There's a disconcerting trend in some of the comments here at Sound Politics, including recently at this post on Rudy Giuliani and this one on Fred Thompson: pro-candidate partisans who refuse to accept reasonable scrutiny of their preferred standard bearer.
This is not healthy. For all their strengths, every major Republican candidate has their warts and each of their respective campaigns have unique weaknesses. The same applies to the major Democratic candidates as well. As such, one should expect measured critiques as candidates go under the microscope as part of the primary process.
Let me offer an example of that candor. I personally prefer Mitt Romney, but am well aware he's by no means the favorite. The challenges facing his campaign including low national name ID, criticism of his more recent positions on social issues, and the Mormon factor are well documented. Plus, despite all his accomplishments that make for a strong resume, he may strike some voters as just a little bit odd. These critiques are what they are. Why hide from them?
Thus, it is troublesome to see Rudy Giuliani partisans proclaiming he's doing just great since he's leading in most national polls. That notion just isn't in the case, as even this firmly pro-Rudy coverage in the Weekly Standard discusses at some length.
Likewise, it's an eye-opener to see Fred Thompson supporters refuse to acknowledge his campaign is running into a serious rough patch that is going to get worse before it gets better if he doesn't shift from his "testing the waters" phase that has clearly run its course. It's not as if recent news stories like this, this, and this are just going to go away now that journalists increasingly smell blood in the water. Not to mention the fact all of this is occurring without rival campaigns having to expend their own energy knocking him down yet.
We're witnessing an unparalleled election season with open, competitive, Presidential primaries on each side of the aisle. Regardless of personal politics, one will have to have some respect for each eventual party nominee, if for no other reason than grudging acknowledgment of the feat they've accomplished in running such a difficult primary gauntlet.
Accordingly, we should be able to have an honest discussion at times about how the candidates are faring without partisans leaping to the conclusion that this commenter or that is automatically biased against their guy. Just about everyone has their own preference, but we should be able to discuss matters with some intellectual honesty nonetheless.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 30, 2007 10:31 PM | Email ThisThe only disconcerting take-away from the previous blog entries is your capacity to try and beat an untenable position to death. The problem isn't with the Giuliani and Thompson supporters, it is with your inability to accept criticism when you make errors (some of them sustained) in your analysis.
Nobody is challenging that Giuliani has fallen from his previous heights in the high-30s, when he was at the top of a surge, to a return to his pre-surge levels in the upper-twenties. Nor have the previous bloggers contended the challenge Thompson represents to Giuliani. If Giuliani declines below his pre-surge levels then it might be time to start predicting a structural problem with his candidacy, but to do so, as you have done, prior to that is premature and suggests a desire on your part to construct a narrative that makes Romney look more viable then he is. Given that Giuliani's drop was directly inverse to Thompson's entry in the race mainly suggests that his pre-surge levels represent his natural level of support and that the surge represented conservatives temporarily banking their vote with him until a credible conservative came on the scene (which of course carries the unpleasant implication for Romney supporters that many conservatives do not consider Romney a credible conservative candidate).
You claim candor about Romney but fail to note his biggest weakness; that Republicans never nominate newcomers on the national scene and Romney's poll numbers have remained stagnant at low levels for months. And, while you are being candid, you should also acknowledge that the common history of early-state surgers like Romney is failure (Romney, Dean, Tsongas). I suspect you know the latter but don't like the damage it does to the Romney break-out narrative.
So maybe it would be a good time for you to start an honest discussion about your guy Romney?
Posted by: Not Declining on July 31, 2007 07:05 AMI have been lambasted by many Republican supporters for pointing it out. Within the last couple of weeks, it finally dawned on Karl Rove that it might be a good idea to admit that it was CORRUPTION which led to the Republican defeat in the last election cycle.
The die hard "Republicans good, Democrats bad" partisans will tollerate it, that is a small percentage of people who tend Republican. Most of those people who tend Republican are generally as disgusted by the corruption within the ranks as I am and the result of INSTITUTIONALIZED CORRUPTION and double dealing has come home to roost. This is going to take years, if not decades, to repair.
