Posted on 06/08/2005 5:00:47 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Im tired of this MSM talk of McCain, Frist, Guiliani, Romney, and Pataki for the 2008 nomination. Out of those, onyl Frist has a chance at winning the primaries. So let's take a look at some real candidates.
Republicans with a shot in 2008:
Sen. Allen - the front-runner Sen. Brownback - Probably running for VP Sen. Thune - His name has been thrown around as a serious "sleeper" candidate in 2008 Gov. Pawlenty - Popular Conservative Gov. could give the GOP the great lakes states Gov. Sanford Gov. Bush (won't run) Gov. Owens (if marraige is fixed) Newt Gingrich
Cheney/Rice is the '08 Dream Team!
I kind of like him also and the fact that he had the good sense to get out helps. I think he was one of condit's buddies though and if so, that works against him.
I am beginning to think that McCain will sweep early tests with 38 to 40 percent and snowball early on to the nomination. He may be unbeatable. As Lincoln said, "You can't beat somebody with nobody."
"I don't know if this is true at all. I don't think Truman, Ford, or Bush 41 ever served in the U.S. Senate."
Yes, they were all senators.
"And even if they all did, you'd also have to consider that McGovern, Mondale, Dole, Gore, and Kerry"
So what? Some won, some lost. That's not a curse, that's a normal distribution.
Rick Perry will be hard-pressed to win renomination or reelection in 2006; I don't think even he is thinking of early presidential primaries.
Single issue wonders who back stab their own party and are more interested in attention whoring do not win national elections.
There may be a standing curse on senators who run for President but Allen was also a governor of a state.
Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., was never a senator. George Herbert Walker Bush was never a senator but LOST two Senate races: 1964 and 1970, to Yarborough and Bentsen, respectively. HST was of course a U.S. senator but not well-known until the convention tapped him in 1944.
"I believe the so-called hex refers to sitting Senators running for president."
There's not nearly enough evidence to support that. The only correlation there can be explained by the fact that Senators are often nominated out of prominence and seniority when there aren't any particularly strong candidates to nominate.
You gotta be kidding. McCain has lost all respect of the conservative Republicans I know.
How about Rice/Inhofe, or vice versa?
Cheney is NOT running, that much I can assure you. Allen wont do much. Its Guiliani vs McCain in 08
I doubt he'd run (yet, anyway) but Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas would be an interesting possibility.
If he can win the city of Lansing(2002) and Ingham County(02, almost again in 04), he can certainly win statewide.
I think all of your Dem friends were right, but it sounds to me like they were basing their comments on an incorrect understanding of the cause/effect relationship with Kerry. Kerry didn't lose because he was a U.S. Senator -- he was a U.S. Senator because he's a loser in every sense of the word when it comes to exhibiting the qualities of leadership that voters like to see in presidential candidates.
The problem with a U.S. Senator is that he is caught between two worlds. He spends most of his time in the national spotlight in Washington, but still represents his home state. Therefore, he often takes positions as a Senator for the benefit of his home state that don't go over well with voters in other parts of the country. As a result, he spends a lot of time on the campaign trail explaining his prior track record, twisting himself into knots explaining away his votes, and sometimes even blatantly talking out of both sides of his mouth. (Hmmm -- does this sound like John Kerry, or what?!)
A governor, on the other hand, almost never has to apologize for the positions he took in his executive capacity. Even his most controversial actions rarely affect the nation as a whole, and most voters are smart enough to understand that the governor of State X only serves the voters of State X. The fact that most governors are considered "outsiders" in Washington reinforces this image even further.
I'll work very hard against him or Hagel.
"Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., was never a senator"
You're right, he was a representative, I forgot about that. My point remains though... there's just no statistical justification for saying that senators can't get elected. There aren't nearly enough examples to confirm tha theory since most Senators that got elected served as VP as well. If you take those out, of course you're going to get an odd result.
If you make enough qualifiers you can find an omen in anything. I've never been in a car accident on a tuesday in march... so what? Does that mean I can drive like a maniac the first Tuesday of next March?
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.