Skip to comments.A too-early look at the 2016 presidential race: Bet on a dark horse
Posted on 02/12/2014 6:26:40 AM PST by Kaslin
Of course it's too early to talk about 2016. Now that we've gotten that out of the way ...
The most interesting dynamic about the presidential race so far is that the Democrats are behaving like Republicans -- and vice versa.
Since 1940, with the arguable exception of Barry Goldwater, Republicans have nominated the guy next in line. Thomas Dewey almost beat Wendell Willkie for the nomination in 1940, so in 1944 -- and 1948 -- it was his turn. Dwight Eisenhower, whom both parties wanted as their nominee, was a special case, given that whole invading-Europe-and-defeating-Hitler thing.
But Richard Nixon had been Ike's vice president in 1960, and in 1968 Republicans believed he had been the victim of John F. Kennedy's stolen election, so they nominated him again. Gerald Ford was Nixon's VP and the sitting president in 1976. Still, Ronald Reagan almost beat him in the primaries, so the next time around the Gipper got a shot.
In 1988, Reagan's VP, George H.W. Bush, had his turn. Bob Dole (Ford's running mate in '76) had almost beaten Bush in '88, so he got the nod in '96. George W. Bush was nominated in 2000, in part because the rank and file felt nostalgic for his dad during the sordid Clinton years. In 2008, John McCain cashed in his runner-up coupon for the nomination. And in 2012, Mitt Romney did likewise.
Meanwhile, Democrats tend to favor outsiders: George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008. Two of the three exceptions were former or sitting vice presidents -- Walter Mondale in 1984 and Al Gore in 2000 -- who used their positions to consolidate power. The third was John Kerry, who won the nomination because of a combination of the mistaken belief that he was the Democrats' best shot at beating Bush -- whom Democrats hated more than they loved outsiders -- and Howard Dean's sudden implosion. (Exit polls showed primary voters didn't like Kerry so much as think he was the most electable.)
On the Democratic side for 2016, the two top-tier candidates are both next-in-liners, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (stop laughing). Clinton is the indisputable front-runner: She's more popular; she was the runner-up in 2008; she's the dashboard saint of elite feminist groups; and she and her husband have been working the party machinery nonstop while Biden has been, if you believe The Onion, waxing his vintage Trans Am in the White House driveway.
The contrast between the two parties is amazing.
To say that the GOP base has soured on this next-in-line thing is an understatement on par with "Dennis Rodman wouldn't make an ideal baby sitter." Talk to a conservative audience about the "next-in-line" habit and you'll likely hear the sorts of boos and hisses you'd expect at a sports bar when you change the channel to a C-SPAN hearing on rural electrification.
Republicans want an outsider, which is why the senators aiming for the nomination -- Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio -- spend much of their time denouncing the city they work in. The governors -- Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mike Huckabee, formerly of Arkansas -- have it easier, but they certainly never miss an opportunity to express their disappointment in Washington. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate in 2012, is the one candidate who could claim next-in-line status without setting off a riot, but he's unlikely to run. Jeb Bush is beloved by the party establishment, but nothing short of a legal name change would appease the Tea Party.
Meanwhile, it's not clear what the Democrats actually want. They certainly expect Clinton to be the nominee. But should they? She's easily one of the most overrated political talents of the last quarter-century. Both McCain and Romney were hobbled by the fact that they couldn't distance themselves from an unpopular GOP president. Having served as Obama's secretary of state (never mind being the "grandmother" of Obamacare), Clinton would probably have a similar burden. Perhaps the possibility of a female president will substitute for the thrill of nominating an actual outsider.
But given where the country is -- and likely will be in 2016 -- I'd put my money on the real thing.
I am on Cruze control all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Jeb vrs Hillary
we lose no matter what
:: I’d put my money on the real thing. ::
Sadly, this is what it has beoiled doen to. The leadership of the free world is no more than a gamble, a “bet at the OTB window”. Once it is over, some pocket their winnings, others cut their losses and never realize that the results will impact their very existence as free people.
We lost the “great experiment” once we viewed the government (AKA: US Treasury) as something to win or lose.