Posted by: JDH on July 31, 2007 07:25 AMIf Romney wasn't even in the race I'd be saying the same things about Giuliani and Thompson. If you think it is an "untenable position" to include discussion of a point acknowledged by both independent analysts and some on the pro-Giuliani side as well then I don't know what to tell you.
Moreover, I try to provide commentary that is newsworthy and/or relevant to recent discussions in the local media on the topic. Sitting down and listing every single fault of any of the Presidential candidates doesn't fit that bill.
You believe what you stated to be Romney's biggest weakness. I don't (even though I have repeatedly linked to sites showing national polls don't favor Romney, a fact I suspect most readers are already fully aware of). I'm more than happy to give Romney a fair shake, as I did in part above, because like all the others he has his weaknesses. Furthermore, I don't dispute Romney's early efforts in Iowa and NH might fade. I've said before it might not work. But sorry, you're not going to get the "Romney is a dead duck" post you seem to be asking for.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 31, 2007 07:52 AM
Here is just the latest example of where blind partisans have taken the Republican Party. This craqp needs to be dealt with swittly and severely or the Party's done as far as I am concerned. I couldn't give two hoots adn a holler what Democrats are doing, I expect them to be corrupt as does their constituencies, but I am fed up to the gills with this nonesense and Stevens is just a representative example.
JDH: There is corruption in both parties. Democrat corruption is hidden in the back of the newspaper and one or two articles. Republican Corruption Front page for months. I say clean house when it is found. Most Republicans will resign. Democrats well they get put on the best committees. Put in LEadership positions when possible. Espicially if they are very liberal. Vote the party way they will protect you.
That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Look at this state for Corruption. Democrats run everything. ANd boy do they do everything they can to prevent performance audits. Is it because they not corrupt or are they afraid that the special deals and corruption that is taking place in the state will be exposed. Look at the transportation audit the State auditor was limited to certain areas to audit. Not allowed to audit other areas. By your logic is not this state have Institutionalized Corruption by democrats? The bottom line is who holds power the longest in any state Republican or Democrat. THere is some corruption. (Sorry for last comments off topic)
Well, I read through the Thompson thread again in an attempt to find some 'disconcerting trend' and a 'refusal to accept reasonable scrutiny' of Thompson. I gotta tell ya, I don't see it. If you could cite some specifics, it'd be most helpful.
Unless, of course, it's you who has the problem with accepting reasonable scrutiny.
Posted by: jimg on July 31, 2007 08:21 AMEric, not to take away from your main points, but I don't think it's reasonable to attack people for "refusing to acknowledge" something that clearly isn't a fact, but a prediction, an opinion.
Not Declining: Republicans never nominate newcomers on the national scene? Like, say, George W. Bush?
If you want to act like Chicken Little you will be treated like Chicken Little.
Chill. Stop acting like a CNN wannabe.
Ken
Dallas
Just saw this today:
The Thompson report
Fred Thompson's campaign-in-waiting has released their June fundraising numbers with a nice touch of spin.
"Thompson Committee Raises Millions in One Month," blares the headline.
The totals:
Raised: $3.46 million since incorporation on June 1
Spent: $625,746 (an 18 percent burn rate, they note)
Cash on Hand: $2,836,609.08
Total donors: 9,167 (from all 50 states)
Online donors: 7,534
Not bad for a non-campaign in my book.
Posted by: pbj on July 31, 2007 11:38 AM''To be successful in a major competitive campaign, it is prudent to be coldly objective and ruthless in separating what we wish and hope is true from a rational analysis of what we perceive is actually true''.
Failure to do so and ignoring reality usually leads to unhappy outcomes... For example: Back when Sen. Ellen Craswell got the (R) nomination for Gov against Gary Locke. I remember how committed and energetic her partisans were, and how sure they seemed to be that the Senator was going to win. After the 59-41 Locke landslide (IIR the #s correctly (think so) ), Craswell supporters appeared to be shell shocked; i.e.: How could we have lost ??
