2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

Herman's line, below, was removed from the graph.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images2/number_9.jpg

Quoted from Joe Klein:

Iowa Republicans are not neoconservatives. Ron Paul has gained ground after a debate in which his refusal to join the Iran warhawks was front and center. Indeed, in my travels around the country, I don’t meet many neoconservatives outside of Washington and New York. It’s one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.

What is this "again"??? None of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were fought for Israel's national security.

Name a nomination in the last 30 years or so that resembles the way this one has gone.

The Vietnam and Korean wars were about Israel.

If Romney does take it, it certainly won't resemble 2008; Giuliani and Hillary were heavy favourites just prior to Iowa. This would be a presumed front-runner reasserting himself after, what, five different people moved ahead of him? I don't remember anything like that.

I guess it's just easier to blame AIPAC for all these wars than to blame the American public for getting us into war after war after war for the last fifty years. xp

there isn't one but there also isn't a nomination that went anything like obama vs. clinton

pundits like to gain insight from comparing stuff to history but w/ american politics you're working w/ such a small sample set

xp

I agree. I think you could find nominations that pair up well in--as I always say--broad detail, but every one has different twists and turns. (My knowledge of American politics is pretty much post-war, so that's the sample set I'm always talking about.)

well there's even less to garner from comparing things to the pre-war nomination process

tbh I am amazed they aren't shoehoning in 5 more debates before New Year's

or shoehorning, even

those are some pretty sharp shoes you got there, Ron

dammit xpost

hahaha

Name a nomination in the last 30 years or so that resembles the way this one has gone.

You mean, ignoring all the pretty lights and flea circuses you live for? Dole's in '96 is close enough. ("No one else? Are we sure? Shit, you're it.")

This would be a presumed front-runner reasserting himself after, what, five different people moved ahead of him?

AAAAAGH, THERE'S BEEN NO BLOODY VOTING

polls aren't everything (esp w/ a caucus) but they aren't nothing

Yes--having not yet reached your level of political sophistication, Morbius, I live for them (not just merely find them entertaining). There's just nothing else going on.

FYI:

Going into the 1996 primary contest, Senate majority leader and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole was seen as the most likely winner. However, in the primaries and caucuses, social conservative Pat Buchanan received early victories in Alaska, Louisiana, a strong second place in the Iowa Caucus, and a surprising victory in the key New Hampshire primary, while Steve Forbes finished first in Delaware and Arizona.

this is like the vaporware version of the '96 primary

nah the difference is that even though they might have been crazyish human beings they were 'viable candidates'

whereas this has all been a big show

hated unacknowledged-corporatist "un-American" Democratic prez, etc.

Bob Dole was a viable candidate?

whereas this has all been a big show

dude....

for the republican nomination, yes

Forbes and Buchannan were most certainly NOT "viable candidates"

I mean steve forbes really wanted to be president vs trump and cain never ran presidential campaigns but were 'running for president'

Cain wouldn't have minded being President if it meant he could shift more books, at least up until his wife started beating his ass.

steve forbes was seen as a wide-eyed coot and buchannan nearly as fringe as ron paul

ron paul is not going to win any primaries, let alone multiple primaries

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SteveForbesJun2009.jpg

"viable candidate"

crazy rich people have won plenty of big elections in american history, steve forbes shoulda just been a governor first

like I don't find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president

looking forward to President Ventura

you could cynically say that in earlier GOP (and uh dem too) contests, the out-there candidacies served the purpose of keeping the more extreme (and therefore more easily and inevitably disappointed) party constituencies interested in the process and committed to something after the outcome: ron paul, pat buchanan, steve forbes, etc are all partially-un-sanded-down versions of conservatism that are all crucial to the party but mutually exclusive to each other if held constant

i think this year the "airing out the extremes" dealio was both way dumber and much closer to slipping out of its appointed confines. we'll see tho, there have been of course no votes cast yet.

Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then, and Mittens is now! QED.

ron paul is not going to win any primaries

It's entirely possible he will win Iowa with something in the 20-25% range if enough support is distributed among the also-ran candidates. I still predict a Romney win in the 25-30% range. Either way, as long as Gingrich loses, Romney wins.

there's been a major structural change w/r/t party ideology since then and we're seeing that w/r/t 'extreme'

also romney and dole are coming from very different places within the gop, romney might be inevitable but he's not 'safe'

I said in the ILE thread that this year only looks bizarre because the Internet has finally caught up with the avarice of journalists who insist on covering "primary season" earlier and earlier.

also would look different if rick perry had half-decent handlers

like I don't find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president

I do. One nearly embodies the sort of relaxed jocularity Americans tend to like in their Presidents (assuming some minimal baseline of competence, as perceived by not necessarily well-educated), and one is spectacularly lacking in same.

and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator.

right and forbes shoulda gone that route

Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then

Not necessarily. Unlike this year, there were several serious candidates in '96, though none with especially good political skills. Dole was chosen because he was the highest-ranking figure in a party that then respected its internal authority.

In '88 we had that sane, reasonable fellow Al Haig briefly enter the race. Also: Pat Robertson scared Poppy Bush for a few weeks.

there's no consensus for what you mean by "serious candidate"

I can see similarities between this year and '96--and Buchanan isn't a bad parallel for Gingrich, as a strident ghost from the past returned to centre stage (and with many more differences than similarities)--but '96 seemed much more the normal thing of occasional primaries being won by someone other than the eventual winner. This year has been crazy. Yes, in large part because of the internet and accelerated media cycle, but those are explanations why it's crazy--they don't negate that it's been crazy.

and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator

Yes, like George W. Bush, he was nominally experienced, but he mostly fought culture wars while caretaking a state benefiting greatly from the tail end of the postwar economic boom, Southwestern migration, and the massive expansion of defense contracting. I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.

I think many would regard Forbes as a brighter guy.

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate. And he wasn't bright enough to lose that gruesome smile.

Which is an insignificant quality for a prez candidate.

Perhaps to the extent that it overrides likeability. Either way, it's like I said in the parenthetical that subsumed Reagan's governorship.