Dick Morris explains a key difference between the tastes of Republicans and Democrats:
Of the last eight people who have won the Republican nomination for president, six ran for the office and lost before they eventually got their party’s designation. To win as a Republican, it would seem you have to first go through losing.
Romney, McCain, Dole, Bush-41, Reagan, and Nixon all lost before they won. Only Bush-43 and Ford won without first losing. (And Ford inherited the nomination and almost blew it).
Not so in the Democratic Party. Of the last seven nominees, only Al Gore first lost before he eventually got the nomination 12 years later.
That's about getting the nomination, not winning the election. The GOP's last winner — who won twice — was the one who hadn't tried for the nomination before. It seems to me the GOP has terrible luck with its propensity to go back to the old loser who seems to have waited his turn.
Republicans don’t like to take chances. They want their candidates to have served their apprenticeship as losers. The Republican voters are agoraphobic, fearful of new situations and people. It takes them a while to get used to new candidates and those who have run once and learned their lessons have great appeal. So keep your eye on Perry.
Because he just might win the nomination and proceed to lose the election? Anyway, buried in that column — if you care about the thoughts of (speaking of old losers) Dick Morris — is some pushing of Scott Walker:
Walker... is interesting because he has been, hands down, the best
Republican governor in recent years. He slew the teachers union, freed
the schools, funded education, cut taxes, created jobs, and survived
repeated political assassination attempts. He has the courage, fiber and
vision it would take.
And you know how much Republicans need fiber.
Posts
41 comments:
Is there anyone on earth who has been wrong more times than Dick Morris?
Who?
I might be a dumb knuckledragger, but what election, outside the House, did Ford win?
oh, the nomination. eh, yep, I was confused there for a second.
But still, Dick Morris, I mean, this guy really has his finger on what makes conservatives tick, right? And his predisctions...what can I say...it's almost like an intuitive Nate Silver, you know, without the data to back anything up.
so yeah....
Dick omits the key is for the prior losing candidate to outperform their initial name recognition and electoral characteristics. McCain surprisingly pushed Bush for example, same with GHWB and Reagan. They were still perceived as ascending even though they lost.
Not so Perry. He was viewed as the front runner and the only candidate with an A level background and he completely botched the campaign.
He won't be able to generate much support.
When did Nixon lose the nomination?
I should think the Obama experience illustrates the wisdom of being "fearful of new situations and people." Also Jimmy Carter. Why is it not a good thing for a Presidential candidate to have tried before and fallen short - gaining knowledge and experience (and maybe wearing off some hubris) in the process? Certainly Nixon (first term) and Reagan and Bush 41 were better presidents than most of Morris's "new men." Obama would be a better man for some experience of failure.
created jobs,
Uh, no. Unless you're talking about the expansion of the Executive Branch.
Walker repeatedly said he'd bring 250,000 jobs to Wisconsin if elected. (This is about the amount of jobs that normally are created as Wisconsin goes through a period of Economic rebound from a downturn, so it's not like he was promising much). He has signally failed in this.
Mickey Kaus: A Marxist Analysis of Hillary (thanks to Instapundit - same quote, but I did read the article):
The Clinton mode of production, then, is running for office or serving in office. That is the material basis for the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton lifestyle and the whole Clinton institutional structure. In order to keep this mode of production from breaking down, the Clintons–one of them, at any rate–must be at least potentially in the running for a powerful office at all times. If Hillary doesn’t really want to run, she can’t admit it in public. She must maintain the facade of candidacy until the last minute–or else the Foundation will have to cut back and Ira Magaziner might need to find a job. If it looks like Hillary might not run–perhaps because of health reasons–the model would predict that another Clinton, presumably daughter Chelsea, would start making noises about launching a political career. Voila! Data point confirmed. The theory is off to a good start. …
In short, Hillary! is probably running right now because the family business is in influence peddling, and without a Clinton in public office, or maybe soon to be in such, there is no reason to pay them for their influence. So, there is a possibility that Hillary! really doesn't want to run, but is making noises about doing so in order to maximize the family fortune.
One thing of interest to me though is that the three people who seem most likely right now (Hillary!, Biden, Warren) to get the Dem nomination are all pretty old, all older than I am, and I am a relatively older Baby Boomer. Biden is definitely not, and Hillary! probably not really Baby Boomers. Late sexagenarians are supposed to, somehow, get the youth vote that put Obama over the top in two elections.
What is impressive to me is how strong the Republican bench is, as compared to the Democratic one. A bunch of young, clean cut, attractive, accomplished candidates. Governors, Senators, and even a Representative or two (e.g. Paul Ryan). All more qualified than Obama was when he first ran six years ago. Opposing them are three sexagenarians, one who has had early onset senility for years now, one who didn't care about the lives lost under her watch in Benghazi, and who presided over the destruction of American foreign policy, and the third, an affirmative action fake Indian, with even less experience than Obama had.
The advantages to being a prior candidate are obvious--name recognition, access to donors, added practice in retail politicking, and some existing campaign organization in the primary states.
The reason that this hasn't really happened for the Democrats has to do with individual candidates' decisions each go-round.