Easy: They were effectively just talking to themselves and ignoring the realities of the State-wide political landscape. Even an amateur politico should have been able to figure out that Sen. Craswell had essentially ZERO chance of beating Gary Locke for Gov.... O.K.: Dale Foreman probably wouldn't have won either, but I think he would have done noticeably better in the General.
SUMMARY: As I have noted in several threads over the last few months: It's still winning the GENERAL that counts. I sense that some people still seem to see getting the (R) nomination as an end point instead of qualifying to step up to the starting line.
Who among the 2008 (R) candidates for Pres can best win the General ??... Even though on balance I still personally would like it to be Romney, objectively I am still not convinced he can do the best in the General. Jury is still out.
SIDEBAR: IOW: I agree with Eric.
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 31, 2007 12:52 PMThere is a reason why currently you aren't convinced that Romney can win a general election against Hillary, because he polls the worst against her than the other candidates. Heck, Romney won't even win his own state in the primary.
It is the General election that counts, and when it's time to vote in the primary we will have to vote for the most conservative candidate there is that has a reasonably good chance to beat Clinton.
side note: has there ever been another Presidential candidate that has gotten so much money from one religious organization? Can the Mormon areas of the country (those areas on that chart we were shown with the big circles) really buy an election?
Posted by: Doug on July 31, 2007 03:21 PMRegarding Pudg'es retort to my point that Republicans never nominate newcomers on the national scene. I had anticipated the retort you gave, George W. Bush, but felt it unnecessary to explain to the readers of this blog (an intelligent group overall) that the Bush brand was of sufficient national significance to give G.W. stature by proxy that the Romney name doesn't bring and that Giuliani, Thompson and McCain achieved in their own right. If you believe that G.W. did not receive nation-wide credibility among Rs in the '00 election because of his father, I'd be interested to hear you articulate that position. If you think Romney's experience as governor or as the son of a former governor gives him national stature equivalent to G.W. in '00 I'd also like to hear that argued. Don't expect me to agree with you, but I'd like to see you make the argument.
Regarding Eric's refusal to issue a death watch on Romney. Whether you or do or not isn't the issue. You have urged intellectual honesty on this site but have, in my opinion, inflated Romney's chances while nitpicking or advancing tortured speculation (the declining trendline theory) regarding the top two candidates. It's your blog and you're free to do as you feel. But, you have asked for intellectual honesty and a good place to start might be to review the history of candidates pushing the early state breakout narrative. This is Romney's sole 'I can win' story and it is much weaker than either Giuliani's or Thompson's.
If you want to discuss the warts on the candidates, as you say you do, let's please discuss the historically large number of campaigns who surge in early states and end up losing. Because, at present, that is the sole hinge upon which the Romney effort is hanging.
Posted by: Not Declining on July 31, 2007 06:38 PMRecently and in the past I've said Romney faces long odds to win the nomination and discussed why. If that's not intellectually honest I don't know what is. Just because I don't share your Romney "death watch" view doesn't mean I'm not viewing the race seriously.
Furthermore, I would argue that ANY candidate on either side of the aisle who wins both Iowa and New Hampshire will be in great shape. Obviously, that's Romney's strategy more than the others, but if any of them pulls that off they'll be in a very good position for their respective nominations.
jimg -
If I had a problem receiving scrutiny I wouldn't blog. It's impossible to do so on a serious topic with someone taking umbrage in the comments.
pbj -
In a silo I might say $3.46 million is pretty good, though since the Thompson candidacy is such a unique phenomena I don't know what we can compare it too. But, when expectations get set at about $5 million, to be collected right out of the gate, then his campaign sets up the string of stories that say he's underperforming. Plus, when half of that money comes from his home state it really doesn't demonstrate the national, conservative groundswell many were preaching. Even one of Thompson's most enthusiastic backers of Congress is saying it's time for Fred to get in the race.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 31, 2007 07:08 PMI don't see how hypothetical national match-ups are of much value at all at this early stage when the general election electorate is so unengaged. Both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have very high numbers in such polls of people answering "don't know" or "no opinion" when asked for a favorable/unfavorable rating. This recent poll is a good example, showing both men approaching 50% in the number of respondents who didn't have enough information to rate them. No other major party candidate was higher than the mid-20's. Thus, such match-ups are totally uninformative given that the electorate writ large knows little about Romney and Thompson, and probably doesn't have a very deep knowledge of Edwards or Obama either.
