RSS Feed MenuAn 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.
GOProud // Mar 2, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Alex, first off, it isn’t a myth –as you try to dismiss it with your best, albeit impotent, parting shot.
Bush 41 won because he was loyal GOP candidate who withdrew from the 1980 race (after we in Michigan gave him his biggest win, I might add) to give the front runner clear ground ahead. We could do the same for each race since 1960, but it wouldn’t matter to someone who sees it as a myth.
Your analysis fails on several points –not the least of which is a failure to understand what parting loyal acts by candidates mean to GOPer faithful. Dems love a scrapper who fights to the point of emotional breakdowns –cue Dean, cue Hart, cue Jesse, etc). GOPers prefer loyalty to Party over self -and yes, in the end, RR got the message and gave Ford his chance.
In the future, you might want to ask someone you know with even passing knowledge of the GOP and her traditions to review your work before making a donkey of yourself.
Carney // Mar 2, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Wow, GOProud, take a breath. Knepper has a reasonable point here. And while you make a valid point in response, your dismissive scorn is out of line. Your post would have been far better without its last sentence / paragraph.
teabag // Mar 2, 2010 at 3:23 pm
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
Precious, one rightwingnut calling out a even nuttier riechwingnut.
Carney // Mar 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm
teabag, do you think you’ll look back in ten or 50 years at your posts with pride? Will you show them to your grand-children? Would you like them associated with your name?
teabag // Mar 2, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Yep
Carney // Mar 2, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Then I pity you in your smallness of spirit.
GOProud // Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Wow, Carney, lay off the TeaBagged troll. He’s not especially unique here and he’s never respected, but the scorn is unnecessary.
Toss bricks at glass houses, much?
teabag // Mar 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Carney,
Then I pity your Birtherism, ye of even smaller and racist mind.
aDude // Mar 2, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Leaving the name calling aside for a moment, I do believe there is a kernel of truth in what ABC News had to say. I think is is true that the vast majority of post WWII Republican presidential candidates have been at least established national leaders. Sometimes the way that leadership is established is because of a previous presidential bid, and sometimes not. Eisenhower was an established leader despite never having run for political office. Nixon in 1960 and Bush in 1988 were established more because of their stature as vice presidents than from any previous campaign. Reagan could have won the nomination in 1976 (and indeed came very close) because he was an established national leader of the conservative wing of the Republican party. Dole was the Republican leader in the Senate and a former vice presidential candidate. I do think it was the 2000 primary that established McCain, as I don’t think he had much of a national stature before 2000.
Twice the party has deviated from that principle. First was 1964, where Goldwater was not really a national leader on the same level that Reagan would be at in the following decade. He had his vocal followers, but he didn’t have the unifying leadership of Nixon or Reagan. And the second was 2000, when a six year governor with no national standing got the nomination.
Given that background, Romney has a tougher road than the other also-rans, because he lacks the same level of national leadership of a Reagan, Nixon, Bush Sr., or even Dole.
So from that standpoint, ABC News has the story half right, but backwards. The nomination frequently goes to an also-ran not because they were an also-ran, but because they were established leaders. Romney has the name recognition and the position to establish himself as such a leader. It remains to be seen if he can follow through on that potential.
The “Next in Line” model · Secular Right // Mar 3, 2010 at 6:29 am
[...] Knepper argues that Romney’s Nomination No Lock. The evidence he marshals seems respectable, but I have to say that it was less persuasive than [...]
sinz54 // Mar 3, 2010 at 9:55 am
“teabag” should be banned.
He/she/it is violating FrumForum’s policy:
“While we do not censor comments based on political or ideological point of view, comments that are abusive, engage in personal attacks, contain racist, sexist, homophobic or other slurs, express hatred, are off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include any other type of ad hominem attacks (including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise) will be subject to removal.”
“teabag” has violated that policy repeatedly.
I’ve seen enough.
Carney // Mar 3, 2010 at 10:12 am
Amen, sinz. Didn’t he use to call himself “teabagged”? That would suggest he already has been banned.
PracticalGirl // Mar 3, 2010 at 10:38 am
sinz, you may be right. But I wonder if you would extend the same to GOProud, who (as MiGOPer) repeatedly attacked posters in a personal manner. Every identifiable woman’s name on this Forum has been called some form of leftist lesbian by the goofball. Sure, he’s changed his name, but not his tactics. It’s a sticks and stones thing, I think.
I have a serious question about Romney that I keep asking. What part does his Mormonism play in an eventual nomination or successful ascension to the Presidency? Bush 43 benefitted hugely from the Evangelical/Evangelical-leaning vote. Some 40% of his votes in 2000 came from that base. Will that base buck a Mormon?
Carney // Mar 3, 2010 at 10:41 am
Who wants a board where everyone agrees on everything? It’s actually valuable for most message boards to have a pet opposition poster. Keeps things interesting and stimulating, and you can be forced to research and back up your views to keep yourself sharp; you can learn things or even have your mind changed.
