Plan B Forum

In short, I call it, "The Enthusiasm Factor."

If you look at the past generation of Presidential elections, there is a constant factor that cannot be ignored. The winning candidate in almost every case was the one that was able to generate a bit of enthusiasm from one or more significant constituencies, and the loser was the more boring candidate. That is to say, a resume or actual qualifications simply do not matter to the American electorate. Winning is all about holding a couple pockets of significant enthusiasm.

And as you review the results of these elections with me, keep in mind that during this entire period, Democrats have had a huge “structural” advantage in national elections. They are perpetually and uniformly supported by the MSM and the entertainment industry, by the Black and Hispanic communities, by feminists, by unionists, by gays, by public sector employees (other than military), and by every group of people sucking at the Federal Government’s teats. To win a national election, the Republican candidate must get AT LEAST 60% of working white people to vote for them, otherwise they lose in a landslide.

Start with 1980. RR had a pretty good resume and a small group of enthusiastic supporters – the “Conservatives” who had supported Barry Goldwater and had been looking for a strong conservative candidate ever since. Carter has since been reviled as a terrible president, but at the time I think the public’s assessment was that he had just suffered the bad luck of being President in times when things were going badly. Reagan won easily, due to the enthusiastic support of the Conservatives. No one was enthusiastic about Carter in 1980.

1984, RR was not perceived as a particular dynamo in his first term, but he was still the darling of Conservatives, having cut taxes and put DoD back on the build. The election was theoretically up for grabs, but the Democrats nominated the ultimate “yawner,” Walter Mondale. With no enthusiastic constituency, he got figuratively killed.

In 1988, Bush-41 was able to cash in on the residual enthusiasm for RR, promising, in effect, to continue his conservative policies into, as it were, a third term. Michael Dukakis was another Democrat yawner. His credentials were reasonably good, and he did OK in the debates, but who could be enthusiastic about the Duke? Enthusiasm – even lukewarm residual enthusiasm - prevailed again.

By 1992, Republicans realized that Bush-41 was just another Country Club Republican and their enthusiasm waned. Dems put forth what appeared to be a “uniter,” a former successful governor who was spouting things that even Republicans found appealing (“end welfare as we know it,” “let’s keep abortion legal, safe, and rare”). There was just a bit of enthusiasm for WJC among Blacks and women, and zero for GHWB. Enthusiasm carried the day.

In 1996 Republicans nominated the most eminently boring candidate of his generation, Bob Dole, and he got trounced. Honestly, his resume was much better than Clinton’s, and there was nothing wrong with him, but no tangible group of voters was strongly in his corner. Even the lukewarm enthusiasm the voters still had for WJC was sufficient to win this one.

In Y2K, both parties nominated candidates about whom nobody in their right mind would feel any enthusiasm, and the election ended in a dead heat. In ’04, the Dems nominated Kerry and although he arguably had a good resume and Bush-43 probably did not “deserve” another term, NOBODY was enthusiastic for Kerry. He was simply carrying the ball for the liberals and that was not enough. Conservatives and anti-Islamist “hawks,” though a small segment of the electorate, carried the day for Bush.

The 2008 election saw Republicans nominate a tired, old, yawner, against someone with no credentials whatsoever, which would normally have resulted in another “draw.” But Barry had several distinct constituencies who were willing to rally for him forcefully, and that enthusiasm among Blacks, feminists, gays, and unionists won the election for him.

Next year, the general enthusiasm for Barry will be totally gone, and his support will come from a dozen small splinter groups who even in the aggregate cannot carry an election. More importantly, he has alienated the core of the voting population – White, non-union, private sector working people (including entrepreneurs). This election is, as golfers say, “teed up” for an easy Republican victory. All we have to do is nominate someone for whom it is POSSIBLE to generate a bit of ENTHUSIASM.

