Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Presidential Nominees Likely To Be Determined By <br>'The Unknown'

Bookmark and Share

As politicians officially and unofficially begin their campaigns for the presidency in 2008, speculation about the strengths and weaknesses of each potential candidate will naturally be thoroughly debated in the media.

Frequent questions already being posed by pundits include: Will Mitt Romney's Mormon faith alienate religious fundamentalists? Are John McCain's foreign policy positions too closely aligned to an unpopular president? What will happen when Rudy Giuliani's socially liberal pre-9/11 record becomes known to Republican primary voters? How will Barack Obama handle the post-honeymoon period of his campaign? Will Hillary Clinton's support of the Iraq War hurt her chances to win Democratic primaries?

What is being missed in this partially substantive, partially fluffy, and wholly speculative analysis is the power the 'unknown' holds in determining a party's nominee. For it is the 'unknown' that frequently sends one campaign into a tailspin and launches that of another to victory. The 'unknown' rarely has anything to do with a candidate's policy position or strategic positioning among the other candidates in the field. In fact, several recent primary races—especially on the Democratic side—can point to one crucial turning point that seems to have derailed a frontrunner or strong contender for the nomination.

In the fight for the 1988 nomination, Gary Hart was an early frontrunner, before his affair with Donna Rice broke—dropping out of the campaign a week after the story emerged in May 1987.

But the unknown moment need not be a sexual indiscretion. In 1992, former U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas was running a strong campaign, raking up dozens of delegates after wins in New Hampshire, Maryland, Arizona, and Rhode Island. Tsongas then suddenly withdrew from the race after new questions about his health emerged (he had battled cancer in the 1980s). On the other hand, Bill Clinton's campaign was ultimately able to survive 'the unknown' after revelations of his infidelity emerged in 1991; Clinton's candidacy did suffer in the short term, but, as his 'unknown' was revealed early in the campaign, he (unlike Gary Hart, who quit) prevailed in the end.

In 2004, Howard Dean's image took a huge hit when, at a post Iowa caucus rally, a unidirectional microphone filtered out sympathetic (and equally raucous) crowd noise in a call-and-response battle cry that—on television—made Dean appear rather unhinged and decidedly un-presidential. While Dean's third place finish in the Hawkeye State admittedly also signaled that the momentum he had developed during the past year had been somewhat curbed, prior to that rally Dean was still a legitimate candidate—and still the most successful fundraiser in the field.

Although he was never viewed as a strong contender, Jesse Jackson's 1984 campaign (as well as his chance for the Vice-Presidential nomination) took two steps back after making anti-Semitic remarks on the campaign trail.

So, the question may not be whether or not a candidate's views on Iraq will earn him or her the nomination, but whether or not that candidate is harboring—or will fall victim to - the unknown.

Previous post: Divided Government in Minnesota: New Smart Politics Commentary at TPT
Next post: Addresses by Upper Midwest Governors Remarkably Similar

2 Comments


  • Romney is not a true Republican because he voted for Paul Tsongas.

    Reasons to agree

    1. A good republican would never vote for a Democrat.
    2. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the Devil himself. D is for Devil. Even if it is the just the primary and you vote for George H. Bush (like Romney) in the General election.

    Reasons to disagree

    1. Romney was a good republican because he was very practical. In 1992 there was no Republican primary. He had two options. He could sit on the side lines and not vote (like me this last election cycle) or he could vote for the best candidate who would not likely beat Bush in the General election. Romney chose the latter. This does not make him a bad republican.
    2. Paul Tsongas was a fiscal conservative.
    3. Paul Tsongas was a good guy.
    4. I wish every Republican would have registered as independents in 1992 and voted for Paul Tsongus. Bush would have lost anyways, but we would have had Tsongus instead of Clinton. And now Hillary Clinton. Maybe George H. Bush would have one against Paul Tsongus. Two descent guys, that had nothing to do with Hollywood instead of Bill going against H. Bush in 1992.
    5. Maybe Republicans should all claim independent, so that we can vote for Hillary in the Primaries and our guys in the General election.
    6. There was no GOP primary contest in 92. In 1992 Mitt Romney voted against Bill Clinton twice.
    7. I am a Romney fan, but not even I think Romney was smart enough to see that Bill Clinton was a bigger liability than George H. Bush was an asset for our Country. I am not going to attribute Mitt Romney of difficult political calculus. This was very basic addition. Vote once for the guy you like best, or vote twice? Hmm, let me see…

  • Romney is not a true Republican because he voted for Paul Tsongas.

    Reasons to agree

    1. A good republican would never vote for a Democrat.
    2. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the Devil himself. D is for Devil. Even if it is the just the primary and you vote for George H. Bush (like Romney) in the General election.

    Reasons to disagree

    1. Romney was a good republican because he was very practical. In 1992 there was no Republican primary. He had two options. He could sit on the side lines and not vote (like me this last election cycle) or he could vote for the best candidate who would not likely beat Bush in the General election. Romney chose the latter. This does not make him a bad republican.
    2. Paul Tsongas was a fiscal conservative.
    3. Paul Tsongas was a good guy.
    4. I wish every Republican would have registered as independents in 1992 and voted for Paul Tsongus. Bush would have lost anyways, but we would have had Tsongus instead of Clinton. And now Hillary Clinton. Maybe George H. Bush would have one against Paul Tsongus. Two descent guys, that had nothing to do with Hollywood instead of Bill going against H. Bush in 1992.
    5. Maybe Republicans should all claim independent, so that we can vote for Hillary in the Primaries and our guys in the General election.
    6. There was no GOP primary contest in 92. In 1992 Mitt Romney voted against Bill Clinton twice.
    7. I am a Romney fan, but not even I think Romney was smart enough to see that Bill Clinton was a bigger liability than George H. Bush was an asset for our Country. I am not going to attribute Mitt Romney of difficult political calculus. This was very basic addition. Vote once for the guy you like best, or vote twice? Hmm, let me see…

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting