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 ...
The non-romney candidates have now become the non-Paul/Romney candidates since it has become apparent they are a team. I think “Rom” Paul is working for Rand to be Romney’s Veep. Then we would be stuck with a ROM/PAUL ticket.
We had our chance when Newt was polling in the 40% range. But Romney’s attack squad and the millions from the corrupt SUPER PACS, took him down with lies and corrupted facts.
Now, we have the fickle base, bound to one thin concept of Social/moral restraint, while the most dangerous aspect of what is happening to this country, is about to go into a phase where there is no hope for recovery. And the candidate they almost worship, has no clue how to go about stopping that disaster from happening.
It was such a good fit, it was hard to believe, but then, marketing and free markets go hand and hand. :’)
The only thing I would disagree with you on is the “corrupt” part of Super PACS. Oh, they can be awful at times and many of the current Super PAC ads are terrible. That’s not my point.
My point is that a Super PAC is the one area where any citizen can go and support an advertising message he or she wants. And you will see Super PACS develop and run damned good ads that the parties and the candidates would never run. And that’s a GOOD thing. For example, if Rick Santorum gets the nomination, you’ll see Super PACS running ads that admit RS sucks but put forth the need to beat Obama. If Mitt is the nominee, you’ll see Super PACs that constantly shove Mitt to the right.
It’s that kind of message that will be vital to beat Obama - and NO candidate or political party would EVER run that honest of a message.
Without Super PACS, our entire political discussion would be dominated by the media outlets and the candidates’ campaigns themselves. That’s bad.
I like to believe that once we settle on a nominee there'll be a tidal wave of support for him, whoever he is. The thing is that our nominee can't let the MSM lead him into the weeds. This contraception flap is the Media's (and the 0bama campaign's) attempt to paint our side as extreme and above all to keep the debate off the economy. I don't know if it will work especially if we see $5.00 gas.
[NEVER SINCE 1930, has the main party establishment pushed so hard a candidate the voters don’t want.]
Prove it, don’t just regurgitate it. Give us a link supporting what you claim. Because there are past elections where what you claim, is proven to be patently ignorant.
That’s why the media bashes the Super PACs.
They are a competitive threat.
You're half right. Romney campaigned like a slimy progressive, but he couldn't take Newt down without Newt's help. If Newt is going to get so personal that he sacrifices the goal of winning for the sake of revenge we're toast. As scummy as Romney's campaign was it's nothing compared to what Hussein's campaign will be. If Newt starts shooting from the hip he's done. Remember this is only a warmup for the general. Right now Romney is the MSM's pick for the nominee (like McCain was). In the general they'll drop Romney like a bad habit and go full bore for Baraq. They'll basically be free advertisement for the DNC. If Newt flakes out now, what'll happen in October?
Excellent point.
They maintain the misconception that Obama and the Democrats are so hated by all, that whomever we nominate is not only guaranteed 2 terms, but that candidate will usher in an era of perfection and Moral Utopia.
They also believe that Conservatism and religious fundamentalism, will become the norm and that the rest of the population will gladly adopt it. That ideal, is so far from reality, that it raises vile reactions from some here, at even hinting their doctrine is severely flawed.
You are 100% correct. And to be fair, they are easy to bash because some of their work product has been awful so far. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that they finally represent the chance for you and I and others to go support the type of political ads we've been craving for decades but which no one had the guts to run.
They are also easy to bash because right now - and I stress right now - they are the playground of the rich. You know, Shelden Adelsen can buy more political speech than you or I can. Correct. He can also buy more houses and more cars and more clothes too. That's not the point.
The point is, Super PACS do represent the real opportunity for citizen political advertising. And I predict you'll see a LOT of it in this cycle.
I didn’t research it. I just reframed the facts from the article. If this front runner musical chairs HAS already happened, then why write the article?
Too true. I find myself doing that sometimes. I try to remember the average voter knows more about Jersey Shore than they do about the issues or the candidates. They figure that Obama is just like any other pol, dishonest in some ways but basically wants the country to do well so he’s remembered well by history. They couldn’t be more hopelessly wrong! Baraq is a Revolutionary! He wants to be lionized in international leftist circles as the man who brought the Great Satan down.
I think one big turn off of political campaigns is how they describe their candidate - which is perfection - and how they describe their opposition - which is abject evil.
In this GOP fight, both are wrong. And people know both are wrong. Super PACS have not done it yet, but they represent the chance to have refreshingly honest campaign ads for a change. I think people will invest in that.
If Santorum gets the nod for instance, I can envision a PAC running ads that say: ‘
Yes, Rick is a weenie and a big government hyprocrit, but let’s get real. Four more years of Obama ends America. Vote Obama and and many liberals out as you can. We’ll deal with Ricks flaws later.. paid for by Get Real PAC. ETC.
You get the idea.
Don’t forget, that it was the SUPER PACS that destroyed Newt as a front runner. And there was little any of us could do to stop it. It reminds me of socialism. He who has the biggest mob with the most money, can say and do what every they like, and get away with it.
I have not forgotten that - but the Romney campaign itself did a lot of that destroying of Newt and not just his PACS.
Again, don’t judge the idea of super pacs because of their performance up until now. They are the opposite of socialism. Regardless of what you may or may not like about their ads to this day, without them, the entire message is controlled by those who own media outlets or the specific candidates’ campaigns themselves. That is awful, period.
[then why write the article?]
Probably for the same reason, that if you don’t have facts or truth to back what you say, why make false statements as though you know them to be true?
(BHO*MSM)+(TEA*WWW) = GOP÷PERFECTION
Take three years of Open Socialism
Fan the Flames with 24/7 Media
Awaken America’s Grassroot
Fan those with the Internet
You get a Splintered Base in Search of Perfection
…or Historic Volatility
It’s good for America… if we can unite and survive it…
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.