As to the fundraising numbers, I presume you're referring to this tool for breaking down the candidates' finances. That being the case, do you honestly believe Romney's fundraising success is simply a function of Mormons opening their checkbooks? Are you really that naive?
He's raised more money in individual contributions than Giuliani. Is the $3 million he raised in Massachusetts just Mormon money? What about the $1.6 million in Michigan? Or the $1.3 million in New York City? Or the nearly $2 million in Florida? Or the $5.4 million in California? Or the $461k right here in Western Washington? Are these all simply "Mormon areas of the country"? Might there be something significantly more to his fundraising then simply his personal faith?
At the risk of going all Hugh Hewitt on you, it's incredibly offensive to articulate as you do that somehow one "religious organization" is pumping money into a campaign. Building off swatter's point, let's talk about Utah for a moment. Let's say Alan Mullaly were to get tapped to save a floundering Olympics in, say, Denver, working at length with the local business community, and turning a potentially embarrassing public spectacle. Do you think that if Mullaly ran for high office after that he might just have a spike in contributions from Colorado, from people who saw him in action and appreciated what he did for their community?
I don't doubt for a second there are more Mormons donating to Romney's campaign then ever before in history. I also wouldn't be surprised if Giuliani had a higher than typical percentage of donors to a Republican campaign calling themselves Catholic thanks to his heavy concentration of support in NY, NJ, etc. Who the hell cares? Either way, it's clear based on the fundraising base both those campaigns have developed that there is way more than just one constituency driving their success.
You don't like Romney, a lot it would seem. That's certainly your right. But for the life of me I don't recall seeing a comment at this site so completely out of touch with reality since David Mathews was part of the fun here.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 31, 2007 08:13 PM- Sorry I don't know how to put a link in here, but here's a nice article for you Eric. It was just very obvious from your tool that he had a strange number of large circles from states with high Mormon populations. Someone in your comments mentioned that he had an even distribution of donations, but it really didn't show that.
As for the head-to-heads they are quite informative at this point. Romney is the 'generic Republican candidate'. Basically the normal politician, the head-to-heads show that in today's climate the independents are going to vote for Clinton over an average Republican. The independents may give the Republican party another opportunity depending on the candidate they nominate.
A Thompson or a Giuliani would be the exceptions - they would be 'different' than a regular Republican and could turn independents to vote for them. Romney would be more conventional and would have to have a lot of luck with the war in Iraq and the media in order to beat Clinton.
Now, which of the comments did you say was out of touch with reality to the tune of Dave Matthews? I think you are the one that is a little thin-skinned here. The first three paragraphs of comment #13 are pretty straight forward, the two questions I want answered are quite legitimate. Has there been a presidential candidate that has received so much money because of religion - can a religion buy an election?
The old line, overused by multitudes of losing candidates, that the electorate is unengaged early in races and that, therefore, unfavorable poll matchups are meaningless is not convincing. This line, whether used by the likes of Phil Gram (the public didn't know him) or Dennis Kucinich, always seeks to argue away the big liability that comes with obscurity in American politics. Every newcomer to the national stage prays to be engaged in the electoral equivalent of American Idol, where any nobody can rise to fame, when they are, in reality, engaged in a contest that more closely resembles the Oscars with awards going mainly to old veteran celebrities. Obama is the most recent exemplar of this time-worn tale and he will soon be facing the fate of the newcomers who came before him; defeat or transition to some more enviable position (VP Candidate).
To argue that the head-to-heads are meaningless now as opposed to later presumes the relevant voters will wait to make their decision or that they will be more informed about your lesser-known candidates further down the road; both being questionable propositions.
