NH irrespective of his Southern roots. Remember, Westerners Nixon and Reagan did better in New Hampshire than just about anywhere else, and Midwesterner Ford also did very well.