And I’ll tell you something: It ain’t Mitt. Nobody outside Utah supports him enthusiastically. Neither is it either of the Rick’s, or Michele, and it certainly isn’t Ron (moonbat enthusiasm doesn’t amount to much in a national election). It isn’t Huntsman or Cain.

The only candidate currently on the dance card who has any chance of gaining the enthusiastic support of a significant army of Republicans is Newt. And while it’s true that he will draw a comparable army of Newt Haters on the other side, those are people who would vote for Barry anyway.

As for overcoming the negative “likeability factor,” there is no question in my mind that, given many months to articulate his ideas and views, he will be able to overcome all of the flack that he is receiving in this current assault*.

The other possibility that might bode well for Republicans is if nobody has a majority going into the convention. In that case, it might be possible to draft someone like Chris Christy or a fringe candidate (like Barry was last time) whom the Party can rally around.

But I guarantee you, if we nominate a boring technocrat like Mitt Romney, it will be a disaster for Republicans, and an even greater disaster for the US of A.

__________________
* Pat Caddell said on “Hannity” yesterday that this is the worst mass-attack on an individual candidate that he has ever seen.

I hope your wish for the GOP nominee comes true. Almost as much as I hope it does for One-L and/or Texas Toast.

Dave, I think you've got some major malfunctions in your Way Back machine....

I don't have time at the moment to address everything in your post, (I'll try to do that later; overall I find it way too simplistic and on some points factually wrong) but a few quick points:

1. It's true that in 1980, Mr. Reagan generated an enormous amount of enthusiasm within the Republican base, (far more than Newt, BTW, the base is very divided on Gingrich) and this was major factor in his win. However, that is NOT why he won such a huge victory.

You can go back and look this up...

Up until the last few days before the election, Reagan was in the lead, but the polls were very close. What happened in that race was that in the closing days, the undecideds, (which represented a very substantial number, and obviously weren't part of the GOP base) broke overwhelmingly for Mr. Reagan. This happened primarily because the country really wanted to reject the failure of Carter, and The Gipper was able to persuade the vast middle of the electorate that he was an acceptable alternative. In other words, he conducted himself and and came across in such a way that he convinced millions of independents that he could be entrusted with the Presidency.

Do you honestly believe Newt can do this?

2. Any analysis of the 92 and 96 elections that doesn't even mention the name Ross Perot is seriously lacking.

3. Enthusiasm in your base alone, doesn't win Presidential elections. Just ask President McGovern or President Goldwater....

Enthusiasm in your base alone doesn't guarantee victory, but without an enthusiastic base a Republican CANNOT WIN.

If both sides and the independents are generally lethargic, the Democrat wins.

Who is gung-ho for Mitt Romney? Not conservatives. Not libertarians. Not deficit hawks. Not military hawks. Not Neo-cons.

Who?

Who is gung-ho for Mitt Romney? Not conservatives. Not libertarians. Not deficit hawks. Not military hawks. Not Neo-cons

I've been trying to figure that ot myself. I think he limited to the country club blue-bloods and that's about it.


FYI Gary Johnson, the ex governor of NM (someone I really liked and voted for twice) is apparently going for the libertarian nomination now, since he was pushed aside in the republican field. I expect him to take votes away from BO.

Anyone and everyone is going to take away votes from Barry, since this election isn't about who the public votes for; but whom the public is NOT going to vote for. If Richard Nixon were still alive, he would present a better option than BO.

FYI Gary Johnson, the ex governor of NM (someone I really liked and voted for twice) is apparently going for the libertarian nomination now, since he was pushed aside in the republican field.

I saw that in the news several weeks ago...

Of course if Paul decides to bolt the party and go for the Libertarian nomination, Johnson will be SOL again, (maybe he'll get the Veep spot) since the Libertarians would undoubtedly nominate Paul since he's much better known, and would attract more votes....