Bob Dole learned the hard way that voters will not necessarily wait to decide a contest that starts early and multitudes of little known candidates have learned over the years that absent some big reason to self-educate regarding a newcomer, most voters will simply choose between the better knowns. At present Giuliani has been on the national stage as a headline grabbing prosecutor and later mayor since the middle 1980s. Thompson for almost a simliar period. Romney is only starting to secure a national presence. Add to this the fact that most Republicans are sufficiently conservative to prefer someone they've seen perform (like RG and FT) versus simply trusting a newcomer's claims about themselves (the devil you know vs. the devil you don't), and you have a reasonably good explanation for the tendency of voters, whether in the primaries or the general, to prefer veterans.
These match ups, not surprisingly, reflect a preference, by the voters, for known commodities. So, when Hillary, a known commodity, comes up against Romney, an unknown, Romney gets shellacked. This voter behaviour will not reverse itself and a claim that massive advert spending could turn things around only begs the question: why spend heavy just to bring Romney up to where Giuliani and Thompson already are?
Posted by: Not Declining on July 31, 2007 09:24 PMI remember reading that article when it came out and not thinking much of it then...in large part because Carpenter seemed to think that in April of 2007 there should be some correlation between fundraising and poll numbers. As if money simply follows polls early in any major political race.
On your point, yes, Romney has high numbers from Mormon areas. That's obvious. Yet besides Utah and the obvious Olympic factor to consider there too, Carpenter's other examples are the tiny states of Idaho and Wyoming, which are hardly representative of a national fundraising base (plus Idaho was very engaged in the 2002 Games, just as the Seattle area has an interest in the 2010 Games in Vancouver).
The very fact Romney has raised the most in individual contributions of any of the GOP candidates - and has the most donors - speaks to the fact he has support from all over the country (though obviously it remains to be seen if that translates into electoral success). Does Florida have a big pocket of Mormons? Does Massachusetts? Does Michigan? Does the San Francisco Bay area?
This whole idea that Romney's fundraising can be simplified into him feeding off of Mormons is nonsensical and the way you described it was offensive. If you dropped Utah out of the equation he's still have raised over $30 million in the first half of the year from individual contributors.
Also, I believe the comment you're referring to in the other thread was from Methow Ken and spoke the fact Romney had the largest, most balanced compilation of contributions across the country, compared to Giuliani and McCain. If you look at the numbers across the West Coast, the Midwest, and the South that seems to be the case.
My David Mathews comparison was entirely based on your obnoxious assertion that Romney's campaign warchest is simply a function of Mormon's sending him checks in an attempt to "buy" an election. I disagree about your other points related to national hypothetical match-ups but that's certainly a fair argument, just as good people can argue whether Iowa and New Hampshire are relevant given Florida and Feb 5th in 2008.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 31, 2007 09:31 PM"why spend heavy just to bring Romney up to where Giuliani and Thompson already are?"
First, I don't think the data shows Thompson is at Giuliani's level in current hypothetical match-ups. Second, in direct answer, one would do so if one thinks in the end Romney will be a better nominee in the long run than Giuliani or Thompson. Given that the general election will essentially run from March through November that's a lot of time to campaign.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 31, 2007 09:57 PMWhat is thought provoking about some of the data is first, some of the higher populated mormon states (Washington is a top 5 as well) such as Idaho and Oregon don't provide as big a chunk so far of his money. I think some looksy at the information in the article might provide some answers. If there are fewer numbers in New York City, or Washington DC-Virginia area, or Massachusetts, but they get disproportionate dollars, how does that work? Well, they could be the movers and shakers, the rich business owners or politicians with connections that are drumming up the funds, like those mentioned in the other article. Does Orrin Hatch's PAC money get reported from Utah or from DC?
I've read articles about normal mormons being excited about Romney that have already given their $2300 to him. It's a bit different than Obama or Edwards money, those giving to Romney gave the max, that shows fewer numbers of donors for the amount recieved - fewer votes or richer backers.
