Has the Republican nomination ever been up for grabs?

[FerrisBueller86]

It seems that the Republican nomination ALWAYS goes to the anointed candidate.  I know that the 2008 nomination felt contested as there seemed to be a new front-runner every week (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, McCain), but the nomination ended up going to the last major contender who didn't make it (McCain). 

In 2000, all of the prominent Republicans were tripping over each other to support George W. Bush.  I was amazed that they picked Bush over McCain.  Bush was already known for being dumb and didn't even know the names of most foreign leaders.  Bush was also known as a draft-dodging hawk while McCain had once been a war hero.  I couldn't believe that prominent Republicans were tripping over each other to support a draft-dodging hawk over a former war hero after they spent 8 years bashing Clinton for not fighting in the Vietnam War.  Remember that Clinton was against the war, so he wasn't being a hypocrite like Bush.

In 1996, all of the prominent Republicans were tripping over each other to support Bob Dole after he lost the nomination to Bush Sr. 8 years earlier.

In 1988, Bush Sr., Reagan's vice president, won the nomination.

In 1980, Reagan (Ford's primary opponent of 1976) won the nomination.

It seems to me that the Republican nomination is always orchestrated.  I get the feeling that the 2008 nomination was also orchestrated, but the orchestration was much better concealed.

When was the last time the Republican nomination was up for grabs?  Was Nixon the anointed one in 1968?  Was Goldwater the anointed one in 1964?  Was Eisenhower the anointed one in 1952?

[Franzl]

Depends on what you consider "up for grabs". 1976 was definitely heavily contested, even though Ford did get the nod in the end, Reagan put up an amazing fight.

[minionofmidas]

Was Nixon the anointed one in 1968? 

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I think. At least not in that 1996-2000-1968 way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. I think. Not entirely sure.

[Joe Republic]

Was Eisenhower the anointed one in 1952?

Yes. I think. Not entirely sure.

I'd say no, he wasn't.  The GOP was sharply divided between the moderates (for Eisenhower) and conservatives (for Taft).  The two men split the primary results and delegates fairly evenly, so that when the convention opened, they were still neck and neck.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Was Eisenhower the anointed one in 1952?

Yes. I think. Not entirely sure.

Certainly not at the Convention.  If Taft's delegates had won the vote, then Taft would have been the nominee.

[J. J.]

Was Nixon the anointed one in 1968?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I think. At least not in that 1996-2000-1968 way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. I think. Not entirely sure.

In 1952, there was a rules fight over seating delegates, so no.

I would say that in 1952 (Robert Taft), 1964 (Nelson Rockefeller), 1968 (Rockefeller, George Romney), 1976 (Ronald Reagan), 1988 (Robert Dole), 1996 (Steve Forbes), 2000 (John McCain), and 2008 (Mitt Romney), the nominations were up for grabs.

[Mr. Morden]

I would say that in 1952 (Robert Taft), 1964 (Nelson Rockefeller), 1968 (Rockefeller, George Romney), 1976 (Ronald Reagan), 1988 (Robert Dole), 1996 (Steve Forbes), 2000 (John McCain), and 2008 (Mitt Romney), the nominations were up for grabs.

It all depends on what one means by "up for grabs".  In every single presidential nominating contest for both parties from at least the last four decades, the frontrunning candidate has not simply had a smooth ride to the nom., with no major challenges along the way.  (Well, OK, not *every* time.  I'm not counting cases where you have an incumbent president with no opposition or token opposition.)

So, for example, in 1996 and 2000, both Dole and Bush ran into rocky waters for a while there, where their nomination was in doubt.  But was there ever actually a moment when when they *weren't* the frontrunner?  I'd argue, probably not.  After NH, for example, people were saying that McCain had a chance, but virtually everyone still regarded Bush as the frontrunner.

[Torie]

1964, 1968, 1976, 1980 and 2000 were all up for grabs, definitely and maybe 1988 as well. As to 1964, Goldwater won California by a hair after Rockefeller's trophy replacement model wife gave birth (folks cared about that sort of thing then more than now).  Absent that, and Goldwater probably would not have won the nomination. McCain could have taken out Bush in 2000 if he was more disciplined (he learned his lesson). In 1988, Bush simply out performed the other candidates, and shreaded them in the debates. He was a very effective candidate, unlike in 1992 when he had a thyroid condition that enervated him (I was always puzzled by his performance until I learned that).

In any event, there are really two few data points to support some grand unified theory about annoitment. I predicted early on that Carter, Dukasis, and Clinton would win their nominations, simply because they were clearly superior candidates.

[jokerman]

1860

[minionofmidas]

McCain never had a chance in 2000. Nor did Dole's diverse challengers in 1996, though it wasn't quite as apparent. If we don't count these as "anointed candidates", there's no point of having such a category (as separate from uncontested or facing only joke opponents) at all. Compare congressional primaries for open seats, where there's frequently a prohibitive, establishment-anointed frontrunner who still can't get more than 50 or 60 percent against divided opposition.

I was wrong about 1952, of course.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't very persuasive eh?