As I mention in subsequent responses in the thread I linked, I detail the fact that with the exception of candidates elected on the strength of their leadership as victorious Generals (Washington, Taylor, Garfield, Grant, Eisenhower), there have only been five Presidents who were neither Senators nor Governors: James Madison, Abraham Lincoln (who was a national figure after his debates with Stephen Douglas, who defeated him in an Illinois Senate race), and Millard Fillmore were Congressmen (Fillmore was selected out of NY State's Comptroller's office to be Taylor's VP); William Howard Taft was Theodore Roosevelt's hand-picked governor of the Philippines and Cuba; Herbert Hoover was Calvin Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. More here.
This is a unique election. For the first time in our history, we have an african-american, a woman, a cross-dressing gun-grabbing Italian socialist, a mormon, a certified nutcase former POW, and a certified nutcase libertarian all vying for the slot, most with poll numbers that show current viability, and all basically with serious flaws. Anything can happen and in this election, already has. History has ceased to be a guide.
It sure hasn't when it comes to members of Congress getting to the White House.
Basically what you’re getting at here is Hunter’s [gosh where have we heard this before?] name recognition. But who around here ever heard of Dan Quayle before he was named as VP candidate? Very few.
Quayle had already won statewide office in Indiana.
Name recognition is something that can be gained within one election cycle because the process itself generates the name recognition. Character is more important than name recognition because you cannot buy character.
Under ideal conditions, perhaps. But remember who the front runners in both parties are: Hillary and Rudy. Why do you think that is? Their character, or their name recognition?
Giuliani, if he should win (which I don't think will happen even if he gets the nomination), would be the first President ever to go from Mayor to President. So what's the diff between him and Hunter? Everyone who knows anything about politics knows who Rudy is. Don't forget that when Time magazine chickened out of making Osama bin Laden its "Person of the Year" in 2001, they selected Giuliani instead.
Hunter couldn't buy that kind of publicity, and if he did, he would still have to perform well at campaign events. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Hunter hasn't broken away from the pack.
Neither..it's money.
A few months back, before any "front runners" were determined by polls, did you notice the beginning of the coverage of the candidates? All really cool picks popping up on the News monitors and in the papers that set the idea in everyones minds who "the" candidates are. The images were of Hillary (liberal DC money), Obama (liberal Chicago money) and Rudy (liberal NY money)....but NONE of the other candidates. This is called subliminal suggestion and mind control.
Before all this, no one knew who the h@ll Obama was....
Wake up sheep.
As I mention in subsequent responses....
***Again this is one, long, extended name recognition argument. That does not mean that it CANNOT happen.
Kevmo: History has ceased to be a guide.
Smithee: It sure hasn’t when it comes to members of Congress getting to the White House.
***It sure has. Note that this is just a statement, like what you say is just a statement. I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down because I’m so certain that I’m correct. All that huffing and puffing isn’t an argument to bolster your point.
Kevmo: But who around here ever heard of Dan Quayle before he was named as VP candidate? Very few.
Smithee: Quayle had already won statewide office in Indiana.
***Circular argument. Your argument is that you CAN’T (your word — CANNOT) win the presidency without some kind of statewide post like guvner. The reason? It somehow generates that magical factor of Name recognition. Quayle had very little name recognition. Your response to that: he had wond statewide office.
Kevmo: Name recognition is something that can be gained within one election cycle because the process itself generates the name recognition.
Smithee: Under ideal conditions, perhaps.
***Thanks for acknowledging my case. I do not concede that it needs to happen under ideal conditions. Such conditions never take place, so it falls by the weight of its own presumption. If anything, these kinds of things happen under the free-for-all types of races that we see right now. If I said that an actor with very little political experience could win the guvnership of Cahleefornyea, you’d say “under ideal conditions”. What was ideal about the recall and the gigantic mess it made? There was nothing ideal about it. But the fluid battlefield motions on the ground are the right conditions for this kind of thing to take place.
But remember who the front runners in both parties are: Hillary and Rudy. Why do you think that is? Their character, or their name recognition?
***Their name recognition. That tells me that the whole process needs to change on the republican side. It also tells me that the republican party is headed for a major internecine battle, that Thompson was the chosen one to lead it and he faltered when he was called up to lead the charge. We need someone with real courage, not Hollywood courage.
Giuliani, if he should win (which I don’t think will happen even if he gets the nomination), would be the first President ever to go from Mayor to President. So what’s the diff between him and Hunter?
***Wouldn’t that negate your point that he needs to have won a state office? Rudy chose to take a pass on the statewide office when it was [guess who] Hillary that he would have been up against. But now he’s supposed to be the frontrunner to take on Hillary in an even bigger battle? That kind of setup is what leads to very fluid conditions on the ground, and that is where it’s possible that a guy like Hunter can win, and win big.
Everyone who knows anything about politics knows who Rudy is. Don’t forget that when Time magazine chickened out of making Osama bin Laden its “Person of the Year” in 2001, they selected Giuliani instead.
***So, tootyfruityrudy has name recognition. Again we go back to your one, long, extended name recognition argument.
Hunter couldn’t buy that kind of publicity, and if he did, he would still have to perform well at campaign events. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Hunter hasn’t broken away from the pack.
***Yes, Hunter could buy that kind of publicity. Dan Quayle had it granted to him as a result of the process. A 12 year old could run against Hitlery if he was conservative enough to get the liberal media into an anti-conservative frenzy.