Notice that all Republican "rising stars" this century have been massive duds?

[Antonio the Sixth]

In politics like most organizations the hierarchy is a pyramid with far more spots near the base than near the peak. Presumably a rising star is recognized when they've moved up from the base but not to the peak. The statistics alone suggest that most such people will never find the timing or opportunity to find a place in the upper ranks. So most rising stars will necessarily end up as duds if judged by how high they might have been expected to rise if everything worked to their advantage.

This.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

True, but he certainly wasn't a 'rising star' when he was elected, and one could argue that he was a dud as well, considering how his presidency ended.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

True, but he certainly wasn't a 'rising star' when he was elected, and one could argue that he was a dud as well, considering how his presidency ended.

He would definitely have been seen as a dud from 1962 to 1967.

[Blair]

It's just like how you always hear about foods/drugs/tech products that are suppose to change your life, and be revolutionary. A small group of them get through and actually make a difference, some of them come out of nowhere and some of them are discovered by accident-it's largely the same with politicians

The problem is that it's a massive media bubble, all it takes is one gushing Time article for you to be crowned

[hopper]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

True, but he certainly wasn't a 'rising star' when he was elected, and one could argue that he was a dud as well, considering how his presidency ended.

He would definitely have been seen as a dud from 1962 to 1967.

Yeah I think his political career was basically dead in that timeframe that you just mentioned.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

True, but he certainly wasn't a 'rising star' when he was elected, and one could argue that he was a dud as well, considering how his presidency ended.

Which brings up perhaps an important point. Need a rising star still be a rising star when they're elected? When you see Nixon in 1951 and think "that kid's going places", that doesn't mean he need be nearly as exciting once he's actually in a place to go or be at those "places". Barack Obama got into office in a very short timeframe such that there was little transition from "rising star" to President. Is that short timespan absolutely necessary?

[OSR stands with Israel]

in the past 50 years only two rising stars became presidents : Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama

Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush say hello.

Carter wasnt a rising star he was a total outside and unknown before the 1976 election, and wasnt even though of in the early 70s.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

True, but he certainly wasn't a 'rising star' when he was elected, and one could argue that he was a dud as well, considering how his presidency ended.

A rising star politician is by definition not a dud if they make it to the top. How one deals with the top job after they get it is a completely different question.

[Orser67]

in the past 50 years only two rising stars became presidents : Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama

Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush say hello.

Carter wasnt a rising star he was a total outside and unknown before the 1976 election, and wasnt even though of in the early 70s.

This is pushing the "Carter was an unknown outsider" narrative too far. As governor of Georgia he appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in 1971, and he picked up a few votes for VP at the '72 convention.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd consider Nixon a rising star, given his quick g to political prominence while and Congress and being picked for VP after with less than 2 years as Senator.

True, but he certainly wasn't a 'rising star' when he was elected, and one could argue that he was a dud as well, considering how his presidency ended.

Which brings up perhaps an important point. Need a rising star still be a rising star when they're elected? When you see Nixon in 1951 and think "that kid's going places", that doesn't mean he need be nearly as exciting once he's actually in a place to go or be at those "places". Barack Obama got into office in a very short timeframe such that there was little transition from "rising star" to President. Is that short timespan absolutely necessary?

Well, if you're going that route, you might as well throw in Bill Clinton.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, and the reason, in one word, is Trump.  He's sucked all the energy and media attention away from the other candidates, and it's one of the reasons he's led the pack for so long.

[Badger]

this reminds me of Bill Clinton's joke (though true) that he was probably the only person ever described as a rising star in 3 different decades.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Most of the Democratic so-called "rising stars" have been massive duds as well. Reubin Askew, Gary Hart, Ray Mabus, Don Siegelman...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Senate Class of 2008, which pushed Dems to 60 hurt the GOP party. When McCain lost. In every election cycle except for 2014, Dems have had Senate majority ever since. The reason why 2008 was bad for GOP, because it shut them out in Va, CO, NM & NH, part of the 9 electoral states that have been GOP leaning and now are Dem purple  state.

Our Senate Class which I hope Kander & Strickland are too added, will be just as good as 2008.

[This account no longer in use.]

The Senate Class of 2008, which pushed Dems to 60 hurt the GOP party. When McCain lost. In every election cycle except for 2014, Dems have had Senate majority ever since. The reason why 2008 was bad for GOP, because it shut them out in Va, CO, NM & NH, part of the 9 electoral states that have been GOP leaning and now are Dem purple  state.

Our Senate Class which I hope Kander & Strickland are too added, will be just as good as 2008.

So 8 pickups is what you're predicting? If there were 8 pickups, my guesses would be WI, IL, FL, NH, PA, OH, NC, and AZ. But that'll never happen.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its clearly about 6 but you never know. NC is doomed due to SSM