Paul is going to have a decision to make by the end of April; (the Libertarian nominating convention is in early May) does he want to end his career (he's already announced he's not running again for his Congressional seat) as the standard bearer for the Libertarians, (where I think he'd probably wind up at the end of the day drawing somewhere between 3 and 9 percent of the vote) or does he want to take the delegates he's accumulated in the GOP nominating process and try to make some noise and mischief at the Republican Convention. (particularly over the platform)

I think the odds are about 50-50 as to what he'll decide....

I think Paul will have some early successes and will have a hard time getting out of the Rep race until it's too late, time will tell.


Unfortunately the Paul-tards have an almost religeous attachment to him, but Johnson should pick up a lot of his support. Johnson is a way better candidate and has the added benefit that he's not insane.

Liberty1 wrote:and has the added benefit that he's not insane.

Not a problem this year, apparently.

Well, Gingrich has generated so much "enthusiasm" in Virginia, that he wasn't able to even get the 10,000 signatures he needed to get on the ballot:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the presidential primary election in Virginia, where he resides, the state's Republican Party said.

Gingrich had been leading in a poll of Virginia voters and a spokesman for the former speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 vote. However, Virginia does not permit write-ins in primary elections, according to the state code.

The Virginia Republican Party also said Texas Governor Rick Perry's petitions also had failed to qualify him for the ballot. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-virginia ... 29618.html

I'm sure you'll be dismissive of this Dave, (it appears that your ability to rationalize every Gingrich mistake, reversal or shortcoming is pretty much limitless) but I would like to point out that Gingrich made a major push to get this done, diverting time and resources from Iowa to try to accomplish it.

I really don't where your theory about the "enthusiasm" Gingrich is supposedly generating with the base comes from....

He's not drawing big crowds, he's not signing up scads of volunteers, he not bringing in boatloads of small donations, (even when he was at the top of his surge, Ron Paul was raising more money)

Those are the sorts of things one expects to see when a campaign is generating genuine "grassroots" enthusiasm....

Why I like Newt: He is not Barack Obama. He is not Mitt Romney. That about covers it.

Excuse me, this election makes me want to get hammered.

Does the president deserve reelection? The answer is no. He has failed in everything but foreign affairs. And at the moment, except for Iran and their nukes, we are not that concern about the rest of the world. Our country is in real trouble; we are on the verge of a catastrophe. Unemployment, gas and oil are way too high and effecting the tax base. Check out the rise in the price if food. The national debt is past insane will destroy us if we don’t do something about it and Obama is doing nothing. Can we stand another four years of this?

lib - You would be incredibly wrong to attribute the poor situation you now find your country in to a man that has only been in charge of it for such a short time. The situation you now find yourself in comes from decades of gross fiscal mismanagement.

There is no question that Newt erred in taking Virginia (his home) too lightly. I attribute it to his casual attitude generally in the earlier months. It would be easy to conclude that he did not consider himself a serious candidate early on, just entering the race to increase his personal profile. Then when he saw how weak the field was, he began campaigning in earnest.

Ironically, by making qualifying for its primary so difficult, Virginia has made its primary less relevant. If Newt is at the top or near the top of the heat on Super Tuesday, and he's not on the ballot in Virginia, it is their Republican committee who will look foolish, not Newt.

Mrs. Hen:

The fiscal crisis of the U.S. Government ("not enough government spending," according to its guru, Paul Krugman, PhD) is the result of decades of profligacy, which can be grossly summarized as follows: Democrats see the solution to everything - even things that are not problems, like the extinction of some godforsaken fish - in more government, and the key to winning elections in placing as many humans as possible on one form or another of government assistance, so that they will continue to vote for Democrats. Republicans waste a trillion here and there on "wars" of questionable justification, but wars eventually end. People sucking government's teats and demanding more and more money (aka, "entitlements") never ends.

Democrats are the fiscal problem, and Barry is the king of the wasteful government spenders. He has made all of his predecessors look like niggardly pretenders. In the past three years, we have doubled our national debt (accumulated over 230+ years), and Barry does not believe we have done "enough."

