Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 12/31/2007 12:05:51 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
With five Republican and three Democratic presidential hopefuls in double digits in the national polls of their respective parties and with dozens of issues ranging from gay marriage to the war in Iraq, the decisions that voters will be asked to make in the next several weeks might appear quite complicated. But it shouldn’t be. Voters should take only one consideration into account in deciding who to support in their party’s upcoming caucus or primary. That consideration is which of the party’s set of possible candidates is most electable next November.
Electability.
Electability is always a consideration in a nomination contest, but it ought to knock out any other consideration this year. There are three reasons why electability should trump everything else. First, the parties are quite polarized. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be far to more liberal than whoever the Republicans nominate. Big fights over who is the slightly more conservative Republican or the slightly more liberal Democrat look like splitting hairs from the broader perspective of the differences between the parties. Though cynics and extremists like to think of the parties as the Republicrats, the ideological differences between the parties have grown in the last couple of decades and ideological differences within each party have declined.
The second reason that electability ought to rule decisions this year is that the parties are quite competitively balanced. The 2000 and 2004 elections were quite close, party identifications of voters have been quite evenly divided in recent years, and divisions in the House and Senate are quite close as well. Neither party has a lock on the White House. Each needs every edge it can get.
The third reason is that uncertainty is especially great in an open seat election. While Democrats appear to have an edge at this point, they don’t know how strong a race the Republican candidate is likely to run next fall and Republicans have less of an idea than usual about the strength of their likely Democratic opponent. While either party might win the election without running its most electable candidate, taking less than their best shot is running a huge risk.
Two things should be made clear about electability. First, it does not mean that each party should necessarily nominate its most centrist candidate. To win the election, a candidate needs both to build enthusiasm and turnout from his or her base AND reach out to the centrist swing voters. You can’t win without doing both better than the other party’s candidate. Second, preference polls with head-to-head match-ups of the candidates in the two parties do not mean anything at this point in the election year. Even by June, when both nominations have been sewn-up, the frontrunner in the polls is about as likely to lose as win the November election.
If electability should be the key to each primary or caucus vote, who should each party’s voters support? Let’s size up the Republicans here and hold off on the Democrats until the next blog entry.
Who the Republicans Should Nominate.
First, I cannot imagine Mitt Romney being anything but a disaster for the Republicans. The debate with Ted Kennedy video alone in which Romney took outright liberal positions on a number of social issues would smother support in the base and paint him as untrustworthy for centrists. Any Republican wanting to win in November should jump off the Romney ship now.
That leaves four. Rudy Giuliani has a number of strengths, but will have problems with the base on social issues and these are only reinforced by having too many ex-wives hanging around. In family values, the values are plural, but family is singular. He also is very unlikely to even carry his home state of New York.
That leaves three. Mike Huckabee has developed a good deal of momentum in recent weeks. He is conservative on social issues and has a very pleasant communication style. He exudes optimism. On the down-side, he is too closely tied to the Christian Right to effectively reach out to centrists. He has made several intemperate statements, regarding the role of women and also about the Bush administration’s foreign policy, that will haunt a general election campaign. He has even had a run in with Rush Limbaugh. In short, there are a number of signs that he is not a “big tent” conservative.
And then there were two—John McCain and Fred Thompson. McCain certainly has an appeal to centrists and a good deal of respect among Republicans. The record suggests, however, that the Republican base does not trust McCain. Where he has done well in the past is largely in primaries that have allowed non-Republicans to participate. His stands on illegal immigration and on the so-called “nuclear option” on Senate voting on judicial appointments have done nothing to mend these fences.
This leaves Fred Thompson as the Republican presidential candidate who may be most electable. He entered the race late and is fifth in the national polls, but my sense is that he would be more acceptable to the base than either Giuliani or McCain and better among centrist swing voters than Huckabee. He also has a more consistently conservative record than Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani and is far more acceptable to conservatives on the immigration issue than McCain. Though some have written Thompson off at this point, if he can hold on and the field thins a bit, Republicans should give him a second look and move in his direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Campbell is a professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. He is a former Congressional Fellow, a former program director at the National Science Foundation, and the president-elect of Pi Sigma Alpha, the national political science honor society. He has published four books, fifteen book chapters, and nearly fifty articles in scholarly journals. His books include The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections, Cheap Seats: The Democratic Party's Advantage in U.S. House Elections, and Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. His most recent book is the second edition of The American Campaign, to be published in January 2008 by Texas A&M University Press.
How can the far right be for Huckabee when Huckabee is far left?
