Posted on 06/05/2013 1:13:35 PM PDT by nickcarraway
GOP presidential contenders wave to the crowd in Manchester, N.H., in 1980, before a debate. From left" Philip Crane, John Connelly, John Anderson, Howard Baker, Robert Dole, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
It's ridiculously, absurdly early to talk about 2016 presidential politics. Only a fool would try to predict who will be the next Republican nominee just seven months after the last election for the White House.
Still, in most election cycles, the GOP would already have an obvious front-runner by now, one who would more than likely prevail as the party's pick.
Not this time.
"This will be the most open Republican nomination in 50 years," says Tom Rath, a former GOP attorney general of New Hampshire and a veteran of early state presidential politics.
Plenty of Republicans had their doubts about the early front-runners in 2008 and 2012 — John McCain and Mitt Romney, respectively — but each ended up as the nominee.
This time, no one appears to be anointed. There are lots of likely candidates (Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie), question marks (former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, South Dakota Sen. John Thune), possibilities (Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker) and potential holdovers (former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry).
People in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina fully expect to see something in the neighborhood of 20 serious candidates stopping by to take soundings.
"There's no formidable candidate who's going to scare people out of the race," says Dave Carney, a GOP consultant and longtime Perry strategist. "There's no heir apparent."
Usually, there is. Republicans have given their candidates credit for time served, offering preference to the "next in line" vice president, veteran senator or candidate who paid his dues and knows the ropes from running the last time around.
For decades, the party has drawn from a small pool. There was a Bush or a Dole on every national ticket from 1976 through 2004. For 20 years before that, Richard Nixon was on the ballot in every election but one.
That type of dynamic is playing out this time around on the Democratic side. If presumptive favorite Hillary Clinton decides not to run, Vice President Joe Biden will have a leg up over lesser-known hopefuls such as Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Martin O'Malley of Maryland.
"It's been a long time since there really hasn't been an obvious front-runner [among Republicans]," says Lewis Gould, a historian who wrote Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans. "It's hard to see somebody becoming a juggernaut in the next eight or 12 months, so that by summer of 2014 people are saying, 'It's X's to lose.' We're a long way from that."
The result is likely to be a long nominating season. In contrast to the usual fashion, in which there's a king and a group of individuals aspiring to dethrone the king, a wide-open field means more candidates can linger in hopes of getting hot later in the game.
"When you get past New Hampshire, the field is usually down to two or three candidates," Rath says. "I'm not sure that will happen this time."
The lack of a clear front-runner reflects the number of competing factions in the party just now, says Chip Felkel, a Republican consultant based in South Carolina. It also gives candidates more of a chance to test-market ideas that might appeal to a broad constituency.
"The party needs to get through a serious bit of soul-searching," he says. "If you had a front-runner, you'd have all these people out there saying why that front-runner is no good."
Consultants like Carney also think it's good news that the candidates getting the most attention early on are mostly still in their 40s — young enough to be the children of Romney or McCain (or, in the case of Paul, actually being the child of ex-perennial hopeful Ron Paul).
"It's good for the brand to have young guys who are peers of the generation that the Republican Party is supposedly not doing well with," says Matt Reisetter, a GOP consultant in Iowa.
New faces, younger and non-Anglo candidates, and a longer nominating season may reconfigure the party's ultimate chances.
But people in the party are convinced they can't be any worse than the traditional formula, which has helped Republicans lose the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.
"Historically, Republican Party politics have all been about whose turn it was," Felkel says, "and that hasn't worked too well for us."
Or, require that all federal primaries be held between April 1st and April 15th.
Ya...Cruz/Paul or Paul/Cruz perhaps?
That is a huge problem.
Someone I've been thinking about -- although I understand not everyone was sure he was a good candidate -- is Herman Cain. I found him smart, appealing, a good speaker, with interesting ideas. I had him as one of my top picks.
