Skip to comments.Republican Race's Volatility is Historic
Posted on 02/25/2012 6:03:17 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
Calling the 2012 Republican presidential primary the most volatile for the GOP in generations isn't political hyperbole - it's empirical fact.
Since the start 2011, seven different candidates or potential contenders could claim to be the Republican race's front-runner, according to polling from Gallup. The list includes Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. In at least one Gallup poll, each claimed at least a share of the lead in the GOP race. (snip)
Polling data supplied by Gallup dating back to 1930 shows that no other race since that time has even come close to the same level of volatility. The 1940 GOP primary produced perhaps the most shocking result, when the GOP nominated businessman Wendell Willkie when he had polled at only 3 percent nationally in April of that year. But that was the product of a late surge, not a year's worth of rises and collapses from potential candidates.
As my colleague Ron Brownstein has written, the GOP race has been so uneven because the party's evangelical, conservative wing has been incredibly fickle in its candidate preference. While Romney has seen steady support from the secular, more moderate faction of the party, tea party adherents and devout Christians have cycled through a coterie of options, including Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. The upheaval could also be driven by a news cycle that, with the advent of Twitter, is faster than ever, and the 20 presidential debates that have had a huge impact on the process.
As the race emerges from its first phase and heads toward the first truly national set of contests, Super Tuesday on March 6, many speculate it might finally be poised to end. If history is any guide, however, expect the unexpected this primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at decoded.nationaljournal.com ...
Go AWAY, Romney!
It may indicate that candidates have had feet of clay more than usual.
Add to that, the successful pimping of Obama in the last month, his poll numbers are up significantly.
All I can say is, we have a fight ahead of us that will equal the Battle of the Bulge.
Here is a better link:
Volatility is a sign of life.
Yep. Hyper focus on one particular thing can get you bitten on the arse if you’re not careful.
Very little attention paid around here to the idea that “you should be careful what you ask for.” I will follow your restraint from specifics as well.
Another point on the volatility per se: it’s merely a function of the increase debates, the increased coverage, and the dynamic of the social media. These are the factors driving the volatility. The article seems focused elsewhere and therefore misses the main point IMO.
It’s only volatile because the vast majority of republicans don’t agree with the RINO elite’s choice and wanton disregard for their opinion in the matter.
well that’s part of it too.
Correct. We do not need a candidate that has agreed with Obama on his failed policies in the past, but now appears to be opposed, simply because they are running against Obama. Let’s not repeat 2008.
There is a lot of talk about “God’s will” here also, as of late; But I disagree. They are running as fast as they can, for the cliff, in the fog, and pay no attention to the sound of the waves crashing on the rocks, several hundred feet below!
Joshua Leinsdorf, "Winning With Wesley: Clark, the Wendell Willkie of the 2004 Campaign" -- [snip] The big domestic political issues in the United States as the 1940 election approached were: what position should the United States take with respect to the belligerents; and, would President Franklin Delano Roosevelt seek a third term? ...The mere thought of a third term sent Republicans, who already hated Roosevelt for the socialistic New Deal legislation, into a frenzy. Roosevelt was accused of wanting to become a dictator, much the same way that Democrats today cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush because of the way he won the electoral vote count in spite of a popular vote loss of over half a million votes... an erstwhile Democrat, a utility bond lawyer from Indiana who had never run before for public office, Wendell Willkie... was nominated by a draft movement, crafted in secret on Madison Avenue, and fueled with an avalanche of telegrams and letters from "ordinary Americans" which, in the end, turned out to have been substantially manufactured by a public relations organization. Willkie's slogan was, "Win With Willkie," and many Republicans, blinded by their hatred of Roosevelt, abandoned their political principles to embrace a candidate who could win. Willkie lost in the end because he was a conscientious person who basically supported Roosevelt's foreign policy of supporting the allies in Europe. [/snip]
Thaks for the great example! And so true. “Those who do not learn from the mistakes from the past, are doomed to repeat them.”
Interesting you bring up “Gods will” and how folks interpret that. I do a fair amount of studying on the subject - and it’s amazing how many men are used who have obvious flaws while so few who have an appearance of piousness are used. Just sayin......
So they blame the fickle Tea Party, dropping each new shiny object for the next?
Nope, that is NOT the correct frame for this story. It is:
NEVER SINCE 1930, has the main party establishment pushed so hard a candidate the voters don’t want.
Volatility is a sign of life.