It’s kind of a requirement really.
So just to be sure I’m following your argument, you’re saying that a group of candidates that included four current/former governors (Romney, Perry, Pawlenty, and Huntsman), one of whom had been Ambassador to China (Huntsman), a former Speaker of the House (Gingrinch), a former US Senator (Santorum), and two sitting members of the House (Paul and Bachmann), was not a strong field?
The field lacked the party’s biggest name(Jeb Bush) and the party’s VP candidate from the previous election(Palin). The governors in the current field were elected by bluer electorates(Kasich, Walker, Christie, Romney, Bush) than the 2012 field, which contained only two such governors(Romney, Pawlenty).
It’s a stronger field. A lot stronger.
You’re saying the possible entry of Sarah Palin makes this a stronger field? Seriously? When she made this speech in Iowa:
Only given her status, not her quality as a candidate. She also sat out 2012, which says that she also thinks she’s more likely to be President now than she would have in 2012.
I’d note that on the Democratic side, not a single big name has so much as expressed an interest in running yet. We assume Clinton will get in, but you’d think she’d be eager to dissuade opposition and get donors lined up. I think it’s more likely that she’s waiting to see what kind of environment she’s going to have to run in before making a decision. If Obama continues to rebound, great. If he falls on his face again, she might decide it’s not worth her time to run another losing campaign.
So if we’re judging by confidence, the Republican side has all the swagger right now. They all want in.
She has a better chance of winning the Nobel Prize in science, starting at QB for the next Super Bowl champion, and succeeding Queen Elizabeth all in the same year than she does being elected president.
A smart guy? And “competent”? No wonder you were fooled by the birthers.
Sure, we can’t trash Carson. Unless we actually look at the words that have come out of his mouth. Then he’s eminently trashable.
Why would we judge by confidence? If we judged by confidence, Michelle Bachmann and Allen West would be joint rulers of the World Christian Empire.
As far as big names, Obama wasn’t a big name until he started winning primaries. Neither was Bill Clinton. I don’t think Jimmy Carter was either. Democrats, in general, don’t become big names until they start to win primary states. That’s (part of) what the primary is for, at least for the Democrats – to give candidates the opportunity to make a big name for themselves.
He knows how to run a business.
You can’t trash his background the way you would a Bush or a Romney.
It’s not everything, as I said, but it is something. Generally, big names stay out of races that they don’t think they can win. It’s why Gore and Cuomo sat out 1992, and why Hillary and Gore sat out 2004. ANd it’s why Bush and Palin sat out 2012. Challenging incumbents is hard, so the big names generally wait until it’s an open seat when they feel they have a better chance
Obama was a huge name, just not as huge as Clinton. Bill, as I mentioned, was the strongest of a weak field since the big names shied away from Bush’s 90% approval rating in mid-1991. Carter was not a big name, but the 1976 race did draw some pretty big Democratic firepower. Problem is, the other candidates kinda imploded leaving Carter standing.
But Democrats have a problem now that they didn’t have back then, and I think they know they have a problem: no celebrity candidate, no turnout. And no, they don’t become celebrities by winning the nomination. Didn’t help John Kerry. won’t help Democrats other than Clinton either.
Republicans, on the other hand, will turn out for John Bolton and Jeb Bush equally.
Maybe. I’m not convinced – he’s had a ton of spectacular failures, and he’s not exactly self-made.
You didn’t specify “background”.
I’m not sure you’re right, at least for the U.K. Obama was huge over here from the very start of his presidential campaign, much bigger than Bill Clinton, and well-noted as an orator and black senator before that.
Obama was not even close to a “huge name”. He didn’t even have the support of most black Democrats until he won Iowa! If you really think this, then your memory of 2008 is really, really bad.
If they had a “celebrity candidate” in 2008, it was Hillary, not Obama (at least, not during the primary). Obama made himself a “big name” and a “celebrity”. This opportunity exists for any Democratic candidate who campaigns skillfully.
This is a made up problem. It’s not a real problem – this is what primaries are for.
A skillful campaigner will become a “big name” and a “celebrity”, just like Obama did. The idea that he was a “celebrity” before the 2008 primary is just ludicrous… his name recognition was really, really low, and he didn’t even have the support of black voters.
He wasn’t a big name at all before the primary campaign started. He made himself a big name by collecting support and winning states.
That’s what I meant by story.
Businessmen have failures. It’s called risk. the good ones have bigger successes than failures and there’s no question that Trump has been a success.
Strangely, the way our politics works, it’s easier to get elected President if you’re a failure in the private sector than if you’re a success. See: GWB.
Obama was a bona fide celebrity from the moment he gave his 2004 convention speech, eclipsed only by Hillary Clinton. The guy wasn’t on local radio shows swearing up and down that he wouldn’t run for President. He was being interviewed by the big names and asked if he would run because he was a big name. You act as if he was basically Heidi Heitkamp until he won Iowa.
Nonsense. When Obama announced his campaign for President, nearly 50% of Americans had little or no idea who he was. The primary campaign made him a “big name” – he wasn’t a big name before it by any means (except perhaps to political junkies).
The winner of a nomination is not always one who skillfully campaigned. As often as not, it’s just someone who was the most plausible candidate left standing. Democrats end up with that type of candidate more often than not.
Again, that’s not to say that the “not Hillary” field is weak. It’s a very good field. I just wonder if any of them are charismatic enough to draw out the kind of people that Obama was able to draw but other Democrats have failed to draw.
Republicans aren’t likely to have that problem, no matter who they nominate. The base will turn out for the most boring candidate. The good news, at least as far as base politics goes, is that they aren’t likely to have that problem. The nominee will probably have greater name recognition than the Democrat if the Democrat isn’t Clinton.
When was it not (beyond scandals like Gary Hart, which can probably be placed in the “bad campaign move” category anyway)? Kerry, as weak a candidate as he was (and he almost won the election!) still campaigned better than Edwards, Clark, and the rest.
If so, that “most plausible candidate” ran the most skillful campaign. Al Gore ran a better campaign than Bradley (perhaps largely because Bradley wasn’t trying very hard). Dukakis ran a better campaign than his opponents (unfortunately!). I don’t know about Mondale – that goes back too far for me.
That’s what primaries are for. We shall see.
Name recognition before the election doesn’t matter (see Obama). If there’s a big name-recognition gap on election day, then that’s obviously a problem, but that’s what the primary and general election campaigns are for.