Fred Thompson is the only one who can rally conservative democrats in the general election.
Fred is not short. The fundraising effort exceeded the goal.
This is totally goofy.
Electability.Keyes/Hunter'08!
Fool's gold.
Mccain would actually get more support from the media and democrats. The Republican base hates him PERIOD.
Romney will also get savaged by the Christian Right. As a Catholic I don’t understand why I am supposed to afraid of Mitt, but many Christians are and they will not support him.
Huck is turning out to be an affable buffoon. He IS too close to people that will spook and rally the democrat base.
Fred is pro life intelligent and “sounds” like a president. If the war on terror stays on the lemmings screen, Fred could be a very attractive candidate. If America feels she needs a warrior leader, she will turn to a southerner. Our warriors come from the South.
Fred is the only candidate that could start the general election cycle without a major voting block vowing to stop him.
He is electable and is now my pick.
So I should vote for somebody whose values are at odds with my own on the basis of a letter appearing in parenthesis after his name? I don't think so. If it comes down to it I will vote against Clinton, but if her opponent is a liberal with an (R) after his name mine will not be a vote cast in his favor.
That is a lie. He went way above what he asked for.
The Proto-typical Frederalist argument: “I cannot imagine Mitt Romney being anything but a disaster for the Republicans....”
There you have it ladies and gentlemen, the lack of imagination that gravitates to a lackluster campaign. The disaster he speaks of has already happened, it occurred in 2006, and it happened because of the lack of imagination within the leadership of the Republican Party.
Elections really can turn on the stupidest things. During the 1972 Canadian election campaign, the Conservatives were poised to oust Pierre Trudeau. Bob Stanfield, the party leader, spent a day at a stadium tossing a football around with some of the players for the local team and several photographs were shot. During the session he dropped the ball once, and the next day that photo appeared on the front page of every newspaper in the country. He lost the election by two seats.
Got a link?
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
No, he doesn’t have a link because he’s lying. The goal was about $249,000 6:00 Friday and we raised well over $250,000 by that time.
I'm not saying Romney couldn't possibly win the general election, but I do think he carries enough baggage with him that the author of the piece isn't totally off the reservation.
Voters should take only one consideration into account in deciding who to support in their party’s upcoming caucus or primary. That consideration is which of the party’s set of possible candidates is most electable next November.
NO.
I like Fred, but this is exactly the wrong consideration.
The nominee must be reliably conservative. That's what matters, first and foremost. We don't need a good-looking RINO to carry the banner - that doesn't do the country any good.
Besides, "electability" is a red herring in most cases.
Not really. The problem with the term is it is used by people that don’t understand, or just flat out lie, who and what is electable.
Anti-gun is unelectable for any Republican. It is the wedge issue that puts them over the top. Without the pro-gun Dems and Inds you lose.
Scratch Romney and Rooty on that issue alone.
McCain is rather iffy on that issue as well.
You are down to Huck, Fred, Hunter, Keyes?, and Paul.
It’s not hard to pick the most electable from that group based on all the other issues. Just pick the one that can rally the Republican base without losing any of them.
Right now Fred's about $57,000 short for his last TV spot before voting begins in Iowa. This really is a make it or break it week for Thompson.
Go Fred...
Go Fred...
Go Fred...
Go Fred...
Go Fred...
Go Fred...
This photo sunk Dukakis in 1988.
People just could not imagine this guy being CINC of the most powerful military in the world.
No it doesn't. It means you seem to have a shot at winning. that is the difference. Perception is not the same as truth.
Mike Huckabee is somebody's darling this month, but he's not going to get the nomination because he wouldn't be able to win.
True. Without the fiscal/libertarian vote (which he will never get) Huckabee is doomed. However, the Christian faction has a better chance of forcing a candidate than any other because they can attract Christian Dems in huge numbers. Huckabee doesn't seem the sort to command that kind of support.
Rudy is "electable", even though I would have to hold my nose with vise grips while voting.
Absolutely FALSE. Rudy is by FAR the most unelectable. The base will walk away en masse. The Christians will leave the party (me included). Once a Christian Conservative party is formed, the Republicans will have a very hard time surviving.
Fred will always be 'electable'
No, Fred cannot win without the Christians, and I doubt he will be able to forge a relationship with them.
If you just dismiss "electability" and go with whatever yo-yo you happen to 'feel' good about, you are going to end up with Hillary
What will win is that which conforms to Conservative principles. Without support from the entire Conservative base, there is no success in the general. The guy with the best Conservative credentials, and the record to prove it, is the candidate of consensus and is the best chance of a win in the general.
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.