The media found out that he knew a female who was not his wife. I'm not sure they slept together. As far as I know, they were mere friends.
That was enough for the media to destroy him -- and the GOP, of course, sat by and was pleased to let it happen.
Obama -- birh certificate, unemployment, deficits, Benghazi, IRS, EPA, lavish vacations, rampant corruption and constitutional abuse, a clearly stolen election.
What do we hear from the media? Pretty much crickets.
The Republican Party has to be little LESS EAGER to jump up and say "Oh! Scandal in our primary!He's not perfect! Get him off! Get him off! He's not electable! Go with the most electable guy!"
C'mon. Herman Cain got bumped so that we could get a second term of Obama, and this happened because Herman Cain was damaged goods.
Why do we help the media play that game?
Why would Cruz not be eligible?
Since 1984.....the nomination has gone to PhonyCon RINOs ....and that needs to change....yes even GW Bush was not a conservative
Out of all those names mentioned...Cruz and Santorum are the only ones I would consider...the rest have major liberal flaws...to an extent
Rush said today he wouldn’t be surprised if Christie runs for president as a Democrat.
nickcarraway ~: (from the article) “Historically, Republican Party politics have all been about whose turn it was,” Felkel says, “and that hasn’t worked too well for us.”
Obviously , the Repubs should be pushing Karl Rove as the candidate leader.
You know that the Libturds are formulating background hit pieces on the front runners .
He has such a good history of victories to his credit ...( /sarc)
Actually , the only difference that I see between the Repubs selection process ,
and the Reid controlled Senate legislative process ,
is the name of who is in charge and responsible.
They are equally run ... tyrannically !!
That just means that the winner of the GOP Primary will be too exhausted, damaged, and bankrupt to beat the Democrat in the General.
The GOP needs ONE candidate, and skip the damn Primary. Or at least just ONE conservative. We had to many in 2012, and ended up with Romney.
Cruz/Walker. Accept no substitutes.
I believe his father was a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, making him ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) clause in the Constitution.
I will easily substitute Trey Gowdy as my nominee.
” The media found out that he knew a female who was not his wife. I’m not sure they slept together. As far as I know, they were mere friends.
That was enough for the media to destroy him — and the GOP, of course, sat by and was pleased to let it happen.”
I think Rove, and the GOPe took Cain out.
.
Good comments and questions all.
I agree with you.
If there was some truth to the Cain story, I am willing to see him drop out. If there wasn’t, I say hang in there.
After railing on Clinton for morals issues for eight years, I don’t want to be a hypocrite about morals issues.
I’m not asking for someone who is perfect, but I am expecting some level of honesty and decency.
I do not consider his side “lefty” but do not forget I live in South Texas....San Antonio.....his position is no different than many conservatives I know....even some in politics. And who are our other choices? I know it is too early to panic...but it is getting close.
Is there any evidence that that was considered the standard for NBC 50 years ago?
Good ticket.
Awesome, but I would switch it around. Walker is a chief executive, and that is vitally important. I would hate to lose Cruz in the Senate, but I guess sacrifices have to be made.
I think there’s truth to that. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a lot more going on in the background than we knew about with regard to Cain.
Rove and the GOPe was hacking all our candidates but Romney to death. I honestly don’t understand that.
And it also bothers me to see one of our candidates make one slip of the tongue, and watch our own people cannibalize them.
Look at the carpola Obama has done, literally tons of it and he never gets hurt, but our folks make one miscue and it’s off to the political guillotine.
The man's middle name is Amnesty, and he's your number one choice for president???
Haven't we had enough fraudulent Republicans to last us a lifetime already?
Cruz has always impressed me as someone who will NOT back down, who will NOT mince words, and someone strong enough not to care how many people in Washington he pleases, in BOTH parties. He is like Rubio/Rand Paul on steroids. Should he want his star to rise, though, and become a legitimate contender, he’s got an uphill battle.
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.