Did the Republicans write off the 2008 election as unwinnable?

[ElvisL1ves]

@pkbites

Only because Romney may be a better campaigner.

He sure didn’t demonstrate that the last time. The harder he campaigned, the more that people got to know who he is, the worse he did.

He also has a moderate (if not all out liberal) reputation on big Republican issues like abortion and gun control.

He’s been doing his hardest to shed that rep.

[pkbites]

@ElvisL1ves

He’s been doing his hardest to shed that rep.

Yes, it’s called flip flopping.

But don’t get the idea I’m a McCain fan. He talked out of both sides of his mouth on some issues too. I kept to my word and refused to vote for him in both the primary and general elections.

[Skammer]

@pkbites

For about the last 50 years the Republicans have been choosing the “next guy in line” or the guy who’s “turn it is”. Sometimes it works for them like Nixon in '68, Reagan in '80, the Bush’s in '88 and 2000, sometimes it doesn’t work like Dole in '96 and McCain in '08. Overall I think it’s an incredibly stupid way of choosing a candidate. I had hoped Doles miserable campaign would put an end to the practice, but I didn’t get my wish.

GWB is an exception to this rule; the GOP gave him the nod in 2000 over several more experienced and tenured party leaders, most notably McCain.

[pkbites]

@Skammer

GWB is an exception to this rule;

I disagree. In the mid-late 90’s I was working in a capacity where I was surrounded by politicos. I heard talk of W running as far back as '96. In '99 I got the “heir apparent” vibe from a lot of people before he was even running. It bugged the hell out of me as I was less than enthused by him.

But what was so was that there was a “he’s next in line” mentality by lot of people on the right.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lumpy

Given the criticism of the eight years of the Bush administration, the unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic collapse that happened on Bush’s watch, did the Republican party decide the support for the 2008 presidential election just wasn’t there, and more or less plan on being defeated? Were McCain and Palin essentially expendable nobodies whose defeat would reflect minimally on the party?

Depends on who you mean by “the party.” Party leaders don’t choose the nominee (much, any more), and primary voters generally don’t think that way.

[John_Mace]

@Lumpy

Given the criticism of the eight years of the Bush administration, the unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic collapse that happened on Bush’s watch, did the Republican party decide…

In what capacity would this decision have been made and specifically by whom? “The Republican party” isn’t a decision making body, except maybe during a primary.

[R.P.McMurphy]

@pkbites

I disagree. In the mid-late 90’s I was working in a capacity where I was surrounded by politicos. I heard talk of W running as far back as '96. In '99 I got the “heir apparent” vibe from a lot of people before he was even running. It bugged the hell out of me as I was less than enthused by him.

But what was so was that there was a “he’s next in line” mentality by lot of people on the right.

Actually, his brother Jeb was to be the heir apparent. Being married to a Catholic Hispanic didn’t help him with the 'Pub establishment.

[pkbites]

@Spartydog

Actually, his brother Jeb was to be the heir apparent.

Cite? Says who?

At the time I was in the company of higher up pols, including a former governor. Not once did Jebs name come up. I vividly recall, in fact, in the beginning of it all (circa 1996) when I heard the name George Bush come up as a potential candidate, I thought they were talking about the former President.