Saturday, May 14, 2011

Will Republicans nominate a loser? If they want to win

The Republican presidential field is full of losers.

No, that’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

Most of the top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination know what it’s like to come up short in a campaign because, well, they have.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former senator Rick Santorum and pizza magnate Herman Cain have all waged unsuccessful campaigns for Senate, while former House speaker Newt Gingrich lost two House campaigns in the 1970s.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin lost as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, when Romney and Huckabee lost the presidential primary.

And for those who haven’t actually lost, they have seen what it’s like to be second-class political citizens. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty wasn’t his party leadership’s choice to run for either governor or Senate just nine years ago — he won the governor’s race anyway — and Pawlenty’s fellow Minnesotan, Rep. Michele Bachmann, was removed from state Senate leadership in 2005.

In fact, about the only potential presidential contenders who haven’t tasted political defeat are Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman – and that’s at least in part because they have only run for one office.

So does this betray the weakness of the Republican presidential field? A look at history suggests past losses are not indicators of future results.

In fact, every president in the last 50 years has some sort of loss on his political record, as do almost all recent Republican presidential nominees.

President Obama, you may recall, lost a House campaign just more than a decade ago, when he challenged Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) in a primary.

Ditto for George W. Bush, who lost a 1978 campaign for the U.S. House, and Bill Clinton, who met the same fate in 1974 in Arkansas, and then lost reelection as governor in 1980 before winning the job back two years later.

George H.W. Bush was also a loser, losing Senate campaigns in both 1964 and 1970 as well as the 1980 presidential campaign.

Ronald Reagan lost two campaigns for president – in 1968 and 1976 – before winning in 1980; Jimmy Carter lost a 1966 Democratic primary for governor; Richard Nixon lost his first campaign for president in 1960, as did Lyndon B. Johnson in the primary.

Even John F. Kennedy lost out on the 1956 nomination for vice president, finishing second.

In fact, the last president without a political setback at some point in his career was Dwight Eisenhower, a military general who never ran for any other office.

Even when you look at GOP presidential nominees, there are plenty of losses on their records. Bob Dole, the GOP nominee in 1996, lost as Ford’s running mate in 1976. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, lost in the presidential primary in 2000. The last GOP nominee without a previous loss was Barry Goldwater in 1964.

In fact, defeats can be a healthy thing, especially when it comes to Republican primaries. GOP voters have a long history of nominating candidates who have lost previous runs for president.

True, losing a run for president is much more forgivable than losing a run for the House, but history shows even such a defeat doesn’t say much about a politician’s future presidential aspirations.

There’s also something to be said for what kind of losses these candidates sustained. Romney, Huckabee and Barbour were all running in states with long histories — at the time — of electing Democrats.

Losing a campaign early in one’s political career has proven to be a valuable experience, if that candidate learns the right lessons of that loss.

Many of these Republicans have come back stronger from these losses and won some pretty surprising races too.

Much will be said in the coming months about how strong or weak the GOP field is, but what’s clear from history is that their past losses shouldn’t be read as an indicator of much of anything.

???initialComments:true! pubdate:04/06/2011 10:00 EDT! commentPeriod:3! commentEndDate:4/9/11 10:0 EDT! currentDate:5/14/11 10:45 EDT! allowComments:false! displayComments:false!

View the original article here

No comments:

Post a Comment