Posted on 09/24/2015 6:43:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
I liked Scott Walker, I really did. I still do. His record of accomplishment as governor of Wisconsin is unrivaled, both by his fellow governors and by its success. That being said, he was a horrible presidential candidate.
Still, Walker dropping out of the race so early came as a shock to the political world. He’d been the frontrunner most of the spring and summer. But once he started to slide, as all early frontrunners do, he seemed lost as to how to stop it.
The Walker campaign had a lot of problems, and every one of them was self-inflicted. A lot of pundits say the emergence of Donald Trump killed the Walker campaign. It did not. Scott Walker’s campaign failed because he, like many before him, drew his line in Iowa.
Iowa has a lot of allure for Republican presidential hopefuls. It goes first and starting strong “feels” like the right way to win. It’s rural, so a limited government appeal will work with people who simply want to be left alone by Washington. It’s a caucus, so you need dedicated supporters willing to put in some time to have their votes count.
The last point is true, but it costs a lot of money, which helped kill Walker. The first two couldn’t be more wrong.
Iowa is the fool’s gold of Republican politics.
Winning the Iowa caucus is not the key to winning the Republican nomination. Since 1980, the Iowa caucus has been an abysmal predictor of who the eventual GOP nominee will be. The only Republican candidates who were not running unopposed to win the caucus and the nomination are Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Every other “winner” went on to lose the nomination.
George H. W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bob Dole beat George H. W. Bush in 1988. Reagan won in 1984, Bush the elder in 1992, and Bush the younger in 2004, but all were unopposed and incumbents.
Remember President Mike Huckabee’s tenure in the White House? How about President Rick Santorum? They won Iowa in 2008 and 2012, respectively, and lost the nomination. Dole at least won the caucus and the nomination in his 1996 try but was beaten soundly in the general election.
Iowa is the race you don’t want to win. It may seem like a sprint, like you have to hit the ground running. But this isn’t a 100-yard dash; it’s a marathon. The fastest person off the starting line is rarely the first one across the finish line.
What Iowa should be is a place for candidates to get their sea legs and get used to the scrutiny that comes with campaigning on a bigger stage than they’ve ever been on before. It helps weed out candidates but usually only candidates who decree Iowa their “make or break” state. Walker did just that.
All the time and money Walker spent in Iowa was wasted. Not just because he’s now out of the race, but because it wouldn’t have mattered.
Iowa voters, as history shows, are not indicative of Republican voters throughout the rest of the country. They like subsidies. No, they LOVE subsidies. If you don’t support tax dollars for ethanol forget it.
That doesn’t sell with conservatives outside of Iowa. Candidates are left with a political dilemma – sell out conservative principles to appeal to voters in a state you probably won’t win in the general election, or tell a bunch of Americans you want to derail their gravy train and ensure you won’t win the state in the general. They can’t win, and they shouldn’t play.
Scott Walker put all his eggs in the Iowa basket.
Where Iowa fails, New Hampshire succeeds. Although not a perfect indicator, the Granite State picked non-incumbents Reagan in ’80, Bush in ’88, McCain in ’08, and Romney in ’12. Winning Iowa doesn’t help win anything else; winning New Hampshire, or even performing well, does.
Walker’s campaign spent a lot of time and money in Iowa, appealing to Iowans on issues Iowans care about. Although there is a Venn diagram overlap in what Iowa caucus goers and the following primary state voters care about, it’s a small group. By focusing on Iowa, Walker ignored the rest of the country. The rest of the country noticed…or, more precisely, didn’t notice Scott Walker.
Then, as always happens, Iowans noticed someone else, Walker’s support dried up, the basket was gone. And now, so is Scott Walker.
The shiny appeal of Iowa now will set about seducing its next mistress, who will spend a lot of time and money trying to seduce caucus goers – and perhaps will. If you have a favorite candidate left in the race, you’d better hope he or she can resist the allure of that fool’s gold.
C’mon .. I know you’re smarter than that.
THIS HAS REAL PURPOSE. GW Bush wrote a EO citing this same legislation (just as every president does). That’s why, on 9/11, GW was able to enact all sorts of emergency plans .. because of this legislation.
When are people going to realize that having this emergency power is vital to our security ..??
And .. it was also this power that allowed our Special Forces to land in Afghanistan on 9/12.
Seems likely to me as well, at least from this far.
Of course, a lot of Trump supporters will show up for the straw vote and leave, letting the same old people remain in charge of the next rounds and the party. We saw it last cycle with Santorum supporters.
Events are isolated in time. Check a dictionary.
Just because it's happened over time doesn't make it less of a threat.
There is a distinction between a threat and an emergency. Emergencies, by definition (such things do matter in law) is an unexpected event.
Your original premise was that it can't and won't be done. So now you are contradicting yourself. But feel free to enlighten us on what that way is.
No, what I was saying was that Trump's way of doing it can't be done. That's because it involves 1 of 15 US residents. I want you to imagine the scale of force that would require as executed by the government.
See posts 44 and 46 of this thread for what I propose to do.
.... introducing bills are not going to be fast enough to save us from the utter destruction Zero and his henchmen have imposed on the USA. It’s going to take much higher-level, radical measures.. . .
It’s going to take a “big” person who’s willing to stomp on the status quo and “break things” (bull in china shop) & not be worried about who will be ‘angry’ when Obama’s destructive policies/laws are reversed or gutted. I like Cruz ... I really do, but my gut tells me he’s too polite & will play within the usual ‘rules’. None of the other candidates are even close .... will be same ‘ol, same ‘ol & Obama’s “legacy”, domestic & foreign will end up set in stone. I believe Trump has the right mindset (like going big with the wall) to turn things around ... will he or can he actually do it remains to be seen. Considering the radical Leftist Obama & what he’s done, I’m willing to take a chance on someone who will be more “radical” than bought/paid for politicians ... just hope he heads to the Right with a vengeance.
Phil's footnote: I concur with this twin diagnosis-prognosis.
We have won in 2010 and 2014; we have passed legislation directing the construction of the wall/fence.
Boehner and McConnell present as collaborator's in Obama's destruction.
Iran, Russia, China, ISIS, immigration-invasion loom.
The times require a battering ram in company with a statesman-diplomat.
I find a Trump-Cruz ticket offers the best opportunity for victory and success/survival.
Yup, which is why I get very specific as to what constitutes an emergency.
When are people going to realize that having this emergency power is vital to our security ..??
Emergency powers are vital, and are not a threat to our security as long as they are defined in scope, temporally, spatially, and situationally.
And .. it was also this power that allowed our Special Forces to land in Afghanistan on 9/12.
A lot of good that war did.
Great point. Rush has said this. One thing is that I still don’t think people like Zero that much, but they weren’t going to let the first black prez fail or even be perceived as failing. But after he’s gone? I think he will not be missed.
Good one, Vet.
With Walker out, Cruz looks very good in Iowa. Can see King or Vander Plaats going anywhere else.
Carry: OK, OK. I must admit my response was quite visceral and born of seething frustration at what the douchenozzles in DC have done to our country. I understand that this is a crisis decades in the making, and there is a legal minefield to navigate to reach a solution. Please accept my most humble apology for lashing out at you.
Not a problem, especially after having been so richly rewarded with: “douchenozzles” which, although certainly graphic and appropriately malodorous... I suspect you’d agree “enemahoses” might be more appropriate. Or are you saving that one for a special occasion?
Nope. All done with my vitriol. Carry on.
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.
