Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 20, 2019, 04:08:15 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: TJ in Oregon, Virginiá)
| | |-+  Why Did Jindal, Huckabee, Perry, Santorum, and Graham Go Absolutely Nowhere?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Why Did Jindal, Huckabee, Perry, Santorum, and Graham Go Absolutely Nowhere?  (Read 1507 times)
Free Bird
TheHawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 06, 2018, 02:52:29 am »

They were all well known by the Republican electorate (something Gilmore was in no position to say), but their polling was in the absolute gutters, though I suppose to Huck's credit he held on for a while, enough to not be instantly sentenced to the Kiddie Table, at least. Frothy especially surprises me considering the GOP's next-in-line habit. I'd include Walker too, but you can actually see why his bubble burst like nothing else.

I'm not saying I even expected them to win any primaries or even more than a handful of delegates between themselves, but they all went absolutely nowhere, which surprises me.

Why was this with all of them?
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2018, 02:59:13 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?
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,136
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2018, 09:26:46 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?

Jindal was also so unpopular that his successor in LOUISIANA was a Democrat. Also, he, Huckabee, Santorum, and Perry were competing for basically the same shrinking slice of the Republican Electorate, hardcore SoCons, and Carson and Cruz cornered that market, with a large number also going for Trump. 
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,080
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2018, 10:44:40 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.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2018, 12:19:54 pm »

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?

Jindal was also so unpopular that his successor in LOUISIANA was a Democrat. Also, he, Huckabee, Santorum, and Perry were competing for basically the same shrinking slice of the Republican Electorate, hardcore SoCons, and Carson and Cruz cornered that market, with a large number also going for Trump. 

Jindal definitely played a part there but you also gotta remember that Diaper Boy totally crashed and burned. Louisiana wasn't too unfriendly to Democrats then, either, to boot.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,517


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2018, 04:18:22 pm »

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
Logged
pops
katman46
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 711


Political Matrix
E: 4.52, S: -6.26

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2018, 08:19:11 pm »

With the exception of Lindsey Graham, their time had passed and they were in denial.

Outside of the Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio crowd, no Republicans liked Graham until the Kavanaugh hearingl.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2018, 08:53:21 pm »

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.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,517


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2018, 09:03:04 pm »

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


Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,022
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.87

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2018, 11:51:38 pm »

Jindal - Didn't prove himself to be special in any way. From his really creepy announcement video to his awful record as Governor, he didn't have much to run on honestly.

Huckabee - Lest we forget, he was high up in a few very very early polls. Huckabee had a few gaffes and didn't get to play the quasi-populist card he did in 2008 because Trump was doing it better than he was and didn't play the SoCon one because Cruz and others outdid him there. Old news.

Santorum - Hasn't been elected since 2006. No Romney for him to be a foil to, and like Huckabee, Trump, Cruz, et al. did his old schtick better.

Graham - Too left for the party on the issues that defined the primary field
Logged
WI is Safe D
Beef
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,844
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 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
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,430
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2018, 01:11:05 pm »

None of them had a niche.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,551
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2019, 08:29:40 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?

One (Jindal) was boring.  Another (Graham) had limited appeal and was out of sync with the GOP on a major issue (immigration).

The other three were "Old News".  The Dick Nixon of 1968 was "Old News"; how did he overcome that?  Let's look at that for a minute:

1.  Nixon was "Old News", but he had been "Big News" as well.  He had a far more substantial career prior to 1968 than any of these guys had prior to 2016.  Nixon (and not Joe McCarthy) was the Republican who turned the GOP into Communist Hunters, by actually investigating and nailing Alger Hiss.  Nixon was Ike's VP, and he was VP during a historically significant period, including a period where Ike was incapacitated with a heart attack.  Nixon lost the Presidency in 1960 by a hair, and in a manner where some asserted (with some basis) that he had been robbed, and that campaign was being contrasted to the Goldwater debacle of 1964.  These other guys were barely up to the level of the 1968 Harold Stassen (who did announce that year).

2.  Nixon, adeptly, packaged himself as a "New Nixon".  The Selling of the President 1968 shows memos discussing this strategy.  A memo from Nixon's strategist, Harry Treleven, talks about how many of the old negatives associated with Nixon (the "Tricky Dick" image, the reputation for meanness and ruthlessness) had faded away to where Nixon could easily be seen as the most qualified candidate and a man who would level with people).  The negative that DID hang on, according to Treleven, was Nixon's image as a "loser", and this was overcome by primary wins.  Nixon was familiar enough to people to where a narrative of growth and maturity could be sold to the voters and appear credible.

The retreads who ran after 1968 all had important qualifications.  Dole was the leading Senate Republican.  Reagan was the heir to Goldwater as leader of the dominant faction of the GOP.  Bush was Reagan's VP.  McCain was a War Hero who was the consistent frontrunner in 2008 and the only GOP candidate in 2008 who polled well enough to possibly beat either Democrat.  Mitt Romney in 2012 was the one candidate who had the total package, and who didn't have the negatives of Gingrich (a nasty adulterer), Santorum (a BIG loser in 2006), and Huckabee (a guy who did have a niche but a niche that was for a VICE Presidential candidate).  None of those guys had the gravitas of a Mitt Romney, let alone a Dole, McCain, Bush, Reagan, or Nixon.  They needed to catch lightning in a bottle, and the only candidate that has honestly done this in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Had Carter ran second or third, he'd be forgotten today.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines