Posted on 07/01/2011 6:13:52 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
I recently posted an article suggesting that Mchele Bachmann's candidacy, and its impact on Sarah Palin, is reminiscent of the 1980 candidacy of Phil Crane, which Ronald Reagan considered a threat to his nomination:
Is Michele Bachmann Sarah Palin's Phil Crane?
As I point out in the article linked above, Crane never really thought he had a chance for the nomination, and he was content to have one of the moderates (Baker or Bush) get the nomination in hopes that they would install Crane as the Vice-Presidential nominee. I did not explore some of the reasons why Crane's belief was well founded.
2012 looks to be very similar to 1980. The Eastern Establishment candidate, Mitt Romney, will be matched against the conservative Western former governor, Sarah Palin in roughly the same way that George H.W. Bush faced off against Ronald Reagan. 2012 also involves Michele Bachmann, conservative Congresswoman from the Midwest, whose opposite number in 1980 was Crane, a rock solid conservative Congressman from Illinois. As Crane was poised to damage Reagan, so (it is assumed)will Bachmann siphon votes from Palin. It must be conceded, however, that even with the similarities, no two cycles are precisely the same.
Why, one might ask, did Phil Crane believe that his chances for the nomination were slim? Quite simply, no Congressman, since James A. Garfield in 1880, had ever won the Presidency. Indeed Garfield (who was a dark horse selection on the 30th ballot of a brokered convention) was the LAST Congressman ever nominated by either party. But Michele Bachmann's prospects for the GOP nomination are even bleaker than were Crane's in 1980.
In order to give Bachmann's electoral viability every benefit of the doubt, let's expand the subset to which she belongs (that is: House members) to include members of the United States Senate as well. Sure, Bachmann has never won a state wide race. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that she is U.S. Senator Bachmann, instead of Congresswoman Bachmann. The GOP has nominated three members of Congress in the last fifty years, all Senators with long tenures, specifically Goldwater, Dole and McCain. There hasn't been a sitting member of Congress--Senator or Congressman--nominated AND elected by the GOP in nearly 100 years, since Senator Warren G. Harding turned the trick in 1920.
The Democrats on the other hand--as the statist party-- have had recourse to Congress (again, only the Senate) more often, and more successfully, than the GOP. In the last 50 years, they have nominated four Senators-- Kennedy, McGovern, Kerry and Obama-- two of whom (Kennedy and Obama) won and only one of whom suffered a landslide defeat (McGovern). The Democrats as the party of Washington, are comfortable nominating candidates from the Congress, and their base responds favorably to them. The GOP, as the anti-Beltway party, is always more formidable with an Executive, whether a Governor, a former Vice President or a Commanding General than with a member of Congress. Indeed the GOP tends to nominate Senators only in years in which the prospects of victory are slim.
In 1964, the country, still reeling from the Kennedy Assassination, wanted stability. As Barry Goldwater himself observed, the country did not want three Presidents in eleven months. Goldwater lost by 20. In 1996, the economy was on the upswing and Clinton looked difficult to beat, especially with Perot planning a third party run. So the GOP could comfortably nominate the ancient Bob Dole, knowing well that the White House that year was beyond reach. Dole was beaten by 10. In 2008, the collapse of the housing market and the economy, war weariness and Bush fatigue presaged an electoral disaster for the GOP. The pre-convention polls had the Democrats comfortably ahead by anywhere from 6 to 15 points. After a brief surge into the lead (fueled by Palin's surprise VP selection and boffo convention speech) the stock market crash drove a stake through Senator John McCain's chances for an upset. In spite of the crash and his Beltway tarnish, however, McCain--aided by Palin-- ran better than any of the other recent GOP Senate nominees, losing by only 7.
Unlike 1964, 1996 and 2008, the GOP in 2012 has a genuine, indeed excellent. shot at victory. It is not going to exacerbate the disastrous formula of those election cycles by nominating a mere Congresswoman whose resume is even thinner than the Senators who went down to crashing defeats. 2012 is a year in which the GOP will nominate a governor to challenge a President, who came from Congress without Executive experience and has been a catastrophe. It will have two governors to choose from...Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin. Those who are inclined to vote for Michele Bachmann should know that they are very likely casting a vote for Mitt Romney. Bachmann cannot generate the political or financial support to defeat Romney, nor can she overcome the visceral reluctance of anti-Washington GOP primary voters to nominate a member of the hated Congress. Her impact, if she has any at all, will be to assist Mitt Romney in securing the nomination by drawing voters away from Palin. Let us remind our confreres, whom Bachmann is trying to lure, that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Ping!
Blabbity blah, yadda yackity yack.
Whatever dude.
Maybe Bachmann is running so Palin can under the radar gather forces to emerge when she declares with thousands of volunteers, and just zoom to the top of the heap.
Brice u got the coolest articles on FR.
If Bachmann’s campaign is DOA, how d o we account for the following news just the past 2 days:
How Michele Bachmann’s Surge Reshuffles the GOP Presidential Race
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/The_Bachmann_surge.html
The Bachmann Surge
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-bachmann-surge.html
More Bachmann Surge
With Michele Bachmann’s surge comes fresh scrutiny
Bachmann is running because she has an ego as big as outdoors and a grossly elevated opinion of her own importance. There is no way she is going to let the undereducated country bumpkin keep her from her rightful place as today’s most influential conservative female.
Hey Thaddeus McCotter is getting in! Things are a changing!!!! Hold the phone.
I respect Bachmann too much to think that she would deliberately betray the nation's best interests out of greed for power. I think she's a genuine limited government conservative who stands against statism. But I also think that she may truly believe that by running, she is doing the right thing.
I wish she had approached it with more humility and acknowledged that Palin is the far stronger, better, safer presidential candidate for limited government conservatives who aim to conquer the statist GOP Establishment.
From what I know so far, Bachmann lives up to all I ask -- the 80 percent standard that Reagan prescribed: I agree with her 80 percent of the time, and that makes her a valuable asset to the party of limited government. But then again, so did Duncan Hunter.
I shrink from describing her as ill-intentioned becuase I don't think she is. However, it's perfectly legit and right to point out to fellow conservatives the flaws in her that make her an extremely risky bet as opposed to Palin. I would, and will, urge people who would support her over Palin to seriously rethink their position.
You are a much better person than I, but I have grown more cynical over the years.
He is on batchelor tonight. This guy is smart x 10. I love batchelor show.
>> Hey Thaddeus McCotter is getting in!
Seriously?
Excellent wit.
If she craved power, then I think that she would have struggled harder to get some over her 10 year political career, instead she seemed impotent, and incapable of gaining power, or respect, or success, among her peers, she has nothing to show for her time in politics, until she found a public stage.
I think that she craves celebrity and a chance to tell people about herself, it was when she found a stage that her fortunes changed, she is the sudden celebrity candidate, with the empty resume.
Somebody must have forgotten to tell Michelle Bachmann since she seems to be climbing the polls pretty fast. Our author also forgot one little problem about Palin. She isn’t running. At least not that I’ve heard.
What Palin candidacy? You are delusional...
It essentially will minimal unless the latter steps up to the plate and enters the fray.
Actually, at any other time in our history, about any other person, it would be a given that Palin was running and was presently running an amazing and brilliant campaign, she just hasn’t declared yet.
Two people...
One doesn't smile with their eyes, the other smiles with their whole face
one uses words like "we" and "team", the other focuses on "i"
one is always understated, the other likes their bling.
one connects with me, the other only thinks they do...
But that is just me...
Best analysis yet. Spot on.
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.