Posted on 02/10/2020 9:03:06 AM PST by EyesOfTX
I know, I know, but don’t laugh. – The Democrat Party has a long history of seeing surprise candidates emerge out of the New Hampshire primary. What’s interesting about this history is that the “surprise” has often not come with who won the primary, but in a candidate who finished as a surprisingly strong also-ran.
In 1972, Edmund Muskie won the primary as he was predicted to do, but it was radical-leftist candidate George McGovern who stole the thunder coming out of the Granite State, finishing in a surprisingly strong second place with over 37% of the vote. McGovern rode the momentum of that strong second place showing all the way to the nomination, culminating his year with an historic landslide loss to Richard Nixon.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter defied the pre-primary polls, narrowly defeating both Mo Udall and Birch Bayh to become the clear front-runner in the race for the nomination.
Colorado Senator Gary Hart shocked the pundits with a big win in New Hampshire over Walter Mondale in 1984. But it was the second-place finisher who ended up winning the nomination and the right to be the Democrats’ sacrificial lamb against Ronald Reagan.
Senator Paul Tsongas entered the 1992 New Hampshire primary with a strong polling lead over a crowded field, and to no one’s surprise, ended up winning. But it was Bill Clinton who stole the show, coming in second after having been basically written-off by all the “smart people” in Washington following a virtual no-show in the Iowa Caucuses. In his speech that evening, Clinton declared himself to be the “comeback kid,” and a fawning national press corps fell in love with him. The race for the nomination essentially ended that night.
Many will not remember that the Pantsuit Princess actually made a comeback of her own in New Hampshire in 2008, narrowly winning the primary following a poor showing in Iowa of her own. But despite losing, Barack Obama His Own Self stole the show with a powerful speech, and the same corrupt media that had jumped on the Clinton team in 1992 immediately signed up to play a similar role on Team Obama.
The Commie won big in New Hampshire in 2016, capturing 60% of the vote to 37% for the Fainting Felon. But by then the Clinton camp owned the DNC lock, stock and barrel, and succeeded in rigging the process against Sanders for the rest of the way.
So, who’s going to be the surprise of this year’s primary? It could very well be Amy Klobuchar, Senator from [checks notes] Minnesota. No one really took a Klobuchar candidacy seriously when she decided to enter the race over a year ago, and who knows – maybe last week’s 13%, 5th place finish in Iowa will turn out to have been her high water mark in the race.
But I keep getting this pesky feeling that she might surprise us.
Klobuchar has had a hard time raising money; she isn’t a flashy person who gets attention by shouting or cussing or making outrageous statements like so many of her competitors do; and she carries with her the baggage of a reputation as being one of the most abusive bosses on Capitol Hill. This is not an admirable person, but hey, she’s a Democrat so that doesn’t matter.
But she has basically become this race’s tortoise, plugging slowly but steadily behind a field of hares, slowly gaining ground on the field as they go off on their tirades and tangents. The photo that accompanies this piece captures the essence of her candidacy perfectly, standing there calmly, with a disapproving look on her face, in the midst of a pack of braying jackasses. It reminds me of the look my dear mother used to get when she would catch me and my brothers fighting in the back yard.
That photo is from last Friday’s debate, during which Klobuchar, by all accounts, had a pretty strong showing. I wouldn’t know, because I just cannot bring myself to waste 2-3 hours watching those things. But that seems to be the consensus.
Klobuchar has also been drawing some pretty strong crowds this week in New Hampshire, at least “strong” in the context of this Democrat race, where getting a high school gymnasium half-filled with voters and staff constitutes a “strong” turnout.
Klobuchar’s other main asset as a candidate is the storm that constantly brews around her in the form of the three braying jackasses in that photo, along with Preacher Pete and Faucahontas. Think about it: Klobuchar is the only candidate among those six who has not had a nickname bestowed upon her by President Donald Trump.
Finally, there is Klobuchar’s reputation as being a “moderate” among this field of leftist lunatics. As Joe Biden and his “electability” image rapidly implode, all of his voters are going to be looking to land somewhere. It seems to be that Klobuchar fills that bill better than any of the other candidates on the New Hampshire ballot, which does not include billionaire Mike Bloomberg.
All of these factors are combining to give me a sneaking suspicion that, when the dust settles late Tuesday evening, Amy Klobuchar might well be this year’s “surprise” coming out of New Hampshire. She isn’t going to win – The Commie almost certainly will do that unless the DNC can figure out a way to defraud the vote as it did in Iowa – but given the shifting dynamics in the field this week, it is conceivable she might receive more votes than Quid Pro Joe and/or Fauxcahontas.
Finishing ahead of either of those two would qualify Klobuchar as a “surprise.” Beating both of them would constitute a shock to the Democrat system. Either place would rocket her up to the top of speculation about being a running mate for the eventual nominee.
