"The self-contradicting examples are Jimmuh Cartuh and Dean."
The article is the proof. I don't think Dick Morris is going to write an article that contradicts historical reality. Dean was not the frontrunner in March 2003. Kerry was the frontrunner. Dean didn't surge until summer 2003 but faded in Iowa and the original frontrunner, Kerry, won the nomination.
"Among Democrats, Kennedy in ’60, Humphrey, once he entered the race, in ’68, McGovern in ’72, Carter in ’76 and ’80, Mondale in ’84, Dukakis in ’88, Clinton in ’92, Gore in ’00 and Kerry in ’04 were front-runners who held their leads. Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were front-runners who were briefly shaken by challengers (Hart, Tsongas, Bradley and Dean) but held on to win their nominations."
Jimmy Carter is the exception, not the rule.
The article is not proof. It is simply evidence that supports your assertion. If you want to put your faith in the toesucker, be my guest.
It looks like flashbunny deconstructed your argument. No need for me to pursue that further.
Your original contention was "The early frontrunner for the GOP nomination hasn't lost since 1952." From that statement we gather that your intended argument is that, since Rudy is the so-called frontrunner, he will win the nomination. But that is a pretty bogus argument, if that's what you intend to push. No one knows the future, and the past isn't much of an indication in this race because it's such an unusual one, with a female front runner running against the first viable black candidate for the demos, and the first mormon, first italian-american crossdressing mayor, first whatever-is-next on the pubby side. Also, your contention that Giuliani is the clear front runner is pretty far off, considering that he lost the straw poll in Spartanburg yesterday to McCain. Not only that, but it's a lousy argument to motivate socons to vote for such a ridiculous candidate as rudy during the primaries.