GOP Primary Megathread!

[Phillip V]

Sometimes.

[Eddie Teach]

That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.

[Phillip V]

That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.

In September 2011, Obama only led Romney by 2 points in Connecticut: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CT_0930925.pdf
Keep in mind that Romney was a Governor-next-door and a "New England Republican".

In November 2011, Romney led Obama by 5 points in Michigan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/mitt-romney-obama-michigan-poll_n_1104942.html
Keep in mind that Romney was born in Michigan, and his father was an automobile CEO and 3-term Governor there.

[Eddie Teach]

He's not gonna be seen as a "New England Republican" when this is all over. He'll be seen as a Republican. And favorite son status isn't what it used to be- Gore would have been President if he had won Tennessee; he didn't. Also, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since Nixon.

[Barrister]

. Bill Clinton in 1992 was one of the highest-beta candidates ever in purely statistical terms

That's absurd - Clinton was the low-beta candidate of that primary; indeed that is why he won.
The #2 guy in that race in terms of votes and delegats was Jerry Brown; no one in their right mind would confuse him for a low beta candidate
Then was Tsongas, who was moderate, but hadn't held any office for eight years because he had been recovering from cancer (which eventually killed him a few years later).
Also in the race were (Bob) Kerrey and Harkin - both Senators with liberal reps who Clinton outflanked from the right.  Kerrey's campaign basically crashed in NH; Harkin went nowhere after Iowa.
Others included Gene McCarthy and Lyndon LaRouche (!)

there was very much an ABC dynamic in that campaign where support swung wildly to the anti-Clinton candidate de jour, but with Clinton prevailing due to perceived electability and strong support from party insiders.

But they were all 'high beta' candidates in 1992.

Bush 41's approval ratings were through the roof in 1991 when everyone would have to set up their 1992 presidential campaigns.  He had just won the GUlf War, and the economy hadn't quite fallen into recession yet.  The conventional wisdom was that Bush was a lock, and that the Dems would have to wait until '96 to recapture the White House.  So, one after another all the high profile democrats declined to run in 1991, leaving a bunch of also-rans and never-weres.

[Phillip V]

He's not gonna be seen as a "New England Republican" when this is all over. He'll be seen as a Republican. And favorite son status isn't what it used to be- Gore would have been President if he had won Tennessee; he didn't. Also, Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since Nixon.

Al Gore only won Minnesota by 2% in 2000.

[Sheilbh]

I did read them, and I stand by my statement.  In those bolded paragraphs, he inplies that the advantage may be big or small, but it's always there (and thus the opposition guy must always be the shaker-upper).

I'd agree with that.  Governments lose elections, but the opposition needs to provide a compelling choice and reason for change.  In most elections running a 'safe' candidate won't do that and the non-incumbent will always be less of a 'safe' candidate than the guy already in office.  Oppositions always need to run an election based on it being time to change.

My recollection is that Kerry wasn't so much outflanked on policy as he was opposition researched (i.e. Swiftboated) on his Vietnam death squad days.

I don't think anyone would suggest Kerry's defeat had anything to do with policy. 

[DGuller]

That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.

Don't ruin Yi's action. 

P.S.  Yi, if you need reinsurance on that bet, the line is open (up to $10,000 limit of coverage, though).

[fhdz]

http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.

Yay?

[grumbler]

That map looks like wishful thinking. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Michigan? Pffft.

I don't think Philip V is being any more honest with his map than he was with his claims that Huntsman was "quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now 'irrelevant'." Now that he has produced two such whoppers in a row, it is obvious that he is just trolling pretty badly*, because no one could be that stupid and still be able figure out how to post here.




*unless he thinks he is being funny, which would be even more pathetic.

[garbon]

http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.

Yay?

That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.

[Sheilbh]

That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.

It is.  But my love of quizes is overwhelming.
Huntsman - 61%
Obama - 56%
Perry - 48%
Romney - 48%
Paul - 37%
Gingrich - 36%
Santorum - 31%

[derspiess]

http://electnext.com/questions tells me I 'm best matched with Huntsman, seeing as how we both love long walks on the beach, farm dogs, and the color orange. A couple of percentage points behind him apparently is Obama.

Yay?

It matched me up with Newt.  I must have done something to piss it off.

[fhdz]

It matched me up with Newt.  I must have done something to piss it off.

[fhdz]

That site seems annoying. I love quizzes but pass.

It's basically OKCupid for politics.