I will say, to counter my own point about far-left/far-right people being unable to win, there are two things that tend to determine a Presidential election winner. Looking back through 1980 (I don't know enough about losing candidates before then), you see this: Reagan over Carter Reagan over Mondale Bush over Dukakis Clinton over Bush Clinton over Dole Bush over Gore Bush over Kerry Obama over McCain In every single election except for 2000, the incumbent party has won during good economies and the challenger has won during bad economies. In addition, in every single election, the more charismatic candidate has won. What we don't know is how strong each of these predictors is. Would a charismatic candidate in a bad economy win over a not-so-nice challenger? We may find out in 2012 if the economic double-dips or struggles. We do have a little evidence from 2000 that charisma trumps economy, but I'm not sure if that's enough evidence or not. As far as the moderate aspect goes, I would argue being relatively moderate (or presenting yourself as such) is connected to charisma to some extent. The true far-right / far-left players tend to be more fighters than anything else. They tend to be angry, antagonistic, etc - that doesn't fit well with being personally charismatic. So we also don't really know if a charismatic far-right GOPe could win or not. I suspect they couldn't because it's too easy to demonize anyone on the fringes, but hard to say.
Complicating this further, I guess, is that Gore won the popular vote yadayadayada. So it was more the distribution of votes that hurt Gore than being unable to get enough votes.
Yeah I think it's too simplified to point out the more charismatic candidate has won each time as there are such unique circumstances around each election. For all Reagan's charisma, it didn't help him get past Gerald Ford the first time around in the primaries. Had the economy been humming, Iran not been a problem, gas not been a problem, etc. would Regan's "charisma" have amounted to a hill of beans against Carter? I don't think so. In Gore v Bush I think Gore had a hard time getting enough people in the middle to see him as something more than Clinton's VP. This next election will be interesting as I expect the economy to be wobbly still and I expect the GOP to ultimately nominate a non-exciting but competent candidate. Pawlenty and Thune are my two "most likely." Neither of them has much in the way of charisma, but both have a competent air about them. They both remind me of that commercial that's on right now where the voice over says "Your core competency is competency" when talking about business travelers.
I'd add to your analysis Bush's charisma isn't that much greater than Gore's, and by far the closest of the races that you mentioned. You should go back at least one more race, especially since the 1970s are the closest to the economy we have now. (Long-term unemployment, slow growth that seems to skip over the middle class, yada, yada, yada.) Ford was more charismatic than Carter, but lost as an incumbent in a down economy.
By the way, I think you have to add Paul Ryan to the list of possibles. He's obviously angling towards a Presidential run at some point, though I suspect he'll sit this one out.
I don't know if Huckabee is competent enough to be a president, but I dig him personally. He's a cool cat.
I could see myself liking Huckabee on a personal basis if I knew him that way, but unlike most Americans, I'm not interested in the President being someone I can have a beer with, as I highly doubt I'll have that opportunity. I don't talk politics with my friends that often, after all. And his politics are absolutely abhorrent.
I think he'll be exposed as a lackluster candidate. Relying simply on his religious influence will be his downfall. As the going gets tough, he won't be able to hang with competition when it comes to real issues like the economy. Seems like a nice person though, in the non-political sense.
Ironically, after all your folderal, your choice is the most idiotic mentioned. I, and probably every Dem in the country, would love to see Demint/Rubio ticket. Seems like the libs have a better handle on your politics than you do.
I think you and I have totally have different views on what is a "moderate." My definition of moderate is McCain, conservative only in election years and and left-leaning rest of the time. Also, Bush was far to the right of McCain, so he's not moderate in my book. Neither is he a true conservative. My diagram of the right wing: Conservative (Reagan)-----NeoCon (Bush)-----Moderate (McCain)-----RINO (Snowe) That is why I will continue to insist for a solid conservative like DeMint. Perhaps from your viewpoint, you see him as far right-wing guy, but that's because too many of these phony moderate types have taken over the GOP. 20 years ago Jim DeMint would have been no different than Reagan in terms of conservative viewpoints. Today, these flip-flopping moderates have pushed conservatives further to the right of the spectrum. They continue to define their lose principles as conservative views when in fact they are nothing but a la carte variety of hyphened Republicans. Either you are a conservative or you are a fraud.
I expect a ticket of Pawlenty/Thune at the top with a tea party type as the Veep. The other name to consider is Mitch Daniels. I still think Haley Barbour is a dark horse as well. I don't see Demint as having a chance in a national election.
So, your shining example of "Conservative" is a guy that raised taxes (including corporate taxes) at least 4 times, increased the debt by 189%, gave amnesty to illegal aliens, and negotiated with terrorists?
This is truly funny when you consider that Reagan probably would be kicked out of his own party by today's "conservative" standards. Reagan would be considered a RINO by today's tea party. just some basic facts; can you tell me where it hurts? - Six years BEFORE Roe V. Wade, then-Gov. Reagan signed into law California's Therapeutic Abortion Act, one of the nation's first measures legalizing conditions for the termination of pregnancies. - President Reagan signed the country's last sweeping immigration reform law, the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act. The act, crafted in a Republican-controlled Senate, provided amnesty to certain illegals who had lived continuously in the U.S. from before 1982. It also set down a path toward legalization for agricultural and seasonal workers. The Gipper was also a greenie: President Reagan signed into law a) the million-acre Washington Wilderness Bill; b) the 850,000-acre Oregon Wilderness Bill; and legislation creating c) the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument; and d) the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. - Ronald Reagan ballooned the deficit:The federal deficit ballooned from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 6% of GDP in 1983, the largest peacetime deficit in history. there's more
There are many new-found born-again tea party true-blue "conservatives" who think of Reagan in Paul Bunyan-like mythological terms and are not necessarily old or informed enough to know what he was really like.
I completely disagree on Reagan. He raised a mix of taxes, expanded Social Secuity quite a bit, did the first experiment with immigration amnesty, etc. He's nothing at all like Demint, who's more of a check-all-the-boxes hard-liner. Reagan would be demonized by the Tea Party today and as is very much romaniticized by the right today thanks to the passage of time and the fall of Communism. I agree that Bush is relatively conservative, but he ran in 2000 as a moderate (and his record as Texas Gov at the time was relatively moderate).
