Reminds me that the satirical magazine Spy back in the day invariably mentioned him on first reference as “short-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump.”
I realize you just substitute your own reality for your own pretty much any time you post, but just so anyone seeing this post thinks that it has a basis in reality, it doesn’t.
Joe Lieberman was never a “front-runner” for the 2004 Democratic nomination for President. He consistently polled behind Kerry and Gephardt.
And Giuliani a front-runner? that’s funny. From this very comprehensive list of many, many polls, America’s Mayor was a footnoot in nearly every one of them. The only poll that worked for him was a single poll by Fox News cough taken from May 12–13, 2009 (which is the equivalent of polling over a year ago for the 2016 election which is super early).
Aside from that outlier, the early stages were Huckabee, Romney and Palin which gave way by the time mid-2011 came around (i.e. directly corresponding to today’s polling for the 2016 Primaries) when Romney was nearly always in the lead.
Lieberman and Giuliani were never front-runners. I have no idea what made you ever think they were.
And they also never “at least commanded 20%” in the polls. Lieberman never reached that number; Giuliani had one poll where he did, that insanely early, likely-biased Fox News poll.
Correction:
Mid 2009 polls correspond to two years ago, not last year, compared to where we are in the election cycle.
Huh? Giuliani was definitely a frontrunner in the 2008 cycle.
Lieberman and Giuliani weren’t really frontrunners because we all knew that their lead in the polls was name recognition.
Jeb has name recognition and STILL can’t maintain a lead. He’s just not going to win. Republican voters know who he is 90% want someone else. How do you think Democrats will react to him? He currently performs worse than most other candidates against Clinton. So there’s no electability argument for him either.
They weren’t frontrunners even though they were running in front. Got it.
OJK, here’s MY own reality that I must’ve made up:
So already in July 2002, if Gore’s absence is assumed, Lieberman is in the lead with >20%.
Marist finds the same thing in October 2002, ditto the WaPo again in November. By December, most pollsters drop Gore from the list, and CNN finds Lieberman in the lead in three polls it takes in December and January, with support varying from 18% to 25%. In January 2003, ABC/WaPo finds Lieberman leading with 27% support. At the beginning of February, the L.A. Times finds Lieberman leading with 25%. In April, ABC/WaPo has Lieberman peaking at 29%. CNN/USA Today has Gephardt briefly leading Lieberman in March 2003, but then has Lieberman consistently on top in April through August 2003 with 20% support, give or take. there’s also one Zogby poll in August 2003 that shows Howard Dean ahead and Lieberman second. And there are also a few polls in mid-2003 that show Lieberman ahead, but with support distinctly below 20%.
But on the whole, Lieberman was the clear front-runner at this point in the 2004 cycle. That’s my reality, because it’s also the reality of multiple major opinion pollsters.
And with respect to Giuliani, go here and scroll all the way to the bottom. There’s a series of WaPo poll results for the GOP nomination from December 2006 through September 2007. Giuliani leads in all of them, with support varying from 26% to 44%, but mostly in the low to mid 30s.
Yes, he was the GOP frontrunner at this point in the 2008 cycle. One can argue that the reason he was leading was name recognition, as one could for Lieberman in the 2004 cycle, and that accordingly, that lead wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. But it was a lead.
Problem is based on the fact that not that many people give a rat’s potato at this point in time, but few of them will admit it. Ask them the question, and they pretend that they have thought it through. Kind of the same problem with exit polling, like thinking that Kerry actually won because of exit polling. More likely, its just that people who voted for Bush didn’t want to admit it.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me of the early exit polls. I won’t inhale those fumes again; 2004 was one time too many.
Lieberman was in the lead, but never a frontrunner. He just had the most name recognition and pretty much everyone who follows elections knew that he wasn’t going to be the nominee. Ditto for Giuliani.
I believe both had a shot at winning, but neither ran the kind of campaign that would allay base misgivings about them. Which meant that their early polling was probably their max level of support, not a sign that they were going to be leading the field when it really counted.
Jeb is at 10%. I just don’t think he’s going to rise any higher than that.
And I drink water, but abstain from H[sub]2[/sub]O. :rolleyes:
“Water? Water? Fish* fuck* in water!”
W.C. Fields (attrib.)
I disagree. As others fall by the wayside I suspect his numbers will go up. Right now he’s one of the few mature adults in the GOP race.
Okay, I agree with that, but he could also fall and his support could go to Kasich.
If he were running.
Nota bene: Donald Trump can talk all the crap he likes, but he’s not going to be the GOP nominee because he’s not actually running for anything. He doesn’t want to be President and doesn’t even want to run a campaign.
He hasn’t filed with the FEC and I’m certain he won’t.
The huge field helps Bush most of all: it divides the hardcore social conservative and Tea Party blocs (who will not choose him over others) … and leaves him with the smaller portion that is less severely conservative and thinking that the party needs to veer from a Tea Party/hardcore social conservative course. The portion is smaller but he will have it pretty much to himself as the others declare him “not conservative enough.” Add to that a war chest that can outlast the others and he’s in a comfortable place.
The danger for him would have been a sparse field, with the Tea Party/hardcore social conservative bloc pulling together behind one alternative.
Isn’t Scott Walker the candidate of the Party establishment?