But the fiscal crisis (shared, incidentially, by most other "Western Democracies"), is only one aspect of the disaster that is Barry's presidency. He has made us look like fools abroad, he has done everything in his power to worsen the so-called, "Energy Crisis," he has tried to bring us all the worst aspects of socialized medicine, along with all of the worst aspects of free-market medicine. He implicitly threatens to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for socialism gone wild.

Four more years? Are you kidding?

Any one of the current Republican candidates would be better - that is to say, less dangerous - than this character.

Separated at birth?



"Hey, Abbott!"

Virginia primary:

"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul are the only GOP presidential candidates who will appear on the state’s ballot."

Who looks foolish now? Their primary will be a joke, dispensing 100% of their delegates to Mitt.

Why Mitt can't win:

He was not a very successful or very effective or very popular governor in Massachusetts. He won with less than 50% of the vote, and would have lost if he had run again.

Has not been good at defusing the major criticisms that have been levelled at him in the primaries. For example, he has not been able to answer the basic question of why socialized medicine in Massachusetts was good but Obama-care is bad. If he can't come up with a good answer to a question that he anticipates, how can he do fending off surprise questions?

His candidacy would take the vital "experience" card out of Republicans' hands. Next to Barry, Mitt would be the neophyte.

No international experience.

The stupid ten thousand dollar bet.

His work as a "capitalist" can easily be portrayed (falsely, but effectively) as killing middle-class jobs.

Zero votes from Fundamentalist Christians - a key R bloc.

No ENTHUSIASM for Mitt on the part of Conservatives, who see him as lukewarm (like Bush-41). Despite having every conceivable advantage against his foes in the primary thus far, he can't break past 25%. And when we come to the general election campaign, there are several negatives that Barry will use, but are not an issue in the primary.

I will vote for him with alacrity if he wins the Republican primary, but he will lose the general election.

Sue U wrote:Separated at birth?



"Hey, Abbott!"

Granted he is not very good looking and that will hurt him as a candidate. I think it is silly; after all, when voting for a president one is not selecting a spouse or even a friend, but someone to do a job. What should his looks matter, it is ability to do the job and trustworthiness that are important.

liberty wrote:....and trustworthiness that are important.

LOL!

Mitt is unelectable. Offhand, he will LOSE his home state. He may also lose New Hampshire in the general election.

I'm not sure ANY of them are electable, actually.

The main point of the start of this thread is that being able to create excitement about the possibility of electing the candidate among the breadth of the ideological base is usually a big advantage in the general election. You get your side to turn out in big numbers, and often, that excitement convinces independents to have a positive inclination when they take a hard look at the candidate. Obama and Reagan are the two best recent examples of creating such positive excitement.

The problem for the Rs this year is that they do not have someone who reliably can create such excitement. The party has been looking (the anybody but Romney), but the excitement candidate has not emerged and shown staying power.

On the other hand, we have plenty of examples of successful candidates who generated little to modest amounts of excitement and yet were substantial enough as candidates to carry the election: Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43. In most cases, these candidates were elected, not because they were highly regarded, but because the opposition was weak or the electorate was punishing the opposition.

This year, Obama is a weak candidate. It is possible that he recovers if the economy improves a bit, but most in and out of his party have concluded that he gives a good speech but is uneven at best when it comes to substance. And most independents have concluded that his policies are the wrong approach for the country's problems.

Given that reality, why would the Rs pick Gingrich? While he has proven he is the only one who can create a lot excitement in the base, he has also proven that he is of questionable character, and he is always one blip away from reminding everyone why they dislike him. (Note that most conservatives who oppose Gingrich do so based on his character and temperament, and they are often the ones who have worked with him and know him best). Romney won't create much excitement, but doesn't carry the tremendous baggage and risk of Gingrich. With a weak Obama as his opposition, if Romney convinces people that he will competently manage things, he is certainly as electable as Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, etc.