Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In GOP contest, anything could happen
Los Angeles Times / latimes.com ^ | October 1, 2011, 5:43 p.m. | By Mark Z. Barabak and Paul West, Los Angeles Times

Posted on 10/01/2011 6:50:14 PM PDT by thecodont

Barely three months before the first votes are cast, the Republican race for president is up for grabs, complicated by the absence of a clear front-runner and the rules that have guided the GOP's selection process for the past several decades.

The rise of the "tea party" movement, with its contempt for convention, has undermined the tradition of bestowing the nomination on the candidate presumed next in line, who usually paid their dues through long service or a previous White House try.

At the same time, a new way of awarding delegates has largely eliminated the winner-take-all system that hastened selection of a nominee and forced the party to quickly close ranks.

The rise of so-called super PACs, independent political financing organizations unfettered by spending limits, also means that a candidate can stay competitive long after their campaign's donor base taps out, potentially extending the race beyond the first few contests.

The upshot is a GOP nominating race that is at least as unsettled as the competition four years ago, when Sen. John McCain of Arizona rose from the political graveyard and rallied to claim the nomination.

"We knew from the beginning this was going to be one of the most competitive nominating fights we've had," said Dick Wadhams, a Republican strategist who is neutral in the race. "We thought we had one back in 2008, but this one has already taken on more twists and turns than anything that happened in '08."

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gop; presidentialelection
One name is conspicuous by its absence in the article.
1 posted on 10/01/2011 6:50:18 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Ignoring him will not make Cain go away LA Slimes


2 posted on 10/01/2011 7:06:16 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Palin


3 posted on 10/01/2011 7:24:30 PM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I think Cain is going to surprise everyone; if he can motivate the Black churches in Iowa and New Hampshire. Oops.... wait a minute.... Does New Hampshire have any Black people?


4 posted on 10/01/2011 8:11:59 PM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Run Herman Run!

We support Herman Cain!


5 posted on 10/01/2011 8:57:30 PM PDT by Tomato lover (We need an army of Herman Cain voters!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

the la times could go broke.


6 posted on 10/01/2011 9:16:14 PM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems
"Does New Hampshire have any Black people?"

Does New Hampshire have any churches?

7 posted on 10/01/2011 10:31:03 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Compromise on the Holocaust would have killed three million Jews.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

CAIN will be your worst nightmare. How could they go against an authentic black American without being called racist. Shoe is about to be put on the other foot. Im for CAIN!


8 posted on 10/02/2011 4:44:59 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
Sure, anything could happen, but only one thing is remotely likely to happen. The GOP will nominate a major political player who is also a plausible conservative. It won't nominate a liberal (Romney) and it won't nominate the best conservative regardless of resume or stature (Cain, Bachmann). So far there's only one candidate in the race who qualifies as a plausible conservative player, and nobody else is at all likely to run.

This wide-open race meme is for fools and rookies. In this situation, predictions are easy. Neither party has done anything off the wall with it's nomination since Wendell Wilke. By this stage in the process it is almost always possible to pick the ultimate winner of any “open” race with a high degree of certainty.

The only genuine, down to the wire race we've seen in the modern era was Clinton v. Obama in ‘08. Reagan v. Ford in ‘76 came close, but it was pretty clear even after Regan started winning primaries that he didn't quite have the firepower to knock off an incumbent President. Dukakis/Hart might have been an epic battle in ‘88 if Gary Hart hadn't imploded as a result of Donna Rice and “Monkey Business.”

But even where it's been close, a long list of candidates was easily winnowed down at the outset to two serious contenders in every case. Most of the time there's only one and the race isn't even close.

Jimmy Carter, for example, surprised many people in ‘76 but only because they failed to notice that he was running for the Democrat nomination unopposed. There were a lot of other candidates but they were all nonstarters. Birch Bayh never put together a serious campaign due to health issues (his own and his wife's). Lloyd Bentsen and Terry Sanford never tried to put together a national campaign. Fred Harris was a nobody. Mo Udall was a Congressman. Sargent Shriver had never held elective office (and had been McGovern's compainion in electoral disaster). Scoop Jackson was ideologically disqualified as a believer in a strong national defense. The term-limited Governor of a major state who started early and built a national campaign organization was destined to win and everyone with a shred of sense knew it even before the primary season started when Carter was at 4 per cent in the polls.

Once again there's a nomination fight with a lot of candidates. Once again, nearly all of them are nonstarters. They either lack the requisite stature (the Cain train just doesn't have enough track) or they lack the requisite ideology (the GOP is not going to nominate the father of Rombamaneycare). Only Perry has a shot and when only one guy has a shot, he's the guy who scores.

This isn't rocket science.

