Posted on 03/14/2010 2:59:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
An ABC News review of Mitt Romney’s new book ends thus: “If history is any guide, however, Romney stands a decent chance of getting his party’s nod. Although he was hurt last time by questions about his authenticity, Republicans have a long tradition of nominating second-time candidates: think Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, and John McCain in 2008″
This is the conventional wisdom; we’re all used to hearing it. It’s the idea that Republicans nominate the “next-in-line” candidate, or the runner-up from last season’s primaries. It’s superficially plausible. But it doesn’t hold up to close examination.
There seems to be no discernible pattern to the examples continually raised. Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential run was his second time running for president, but he also was a previous presidential nominee — and a former vice-president. Ronald Reagan actually won among primary voters in his 1968 run, and did not win the nomination until his third attempt at the presidency, in 1980. John McCain made his first run as a national unknown and won the nomination the second time as a known commodity. I can’t find much of a pattern in this.
George H.W. Bush’s win in 1988 was due not to the fact that he was the runner-up in the 1980 primaries, but because he was Ronald Reagan’s vice-president. Bob Dole’s 1996 nomination seems plausible at first, but why wasn’t Pat Buchanan able to topple him, given his run against George H.W. Bush? And if we’re not counting races against incumbents, then why does Ronald Reagan’s 1976 run count? And if Republicans really nominate the “next-in-line,” then wouldn’t we have to subscribe to the idea that Pat Buchanan would have been the frontrunner, had he run against George W. Bush?
One might argue instead that Republicans prefer the familiar, and tend to fall in line behind known commodities. But that doesn’t even hold. Nobody “fell in line” behind John McCain; his hitherto-unknown rivals Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee accumulated a majority of the votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida. A clear majority of Republicans opted for the unfamiliar. One false move by John McCain and he’d have been knocked out of the primary fight for someone who was clearly not “next-in-line.” He walked a tightrope to the nomination.
Why do reporters and pundits keep parroting this myth? The “next-in-line” idea makes it easy for media types to sound like they’ve stumbled onto an important insight into the Republican psyche. Alas, as with so much of the conventional wisdom, there’s just no ‘there’ there once history is put into its proper context.
What more could we ask for? ......... Fresh new blood?
Here we go again. Round 2 from the 5:32 post.
Alex Knepper, an openly gay conservative,...
It's the liberal, gay, MSM that is pushing Romney.
If Romney gets “the nod,” I’m out of the GOP. He has not one principle in common with any conservative. Romney is way worse than McCain.
I’ll betcha Obama could force you into voting for Romney.
Thanks for pointing out that vanity to me, I hadn’t seen it.
Romneycare: “If I am not coronated, I shall destroy
the GOP candidates like Palin in the last election.
Now go buy my book, ignore what I’ve done,
and go back to play with you (sic) bananas.”
"Frum ... (Romney supporter called Gov. Palin’s) nomination a "huge mistake" October 13 (2008)"
Frum: "I will support (Romney) without qualm."
"the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
... was Nicolle Wallace's husband."
"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"
"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"
"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"
“I’ll betcha Obama could force you into voting for Romney.”
Some choice you give us arsenic or cyanide.
I say again. Mitt couldn’t beat Juan McDemocrat.
Personally, I’d prefer my gay Republicans to be openly so, rather than closeted.
Does anyone have an estimate comparing how much Perot spent with how much Mitt has spent, just so far, in pursuit of the Presidency? I suspect Mitt’s breaking records.
I would too. Although I suspect that most of the gay Republicans vote liberal, and are here just to maintain a gay presence and voice in the Republican camp.
But I think we need to be aware of how much gay influence is in the MSM.
I’ll betcha Obama could force you into voting for Romney.
If Republicans take back the House and the Senate in 2010 and hold that advantage in 2012 there is little more that Obama could do to harm us any more than Romney. I woulodnt vote Obama, but I would write in Donald Duck before voting Romney.
It’s His Turn.
Did you read the article? It says it doesn’t necessarily work that way.
I read it. It will work that way. The Democrats will control the Republican primaries in 2012. They will already have their candidate and many will reregister as Republicans for the primaries.It will probably be done pretty openly and the Republican Party orgs will cheer it. And, of course, the government media will be in full throat support for Romney until he turns into Hitler when he is actually nominated.
I agree with the observation that the country is ruled alternately by the Criminal Party and the Stupid Party.
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.