Members TampaYankee Posted January 14, 2012 Members Posted January 14, 2012 Will the GOP tradition continue of anointing the runner-up from four years earlier with the nomination? AuH2O got the nod after coming in second to Nixon in '72, Reagan after losing to Ford, McCain after losing to Bush II. Now Romney after losing to McCain? Looks like the base never really gets the candidate it wants, rather the establishment backed 'next in line'. Seems like the primary electorate at-large likes to see their choice make a lap around the track before placing their bet. If this turns out to be the case again then so much for the Tea Party upsetting the apple cart -- at least this time around. Quote
Members MsGuy Posted January 14, 2012 Members Posted January 14, 2012 AuH2O got the nod after coming in second to Nixon in '72 I'm pretty sure Goldwater was nominated in 1964. Quote
Members ihpguy Posted January 14, 2012 Members Posted January 14, 2012 Fawlty Logic. I'm pretty sure Goldwater was nominated in 1964. Quote
Guest CharliePS Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 AuH2O was indeed the nominee in '64 after losing to Nixon in '60. Republicans are very loyal to runners-up. After all, Nixon got the nomination in '68 after having lost the election to Kennedy in '60. Dole had to wait 20 years after losing as Ford's running mate in '76, and Bush Sr. got the consolation prize of V-P, and finally the nomination in '88, after losing the nomination to Reagan in '80. No wonder there was so much speculation about Palin, despite her utter lack of serious credentials. But the Dems like to recycle, too. Humphrey lost the nomination to Kennedy in '60, but got it in '68 after Johnson picked him for V-P in '64. Carter/Mondale were tossed in '80, but Mondale got the nomination in '84. Gore lost the nomination to Dukakis in '88, but was re-used by Clinton and got the nomination in '00 solely for that reason. Even FDR, of all people, in 1932 was a re-tread, having been trounced as Cox's running mate in 1920. However, this time around I don't see any of the potential runners-up to Romney being anointed in '16. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted January 15, 2012 Author Members Posted January 15, 2012 I'm pretty sure Goldwater was nominated in 1964. I defer to my elders. Well, that was actually before my time. Guess I misread the ancient history books. He did follow the first Nixon run anyway. Quote
Guest CharliePS Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 I defer to my elders. Well, that was actually before my time. Guess I misread the ancient history books. He did follow the first Nixon run anyway. My parents voted for Goldwater, and were not happy that I voted for Johnson. In retrospect, I'm not sure which of us made the wiser choice. Quote
Members Lucky Posted January 16, 2012 Members Posted January 16, 2012 Goldwater, who was seen as such a conservative and out of the mainstream, would probably be considered a moderate today. I doubt that he would have the time of day for the Tea Party. And yes, I was old enough to follow that race. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted January 16, 2012 Author Members Posted January 16, 2012 Goldwater, who was seen as such a conservative and out of the mainstream, would probably be considered a moderate today. I doubt that he would have the time of day for the Tea Party. And yes, I was old enough to follow that race. Goldwater and the Tea Party would not get along. He was a strong small-c fiscal conservative that spoke plainly. He would not suffer crazy wackos that didn't want to pass a debt limit extension. He was not an extreme Social Conservative that would put that agenda above sound governing. He actually believed that government should stay out of people's lives. Today he would be called a moderate by the present bunch. In his final years in the Senate he wasn't embraced all that closely anymore. He had shown a tolerant side to the social issues that swept up most of the party in the late 80s and early 90s. Regan's policies wouldn't have been embraced either. The deficit ballooned while he was in office. (Just like Bush II.). Tax cuts some years, increases other years. His big objective was not social, or small government though he paid lip service to it. He didn't get rid of one Cabinet Department although he campaigned on it. Regan's goal was to fight and win the cold war. He was single-minded in his effort to create a 600 ship Navy which blew the budget and the deficit, and standing up Mid-Range missles in Europe. He did it and spent the Soviets into oblivion. They just couldn't keep up. This present day tea Party crew is dedicated to having their way or no way, and until now, the establishment has bowed to them, fearing that if not they would be primaried and retired by the likes of Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel. It is interesting that the establishment still calls the tune in the Presidential Primary it seems. In that arena money does talk. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 With Huntsman bowing out it's getting closer to be just Romney. I suspect that Perry will go after the Florida primary especially if Romney wins both South Carolina and Florida. Ron Paul and Gingrich might be the only one who hangs around. And who knows when Santorum will bow out. He is delusional so it might be a while before he sees the writing on the wall. And besides, he has all of those evangelist pastors who just endorsed him. How do they justify endorsing all of that hate that spews from his mouth. It just slays me. . . Quote
Guest CharliePS Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 With Huntsman bowing out it's getting closer to be just Romney. I suspect that Perry will go after the Florida primary especially if Romney wins both South Carolina and Florida. Ron Paul and Gingrich might be the only one who hangs around. And who knows when Santorum will bow out. He is delusional so it might be a while before he sees the writing on the wall. And besides, he has all of those evangelist pastors who just endorsed him. How do they justify endorsing all of that hate that spews from his mouth. It just slays me. . . The ironic thing is that hardly any actual convention delegates are being chosen in these early primaries and caucuses, so a candidate who has enough money to hang around long enough for some underwater rock to sink the Romney boat might not do too badly in the big state primaries. (Note how I managed to sneak in a metaphor based on a breaking news item?) Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted January 19, 2012 Author Members Posted January 19, 2012 With Huntsman bowing out it's getting closer to be just Romney. I suspect that Perry will go after the Florida primary especially if Romney wins both South Carolina and Florida. Ron Paul and Gingrich might be the only one who hangs around. And who knows when Santorum will bow out. He is delusional so it might be a while before he sees the writing on the wall. And besides, he has all of those evangelist pastors who just endorsed him. How do they justify endorsing all of that hate that spews from his mouth. It just slays me. . . Rumor has it that day after the SC Primary Texas will stage a state-wide blackout in the hope that Perry cannot find his way back. It seems they have become sensitive about the public expose that they have been governed by a boob for three terms. Even worse, that they have chosen him three times. I guess boobs beget boobs. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 And now Perry exits the race with just hours before the SC race throwing his support for Gingrich. I suspect Perry will need an all new career since it's not likely Texas will ever re-elect in anything. This primary process is odd since the majority of the country wint even get s chance to help select candidates when so many drop out so early. Quote
