Skip to comments.The Incredible Vanishing GOP Presidential Front-Runner
Posted on 06/05/2013 1:13:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
GOP presidential contenders wave to the crowd in Manchester, N.H., in 1980, before a debate. From left" Philip Crane, John Connelly, John Anderson, Howard Baker, Robert Dole, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
It's ridiculously, absurdly early to talk about 2016 presidential politics. Only a fool would try to predict who will be the next Republican nominee just seven months after the last election for the White House.
Still, in most election cycles, the GOP would already have an obvious front-runner by now, one who would more than likely prevail as the party's pick.
Not this time.
"This will be the most open Republican nomination in 50 years," says Tom Rath, a former GOP attorney general of New Hampshire and a veteran of early state presidential politics.
Plenty of Republicans had their doubts about the early front-runners in 2008 and 2012 John McCain and Mitt Romney, respectively but each ended up as the nominee.
This time, no one appears to be anointed. There are lots of likely candidates (Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie), question marks (former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, South Dakota Sen. John Thune), possibilities (Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker) and potential holdovers (former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry).
People in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina fully expect to see something in the neighborhood of 20 serious candidates stopping by to take soundings.
"There's no formidable candidate who's going to scare people out of the race," says Dave Carney, a GOP consultant and longtime Perry strategist. "There's no heir apparent."
Usually, there is. Republicans have given their candidates credit for time served, offering preference to the "next in line" vice president, veteran senator or candidate who paid his dues and knows the ropes from running the last time around.
For decades, the party has drawn from a small pool. There was a Bush or a Dole on every national ticket from 1976 through 2004. For 20 years before that, Richard Nixon was on the ballot in every election but one.
That type of dynamic is playing out this time around on the Democratic side. If presumptive favorite Hillary Clinton decides not to run, Vice President Joe Biden will have a leg up over lesser-known hopefuls such as Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Martin O'Malley of Maryland.
"It's been a long time since there really hasn't been an obvious front-runner [among Republicans]," says Lewis Gould, a historian who wrote Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans. "It's hard to see somebody becoming a juggernaut in the next eight or 12 months, so that by summer of 2014 people are saying, 'It's X's to lose.' We're a long way from that."
The result is likely to be a long nominating season. In contrast to the usual fashion, in which there's a king and a group of individuals aspiring to dethrone the king, a wide-open field means more candidates can linger in hopes of getting hot later in the game.
"When you get past New Hampshire, the field is usually down to two or three candidates," Rath says. "I'm not sure that will happen this time."
The lack of a clear front-runner reflects the number of competing factions in the party just now, says Chip Felkel, a Republican consultant based in South Carolina. It also gives candidates more of a chance to test-market ideas that might appeal to a broad constituency.
"The party needs to get through a serious bit of soul-searching," he says. "If you had a front-runner, you'd have all these people out there saying why that front-runner is no good."
Consultants like Carney also think it's good news that the candidates getting the most attention early on are mostly still in their 40s young enough to be the children of Romney or McCain (or, in the case of Paul, actually being the child of ex-perennial hopeful Ron Paul).
"It's good for the brand to have young guys who are peers of the generation that the Republican Party is supposedly not doing well with," says Matt Reisetter, a GOP consultant in Iowa.
New faces, younger and non-Anglo candidates, and a longer nominating season may reconfigure the party's ultimate chances.
But people in the party are convinced they can't be any worse than the traditional formula, which has helped Republicans lose the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.
"Historically, Republican Party politics have all been about whose turn it was," Felkel says, "and that hasn't worked too well for us."
We have a much deeper and diverse bench than the Dems. That’s for damn sure.
On the Dem side: Two retread 70 year olds.
I’m not certain I can think of a good reason for a Conservative to try to buck the RNC and the Carl Roves and Bill Kristols that are out there. They team up with the Leftist press to literally destroy good candidates before they can get off the drawing board.
And then you have Democrats voting in Republican primaries.
Gee, I wonder why we have no candidates. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...
from my home page
Heres how I think primaries should be organized:
My suggestion is basically to hold the first primary in the state that has the highest percentage of GOP votes in the last election, the 2nd primary in the 2nd highest, and so on. 2 primaries a week for 25 weeks, with the last primaries being the suckup-to-the-democrats. And the democrats could easily have their primary schedule the same way, if they wanted.
This way, if a state is 60% republican, there is still incentive for them to get out the vote for 61% republican so they can bump up their state in the primary schedule.
Also: Rotate all the states (even the big ones) through an early schedule so that everyone gets access at some point to the front line.
Let each state bid when they want their primary to take place. The earlier the primary, the fewer the delegates they control according to some logarithmic or steep curve formula.
