Much Wisdom in what you say.
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."
Yea, Billary might win 49 states, losing only AR.
John Thune would be my pick ... wished he’d have run last time around. Ahh well. Given the last two Republican Presidential Candidates, I’m more likely to sit out the 2016 election than vote.
Much Wisdom in what you say.
Yeah, in loose terms, I think I agree with your comments. Thanks for making them.
I believe BOTH parents had to have been U.S. citizens at the time of prospective candidate’s birth in order for him/her to be eligible. This is the NBC req’t. 0bama’s father wasn’t, but 0bama is black so he’s exempt from the law (apparently).
That is incorrect. Title 8 section 1401 subsection G establishes that Sen Cruz was a citizen at birth and has never needed naturalization.
0bama's father was a British subject at the time of Barack Jr's birth, so therefore Jr. is NOT a NBC (even if he was born in Hawaii, which he probably wasn't anyway).
Relevant sections in bold
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[....]
(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;
Sen Cruz's mother was a US citizen and appears to have resided in the US for the required time period.
Now lets talk about why Obama would NOT be a NBC. It has nothing to do with his father other than the absence of US Citizenship. It hinges on three things.
1) what version of the title 8 section 1401 shall be applied? Do we follow the rules at the time of his birth or do we follow current law? That would have to be decided in court.
If we apply the law at the time of Obama’s birth, and we assume he was born outside of the US, then he STILL would not be a NBC because his mother could not have conferred NBC status because she could not have met the residency requirements.
If we apply the law currently, then it is more likely (still undetermined) that NBC could have been conferred. The requirement is 5 years of residence with at least 2 after the age of 14.
2) If he is shown to be born on US soil - moot point. NBC is automatic regardless of citizenship of the parents. I personally dont agree with this but that is the current law and SCOTUS rulings.
3) Even if he did have NBC, did he ever lose his citizenship? It has been argued that his trip to Pakistan could have invalidated his citizenship. Possible but the courts are unlikely to revoke someone citizenship for a travel trip. It normally takes a more egregious action.
NBC rants are great fun, but back in the real world of what the courts and congress are willing to do:
Obama was eligible.
McCain was eligible.
Cruz is eligible.
Rubio is eligible.
I would love Cruz to become POTUS, but unfortunately, also appearing in the real world is the fact that immigration-driven demographic shifts have created an electoral college that the GOP can no longer win. Barring health problems, it’s President Hillary Clinton.
You don’t think someone born in the Unites States should be allowed to be president?
Jeb Bush is the Republican anointed. It’s his turn.
” What it means is that the GOPe hasn’t gotten to work anointing the Jeb Bush / Pork Porkie ticket yet. “
I see this hopeless duo as the ticket too.
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.