In '08, John Edwards ran for the second time, but that year the party had decided Hillary! was inevitable, and had earned it, because she protected their sex predator president when the chips were down. Only the audacity of hope and change or something enabled Obama to skip right ahead of everyone.
In '04, Al Gore should have had a shot at being renominated by the Democrats--he'd come painfully close to winning in 2000, and he was opposed to the Iraq war, but he decided to just stay home and grow a beard and get fat instead. The Democrats decided to give it to a blow-dried popinjay that year, and awarded Gore the Nobel Prize as consolation.
In 1992, the Democratic heavy hitters sat out the primary, afraid that Bush Sr. was unbeatable due to the popular Iraq War. Their astute political judgment was a bit off--the sex predator waltzed in and forced himself upon the electorate that was just asking for it that year.
In 1988, the contenders of the previous election were there in full force--Gary Hart, a man who unfortunately discovered that it would take until the '90s for someone to find an immunity for sex scandals, and Jesse Jackson, who soon learned that anti-semitic slurs don't go over so well even in the Democratic party. The party was stuck with Dukakis. Fortunately they learned their lesson after his defeat and never again would nominate an out-of-touch liberal Masshole with funny hair but no personality.
It would be nice to see someone knock Hillary off her perch--at least to make 2016 interesting--but I don't see any possibilities among the Democrats. If the GOP screws this one up again, which they seem intent on doing, we're about to see a coronation.
Yes.
This actually makes a pretty good case for Romney who, as the debates showed, was far better as a candidate than the campaign that served him or the media that covered him.
And the one thing that many in politics who oppose them hope for of losers is that they'll stay down, stay lost. That way, the original narrative that accompanies their loss endures beyond the loser.
But if the loser gets back up off the mat and starts punching again, a new narrative is required, and circumstances may not be as accommodating the second time around. The robot might be seen the second time around as a competent, professional manager who can engage like an adult and get things done.
New campaign slogan to get Texas votes: Vote for Walker Texas Ranger.
The science of confusion works.
It would be nice to see someone knock Hillary off her perch--at least to make 2016 interesting--but I don't see any possibilities among the Democrats
Martin O'Malley.
Sure, why not. It's not like anyone they run can possibly win.
It would be nice to see someone knock Hillary off her perch--at least to make 2016 interesting--but I don't see any possibilities among the Democrats
I'm pulling for Bernie Sanders to jump in the race. Just to see how far he could go and shake some trees.
Romney can't run against Obamacare. That's already been shown.
And personally, I think he would manage America's slide into oblivion, He can't stop it.
I dunno if Governor O'Malley is as strong a candidate now as he would have been before the launch of Obamacare. Maryland has had some pretty embarrassing failures with their exchanges, and I believe they've had to jettison their entire system, and replace it with a copy of the Connecticut system.
I dunno if Governor O'Malley is as strong a candidate now as he would have been before the launch of Obamacare. Maryland has had some pretty embarrassing failures with their exchanges, and I believe they've had to jettison their entire system, and replace it with a copy of the Connecticut system.
Agoraphobic? Not kaintophobic, centophobic, or anthropophobic? Or, I dunno, just to throw it out there, conservative?
Feel free not to post this comment, but your title for this post has one too many "should"'s, I believe.
Amichel said...
I dunno if Governor O'Malley is as strong a candidate now as he would have been before the launch of Obamacare.
This is probably true but only at the general election level. Democratic primaries hinge on two factors: (1) who can develop the best rationale for spending the most money, and (2) who has the best ability to hide their intentions from the general public. Warren wins (1), O'Malley wins (2). Clinton comes in third in both cases.
Execution won't be in the top 50 concerns. If a candidate mentions it they've already lost.
I like what I've seen from Walker. He seems confident and capable, and on top of that, he seems humble. His lack of college might help him there. Pundits talk about "the candidate you'd like to have a beer with". Walker is that kind of candidate. Sincere humility, combined with strength.
That's the problem for Republicans. Rotating in the dues-paid time server just doesn't win elections for them anymore. Only a fresh firebrand would stand a chance and the GOP establishment just doesn't have the guts for that.
Dick Morris is the Bob Shrum of the GOP (Shrum ran multiple presidential campaigns and lost them all) both are the exception to the rule that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Meade, you must be a progressive as you see no problem with Ann trolling her own sight, you as moderator being a troll and then keeping poisonous posters around to troll. Only progressives are this confused.
Martin O'Malley signed legislation to tax your rain water.
Will that get him votes?
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/maryland-soon-roll-out-rain-tax
Hillary! could win
I can't imagine anyone taking Dick Morris' advice except maybe to lose an election.
Nixon won the nomination in 1960. He did not run in 1964. He won the nomination in 1968.
Pundits talk about "the candidate you'd like to have a beer with". Walker is that kind of candidate.
This I agree with. Especially if it's a Spotted Cow.
Imagine drinking beer with Elizabeth Warren.
Rick Perry would be a great way to get me to vote for Hillary Clinton
MadisonMan said...
created jobs,
Uh, no. Unless you're talking about the expansion of the Executive Branch.
