Republican Field becoming more volatile

Kandahar said:

Romney has far more historical precedent behind him than Cain does. The GOP nominates whoever's turn it is. That's a far more important precedent than some bit of trivia about a straw poll, as it cuts right to the temperament of the Republican Party itself.



Since Florida wasn't even an early-voting state until 2008, this doesn't mean much. That kind of stuff is one step above picking the next president based on who wins some football game, just because it has traditionally happened. Precedents like that are broken every election cycle.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Where will Paul's supporters go? Not to Romney. Where will Bachmanns (the few she has) supporters go? Not to Romney. I could see Perry's support splitting between the two. Gingrich's will likely go to Romney.

To me that gives the advantage to Cain.

What we are seeing is Republicans being very unhappy with the group of choices that they have. Interestingly you have those on the far right that aren't happy with Romney and are willing to throw their support to an unelectable candidate (e.g., Cain) rather than nominate Romney. Cain will never be the nominee, nor will Cain be offered the VP slot. The VP slot will be Rubio's for the taking. If he declines to accept it, I suspect that Romney or the eventual nominee will choose a woman, however, this time around, someone better vetted than Sarah Palin.

Numbers will change as candidates quit the race. Cain is making his points, but he won't get the brass ring of the nomination. This will be Romney's race and the money will get behind him. As for VP...it's still too long to tell. Romney could pick Cantor for all we know. That's a long shot, but then 4 years ago Obama was a long shot too.

1Perry said:

Where will Paul's supporters go? Not to Romney.

Click to expand...

Nope. Ron Paul's supporters probably won't go anywhere, and they'll get him maybe 20% of the vote at most.

Where will Bachmanns (the few she has) supporters go? Not to Romney.

Click to expand...

If Romney wins a couple early states they'll fall in line behind Romney IMO.

I could see Perry's support splitting between the two. Gingrich's will likely go to Romney.

Click to expand...

I agree that these will overwhelmingly go to Romney. Although what these speculations leave out is the largest group of GOP voters of all: Those who haven't even started following the campaign yet, are undecided, or aren't strongly attached to any particular candidate. I strongly suspect most of them will go to Romney as well. It's his turn to be the nominee.

To me that gives the advantage to Cain.

Click to expand...

So far I see no reason to suspect that Cain is anything more than the flavor of the week, just as Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin were. As far as I can tell, the best predictor of how much "staying power" a candidate has, is how long he/she has already been a serious contender. Herman Cain has only been taken seriously for about two weeks now...which is about how much longer I expect that to last.

Kandahar said:

I agree that these will overwhelmingly go to Romney. Although what these speculations leave out is the largest group of GOP voters of all: Those who haven't even started following the campaign yet, are undecided, or aren't strongly attached to any particular candidate. I strongly suspect most of them will go to Romney as well. It's his turn to be the nominee.

Click to expand...

If the establishment gets behind and pushes Romney because it's his turn like with Dole and McCain, I'm perfectly fine with them losing again. Even as big of a failure Obama has been I'm still not a bit upset that McCain lost.

So far I see no reason to suspect that Cain is anything more than the flavor of the week, just as Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin were. As far as I can tell, the best predictor of how much "staying power" a candidate has, is how long he/she has already been a serious contender. Herman Cain has only been taken seriously for about two weeks now...which is about how much longer I expect that to last.

Click to expand...

At this point of the race in 2007 it was still considered that the nomination was Hillary's.

1Perry said:

At this point of the race in 2007 it was still considered that the nomination was Hillary's.

Click to expand...

It's true Obama wasn't the frontrunner at this point, but he wasn't exactly a "flavor of the week" candidate who suddenly caught fire, the way Cain is. By this time in the previous election cycle, Obama had established himself as a serious contender and had been successfully framing himself as the anti-Hillary for quite some time. Herman Cain, in contrast, has only been getting serious attention for a couple weeks. Neither party has nominated a true dark-horse candidate in many election cycles. Even Bill Clinton (often cited as a dark-horse who came out of nowhere) was the darling of the Democratic establishment long before the average voter knew his name.

Kandahar said:

It's true Obama wasn't the frontrunner at this point, but he wasn't exactly a "flavor of the week" candidate who suddenly caught fire, the way Cain is. By this time in the previous election cycle, Obama had established himself as a serious contender and had been successfully framing himself as the anti-Hillary for quite some time. Herman Cain, in contrast, has only been getting serious attention for a couple weeks. Neither party has nominated a true dark-horse candidate in many election cycles. Even Bill Clinton (often cited as a dark-horse who came out of nowhere) was the darling of the Democratic establishment long before the average voter knew his name.

Click to expand...

He has been slow to catch on because the electorate is not interested in the old way of picking a candidate. Like you note, it was his turn. You never saw groups that in general voted for (R)'s actively working (and succeeding) in throwing at long established members of the party before the last election.

