# When was the latest a viable political candidate has emerged for a party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 17, 2008, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072 "2008-11-17T02:13:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/21 "2008-11-17T15:25:51Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I was there too and I remember the arguments at the time. It’s just a simple form of confirmation bias. Hillary was presenting a counter argument at the time. The basic fact is that the superdelegates decided ultimately who was going to win. > > I remember the silly forking threads too, just as people thought the forked McCain threads were also meaningful. Ultimately, it APPEARS inevitable in retrospect because your bias was ultimately confirmed, but it certainly was not that clear at that point otherwise Hillary would have given up rather than spending a ton of her own money on the campaign. The fact that Obama had the majority of the elected delegates won was not confirmation bias, but hard arithmatic. It was literally, mathematically impossible for Hillary to overcome that, and it was never a realistic possibility that the supers would override that unless something made Obama unelectable. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/22 "2008-11-17T15:33:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your inability to understand the different between containing information (knowledge) and the ability to absorb information (intelligence) is uncompelling. I’m not confusing ignorance with stupidity. Palin is both. She does not have the ability to absorb new information. She is not just unknowledgable but lacks innate intelligence as well. I base this conclusion on her well demonstrated incuriosity, low brow, superstitious credulity, and lack of ability to think critically or be self-reflective. The very fact that she could immediately, and with no self-examination be so certain that she would make a great President of the United States in itself shows a lack of intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/23 "2008-11-17T16:03:49Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > I said it couldn’t happen at the time, too, and so did many other people. Look, here’s the deal: at some point in March, I think, it was determined that in order to win a majority of the total delegates, Senator Clinton had to sweep _all_ of the remaining primaries _overwhelmingly_. The polling indicated that she would not win all of the primaries, and the ones she did win were mostly narrow victories. She won Pennsylvania, for example, by less than she needed to, and it was one of her largest margins of victory. Yes, I recall. The point is we could go back to every close election from both sides and find people coming up with compelling arguments as to why the victory of their own candidate is inevitable. Then we cement our belief based upon the actual outcome. Everything is inevitable in retrospect. You think it was clear because you have a vested interest in it being clear. The fact is that it wasn’t clear to everyone. It’s funny to me that people talk about the Republican race as not being clear when it was clear far sooner and far more decisively than the Democratic race. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/24 "2008-11-17T16:04:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not confusing ignorance with stupidity. Palin is both. She does not have the ability to absorb new information. She is not just unknowledgable but lacks innate intelligence as well. I base this conclusion on her well demonstrated incuriosity, low brow, superstitious credulity, and lack of ability to think critically or be self-reflective. > > The very fact that she could immediately, and with no self-examination be so certain that she would make a great President of the United States in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Right, she’s religious so she’s stupid. I understand your argument. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/25 "2008-11-17T16:09:26Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I saw some headline just the other day that indicated he’d consider running again. The main factors against him would be the same ones that hurt him in 2012, plus the track record of mistakes he made in 2008 while running as the initial leader in name recognition. He’s an awful national campaigner (everywhere he went, his poll numbers went down), he wasn’t disciplined with a message (and the message he did have got lampooned as “a noun, a verb and 9/11”), and as the space between the present and September 11 widens, it gets harder and harder for him to campaign on the ‘America’s Mayor’ thing. Same problems as before, and he’s still too socially liberal for the religious right - that’s how he got elected in New York - while the left mostly hates him for civil rights reasons. Not just too socially liberal, but morally bereft in his personal life. They do care about those things. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/26 "2008-11-17T16:09:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right, she’s religious so she’s stupid. I understand your argument. No, not all religious belief is stupid, but when it reaches a level of superstitious belief in witches and magic (not to mention YEC), we’re dipping into anti-intellectualism and a severe deficiency in the ability to think critically. ---
**Author:** ![VoluntaryPlan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9fc29f/32.png) [@VoluntaryPlan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VoluntaryPlan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/27 "2008-11-17T16:20:10Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your inability to understand the different between containing information (knowledge) and the ability to absorb information (intelligence) is uncompelling. If you’re forty something and still don’t contain information (knowledge), then I don’t think much of your ability to absorb information (intelligence). She wasn’t born with the national spotlight on her, it’s not like no one started teaching her things before the McCain campaign found her. She’s spent several decades not learning, which either means it’s willful or it’s accidental and speaks poorly of her ability to absorb information (intelligence). