Skip to comments.Could Romney run in 2016, following Nixon's example? (vanity)
Posted on 11/09/2012 4:38:36 AM PST by Zhang Fei
click here to read article
And that’s another good point AGAINST Romney’s campaign. The GOTV, particularly the GOT-Base effort was pitiful...OBVIOUSLY.
“The last time we ran a conservtaive was Ronald Reagan. He won in the biggest landslide we’ve ever seen.”
Yes, but don’t forget that he won such a landslide, in part, because he was able to attract/convert “Reagan Democrats.” He was able to do so because, on top of being a true conservative, he was also the “Great Communicator” - in other words, he was able to communicate his conservative principles (and, more geneay, his vision for the future of America) to all Americans.
One problem with our modern political culture (gerrymandered districts, the internet, the pretty sharp divide between conservative and liberal media, etc.) is that today’s conservatives do not need to be good at selling their ideas to people who do not already self- identify as conservatives ( and believe me, there are plenty of people who hold conservative beliefs on the issues, but do not necessarily view themselves as ‘conservatives,’ so to speak). The next Reagan (if that person exists) will need to be able to do that).
Sadly, with the media as it is, had Santorum won the nomination, he would have lost the election the moment that idiot Akin opened his mouth back in September.
Yes. We are. But you know what. . . so is everyone else. I’ve doing the last of my charitable giving with Sandy relief. No more after that. No cookie buying, no raffle tickets, no car washes, no volunteering, nothing but taking care of my own family and our own needs. Done with it. I’m happy to let the government take care of them all.
In Fact Reagan got more votes than Nixon in 1968 because Reagan won California, the only primary state he won that year.
I do agree with that assessment, and I probably said as much a few times here on FreeRepublic at the time. Not only that, but some of those candidates would have been a complete disaster (Gingrich, for example). I like your analogy of the three-legged stool, too.
That's a very interesting point. But how many times did a candidate who had earlier lost an election even bothered to come back and try again? Nobody other than Nixon comes to mind, but Walter Mondale and Bob Dole are two guys who have pulled off the unusual "exacta" of losing once as a VP candidate (Dole in 1976 as Ford's running mate and Mondale in 1980 on the Carter ticket) and later as a presidential candidate (Mondale in 1984 and Dole in 1996).
Someone on TV tonight, I think it was Krauthammer, said he thought Romney should have picked Gingrich as his running mate to balance the ticket—a Mormon and a polygamist.
I disagree with a lot of Krauthammer’s positions, but he’s really a smart guy and funny as all heck sometimes. LOL.
Henry Clay ran for President three times--the third time he lost very narrowly and would have won the election if a third party candidate had not tipped New York into the Democratic column by draining off some votes that would have gone to Clay. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic nominee three times, and 16 years after his third try the Democrats put his brother on the ticket as their VP candidate (in the election in which the Democrats got their lowest percentage of the vote ever, if you exclude the four-way race in 1860 when there were two Democrats running).
More recently, Thomas Dewey was nominated again in 1948 after losing in 1944, and Adlai Stevenson was nominated again in 1956 after losing in 1952. Hubert Humphrey was one of the primary candidates in 1976 after losing in 1968. George Wallace ran again in 1972 after losing as a third party candidate in 1968 (it was in 1972 that he was shot). H. Ross Perot, of course, ran again in 1996 after running in 1992. Ronald Reagan ran unsuccessfully twice before becoming the nominee in 1980. Gore ran in 1988 before being the Democratic nominee in 2000. McCain ran first in 2000 and of course Romney ran in 2008. I think Dole was an also-ran once before he was the nominee.
I definitely agree, especially about “swing voters” voting for whomever is strong. people like who they perceive to be a winner. the swing voters want to vote for the winner.
I also agree that this tippy-toeing around, trying not to offend or whatever is just ridiculous.
I disagree with you about Ryan, though. He's a smart and likeable guy, but I don't think he's well suited for a White House run -- at least not yet. House members rarely make good presidential candidates, and in that respect he'd do well to run for the governor's office in Wisconsin before launching a presidential bid.
In retrospect, he probably wasn't a very good VP selection by the Romney camp. He didn't even bring his own state into the Republican column, and the GOP probably would have done better to nominate someone who appealed to a wider demographic group. Ironically, the VP position is such a useless spot that Ryan's talents probably would have been wasted -- and as the chairman of the House budget committee he was probably the only guy in the GOP on Tuesday who woke up on Wednesday morning in a better position than he would have been if he had "won."
I’m still counting Reagan and G.H.Bush .
They ran to get nomination and lost then later came back and won.
See your points though. Especially earlier yrs.
Lincoln was anti war and Jackson was pro war.
Lincoln like most republican believers back then were against Spanish American war.
Lincoln countered that he supported the troops because he voted to provide them boots.
I wish I could claim the 3 legged stool analogy, but I didn’t make it up. It cam from Reagan actually.
sneakers suggests: Mike Pence
Keep an eye to make sure he’s not another police state bush operative like mitch daniels was. Indiana isn’t all it’s said to be.
//However, I keep remembering the piece I read somewhere which plainly stated that, as a candidate for office, Romney was (and sadly remains) a big time loser.
haaa haaa ha ha well said.
So now speaking the truth is intolerant? This is liberal madness. It is a fact that the Mormon church has extremely heretical theology which makes it NOT Christian! There are some core things you MUST believe in order to be a Christian church and one of them is the deity of Christ WHICH MORMONS DENY! What’s next call Muslims call themselves Christians too and we must “tolerantly” accept it? You need a history lesson. They escaped religious persecution which was almost always being carried out by the state. No one is PERSECUTING Mormons by stating that they are not a Christian church.
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.