The electorate is actually considering more than the parties chosen one. Will Cain continue on? I do not know for certain but it's not 1996.

1Perry said:

He has been slow to catch on because the electorate is not interested in the old way of picking a candidate. Like you note, it was his turn. You never saw groups that in general voted for (R)'s actively working (and succeeding) in throwing at long established members of the party before the last election.

The electorate is actually considering more than the parties chosen one. Will Cain continue on? I do not know for certain but it's not 1996.

Click to expand...

The old way as you say it, is the way "nominations" are made...done by committee in a process under close scrutiny of those in charge of the party(s) during the National Convention(s). Obama could be bumped-out by a nominating committee and brought to the floor for a vote. It "could" happen, but probably won't. Those cigar chomping, bourbon drinking good ol' boys control just about everything, not to mention the little old ladies who are tough as nails that are also on the committees. They do pay attention to the polls in a manner of speaking, but pay closer attention to the ability of the candidates to raise money.

coolwalker said:

The old way as you say it, is the way "nominations" are made...done by committee in a process under close scrutiny of those in charge of the party(s) during the National Convention(s). Obama could be bumped-out by a nominating committee and brought to the floor for a vote. It "could" happen, but probably won't. Those cigar chomping, bourbon drinking good ol' boys control just about everything, not to mention the little old ladies who are tough as nails that are also on the committees. They do pay attention to the polls in a manner of speaking, but pay closer attention to the ability of the candidates to raise money.

Click to expand...

No. That could not happen. Today, the vast vast majority of delegates are elected through the primary process. Obama will run unopposed in the Dem primaries and the delegates will be pledged to him. Only he can release them. The McGovern Commission changed the procedures and rules after the fiasco that was 1968.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGovern_Commission

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/D

Kandahar said:

Nope. Ron Paul's supporters probably won't go anywhere, and they'll get him maybe 20% of the vote at most.



If Romney wins a couple early states they'll fall in line behind Romney IMO.



I agree that these will overwhelmingly go to Romney. Although what these speculations leave out is the largest group of GOP voters of all: Those who haven't even started following the campaign yet, are undecided, or aren't strongly attached to any particular candidate. I strongly suspect most of them will go to Romney as well. It's his turn to be the nominee.



So far I see no reason to suspect that Cain is anything more than the flavor of the week, just as Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Donald Trump, and Sarah Palin were. As far as I can tell, the best predictor of how much "staying power" a candidate has, is how long he/she has already been a serious contender. Herman Cain has only been taken seriously for about two weeks now...which is about how much longer I expect that to last.

Click to expand...

In agreement with almost all of your statements. The party will join behind Romney and he will be the nominee. The only question is what the tea party faction does in response if they are angry that their candidate - presuming they will have a candidate - lost out.

Do they just sit home and be angry? Do they want to go a third party route and we actually do get a full fledged Tea Party? Do they try to take over the nominating process of an already existing minor party since they have ballot access? Do they join with right wing Christians angry that Romney is not a Christian in their estimation? And the most important one of all --- does any of that amount to anything that would take away significant votes from the GOP and tilt the election?

haymarket said:

In agreement with almost all of your statements. The party will join behind Romney and he will be the nominee. The only question is what the tea party faction does in response if they are angry that their candidate - presuming they will have a candidate - lost out.

Do they just sit home and be angry? Do they want to go a third party route and we actually do get a full fledged Tea Party? Do they try to take over the nominating process of an already existing minor party since they have ballot access? Do they join with right wing Christians angry that Romney is not a Christian in their estimation?

Click to expand...

I think the answer will be pretty similar to the way things played out for John McCain. Some of the conservative activists may stew about it for a while, but they'll all come around to supporting Romney in the end. That goes for most of the evangelical groups and leaders, the Tea Party / Rush Limbaugh wing of the party, and the antitax extremists.

And the most important one of all --- does any of that amount to anything that would take away significant votes from the GOP and tilt the election?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The most important variables are Obama's approval rating and the state of the economy in the months prior to the election. The name of the GOP nominee is only going to matter at the margins...and in my assessment Romney is probably their strongest candidate anyway.

coolwalker said:

The old way as you say it, is the way "nominations" are made...done by committee in a process under close scrutiny of those in charge of the party(s) during the National Convention(s). Obama could be bumped-out by a nominating committee and brought to the floor for a vote. It "could" happen, but probably won't. Those cigar chomping, bourbon drinking good ol' boys control just about everything, not to mention the little old ladies who are tough as nails that are also on the committees. They do pay attention to the polls in a manner of speaking, but pay closer attention to the ability of the candidates to raise money.

Click to expand...

They no longer control the message that money buys like they used to.