18 posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:55:08 AM by Kevmo (We need to get rid of the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party. ~Duncan Hunter) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962610/posts?page=18#18
Second thing is the order of the primaries should be determined by the percentage of republicans in the last vote. The higher the %pubbie, the sooner the state appears on the primary schedule, with a mix of big & little states and our staunchest republican states get to go FIRST. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts?page=862#862
24 posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 8:52:29 PM by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2332420/posts?page=24#24
Greenblatt can’t be honest as to why Obama won a 2nd term. He and his thug administration shut down the Tea Party with their IRS terrorism.
The Tea Party cleaned house and WON the House back in the mid-term elections of Obama’s 1st term and they had to be stopped. To come to any other conclusion is flat out ignorant.
This is what was said about the Liberals, before “O” (Mr. Nobody from Nowhere) fell out of the sky!
” Im not certain I can think of a good reason for a Conservative to try to buck the RNC and the Carl Roves and Bill Kristols that are out there. They team up with the Leftist press to literally destroy good candidates before they can get off the drawing board.”
Post of the day!
The Republican Party needs a civil war all its own!
At least we will know which faction wins, and deal with it accordingly.
Every Primary should be held the same day.
The First primary should not be in a state where either party can vote and it should not be in a little yankee state that is filled with liberal RINO dingleberry’s.
Put my marker down for Cruz.
It will take a miracle for Hillary! to not win the election no matter who runs against her. Mostly because of voter fraud, but also because the ebt crowd will vote dem no matter who is the nom, unlike conservatives who will only vote repub if the nom is a conservative (which we saw happen in ‘12).
In 2006 Romney sent out word that he would tap his personal fortune, and he also had a couple of huge insider fundraisers to make clear that no serious challengers should even try.
The strategy worked and he was the 800 pound gorilla for 2008, (except that he lost anyway), in 2011 he was naturally the 800 pound gorilla, and lost again of course.
I wonder if Jeb Bush or Rubio will be the next assigned candidate.
4. Paul Ryan
5. Rand Paul
6. Allan West
I’ll take any one of these over the socialist thugs we have in power now!
President Trey Gowdy. Enough said.
Doesn’t it though...
I would take Rubio over anyone else suggested so far.
Cruz isn’t eligible, is he? I know 0bama isn’t either but Cruz is too white-looking to get away with it.
No way. Please
You might want to rethink that. Rubio is a bit on the lefty side when it comes to debate on foreign invaders.
Any GOP “front runner” who comes out now will be savaged by everybody, inluding some of the pundits on FRee Republic, until they are nothing more than a bloody pulp. Better to wait a while.
She emerged clean as a whistle from Benghazi, women love her, the press loves her, and anyone who utters a discouraging word will be painted as a misogynist and a hater.
Please pardon my cynicism.
Or, require that all federal primaries be held between April 1st and April 15th.
Ya...Cruz/Paul or Paul/Cruz perhaps?
That is a huge problem.
Someone I've been thinking about -- although I understand not everyone was sure he was a good candidate -- is Herman Cain. I found him smart, appealing, a good speaker, with interesting ideas. I had him as one of my top picks.
The media found out that he knew a female who was not his wife. I'm not sure they slept together. As far as I know, they were mere friends.
That was enough for the media to destroy him -- and the GOP, of course, sat by and was pleased to let it happen.
Obama -- birh certificate, unemployment, deficits, Benghazi, IRS, EPA, lavish vacations, rampant corruption and constitutional abuse, a clearly stolen election.
What do we hear from the media? Pretty much crickets.
The Republican Party has to be little LESS EAGER to jump up and say "Oh! Scandal in our primary!He's not perfect! Get him off! Get him off! He's not electable! Go with the most electable guy!"
C'mon. Herman Cain got bumped so that we could get a second term of Obama, and this happened because Herman Cain was damaged goods.
Why do we help the media play that game?
Why would Cruz not be eligible?
Since 1984.....the nomination has gone to PhonyCon RINOs ....and that needs to change....yes even GW Bush was not a conservative
Out of all those names mentioned...Cruz and Santorum are the only ones I would consider...the rest have major liberal flaws...to an extent
Rush said today he wouldn’t be surprised if Christie runs for president as a Democrat.
nickcarraway ~: (from the article) “Historically, Republican Party politics have all been about whose turn it was,” Felkel says, “and that hasn’t worked too well for us.”
Obviously , the Repubs should be pushing Karl Rove as the candidate leader.
You know that the Libturds are formulating background hit pieces on the front runners .
He has such a good history of victories to his credit ...( /sarc)
Actually , the only difference that I see between the Repubs selection process ,
and the Reid controlled Senate legislative process ,
is the name of who is in charge and responsible.