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/28 "2008-11-17T16:30:10Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Yes, I recall. The point is we could go back to every close election from both sides and find people coming up with compelling arguments as to why the victory of their own candidate is inevitable. Then we cement our belief based upon the actual outcome. Everything is inevitable in retrospect. You think it was clear because you have a vested interest in it being clear. The fact is that it wasn’t clear to everyone. It’s interesting that you think Obama was my candidate. For quite some time, I didn’t support either of them. And the thing is, at that time, nobody was claiming that Clinton would inevitably win, just that it was still a significant possibility, and it wasn’t. At the time, I would not have minded terribly if Clinton had won, so I was obviously not just seeing what I wanted to see, and even I could tell that the odds were very much against her. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/29 "2008-11-17T16:31:49Z")
> [@VoluntaryPlan](#): > > If you’re forty something and still don’t contain information (knowledge), then I don’t think much of your ability to absorb information (intelligence). :rolleyes: Sarah Palin knows things, she just didn’t know the things that she needed to know for the job she was applying to. > [@](#): > > She wasn’t born with the national spotlight on her, it’s not like no one started teaching her things before the McCain campaign found her. She’s spent several decades not learning, which either means it’s willful or it’s accidental and speaks poorly of her ability to absorb information (intelligence). This is ridiculous and says something about a lack of knowledge but not so much on Sarah Palin’s part. Sarah Palin has shown herself quite capable within Alaska politics. She learned things there. A lot of the things she supposedly didn’t know was absolute hype and reflected more on those repeating it as gospel than it did on her. Not knowing foreign policy is not the same as not knowing anything. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/30 "2008-11-17T16:34:07Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > It’s interesting that you think Obama was my candidate. For quite some time, I didn’t support either of them. And the thing is, at that time, nobody was claiming that Clinton would inevitably win, just that it was still a significant possibility, and it wasn’t. At the time, I would not have minded terribly if Clinton had won, so I was obviously not just seeing what I wanted to see, and even I could tell that the odds were very much against her. I did in fact hear people talking about the inevitable Clinton win, so YMMV. I’m not going to provide a cite as I don’t feel like sifting through all the noise and revisiting that. I saw that that odds were against her too, but I didn’t see that it was blindingly obvious that she would lose. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/31 "2008-11-17T16:39:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Palin has no crossover appeal outside the conservative, religious base. The GOP isn’t going to win with simple religious bigotry anymore. It needs to branch out. Palin’s real obstacle is that she doesn’t realize that she can’t win without going negative on the groups of Americans that she doesn’t like. She’d go out there and make snide comments about those Americans who “aren’t like us.” It’s very negative and insulting to me, personally. But she probably thinks that these types of people are a majority in this country, when in fact they are not. I’m really not even entirely sure that she could win the Republican nomination that way. The Religious Right isn’t smart enough to understand that if they want one of their own in office, that they’d better hide it before getting elected, because there’s no way in hell someone like that can win the majority of Americans. As for Barack Obama’s winning of the Democratic nomination, \*\*mswas[\b], it was indeed inevitable from an early point. I along with many others called it last spring. Clinton was behind and needed to win the rest of the primaries by a certain margin. When she wasn’t meeting those margins, it kept getting higher and higher. She simply wasn’t winning by enough for several months. The only people who thought she had a chance were Clinton supporters who wanted to keep hope alive. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/32 "2008-11-17T16:40:09Z")
In the past a presidential candidate was often chosen at the convention. There are times that the conventions were so split that they actually settled on a 3rd candidate ,who was a bit of a surprise. But parties have found out how to control the system better. The conventions used to be a lot better TV . If the repubs had gone into the convention without making a choice, it would have been fun. No telling who would have won. They would have had huge ratings. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/33 "2008-11-17T17:53:15Z")
This thread is being hijacked by the side issue of Obama vs Hillary. It seems to me that both were strong candidates and that Hillary would have had a strong chance of becoming the nominee in any other race. As for McCain, the [Iowa futures market](http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_RConv08.cfm) had him pegged at lower than 5% chance of winning the nomination at the lowest point. It was far from clear that he would become the eventual nominee. I’m wondering more about races earlier in history, have there been cases of a complete barren field until late in the game where some undiscovered star suddenly sweeps in and takes the crown? Or has it always been the case where all the major players are tagged years in advance? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/34 "2008-11-17T17:59:18Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > I’m wondering more about races earlier in history, have there been cases of a complete barren field until late in the game where some undiscovered star suddenly sweeps in and takes the crown? Or has it always been the case where all the major players are tagged years in advance? Well, keep in mind that we didn’t use to have 2-year campaigns for the Presidency. Once upon a time, people declared their candidacy the winter of the year before the election, instead of two days after the midterms. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/35 "2008-11-17T18:00:54Z")
