Do Vanity Candidates Really Have a Chance? (Michael Medved)

Michael Medved's Townhall Blog ^ | February 8, 2007 | Michael Medved

[EveningStar]

Two days ago, in blogging about the abortion records of the serious GOP Presidential prospects (McCain, Giuliani, Romney), I provoked a great deal of anger by writing off the other current contenders (Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Ron Paul, Gilmore, Thompson, Duncan Hunter) as "lesser" candidates who stand no realistic chance of winning primaries or grabbing the nomination. No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power...

When, in the last 60 years of Presidential politics, did any obscure underdog manage to defy the odds and win the nomination of the Republican Party?...

[zbigreddogz]

Did you read the article? Your comments indicate that you did not.

[c-b 1]

There was a time when the republican party was a 3rd party.

They are apt to become as irrelevant as a third party if they continue down the path they're on.

[EveningStar]

He's not knocking the vanities themselves. He knocking the people who think those vanities can really win.

[pollyannaish]

Most who say they haven't decided yet are ashamed to say who they are for and can't take the heat of having to support their candidate.

You're kidding right? Maybe its because we're the same ones who are smart enough to not marry the first person that winks at us.

[AmishDude]

This is not quite true. The fact is, Paul Tsongas was generally liked by the NPR crowd of the Democrat-ick party and was seen as the eventual winner, with Jerry Brown being the liberal "standardbearer". Clinton was going to be an also-ran until 60 Minutes saved his bacon.

[SoCalPol]

I have faced down hundreds and a few thousands of anti war marchers many times with other Freepers and Protest Warriors,
I deal with the left face to face.
also have been working in politics since first working for Reagan when he ran for Gov.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Dole wasn't out polling Clinton, or never even came close to it the whole time he ran.

Rudy has lead Hillary in most every poll across the nation from the first day he was ever projected to run.

Any more theories?

[SaxxonWoods]

"You sound like another one of the keyboard commandos in your mom's basement who can't face the truth."

I'm a pragmatist with my vote, and I left Mom's basement 40 years ago. You know that politics in self-governed countries is a matter of compromise. I just think it's funny that people hang around this echo chamber at FR and think the majority of people in the USA are their brand of "true conservative." It's laughable. (Mom thinks I'm a Rethuglican Nazi by the way.) She's right, I am. But I'm not one these "my way or the highway" types when it comes to national elections. That was fine before the War on Islamo-Nazism. I never thought I would be a one-issue voter, but times have changed.

[AmishDude]

yes, it would be silly to vote your convictions.

Read the tagline.

[Torie]

Some clever chap worded and persuaded JimRob to put up the following poll:

If Romney, McCain, and Giuliani were the only names on the ballot for the GOP 2008 nomination, whom would you vote for?

Composite Opinion

  Giuliani   44.7% 		3,247
    Romney   28.6% 		2,076
Sit it out   21.2% 		1,540
    McCain    5.4% 		  395
	     99.9% 		7,258

[pollyannaish]

You're so good at being bad. I've been laughing myself silly.

I've got to go play a game with the kids. Have a good time. I'll be back later to check in on fun.

[RJL]

No matter how much you may admire these people, their candidacies are irrelevant – more a bid for attention, or a preparation for future races, than a realistic bid for power...

Bill Clinton, the Governor of Arkansas making $35,000 a year, no one had ever heard him and he became quite well known.

If large numbers of people support these "lesser" candidates they will enter the national spotlight and be very well known and very credible candidates.

[AmishDude]

Dean was not annointed. Not in the least. People forget but Kerry was the very early favorite. The media was fascinated (and a little scared) by the Dean boom.

Dean got into Iowa and -- lo and behold -- no money and no organization did him in.

[SaxxonWoods]

Good to "see" you, beautiful! Take care...

[staytrue]

In the GOP, however, front-runners don’t just usually win; they always win.

The last time a genuine underdog grabbed the Republican nomination was 68 years ago, when a celebrity lawyer with no political experience named Wendell Wilkie managed to stampede a divided convention.

Mortgage your house and donate it all to Tancredo.

[SoCalPol]

I would rather support someone with decades of experience in military and national security.
I confront democrats daily with the issues some of you on FR might want to do the same rather than rip other republicans.
But then again, there are many on FR who arn't republicans.

[staytrue]

There was a time when the republican party was a 3rd party.

Ah yes, the good old days.

[MistrX]

Actually, he was known as Howard and Harold.

[AmishDude]

I never would have figured that McCain (old, mean and crazy his own self) would lose to half a vote for Hillary.

[SaxxonWoods]

OK, I'll behave for a minute. Does Hunter have a site where I can read his policy positions? And how do I learn his history, to make sure he isn't a pander-bear?