Walker repeatedly said he'd bring 250,000 jobs to Wisconsin if elected. (This is about the amount of jobs that normally are created as Wisconsin goes through a period of Economic rebound from a downturn, so it's not like he was promising much). He has signally failed in this.
National economic growth was .1%(one tenth of one percent) from Jan to Mar. this year. That Wisc. has seen any job growth at all is a minor miracle. Keep that in mind when critsizing your governor.
MadisonMan, now I'm gonna have to try a Spotted Cow!
MadisonMan said...
Imagine drinking beer with Elizabeth Warren.
Prune juice maybe.
"Keep your eye on Perry."
Sigh. Somebody's not paying attention:
No one with a ranch called "Niggerhead" is going anywhere on the national stage,...
There will NEVER be a good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Rick Perry has been a good governor, but I don't see his appeal outside of Texas.
As for you, Clayton Hennesey, WELL SAID!
The Crack Emcee said...
Sigh. Somebody's not paying attention:
No one with a ranch called "Niggerhead" is going anywhere on the national stage,...
With? Did Perry own the ranch? Did Perry name the ranch? Did Perry call the ranch by that name? Did Perry's father, who leased the ranch, paint over the boulder on which that word was written? Did the Perrys in fact turn the rock over to ensure that the word was completely obscured? On the 42,000 acres of the ranch, how many such boulders or signs were there? Does it bother you at all that your guilt-by-association crap is so transparent? Just kidding, facts don't matter, he's, you know, white.
I'm not a fan of Rick Perry. I am even less of a fan of bullshit.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/10/03/the-washington-post-rick-perry-and-niggerhead-a-confirmation-bias-conundrum/
Ted Cruz can and will be Hillary if they both run. Mark it down.
"It seems to me the GOP has terrible luck with its propensity to go back to the old loser who seems to have waited his turn."
Hmm, well, going back to 1952, we had Ike (never ran before, won), Nixon (never ran before, lost), Goldwater (never ran before, lost), Nixon (ran before, won this time), Ford (never ran before, lost), Reagan (ran before, won this time), Bush 41 (ran before, won in 1988, lost in 1992), Dole (ran before, lost), Bush 43 (never ran before, won), McCain, and Romney.
So, of the "never ran before" we have two winners and three losers. Of the "ran before", we have three winners and three losers.
So the data do not seem to support your claim.
Is there anyone on earth who has been wrong more times than Dick Morris?
Bingo. Morris is now in the business of selling books.
So, there is a possibility that Hillary! really doesn't want to run, but is making noises about doing so in order to maximize the family fortune.
Very interesting theory. I'm checking this off as maybe true. But it could also be true that Hillary wants both to run AND to maximize the family fortune. Influence – peddling is even more lucrative if you are POTUS. Never forget that her husband has one of the best political minds we've ever seen.
This actually makes a pretty good case for Romney who, as the debates showed, was far better as a candidate than the campaign that served him or the media that covered him.
Romney as a candidate for POTUS was a good businessman. If a GOP candidate wins he could make a good cabinet member. Period.
That's the problem for Republicans. Rotating in the dues-paid time server just doesn't win elections for them anymore.
Bingo.
Rick Perry has been a good governor, but I don't see his appeal outside of Texas.
I would change "good" to "excellent," but yes – one too many brain-farts during debates. It would be run over and over again by the MSM. He had his chance and blew it. Plus a Texan starts out with a handicap just for being a Texan.
Ted Cruz can and will be Hillary if they both run.
I like Cruz but I like others too. The primaries, as they are designed to do, will separate the boys from the men.
I don't know about O'Malley--he has a solid liberal track record (which would help in Democratic primaries) and looks presidential (not something to underrate) but the health care mess in Maryland would be used viciously by Hillary's attack team. He'd have to prove a very sharp campaigner to take her down, and I don't know how much real competition he had in his Maryland races (not much from the GOP opposition, at least--MD is as Democratic a state as Massachusetts).
Andrew Cuomo or Liz Warren both would seem to have a shot at her, Cuomo since he has a strong political base in NY, and Warren seems to excite the left in ways that Hillary doesn't. But both have decided to sit this one out.
The real problem is on the GOP side--they'd need someone who is a great campaigner, because without appealing to broader constituencies they're dependent on a very narrow string of states to win (as Bush did, successfully, twice) and many of those states are much harder for the GOP than they were ten years ago (CO, NV, OH, FL, VA--and NC and AZ are in contention). Ideally, they find someone who can actually bring the fight to PA, WI, MI, or even other states the Democrats have counted on for a long time. But I don't see any of the current candidates doing that.
It may be that the best case scenario is for the GOP to win the Senate this year, and hold it (and the House) in '16 so Hillary will not be able to just roll everything over them.
Perry is prime Veep material.
After eight years of gaffes from Joe the Clown, Rick will bring all the dignity inherent to a Texas Aggie Yell Leader to the office, restoring the office to its former gravity under Cheney.
Hillary showed just how much skill she has as an executive as SecState, and should enjoy her retirement with the man she has loved for so long, Bill.
Post a Comment