> [@Merkwurdigliebe](#): > > As for Barack Obama’s winning of the Democratic nomination, **mswas** , it was indeed inevitable from an early point. I along with many others called it last spring. Clinton was behind and needed to win the rest of the primaries by a certain margin. When she wasn’t meeting those margins, it kept getting higher and higher. She simply wasn’t winning by enough for several months. The only people who thought she had a chance were Clinton supporters who wanted to keep hope alive. Considering 100% of the primaries occurred in the spring, as the last one was on June 3 and Summer starts June 21st at the solstice, you can color me unimpressed. Saying that you knew by the time the bulk of the primaries were over doesn’t display some great prognosticatory ability . ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/36 "2008-11-17T18:02:09Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > As for McCain, the [Iowa futures market](http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_RConv08.cfm) had him pegged at lower than 5% chance of winning the nomination at the lowest point. It was far from clear that he would become the eventual nominee. Then what you are asking becomes unclear. What the futures market thought is not particularly relevant, as the primaries had him as the clear winner very early on in the race. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/37 "2008-11-17T18:08:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Considering 100% of the primaries occurred in the spring, as the last one was on June 3 and Summer starts June 21st at the solstice, you can color me unimpressed. Saying that you knew by the time the bulk of the primaries were over doesn’t display some great prognosticatory ability . Fine, I knew before the PA primary, if that makes you happy. I’m sure I might have mentioned it on this board more than once or twice too. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/38 "2008-11-17T18:20:43Z")
> [@Merkwurdigliebe](#): > > Fine, I knew before the PA primary, if that makes you happy. I’m sure I might have mentioned it on this board more than once or twice too. I’m sure you did mention it. That’s beside the point. It was nowhere near the route that the Republican field was. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/39 "2008-11-17T19:27:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I’m sure you did mention it. That’s beside the point. It was nowhere near the route that the Republican field was. Fair enough, but that was more a function of the difference in the ways the delegates are counted. WRT the Obama/Clinton primary fight, you are flat out wrong. The facts are clearly against you. Here are some things to consider. [1. (2/15/08) > [@](#): > > ]([http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-appears-inevitable-while-clinton-only-has-hope-334191.html](http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-appears-inevitable-while-clinton-only-has-hope-334191.html))The Clinton current campaign strategy is to conserve money and concede the remaining state primaries in February to Obama. The campaign is concentrating on winning the remaining primaries in March, April, and May. This would give Barack Obama substantial victories in all the remaining primaries in February (Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Washington). It should give him about 1300 total delegates on March 1, 2008. > > This February election result would insure that Clinton would trail Obama by around 90 - 100 delegates entering the March 4, 2008 primary contests of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. She will have not beaten Obama in a primary or caucus for a month. **To remain in the race, Clinton would need victories approaching 60% of the vote in every remaining state except Mississippi in the month of March. If she somehow pulled this result off she would have about 1436 delegates on April 1, 2007. Obama would win about 165 delegates and his total would be 1465. The dubious news for Hillary Clinton is that Obama would still remain ahead at the end of March in delegates even if Clinton ran the table in March and won each contest (except Mississippi) by a 60-40% margin.** > > In April, 151 delegates will be at stake in the state of Pennsylvania. Let’s assume that Hillary Clinton wins that state with 60% of the vote and captures the same proportion of delegates. Her delegate total would be 1556 to Obama’s 1522, giving her a slight lead in delegate count. There would be 214 remaining delegates for the candidates to battle for during the primaries in the month of May. [March 11, 2008](http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5459) [March 28, 2008](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/vt-senator-calls-for-clinton-to-drop-out/) [April 1, 2008](http://www.slate.com/id/2187793) [May 8, 2008](http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/05/why_clinton_needs_to_drop_out_pundits_pile_on.html) Everybody in the reality-based community knew she was going to lose several months before she dropped out. These people aren’t all Obama supporters, and they weren’t wrong. This was not partiality, just conclusion based on looking at the polls, math, and odds. Feel free to flail about wildly screaming about about confirmation bias and media distortion, but the facts are not on your side on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072/40 "2008-11-18T15:08:51Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Then what you are asking becomes unclear. What the futures market thought is not particularly relevant, as the primaries had him as the clear winner very early on in the race. The futures market is an accurate reflection of public sentiment. By the time the primaries had rolled around, McCain’s chances had improved slightly but he was far from a clear winner. If you take a look at the [timeline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Iowa_and_New_Hampshire), McCain lost Iowa, won NH and lost to Romney in Michigan. It wasn’t until Super Tuesday that you could make a reasonable case that he was the “clear winner”. Regardless of whether he was a clear winner or not, my point was that he only seemed to prevail due to the self-destruction of all of his opponents rather than on any real clear merit of his own. He won but he was the best of the worst wheras Hillary lost but was the worst of the best. FWIW, I would be willing to place Kerry in the best of the worst category as well for the 04 elections. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-latest-a-viable-political-candidate-has-emerged-for-a-party/473072.md?page=3)