My questions only showed that I do believe the money he received thus far is a function from and is in a high corrolation with the fact that he is Mormon. I won't deny that and I don't believe that is really unreasonable based on the numbers and the articles available to read. I would also assume a credible Muslim candidate for President would also get lots of big donations from Muslims and Islamic interests based on his religtion and that he was a credible candidate. I just want to know how big of an impact dollar wise does a presidential candidate get based on his religion if it's somewhat unique to the other candidates. I also want to know if it's possible that Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or any other religion could buy a presidency, and another question for you - would that be bad?
Posted by: Doug on July 31, 2007 10:19 PM"I also want to know if it's possible that Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or any other religion could buy a presidency, and another question for you - would that be bad?"
Yes, it would, if it were possible. I largely don't think it would be because it relies on a candidate with ill-intent. It seems to me that under the scrutiny candidates face that would be a difficult trick to turn.
In Romney's case I've read a lot that has led me to believe that's totally a non-issue with him.
Also, I think the natural fundraising bases required for a major party candidate to win a general election are diverse enough that such a religious-based stunt would be impossible to pull-off. Other components of a party's coalition would likely have serious problems with such a move, which would cause a candidate real problems.
All that being said, I still think you're making way too many leaps about how much "Mormon money" Romney has raised. If he were affiliated with any mainline Protestant denomination and had the same resume (business, Olympics, Governor) he'd likely be raising a lot of money all over the country in the same way thanks to business connections, big name fundraisers he has signed on, performance on the trail, etc. I've dealt with enough campaigns from the local through federal level to know people give to candidates for a lot more diverse reasons than you're giving them credit for.
Are Mormons more likely to donate to him than other candidates? Sure. Does that have any effect on how Romney would serve as President? I don't think so in the least.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 31, 2007 10:43 PMJust perusing the FEC filings, it looks like the Michigan money, and big chunks at a time, is coming from Bloomfield Hills, Franklin, Bloomfield. That is where the only Mormon Temple in Michigan is. Interesting stuff there. What if you backed out the large contributions that came from the Mormon areas, not just Utah? What would be left? Is that why he had to loan his campaign so much, is that why he really needs to go out and say he is the front runner, maybe his campaign realizes their money is tapped out and they need some from new places.
Posted by: Doug on July 31, 2007 10:54 PMIf that same situation is playing out across the country for Mitt Romney, meaning that his money is coming from Mormons, and they are donating, for the most part, maximum allowable, what does that bode for his campaign? Could have his campaign had a concerted effort to get that money early in the campaign to show he is a contender? Will that money dry up and will he find other Americans to fill that void?
Posted by: Doug on July 31, 2007 11:26 PMRegarding Pudg'es retort to my point that Republicans never nominate newcomers on the national scene. I had anticipated the retort you gave, George W. Bush, but felt it unnecessary to explain to the readers of this blog (an intelligent group overall) that the Bush brand was of sufficient national significance to give G.W. stature by proxy that the Romney name doesn't bring and that Giuliani, Thompson and McCain achieved in their own right.
So what you're saying is that, in fact, whether or not you are a newcomer to the national scene is irrelevant, undermining your entire point. Wow, you're so insightful. Being a newcomer matters unless it doesn't!
The real fact here is that what matters is how many people recognize your name and understand something of who you are. "Duh." It's not about being a newcomer at all. Thompson is as much of a newcomer as Romney, and so is Guiliani. Indeed, we are virtually guaranteed to have a newcomer nominated in the GOP this time around.
You were just trying to sound like you know what you are talking about by making up a claim that has no bearing on reality.
Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2007 12:15 AMNow that they predisposed the respondents to think Bush and Gore are the frontrunners, surprise! The respondents picked Bush and Gore as the frontrunners!
And people wonder why I hate polls so much ...
Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2007 06:21 PMI think you are almost alone among the readers of this blog in failing to grasp that candidates from nationally prominent families are by definition not newcomers to the national scene. I suppose you could argue that the Kennedy boys were "newcomers" when they ran for national office, even though their father was prominent nationally and a brother was President. I suppose you could say the same for John Quincy Adams for that matter. You could propose it, but most people would find such a proposition silly.
