Posted on 05/27/2011 12:45:15 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Similarly, had John McCain lost with Tim Pawlenty as his running mate in 2008 (and he would have), Pawlenty would have had at least as good a shot as Mitt Romney of taking the nomination this time around, his uninspiring persona notwithstanding. (Noah Millman)
It’s an intriguing suggestion, but I doubt it. Losing VP nominees rarely return later to become their party’s nominee, and when it has happened it has sometimes been many elections after the VP nomination. Yes, it happened in 1984 and 1996, but Mondale had been the Vice President when the Democrats lost in 1980, and Dole had to wait twenty years for “his turn” to arrive. Except for Mondale and Dole, no postwar losing VP nominee has prevailed or even been all that competitive in later contests. Quayle expressed interest in running during the 2000 cycle, but he couldn’t raise any money, and some conservatives talked up a Kemp candidacy at the same time to no avail. This is why a VP nomination for Pawlenty in 2008 wouldn’t have done him much good, and it is why Palin is not considered “next in line.”
Had Pawlenty been chosen in 2008, he would have been saddled with all of the baggage of the association with McCain without any of the benefits of the independent cult of personality that grew up around Palin. People wouldn’t have been asking, “Why can’t we have Pawlenty/McCain?” as some of Palin’s fans said about her. They would have been complaining that there was hardly any difference between the two of them, and the muttering and dissatisfaction with McCain would have bled over onto Pawlenty.
Pawlenty would not have had the opportunity to distance himself from all of the positions that he had taken before then, and he would have had to endorse some positions as McCain’s running mate that conservatives disliked. McCain supported a cap-and-trade position during the campaign, and Pawlenty would have had no difficulty agreeing with that. He would have been introduced to the country as a proud supporter of cap-and-trade instead of an embarrassed former supporter. Instead of being able to dodge the bailout issue by claiming to be a merely “reluctant” supporter, he would have been forced to defend McCain’s support of it.
Reinventing himself as the enemy of bailouts is already not very credible, but it would be even less so if he had been McCain’s VP choice. Unlike Palin, he would not have legions of die-hard fans who couldn’t care less about policy. One mixed blessing for Pawlenty is that he would already be nationally known, but everyone would have already formed an opinion about him, and it would have made it harder for him to run later as a “fresh face.” While Pawlenty may have resented being passed over in 2008, he ought to appreciate now that McCain unwittingly did him a favor by allowing him to remain in relative obscurity.
>>> While Pawlenty may have resented being passed over in 2008, he ought to appreciate now that McCain unwittingly did him a favor by allowing him to remain in relative obscurity. <<<
A position he still enjoys today and will for quite some time to come.
Pawlenty’s not a bad guy, and I think he’s more conservative than what he gets credit for here. With all that said, though, would ANYONE be excited by Tim Pawlenty as the GOP nominee?
The only person I could think of is President Zero.
We FReepers should see that we have only one viable conservative with a chance to win. And she’s warming up the bus.
She must be the obvious front runner and the biggest threat to Obama!
While Pawlenty may have resented being passed over in 2008, he ought to appreciate now that McCain unwittingly did him a favor by allowing him to remain in relative obscurity.
Just think how much better off she would have been if she hadn't accepted the VP nomination! She wouldn't have had a target on her back for the past 2 1/2 years, and she would still be the governor of Alaska. She would now hit the Republican primary race like a bolt out of the blue the same way she hit the presidential race upon her nomination for VP back in '08.
The Political Law of Names applies here. Candidates' names matter. It's not rational, but it's real.
Look at "Pawlent/McCain," and compare your visceral response to something like "Chandler/McCain," or "Jackson/McCain" (just to pick a couple of names).
Without looking at the candidate, which would you trust more: "Pawlenty" or "Jackson?"
"Pawlenty" is a silly-sounding name, and that automatically puts him three steps back. Fair? Heck no. But it matters.
The Kool-Aid is flowing freely, I see ;-)
>>>The Political Law of Names applies here. Candidates’ names matter. It’s not rational, but it’s real.<<<
You’re right. I see this as a big problem for Herman Cain - I can easily some folks with a quizzical look on their faces thinking, “Didn’t that guy already run?”
It worked for Obama, too, but in a different way - his name was so unusual that it stuck in the minds of people. The name Barack also ends on a hard glottal sound - which people sometimes think of as strength. (Compare the name “Mark” to someone named “Shelby.”)
By this reasoning, consider President Newt. ‘Nuff said.
On the other hand, having lived through the RINO onslaught that was the Lisa Murkowski write-in campaign, it is possible to overcome a name that isn’t the best. You should have seen the commercials and the efforts made up here in Alaska to get people to spell that name correctly. I don’t like her very much, but her campaign to spell the name right was brilliant. So all is not lost for Tim Pawlenty. And, as a good Minnesota boy, he’ll be high on the list for a post in the Bachmann cabinet in 2013.
And it is even more rare for a losing VP nominee to later become president. In the entire history of the republic, since the beginning of Pres/VP tickets (1804), there have been 52 elections. Many of the losing VP candidates have later tried to become president. Of those, only one has succeeded, and that was Franklin Roosevelt (1920 losing VP, 1932 winning president). That in itself makes Palin a longshot.
“Losing VP nominees rarely return later to become their party’s nominee. . . .”
Absolutely useless statistic. This is not a static condition ... each coin toss is individual. The odds of heads coming up in a coin toss 50 times in a row are astronomical. The odds of it coming up heads the fifty first time are even.
And it is even more rare for a losing VP nominee to later become president. In the entire history of the republic, since the beginning of Pres/VP tickets (1804), there have been 52 elections. Many of the losing VP candidates have later tried to become president. Of those, only one has succeeded, and that was Franklin Roosevelt (1920 losing VP, 1932 winning president). That in itself makes Palin a longshot.Losing VP nominees rarely return later to become their party’s nominee . . .
How many of those losing VP candidates were the top draw of the ticket like Palin was? McCain couldn't draw flies without Palin to headline his campaign appearances, so the ticket couldn't campaign in two places at a time.Your counterexample - FDR - matches up perfectly with Palin. You say he lost as VP in 1920; that was a Republican landslide after eight years of Wilson, and WWI. It was so adverse for the Democrats that the Republican candidate, Harding, is the only example in US history of a senator beating a governor in a presidential race. Likewise the country was ready for "hope and change" in 2008 after GWB, aggravated by the mortgage crisis brought on by the Democrats themselves. And a deeply flawed candidate walked away with the election. Like 1932, 2012 will be a landslide repudiation of the party in power - unless we nominate another McCain who is unwilling to fight. I trust Sarah Palin to fight.
Except that now the MSM and the left have already spent all their ammo on Palin and she’s still standing.
They failed to take her out.
Look out!
Boy, I'll tell you. This dweeb is either just plain stupid and young, or he is outright lying and omitting to make his point. Richard Milhouse Nixon, VP to Eisenhower and elected in 1968 after a prior loss to Kennedy. The point of this article isn't historical; it is to demoralize Sarah's base into thinking history says she can't win.
They failed to take her out.
Yes, but they were able to hit her harder because she was under McCain's thumb than they would this time, when she is her own person.The other thing is that now she has a base of support which she wouldn't have in place, but for the '08 campaign.But, it is what it is . . .
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.