Why Did Jindal, Huckabee, Perry, Santorum, and Graham Go Absolutely Nowhere? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 11:39:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Why Did Jindal, Huckabee, Perry, Santorum, and Graham Go Absolutely Nowhere? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why Did Jindal, Huckabee, Perry, Santorum, and Graham Go Absolutely Nowhere?  (Read 2829 times)
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

« on: December 31, 2018, 07:31:16 AM »

None of them had a niche.

Graham - How many Republican primary voters do you think base their vote on being a hawk, and of those, how many do you think would be okay with "Grahamnesty?"
Huckabee - Old news, his pandering style was very dated
Santorum - Old news, only got traction in 2012 because he was at the right place at the right time to be flavor of the month against Romney, someone who many Republican primary voters disliked
Perry - Old news, literally a joke candidate best known for forgetting which agency of government he'd abolish
Jindal - Brought nothing to the table, and his name is literally "Piyush Jindal." Need I say more?


The first part was good, LOL.

Seriously, though, you win a nomination by uniting factions.  Though it's hard to remember in the hyper-polarized age of Trump, the GOP still has factions, just like the Democratic Party.  Of those, Jindal, Huckabee and Santorum solely appealed to the Religious Right.  They had almost no appeal to the far right crowd, moderates, donors, etc.  Graham only appealed to the foreign policy hawk crowd, which is much bigger among elected officials and donors (and donors usually bet on who they think could actually win, among equally preferable candidates).  Perry could have gone somewhere, but he had the gaffe.  After that, why not just find another, better Perry?

McCain, Romney and Trump all united different GOP factions that probably would not have preferred "that type of candidate" on paper but came to be won over through the primary process.  Despite how we talk, the 2008 Republican primary electorate that elected John McCain is hardly any different from the one that elected Romney, which is hardly any different than the one who elected Trump.


In a strange way there is a connection :


McCain : the left was dominated by anti war activists then , and McCain represented the Pro War wing of the party better than anyone in the race


Romney : The left was dominated by Occupy Wall Street  and Romney literally represented the total opposite of that (And he was almost the kind of guy the occupiers would hate the most )


Trump : Cultural Left dominated politics for previous 4 years and trump was a reaction to that

This always happens. Elections are defined by the incumbent and the air they bring to the national mood and conversation.


Yup same is true for dems as well (in out of power elections with exception of 2004)



1984: Reagan was basically replacing the New Deal Keynesian Economics with Fredmanian Supply Side Economics and Mondale represented that old Economic order better than anyone


1988: Dukakis was literally the caricature of a Weak On Crime , anti Social Conservative Dem

1992: Dems nominate the outsider (ironically at the time ) and former 60s protestor  to face of against the ultimate insider HW Bush

2008: After 8 years of Neo Conservatism dominating American politics , they nominate an anti war candidate




If this pattern continues, in 2020 the Democrats will nominate Amy Schumer.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.