Perhaps you think the Romney family of such national prominence that Mitt comes to the campaign in the same position as GW, Jack, Bobbie, Teddy and John Quincy? Or perhaps you think the governorship of Mass. of such importance that it creates a similar level of national prominence. You've already baldly asserted that you think Romney to be the equal of Thompson and Giuliani in national prominence without providing any evidence to support your assertion. I offered the fact that both Giuliani and Thompson have been in the news on and off since around the 80s and Romney has not to support a contrary assertion. Now's your chance to back up your statements with some sort of evidence.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 1, 2007 06:33 PMGW Bush, on the other hand, had only a failed Congressional run, and was only known by a significant number of Americans, apart from his name, through his governorship of Texas. This isn't significantly different from Romney, who is known through his governorship of Massachusetts, his saving of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his own father. Sure, Bush Sr. is more well-known than Romney Sr., obviously, but neither one had any serious national exposure before the race for the presidency.
Your original apparent implication was that they had to have actually done something nationally, not merely have some sort of name recognition. For example, Nixon was a former VP and prominent Congressman, and Reagan had a very well-regarded bid in 1976, and Eisenhower was a prominent general in WWII.
Now that I know you're just talking about mere name recognition, what you said is far less interesting, and entirely meaningless to boot, since all you need to overcome a lack of national prominence is national prominence. The reason Romney is not doing well is simply because of flaws in who he is. If he were more conservative, and more reliably conservative, and not a Mormon, and so on, he'd be winning this race, regardless of his prior national exposure.
As to Thompson being in the news "on and off since the 80s," that is nonsense. For what? He was an actor, but not in the news any more than Romney was, until he ran for the Senate. He may have been more well-known, but not for anything other than being an actor, in the 80s, except for the brief news about his lobbying efforts; but so too was Romney in the news in the 80s for his work at Bain.
In other words, you're -- as I already said -- simply trying to sound smart by coming up with some sort of a "rule" to describe things that are not only self-evident, but necessarily true: you can't be nominated without people knowing who you are.
Posted by: pudge on August 1, 2007 08:15 PMyour error is displayed upfront by your statement "[y]our original apparent implication was that they had to have actually done something nationally, not merely have some sort of name recognition." Your construction "apparent implication" tells the tale. No, the original statement contains no such implication, apparent or otherwise. People from nationally prominent families are not thought of as newcomers and one need not fill statements on a blog with paragraphs of conditions just to avoid that one reader drawing confused "apparent implications."
Again, most people don't have difficulty understanding the distinction between stature and prominence on the national stage and simple name ID. Many with name ID don't have stature. Prominent families enjoy the advantage of stature (a trait that includes many features, including a sense of reliability from long-term familiarity) that others have to earn. If you don't think membership in the Kennedy family helped elevate Jack Kennedy beyond that afforded the typical US Senator, fine.
Most people find the attribution of positive traits to the children of famous fathers and mothers somewhat normal. You don't. So, be it. I believe you are wrong and most, I'm sure, would agree with me.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 1, 2007 10:02 PMI don't think 'unengaged' is the right word.
The people who are unhappy about how the 2006 congressional elections turned out are still unhappy. The people who were happy about how the 2006 congressional elections turned out are now unhappy that it hasn't had the results they wanted. There are very very few people who are in any way satisfied with the current political situation.
Posted by: rosignol on August 1, 2007 10:29 PMSamuel Clemens had it right when he said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Stop working off the polls and start looking for yourself at each candidate's record. Polls are BS and anyone with a functioning synapse can see that.
Come on, folks; step back and take a look at the bigger picture here. Polls can be made to say whatever the facilitator wants them to say. The simple structure of the question can cause the responder to answer in a way that may not necessarily reflect his or her actual position, but nonetheless serves the facilitator's purposes.
"Non-scientific" polls are exactly that: non-scientific. That fact alone should give the reader pause for thought. Who was polled? Was the selected study population representative of the overall population of the country? (Usually in politically-driven media polls, they are not.) Why should a poll be considered reliable or accurate? Some polls are considered more reliable than others, but as we have all seen, polls can say that the majority of Americans feel a certain way, when in reality the people feel otherwise.