But “teabag” is not that person. A glance at this URL shows his essentially negative contribution.
http://tinyurl.com/yjoce3k
On the rare occasion that he makes a substantive point rather than engage in jeering, hooting and feces-throwing, “teabag” invariably makes it in the most inflammatory and least enlightening manner possible.
Politics ain’t tiddlywinks. Most of us from time to time get our dander up and dash off a ticked-off screed or provocative jab. But “teabag” is clearly the worst of us, and is a net negative on this forum.
With his trolling, he brings heat rather than light. By being merely annoying rather than challenging, he brings out the worst in others, hijacking and sidetracking many, many threads, and lowering the overall tone down to his level.
Really, his choice of moniker, an obscene taunt, says it all.
I say ban him, and track his email address and even IP address to prevent sock-puppetry and any possibility of a return.
Carney // Mar 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm
PracticalGirl said:
“I have a serious question about Romney that I keep asking. What part does his Mormonism play in an eventual nomination or successful ascension to the Presidency? Bush 43 benefitted hugely from the Evangelical/Evangelical-leaning vote. Some 40% of his votes in 2000 came from that base. Will that base buck a Mormon?”
This is an important issue, and it’s been discussed quite a bit here on FrumForum already:
http://www.frumforum.com/?s=mormon
In terms of the base, I think it’s hard to tease apart his Mormonism from his past squishery, wealth, and “slick” look; they probably combined to form a perfect storm. If he’d been an evangelical with a squishy past, or if he were a Mormon with a consistently conservative past, or had a bit more of a rugged or rough-hewn aspect to his matinee-idol good looks, he might not have encountered as much suspicion and hostility as he did in the last cycle; in most Southern states he didn’t even crack the top two.
Still, given the crowded and fractured nature of the primary field, it’s hard to say the South would reject him. He’ll be the establishment candidate this time around, giving him a powerful advantage, and Huckabee and Palin (or Pawlenty) may well split the anti-Romney vote.
In the general, I think there’s little doubt the base would come home, especially if Romney is wise enough, as he no doubt will be, to choose an evangelical such as Thune or Pawlenty as his running mate.
GOProud // Mar 3, 2010 at 12:19 pm
PracticalGrrrl growls: “But I wonder if you would extend the same to GOProud, who (as MiGOPer) repeatedly attacked posters in a personal manner. Every identifiable woman’s name on this Forum has been called some form of leftist lesbian by the goofball.”
Well, let’s see, my farLeft hypocrite… you just called me a goofball.
Kettle or pot?
I’m guessing your new-found “conscience” will fail to advance any similar scorn for TeaBag using the “GOProud is off his meds” line… or your constant pal CentristNyer parallel nonsense. Your selective outrage won’t let you, right?
Of course you won’t. Just like we learned with the Sen Dems not moving to stop Bunning’s fake filibuster move… when they could have ended it before it began and not caused all that worry in all those unemployed workers… your outrage is fake and focused on cheap partisan advantage.
And, I’m sure, in your mind that spot-on observation is somehow a personal attack… by someone you just called “goofball”.
What a kettle.
PracticalGirl // Mar 3, 2010 at 1:41 pm
MiGOPer:
“Goofball” is fitting for many of your rantings. “Leftist lesbian”(with wardrobe descriptions, often) and the other dirt you sling is not only nasty and inappropriate, it’s inaccurate. Stick to the issues. We all get it: Anybody who doesn’t agree with your world view is a troll. No need to repeat it ad nauseum.
Carney:
Thanks for the link and opinion.
aDude // Mar 3, 2010 at 2:41 pm
In any other year, the idea that a young, black, first term Senator could be elected President would be laughable. But 2008 was not just any other year. The anger at Bush and the Republican Party was so high that the unthinkable happened.
In 2012, hard core Southern Baptist Conservatives will be offered a choice – Vote for a Mormon, or stay home and allow Obama to have another four years. Again, in any other year the idea that a Mormon would get the votes of the hard right would be laughable. But the hatred of Obama is so intense that even a John Hagee or a Pat Robertson will swallow their doctrine and pull the lever for Romney should he get the nomination (which I think he will do).
Rich Rostrom // Mar 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Reagan did not “win the 1968 primaries”. He got 1,696,270 primary votes to Nixon’s 1,679,443 – but 1,525,091 of Reagan’s votes came in California, where he was unopposed. IOW, there was no genuine overall primary contest.
Nixon, BTW, won contested primaries in NH, WI, PA, NE, OR, and NJ. Ironically, he got more votes in NH than Johnson and McCarthy combined. He lost only in MA.
GOProud // Mar 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm
So, PracticalGrrrl, it’s all about who’s calling whom a name, is it?
Thanks for clearing that little spin-fest up. There’s still a puddle under your feet, tho’. Just saying, princess.