Tomorrow will be very, very interesting.
That is all.
Never heard of her, but considering her opponents, Biden Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren, Krusty the Clown could emerge as the front runner with a better chance.
I wouldn’t put anything past the Democrats.
Look what emerged from Iowa... a toss up between a queer and a communist.
I guess Joe Biden is their idea of “normal”, and he came in fourth, despite being Obama’s VP for 8 years. (Over the last 60 plus years, ex VPs have ALWAYS won their party’s presidential nomination if they seek it, unless an incumbent president is running for re-election.) If Biden fails to win the nomination, he will be the first past VP in modern history to do so.
As for the women running, the only one that seems close to normal to me is Tulsi Gabbard, and she won < 1%.
Nothing that comes out of NH Democrat primary will surprise me - they are all crackpots
Well, right now Amy is the only “moderate” alternative to Biden in the race right now who is not gay so she has a chance, that is before Bloomberg enters with his billions to try to buy the nomination. I bet whoever wins names a black as a VP running mate to pander to their most important voting constituency
This, despite the fact that in modern (post-12th Amendment) history, only Martin van Buren (Andrew Jackson’s Veep) and GHWB (Ronald Reagan’s veep) have won election to the presidency as sitting VPs.The thing is that VP is political heir of the POTUS - kind of a prince, except the POTUS has only a 4-year term - and it isn’t an executive position. And neither, of course, is Senator. And the other thing is that whenever anyone first attains statewide office (senator or governor), the clock starts running, and nobody has been elected POTUS without attaining national office within 20 years of attaining statewide office.
The upshot is that VP Biden actually is not presidential material. Whereas sitting our sitting VP is a former governor (who attained national office only 4 years after his governorship started). Mike Pence will have all the right boxes checked in 2024. Assuming that the Trump presidency continues to be successful.
I don’t know why MN always seem to vote for name recognition but its always been that way.
Rudy Boschwitz - Plywood Minnesota.
Michelle Bachmann - no relation to Bachmann Florist but still...
Al Franken - Somehow they didn’t show him in the diaper.
Mark Dayton - Dayton’s department store
“...only Martin van Buren (Andrew Jackson’s Veep) and GHWB (Ronald Reagan’s veep) have won election to the presidency as sitting VPs.”
Interesting. So a VP’s ability to secure the nomination is no indication of his ability to win the Presidency.
A few more related dynamics:
VPs who have been nominated but failed to win the Presidency, have rarely chosen to run again four years later, and the exceptions, Humphrey in 1972 and Ford* in 1980, failed to win the nomination on their second attempt. (Ford gets an asterisk because he ran both as a past VP and as a past unelected President).
However, Richard Nixon, who was nominated but lost in ‘60, and who chose not to run in ‘64, was nominated a second time in ‘68, and went on to win the Presidency twice by landslide.
That puts my point succinctly. It is only when the sitting POTUS is a large figure that being his political heir matters in the general election.Richard Nixon, who was nominated but lost in ‘60, and who chose not to run in ‘64, was nominated a second time in ‘68, and went on to win the Presidency twice, once by landslide.The key point is that governors get more respect than senators and/or veeps in the general election. From this distance, Pence looks good for ’24.
1968 was a tight election.
Because she has no chance, she inspires about as much gravitas an confidence as an inch worm.
“1968 was a tight election.”
Right - my bad.
Eisenhower’s VP vs Johnson’s VP makes for a tight race.
How often has a governor been beaten by a senator in the general? Romney. Anyone else?
Romney was running against a sitting POTUS. McCain - a senator - lost to Obama, then also a senator.The only senator ever to defeat a governor for POTUS was Warren G. Harding in 1920. The governor he beat was, ironically, from the same state that Harding was from - Ohio.
1920 was a terrible year for Democrats; the public was fed up with Woodrow Wilson and WWI.
No senator has ever unseated a sitting POTUS running for reelection.
“””””’Al Franken - Somehow they didn’t show him in the diaper.””””””””””
Yup. Al was born in New York. He moved here when he was about five. He left Minneapolis in 1969 right after high school.
He returned as a “Minnesotan” to run for Senate.
The media made sure nobody would care about such a trivial detail.
Amy is useless just like her fellow idiot Tina Smith.
Of course - it was McCain who lost to Obama the senator. I’m getting my GOP losers reversed...
I don’t think Klobuchar has much of a chance, but can you imagine how a certain former Demo candidate/first lady/senator/secretary of state would react to NOT being the first female president?
Which end of the pack are we talking about? Emerging as #1 or emerging as #7?
Well we came close in the 1990s. Remember Jimmuh Carter's top advisor on nucular (spelled like he pronounced it) weapons? None other than Amy Carter! Maybe not POTUS, but a "trusted" advisor on a major issue, no?
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.