They are equally run ... tyrannically !!
That just means that the winner of the GOP Primary will be too exhausted, damaged, and bankrupt to beat the Democrat in the General.
The GOP needs ONE candidate, and skip the damn Primary. Or at least just ONE conservative. We had to many in 2012, and ended up with Romney.
Cruz/Walker. Accept no substitutes.
I believe his father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, making him ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) clause in the Constitution.
I will easily substitute Trey Gowdy as my nominee.
” The media found out that he knew a female who was not his wife. I’m not sure they slept together. As far as I know, they were mere friends.
That was enough for the media to destroy him — and the GOP, of course, sat by and was pleased to let it happen.”
I think Rove, and the GOPe took Cain out.
Good comments and questions all.
I agree with you.
If there was some truth to the Cain story, I am willing to see him drop out. If there wasn’t, I say hang in there.
After railing on Clinton for morals issues for eight years, I don’t want to be a hypocrite about morals issues.
I’m not asking for someone who is perfect, but I am expecting some level of honesty and decency.
I do not consider his side “lefty” but do not forget I live in South Texas....San Antonio.....his position is no different than many conservatives I know....even some in politics. And who are our other choices? I know it is too early to panic...but it is getting close.
Is there any evidence that that was considered the standard for NBC 50 years ago?
Awesome, but I would switch it around. Walker is a chief executive, and that is vitally important. I would hate to lose Cruz in the Senate, but I guess sacrifices have to be made.
I think there’s truth to that. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a lot more going on in the background than we knew about with regard to Cain.
Rove and the GOPe was hacking all our candidates but Romney to death. I honestly don’t understand that.
And it also bothers me to see one of our candidates make one slip of the tongue, and watch our own people cannibalize them.
Look at the carpola Obama has done, literally tons of it and he never gets hurt, but our folks make one miscue and it’s off to the political guillotine.
The man's middle name is Amnesty, and he's your number one choice for president???
Haven't we had enough fraudulent Republicans to last us a lifetime already?
Cruz has always impressed me as someone who will NOT back down, who will NOT mince words, and someone strong enough not to care how many people in Washington he pleases, in BOTH parties. He is like Rubio/Rand Paul on steroids. Should he want his star to rise, though, and become a legitimate contender, he’s got an uphill battle.
” Rove and the GOPe was hacking all our candidates but Romney to death. I honestly dont understand that.”
Yeah you do : )
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban(?) father. As much as I'd love to see him have a shot at the Oval Office, he's clearly not constitutionally eligible.
Well, I will say this about that:
I didn't like the fact that Clinton was a hound dog. The Monica thing disturbed me. But, at the time, Republicans -- and this was smart -- tried not to emphasize the purely immoral aspects of the story. Clinton has real legal problems: Perjury, obstruction of justice, and in the case of several women, pure rape. We attacked Clinton on the basis of crimes committed, not moral failings.
Certainly, I would like a perfect candidate. Haven't found one yet.
Given the state of our culture, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT CARE if a candidate cheats on his wife. That is insignificant. Don't bore me with any details. Tell me about your immigration policy, your tax policy, your abortion policy.
We just can't let the media pick at moral failings of Republicans. Those details, in this day and age, cannot matter -- Lord knows moral failings don't matter at all when it comes to Democrats. They only matter when a Republican is involved. And because none of us are perfect, the media will ALWAYS find some kind of moral failing to harp on. We need to start yawning and asking, "Yeah ... so? His politics are good, right?"
Yes his father was not a citizen, but his mother was and appears to have complied with the requirements of having resided within the US for at least 5 years.
The governing statue is Title 8 section 1401 subsection G
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
Thus according to this statue, Cruz was never in need of naturalization for his citizenship. He received it from his mother. Therefor, he is a “naturally born citizen”. ASSUMING that his mother who obtained a degree in mathematics (4 years?) prior to Cruz’s birth did in fact, meet the requirements of 5 years of residency, two of which after obtaining the age of 14.
It would be reasonable to assume absent any evidence that his mother graduated high school (18) and then went to college (22). That would be 7 years of residence after the age of 14.
See post #44
Yes I do, but when you get down to it, I really don’t.
How is what they are doing helping them?
Don’t they ever want to be in power again?
Do they really want the Left to win every time?
I'm not sayin' we do ... but I'd sure like to see some Conservative shenanigans that leave the enemy sputtering in their coffee.
If one wants to think of him as the lesser of evils that is fine. What did we have last election? Not even that.
This is follow the money time.
Not necessarily so. Just more liberal namby pamby. I'm sure the writer looks at Hillary as the inside bet, like she was last time.
And Robert Taft was a safe bet in 1952, uh huh.
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.