9 posted on 10/02/2011 5:17:55 AM PDT by fluffdaddy (Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

One name is conspicuous by its absence in the article.


Actually more than one name. I didn’t see Sanatorum, Paul nor Cain.


10 posted on 10/02/2011 5:26:47 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

Ref. Your Post #7: Good one!!!


11 posted on 10/02/2011 6:14:08 AM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
Only Perry has a shot and when only one guy has a shot, he's the guy who scores.
If that's the case; GOD HELP US!!! Most people decide on who to vote for from the Prez Debates. Obama will mop the floor with Ricky boy.
12 posted on 10/02/2011 6:18:22 AM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Almost nobody decides how to vote based on a presidential debate and Obama can't win a debate with Perry in any case. A wretched advocate with a good argument beats a wretched advocate with a bad argument every time. Perry and Obama are both inarticulate and a bit slow on the uptake. Perry's got a case to make for himself. Obama doesn't. Game Over.
13 posted on 10/02/2011 8:20:11 AM PDT by fluffdaddy (Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
Almost nobody decides how to vote based on a presidential debate
Surely you jest. How long have you been involved in politics? How many campaigns have you been involved in? Most people are lazy and disconnnected and they wait until the Debate(s) and then pick their guy (or gal).

and Obama can't win a debate with Perry in any case.
OK, now, that's too much fluffdaddy..... lay down the crack pipe.
14 posted on 10/02/2011 2:45:46 PM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: no dems
No presidenial primary or general elecion campaign has ever been much affected by debates. Not Kennedy/Nixon. Not Carter/Ford. It has never happened and it isn't going to happen this year for the first time.

I've been involved in campaigns since 1968 when I was a child in NH. I managed two congressional campaigns in my youth and managed a district for a presidential primary campaign twice. I've been around enough to know how the real professionals understand the electoral process. The only people who think debates matter are ignorant amateurs.

Most primary voters will go to the polls without ever seeing a debate. Those who saw one or more will, for the most part react based on considerations that seem bizarre to anyone who follows politics carefully. They won't care about who “wins” and who “loses.” They won't see what you see. Wit, coherence and erudition typically hinder a candidate. Warmth and confidence are what most people are looking for.

And if you truly believe Obama can come off looking good in a debate with anyone, even a department store mannequin, you're the one on crack. He can't even help himself when he's alone at the podium before a joint session of Congress speaking from a prepared text.

Obama is the dimmest, most inarticulate person ever elected to any major office. He is a miserable failure with nothing to say in his own defense and no talent for saying it. Forrest Gump would mop the floor with him in debate, which is a good thing, because Rick Perry will be his opponent and Perry is more than just a bit Gumpish.

15 posted on 10/03/2011 6:21:10 AM PDT by fluffdaddy (Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

I appreciated your Post #15. Very insightful. It was common knowledge, I thought, that the Kennedy/Nixon Debate was what cost Nixon the election. He looked tired and worn and was not as sharp as the handsome, fresh-looking Kennedy who had sharp answers because he was much better prepared. That Debate was the death knell for Nixon.


16 posted on 10/03/2011 7:52:16 AM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: no dems
You're peddling Ted White's fantasy story from “The Making of a President — 1960.” It didn't happen that way. Have you ever seen the Kennedy/Nixon debates? They're available on Youtube. Check it out. Both candidates did fine. Kennedy wasn't particularly impressive. He was, in fact, something of a bore, nattering on about the glory of the TVA as a model for America's future and the supposed strategic significance of Quemoy and Matsu. It wasn't exciting stuff, and it didn't change the state of the race a bit.

1960 was always close, as you would expect a race to be where there is no major ideological distinction between the candidates and no incumbent running. In the wake of Eisenhower's 8 years the parties were ideologically indistinguishable and at very nearly equal strength in a national election. The result reflected that. Debates were, as always, nearly irrelevant. They make great fodder for media mythmakers, but they don't have much impact on voters.

Remember that the Dems had to commit massive vote fraud in Cook Couny and in Texas to win in 1960. It was hardly a case of an attractive candidate sweeping to victory on the strength of his debating skill.

You can spend a lifetime hunting and you won't find an example of electoral victory resulting from prowess in debate. It just doesn't happen.

17 posted on 10/03/2011 8:10:33 AM PDT by fluffdaddy (Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy
You can spend a lifetime hunting and you won't find an example of electoral victory resulting from prowess in debate. It just doesn't happen.
Neither of us will convince the other. But, through the years, I've heard many people say: "I'll make up my mind after I see the Debate(s)". If your aforementioned premise is true, the why the hell do we even have the Debates? Take care and stay on the firing line.
18 posted on 10/03/2011 9:20:52 AM PDT by no dems (No matter who it might be, when I find out a person is a Democrat, I lose respect for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson