Giuliani no longer the sole frontrunner - Page 2 - Political Forum

Albinonewt · 12-04-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

I think that it's important to note that no Republican candidate has ever won the nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. Every Republican winner has won one of those two states, and it isn't just chance. For some reason people are concerned with "voting for the winner", and that's why the guy who takes these early states takes the nation.

That's traditionally true, but with the truncated time schedule and super duper Tuesday that may not be true any longer. It'll be a very interesting election because the mechanics of it are so different. Will the conventional wisdom and traditional trends remain the same? They might, but I don't think anybody knows right now.

Troianii · 12-04-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albinonewt

That's traditionally true, but with the truncated time schedule and super duper Tuesday that may not be true any longer. It'll be a very interesting election because the mechanics of it are so different. Will the conventional wisdom and traditional trends remain the same? They might, but I don't think anybody knows right now.

It's possible that they won't but over a hundred years of history is the best guess at this point, and even if slingshot effect isn't as powerful as it once was, I think that anyone would say that it still affects the race, and with almost all of the candidates within 6% of the leading spot, the slingshot effect is certainly something worth noting.

Caltex · 12-04-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

It's possible that they won't but over a hundred years of history is the best guess at this point, and even if slingshot effect isn't as powerful as it once was, I think that anyone would say that it still affects the race, and with almost all of the candidates within 6% of the leading spot, the slingshot effect is certainly something worth noting.

More like 30 years of history. The Republican party began using the primary system in the 1970's.

Jimmy Carter was the first President elected who received a nomination through the primary system. His election also was the first to show the slingshot effect.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 12-04-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

Yeah, I'm amazed Thompson still has the level of support that he has. I'm not sure what anyone sees in him.

I'm not well read on the campaign finance reform being opposed by the religious right. What reason do they have to be against it, they can still donate as much as anyone else.

If I were a social and economic conservative I would not walk, I would RUN to Huckabee. You got:

* A guy who has a genuine appeal
* No dirty laundry
* Solid social conservative credentials

The only thing he doesn't have is the campaign organization/ money / the big gun campaign experts. I would dump Thompson so fast he would be back doing Law & Order in time for the next season.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 12-04-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

I moreorless agree with your assessment, especially regarding Mitt Romney but I wouldn't completely throw out McCain or Fred Thompson yet since this is the time in which people actually start paying attention and there is no way of knowing just how far Huckabee is actually going to rise.

It is possible. Huckabee is hobbled by his weak financial base, and probably less talented campaign staff, IMO.

Troianii · 12-04-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

More like 30 years of history. The Republican party began using the primary system in the 1970's.

Jimmy Carter was the first President elected who received a nomination through the primary system. His election also was the first to show the slingshot effect.

I was forced to do some research, and the system has obviously changed over time. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'd appreciate if you clarified.

United States presidential primary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The primary received its first major test in the 1912 election pitting incumbent President William Howard Taft against challengers Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Roosevelt proved the most popular candidate, but as most primaries were non-binding "preference" shows, the Republican nomination went to Taft, who controlled the convention.

Granted, it's wikipedia.

Albinonewt · 12-04-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

It's possible that they won't but over a hundred years of history is the best guess at this point, and even if slingshot effect isn't as powerful as it once was, I think that anyone would say that it still affects the race, and with almost all of the candidates within 6% of the leading spot, the slingshot effect is certainly something worth noting.

Winning is always better then losing, but it remains to be seen if there is enough time for there be a slingshot effect. And with half the races decided on feb 5 that would tend to favor someone like a Giuliani or Romney (tons of resources to compete in all those race) and work against a Huckabee or McCain (can't afford to compete in all the races)

Albinonewt · 12-04-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

If I were a social and economic conservative I would not walk, I would RUN to Huckabee. You got:

* A guy who has a genuine appeal
* No dirty laundry
* Solid social conservative credentials

Well, there seems to be that he has some dirty laundry. He got hit with some of it by Chris Wallace a few weeks ago and I imagine there's more out there. Apparently he had real wars with his political opposition in Arkansas.

One of the things Huckabee has for/against him is his populism. I think being a populist will make him very appealing in the general (and because of it I don't think the people saying he's useless in the general are right) but I'm not sure how useful that is in the primary.

In just about any head to head match up in the primaries I think he loses. His best bet is for the race to stay as big as possible for a long as possible. And that will probably happen, both Giuliani and Romney are swimming in cash, and to some degree so is Ron Paul.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 12-04-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albinonewt

Well, there seems to be that he has some dirty laundry. He got hit with some of it by Chris Wallace a few weeks ago and I imagine there's more out there. Apparently he had real wars with his political opposition in Arkansas.

One of the things Huckabee has for/against him is his populism. I think being a populist will make him very appealing in the general (and because of it I don't think the people saying he's useless in the general are right) but I'm not sure how useful that is in the primary.

In just about any head to head match up in the primaries I think he loses. His best bet is for the race to stay as big as possible for a long as possible. And that will probably happen, both Giuliani and Romney are swimming in cash, and to some degree so is Ron Paul.

It's gonna be tough for Huck. I really think that the lack of cash is going to make a big difference for him. Like you pointed out, there's a ton of other states out there that will be voting on February 5th. I doubt Huck has scratched the surface there. Huck has made himself a lot more conservative by clearly advocating the Fair Tax. If Romney can get away with running to the left of Ted Kennedy and being the social conservative canddiate, Huck can sell himself as an economic conservative if he tries hard enough, IMO.

Caltex · 12-04-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troianii

I was forced to do some research, and the system has obviously changed over time. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I'd appreciate if you clarified.

United States presidential primary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Granted, it's wikipedia.

The primary process used to be a voting process at the Party Convention by the delgates from each state. The state parties would chose their delegates, and the delegates would go to the convention and put the states vote forward for the candidate they chose.

Following the controversial 1968 election, the Democratic party, reacting to demands by it's base, formed the process with the McGovern-Frasier commision as we know know it. Now the delegates still go and vote at the Party Convention, but in nearly every state they are bound to vote how the party members voted in a special primary election.

So basically, the power is now in the hands of the general public and not the party elite now. Before the 1972 Election, there were no general electorate party member primary votes.