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.
>> “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.” <<
.
Nothing Bachmann has done or is presently doing suggests that.
Her entire performance suggests a “Tommy Smothers” level of jealousy.
“And if Rick Perry runs, you can be guaranteed 110% take it to the bank, that Palin will not enter the race.”
I don’t think there is any proof of that. Palin has said nice things about Perry and campaigned for him.Conversely, Perry has been equally glowing in his praise for Palin.
I don’t know enough about perry to feel strongly about him either way. I don’t think he will generate a lot of enthusiasm. He is not a really great campaigner.
And from a strictly political angle, I don’t think the country is anxious to elect another Texas governor so soon after Bush, especially one who sounds just like Bush.
The electoral battleground in this election is going to be the upper Midwest, and I don’t think Perry’s accent is going to help him there any more than it helped Bush.
Dueling history, I wonder which one is accurate, hmmm, I'll go with you Brice.
>> “If Bachmann’s campaign is DOA, how d o we account for the following news...” <<
.
Easy:
Typical establishment/media chosen candidate manufactured news.
The politically unsophisticated fall for that crap constantly.
Bear in mind that an outsider victory like Palin would be a devastating loss for the establishment GOP, and for the media, so they inject a hopeless pretender to siphon off votes so that the establishment candidate wins the primary.
Teddy Rosevelt, Ross Perot, and now Michele Bachmann, = divide and conquer electioneering.
Great history, a quarter century after running against Reagan he lost his Congressional seat.
“Crane never got higher than 1 or 2 %”
“He was never a threat to Reagan, not even close.”
Wrong again. You just post whatever comes to mind. Crane got 7% of the vote in Iowa. Reagan narrowly lost Iowa, 32-30 to George H.W. Bush. The 7% Crane got in Iowa came right out of Reagan’s hide. Fortunately, Reagan had five weeks to recover and he overcame his Iowa loss (although the initial polls in NH showed GHW Bush 20 points ahead).
If Reagan had had five days between Iowa and New Hampshire as they have not, he would have lost NH.
Crane very nearly derailed Reagan. You are sadly mistaken. You just don’t know your history.
“Great history, a quarter century after running against Reagan he lost his Congressional seat.”
I was going to point that out but forgot about it. it took me so long to correct him about Crane.
>> “I respect Bachmann too much to think that she would deliberately betray the nation’s best interests out of greed for power.” <<
.
She is drunk on the stroking job the mediots did on her back in the early spring. She needs a mega-dose of strong coffee, politically speaking.
“Dueling history, I wonder which one is accurate, hmmm, I’ll go with you Brice.”
In light of his posts so far, and in all humility, that is probably the safer bet. LOL
Bush should have won WI 2000 had it not been for Dem voter fraud (giving homeless cigarettes for Gore votes). He won IA in 2004.
The Upper midwest is a battleground, but WI and IA are really the only states in play. I am not sold on MI that they have learned their lesson, and MN has been a joke to me since Franken came anywhere near to be able to steal the election there.
The other battleground area is the SW (CO, NM, NV). This is where I think the GOP is putting more focus on.
I am not sold on Perry and agree that he lacks excitement. But I have a feeling he’s going to be pushed on us as the candidate that can unite all the split factions of the GOP.
>> “Hey Thaddeus McCotter is getting in! “ <<
.
Who ? ?
Bachmann’s gaffs make me cringe, like tonight on Hannity when she claimed she’s “not testing the waters by putting my finger in the air.”
Duh.
She has serious hoof in mouth disease. She had better put a sock in it, before she implodes.
>> “Somebody must have forgotten to tell Michelle Bachmann since she seems to be climbing the polls pretty fast.” <<
.
Meaningless media driven polls.
She is the media antidote to the real outsider hazard that the media and the GOP elite fear: Palin.
And yes, Palin is the power and she is running.
RE: Bear in mind that an outsider victory like Palin would be a devastating loss for the establishment GOP
Why is Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party Favorite from the beginning, considered an insider?
?
Did I miss something here? I remember her saying that in reference to questions on the economy/debt ceiling where she was calling out Obama and the Dems trying to gain a political advantage (though I thought she might have been taking a shot at Romney after he backed down on his Obama criticism yesterday).
Do you have a source?
Since Phil Crane won New Hampshire in the primary, it seems a little hard to believe that he never rose above 1 or 2% at any time.
“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. “
And you know this how? Have you ever spoken to Crane about why he ran? Or did you pull this straight out of your rear end?
(1) Because her name is not Sarah Palin.
(2) Because she had the audacity to jump into the race which is a hinderence to Palin’s inevitable coronoation.
Her mixed metaphor made me cringe. It sounded stupid.
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.