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."
” Rove and the GOPe was hacking all our candidates but Romney to death. I honestly don’t 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.
I do have to say that Clinton’s antics with Monica in the Oval Office and there-abouts, did convince me he needed to be removed from office. There should be some standard of behavior one needs to live up to.
I do agree that the purjery and obstruction charges were more legally serious. And it was my take that the articles of impeachment were written by someone without a lick of sense.
It does occur to me that if a man is going to cheat on his wife, he doesn’t have the character needed to be a good Commander in Chief. So I differ with you on that.
I know what you’re trying to say, and it does make some sense. I still come down differently on it.
” 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? “
Apparently, we need just one more : )
Con Man Rubio.
Okay, I suppose so.
Rove makes good money bad-mouthing Conservatives every chance he gets.
Others get their mula from other sources and have vested interests different than our own.
Whoever wins the Iowa straw poll is our next candidate.
Free Republic did it's best to destroy Rick Perry. OK he helped some in a debate. You think Rick might have been a better POTUS than we have now?
That would give the advantage to the guy with the most money, giving the GOP-E a lock on every nomination.
Correct.
It’s going to be Jeb Bush.
Oh, did you know that a Bush appointed the head of the IRS (how could you miss that since it is a Dem talking point) and a turncoat SCOTUS....just to name just a few of the missteps of the Bush regime.
Every Primary should be held the same day.
***That would give the advantage to the guy with the most money, giving the GOP-E a lock on every nomination.
The First primary should not be in a state where either party can vote
***I agree. None of them should be.
and it should not be in a little yankee state that is filled with liberal RINO dingleberry’s.
***Well, if such a state has the highest republican voting percentage (yeah, right, like that’s gonna happen) then they should be the first primary. I wouldn’t discriminate against yankee state dingleberries.
***
Therefore, the proper man for the job can only be the great Governor of Wisconsin, the honorable Scott... Walker!
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.