Stewardhip on behalf of the people...who cares? I got mine, bitch!
Jonah Goldberg has matured as a writer. He also demonstrates that he has at least one ear outside of the beltway/pundit echo chamber.
Multitasking at the office; busy day.
Cory Booker is more qualified than Zero was.
THIS GUY HAS BEEN STEALING MY POSTS.
Next up is one of the following 4. Romney, Santorum, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and maybe but unlikely Palin.
“Since 1940, with the arguable exception of Barry Goldwater, Republicans have nominated the guy next in line. Thomas Dewey almost beat Wendell Willkie for the nomination in 1940, so in 1944 — and 1948 — it was his turn. Dwight Eisenhower, whom both parties wanted as their nominee, was a special case, given that whole invading-Europe-and-defeating-Hitler thing.
But Richard Nixon had been Ike’s vice president in 1960, and in 1968 Republicans believed he had been the victim of John F. Kennedy’s stolen election, so they nominated him again. Gerald Ford was Nixon’s VP and the sitting president in 1976. Still, Ronald Reagan almost beat him in the primaries, so the next time around the Gipper got a shot.
In 1988, Reagan’s VP, George H.W. Bush, had his turn. Bob Dole (Ford’s running mate in ‘76) had almost beaten Bush in ‘88, so he got the nod in ‘96. George W. Bush was nominated in 2000, in part because the rank and file felt nostalgic for his dad during the sordid Clinton years. In 2008, John McCain cashed in his runner-up coupon for the nomination. And in 2012, Mitt Romney did likewise. “
Ted needs to run in 2016 and if he does well, it is his turn in 2020 or 2024.
Bet on a dark horse. Literally.
Something tells me that after eight years with their man at the helm, Obama’s peeps are NOT gonna allow the Democrat Party to nominate an elderly albino blob for POTUS.
Finally some sanity. Nothing wrong with musing but it is WAY too early. Back in 2007 everyone knew that Giuliani was a lock for the WH.
Even though early, if Hillary is in she walks into the WH. Walks. Jeb? I’d even be shocked if he won a Primary.
Odd, there seems to be one missing from this list.
Didn’t the dark horse win the lasr 2 times?
I’d think Cory Bookend is a strong contender for Hillary’s VP.
Keep the black vote turnout high, and “wink, wink” over Hillary’s failing health.
You may be right.
Caliph Baraq was basically an unknown until Blowprah started him on his way to success in late 2007.
It’ll be engineered.
Cruz yes, the other two not so much. What ever happen to Pence? No talk of him since he became a governor.
OK so say for the sake of argument he’s right and the Dems go for the outsider. Who will it be? One advantage with the outsiders is it’s harder for the GOP to get on the attack early.
The fact is Mitt Romney would have been ten thousand times better then he is and you know it.
he speaks to much truth, the low information majority can’t process that. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, but it isn’t going to happen
There will be no elections in 2016. Hillary can sit down now. Cruz should consider fleeing the country.
I am on Cruze control all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Cruze will have to find somewhere else to live ,Obama will be living there as The Supreme Leader
thousand times better then he is and you know it
The only way there would not be another election would be if O goes rogue. Nothing in his bio tells us he has the gumption or ambition level to do such a thing.
Or, I suppose there could be a civil war of sorts in the upper echelons of his globalist handlers. I could see that.
I have cautious enthusiasm regarding Cruz. His wife being a Goldman Sachs VP is an alarm bell for me. I trust no one at this point. Until I actually see them in the trenches.
Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Either one Okay with me. Everybody else not so much.
Lizbo vs homo
That’s exactly what I see coming.
It’s hard to imagine Squaw Warren having much personal appeal either.
She looks every bit of her 64 yrs.
Then again the Dems know how to play the game pretty well.
I’m never wrong about Federal elections.
Seventeen Freepers lost the last public wager I offered, and (hopefully) their local animal shelters benefited.
My method is simple: think like a 1%’er.
Which figurehead in the White House would maintain peasant docility? Which would be the most profitable?
Start preparing the coronation at least two years ahead of time, and voila!
Warchild9 has won another one!
Is that a Racist observation?
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.