That said, I'm not for any of the candidates at this point. Thompson needs to shit or get off the pot. Who the hell is Romney, and why should I trust him to lead a nation at war? Giuliani has demonstrated strong and dynamic leadership on 9/11, but is decidedly liberal on crucial issues. McCain hung himself by his own legislation, but is pro national defense. Those are the only Republican candidates who are being given any shot at the nomination.
But polls are bullshit. Don't trust them. Look at the candidates for yourselves and make up your own minds about them. Anyone who allows media-driven polls to do the thinking for them is a fool and deserves a crappy government and a corrupt party.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 2, 2007 01:07 PMBut right before that you say: "Thompson needs to shit or get off the pot. Who the hell is Romney, and why should I trust him to lead a nation at war? Giuliani has demonstrated strong and dynamic leadership on 9/11, but is decidedly liberal on crucial issues. McCain hung himself by his own legislation, but is pro national defense. Those are the only Republican candidates who are being given any shot at the nomination."
But, um, what makes you think these are the only Republican candidates who are being given any shot at the nomination, apart from ... polls?
Posted by: pudge on August 2, 2007 02:13 PMThere's no tautology.
The original point (which remains true whether you find it interesting or not) is that Romney does not possess the national stature which has been a present element in every nominated Republican of the modern era. Necomers like Romney don't have the necessary stature that members of prominent national families enjoy; witness GWB.
Stature is different from name ID and includes some of the trustworthiness people feel from having watched a candidate, or their relatives, in action over years. Four of the present candidates, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Gingrich, have the necessary national stature to fit the historic profile of a successful R nominee (at least in the stature department). They wont' all win of course, but at least they share this feature with all the past winners, a feature Romney does not share.
You seem to believe that Bush and Romney are on an equal level with regard to national stature because they were both Governors. This overlooks the more salient point that George Bush was the son, and shared the name, of a man who was on the R presidential ticket for five of the prior six presidential ballots. To attempt to equate the national stature GW Bush received through membership in his family with Romney's governorship of Mass is silly and amounts to wilfull romanticism of Romney's chances. Go ahead, fall in love with Romney. Just don't be surprised when he doesn't win.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 2, 2007 04:42 PM
I like Thompson on the issues, but I prefer to vote for candidates with executive experience- preferably State Governors.
So Guiliani or Romney are the ones with the background I find appealing (I figure running NYC is on par with being Governor of a low-pop state)... but I don't much care for Romney on the issues, and Guiliani has a really messy personal life (which the national media will be delighted to tell us about in detail after he gets the nomination).
McCain.... no. The Senate is the right place for him. If he wants an executive-branch job, maybe SecDef. No higher.
So right now, I'm basically waiting for Thompson to do something to turn me off, at which point Romney and Guiliani will get a second look...
Sitting out the slow-news summer rerun season isn't going to turn me off. It may turn off polibloggers who want something to post about, but not hearing political ads every commercial break isn't going to annoy voters at all. Quite the contrary.
Posted by: rosignol on August 2, 2007 09:45 PMClearly, you are in the habit of using words, such as tautology, you don't understand.
There is a disinction between someone who is recently known, and only known through a campaign, and someone who has been known and observed for a period of time in non-campaign circumstances, whether you like it or not (and whether you understand the meaning of tautology or not). It amounts to a difference in the quality of information received by the voters. Not all information is granted the same level of trust.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 4, 2007 06:51 AMGet a dictionary pal. You need it.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 4, 2007 11:31 AMBTW - To your assertion that anyone can get the name ID they need to win a campaign, even someone as obscure going into the race as Romney; were that true, history would have provided a precedent supporting your claim in the R presidential realm: unfortunately for you, history doesn't accomodate this fanciful notion. But, keep acting like you understand this stuff and your bluff might fool a few folks.
Posted by: Not Declining on August 4, 2007 11:40 AMThat wasn't even a good try!
Posted by: pudge on August 4, 2007 11:12 PM