What's the freaking point?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I keep wondering what's the freaking point for some Republican candidates, that have slim to none chance to win the nomination, to stay in the race?

Don't take me wrong. There's a distinction between them and many historical candidates, that didn't have much chances, but ran anyway in order to bring up some issue, raise answerness etc. (like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul in 2008, Jesse Jackson, who wanted to demonstrate Black voting bloc power within the Democratic Party, or even Gene McCarthy).

Meanwhile, as of people like That McCotter or Buddy Roemer... They are not running because of some idea or issue. What's a point of them staying in the race and entering in in first place? Are they really THAT bored or what?

(I do not consider Huntsman a totally loose candidate. His prospects are small, but he's obviously trying to win)

[RogueBeaver]

Attention-whoring.

[NVGonzalez]

Attention-whoring.

[WillK]

...
(I do not consider Huntsman a totally loose candidate. His prospects are small, but he's obviously trying to win)

If he is trying to win, then he is doing a terrible job of it.  I think Huntsman is the exact type of candidate that the topic of this thread is about.  As you put it "I keep wondering what's the freaking point for some Republican candidates, that have slim to none chance to win the nomination, to stay in the race?"   What the heck is Huntsman doing at this point? 

[Likely Voter]

Only Perry, Romney and Huntsman are really running to be president (although Huntsman is probably realistic that this is a trial run for 2016)

The rest can be broken into two categories

1. To shape the debate/get issue(s) heard [edited to add issue]
Paul: Libertarianism
Roemer: Campaign finance reform/get money out of politics
Johnson: Libertarianism
Karger: Gay rights

2. To get another job/improve their position
Bachmann: House leadership position
Santorum: cabinet post
Cain: Fox news show
Gingrich: Sell books/expand donor list for PACs/foundations, etc
McCotter: To sell new book/who the f knows

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Santorum: cabinet post

At some point I thought Santroum's goal is to increase his statute before trying rematch against Casey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lolwut?

[RI]

Santorum: cabinet post

At some point I thought Santroum's goal is to increase his statute before trying rematch against Casey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lolwut?

Roemer is all about campaign finance reform. Not that anyone would know as he is never covered.

[Likely Voter]

Santorum: cabinet post

At some point I thought Santroum's goal is to increase his statute before trying rematch against Casey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lolwut?

Roemer is all about campaign finance reform. Not that anyone would know as he is never covered.

exactly. And of course he cant afford to get his message out either.

oh the irony

[Wonkish1]

Attention-whoring.

Bingo!!!

For Thad, I was just waiting for someone throw one of those deep fried butter sticks at his ugly mug when he was speaking at Ames he was that boring.

[Fritz]

Bachmann: House leadership position

I could be wrong, but I believe Bachmann has said that she will not be running for her House seat again.  My prediction: she goes to work for Fox News.

[Likely Voter]

Bachmann: House leadership position

I could be wrong, but I believe Bachmann has said that she will not be running for her House seat again.  My prediction: she goes to work for Fox News.

Legally she cant run for both, but her seat is being held open for her. From a recent article from MPR:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After the GOP won the house Bachmann campaigned hard for a leadership position and was rebuffed. She then created the Tea Party caucus and did her own SOTU response. She is desperate to be taken seriously by party leaders and this campaign is all part of that.

[angus]

Generally the idea is to influence the debate.  To help shape the legislative agenda, even.

Maybe youre hot button issue is airbags.  Maybe it's gun control.  Or having the Ten Commandments carved into the stone facade of a local bridge.  Or state-funded condom dispensers in all train station toilets.  Whatever.  It's all about walking into a major-party national convention with a small but influential portion of the delegates in the palm of your hand.  Maybe John Edwards gets 10% of the delegates, with Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao each getting 45%.  This makes him king-maker.  Or maybe Ron Paul controls 200 delegates, with Francisco Franco and Atilla the Hun each controlling 3800 delegates.  No one gets a nomination unless Ron Paul okays it.  He says, okay, you can play whatever fascist policies strike your fancy, so long as you agree to the following austerity measures.  If we have a deal, I'll bless you with the delegates you need to advance.

It's all about throwing your message against the wall to see if it's adhesive enough to remain there long enough to make the major candidates beg you to peel it off.  And of course you only agree to peel it off if you can get one of them to agree to wear it on his sleeve.  

[Beet]

I'll never forget the Massachusetts Senate debate I watched in early January, 2010. 1/3 of the time to Coakley, 1/3 to Scott Brown, and 1/3 to the Libertarian candidate. Scott Brown used his time to make his points. Coakley used her time to ask questions to Scott Brown, allowing him to take up most of it with his answers, further making his points. The Libertarian used his time to make Scott Browns points in more extreme, outlandish ways, hence making Scott Brown look centrist and reasonable.

[Paul Kemp]

Since when has running for office ever been about winning?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As big a Huntsman fan as I am, why is he in it? Will polling at 2% in 2008 set you up for a big victory in 2016? The last time I remember someone coming from numbers like that was Huckabee, and he did it mainly because, at the time, the leaders in the race were moderates Giuliani and McCain, with a faux conservative, Romney, taking the far right votes. Huckabee had a market he could capture, and he finally did.

With Huntsman, his market in this race is a dying breed, and if the tea party, heaven forbid, exists in 2016, the chances he'll have voters who like him voting in the Republican primary are very slim if we assume the GOP will continue to shift right.

Additionally, with the GOP's tendency to nominate the second place guy each time, it seems impossible for Huntsman to ever become a top tier candidate, let alone a winner. The GOP would have to shift back to the center and the tea party die out for his luck to change, which could happen only if the GOP nominates a tea partier and he loses to an unpopular Obama. But then again, knowing their logic, the loss would be because they were not right winged enough.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

What, you think primaries are decided by voters?  Good one.  The media selects who they're going to cover more and who gets to answer the most questions during debates.  This is true for all news stations.  A perfect example of this is Ron Paul, who is still getting thrown under the bus by Fox, even after the way he performed in the Iowa straw poll.

Roemer will not win this primary, at all.  He was only a brief mention on a couple news stations and went on Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's shows for brief interviews.

Basically what I'm saying is, you can't blame just the candidates for how they do in the polls.  Money talks.

[pbrower2a]

Ron Paul may have his own agenda. Economic fascism is no more libertarian than is social democracy. The corporatist element has taken over the GOP apparatus and the ignoramuses have become its mass appeal.

I look at the heated exchanges between Paul and Perry and see a potential split within the GOP. Even on war, I can imagine Perry standing for aggressive warfare if such is the wish of his money-suppliers. Cuba and then Venezuela?

Rick Perry, like George W. Bush, is as much a statist as is any liberal in America. But Perry's statism is "socialism for the rich".

The Republicans cannot win without the libertarian vote except in ultra-safe bailiwicks.

 

[milhouse24]

To get a talk show and sell books - to make money, which is usually everyone's motive for anything they do.