« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If Polling were Illegal, Who Would You Support?

“Electability” is a canard.

Richard Nixon appeared on the Jack Paar show on February 20th, 1963. Paar asked him, “Of all the possible republican candidates, who would be the best to beat Kennedy?”

“Which one?” Nixon replied. With one Kennedy in the White House, one as the Attorney General of the United States, and a third Kennedy just elected to the Senate, the laughing audience got the joke.

Paar replied, “Don’t you just hate a smart-alecky Vice President?” Paar expected, of course, for Nixon to make some reference to Nixon himself being the “best” candidate to take on Kennedy in a redux of 1960. Instead, he got a fun, glib answer from a man famous for his lack of chirpy candor. Nixon went on to entertain the audience with some hipster piano-playing that rather invoked Buddy Love from the Nutty Professor.

The appearance on the Jack Paar show occurred some four months after Nixon’s famous “Last Press Conference”, which was the final coda to his failed California gubernatorial bid, in which he flipped the verbal bird at the press mob and told them to enjoy the moment, because the vultures in the press wouldn’t “have Nixon to kick around anymore”. A Time magazine reporter left that meeting and wrote: “Barring a miracle, Vice President Nixon’s political career is over”.

So, it was this walking political corpse the audience witnessed of Richard Nixon, that night, four months later, all those long years ago on the Jack Paar Show. A widely regarded political wag wrote that, if Nixon had demonstrated the suave, at-ease side of himself that he did that night in 1963, Nixon would have beaten Kennedy in 1960. But, by 1963, Nixon was a political Dead Man Walking; –And it would take a miracle to resurrect him.

In 1972, running for his re-election as the 37th president, Nixon beat George McGovern by some 22,000,000 votes. Not bad for a political corpse.

In politics, “miracles” are astonishingly commonplace. And, they really aren’t miracles.

But, if the well-heeled, well-connected wags in the political warehousing business say it, it must be true. Time Magazine said Nixon’s career was over. If Time said it, for criminny sake, it must be true. Likewise today, if Karl Rove says it’s a two-man race for the Republican nomination, it must be a two-man race. If Pat Caddell says Michele Bachmann is a nut-job, well, she must be a nut-job. Charlie Cook sez that Barack Obama has 217 electoral votes sewn up, so, voila! 217 electoral votes it is. If Scott Rasmussen says Mitt Romney has 31 percent of primary voters locked up, it must be true.

But, remember Mark Sanford? Anybody? Buhler? Politics can, and always does, change on a dime. Suppose Mitt Romney says at his next press conference that he’s been “brainwashed” into thinking Barack Obama is such a bad, bad man. For insight into this, Google “George Romney” and “Brainwashing” for a window into what can happen, primary-wise.

Not a single vote has been cast, and won’t be, for nearly four months. At that, these votes will be cast in relatively small states with Republican voters that aren’t entirely representative of the broader moods of the party as a whole. For contrast, how would things look right now if the “first in the nation” primary were held in, say, Alabama, or Georgia? How would the polls look? It is tenuous political fiction that polls of any sort mean anything right now, and yet, as all the RedState political junkies can attest, it is an animating dynamic; so animating that we pore over them, disect them, pay for them, drool over their latest sputters and burps.

But, they mean nothing if Rick Perry is photographed tomorrow stumbling out of a Texas interstate Rest Area wearing a cocktail dress– and this is where the lie is put to the enduring flatulence of “electability”.

Stop thinking about candidates as numbers on a poll matrix. Think of them as potential leaders.

If it was illegal to conduct or publish the results of a political poll– who would you support?

 

 

COMMENTS

  • Joe_Clark

    I’d vote for Newt. Hands down.

  • Craigpennsylvania

    Newt Gingrich. In 1995, then President Clinton put forth a budget with a $200 billion deficit.

    The Senate voted it down, 97-0.

    The Senate knew it was not going to happen.

    Newt Gingrich brought Clinton back to center. He totally understands how to make government work. He is not an anarchist. He recognizes that government is a part of our lives. He has a history in making policies that work,

    I listened as the Democrat Party played ads which took Newt’s words out of context and lied about what he was actually saying.

    The simple truth is – look at what Clinton wanted to do pre 1995, when Newt was elected speaker. Then look at what GW Bush did from 2001 and on. Finally, look at what BHO has done since September, 2008 (and I say from then as the bailout from September, 2008 was a democrat led effort, and BHO voted for it).

    Newt is the only politician who both advocated and succeeded in balancing our budget.

  • freentn

    !

    • Craigpennsylvania

      The thread title was about for whom you would vote. Rest assured, this entire site knows you would rather re-elect BO than elect Romney.

      Try to show some respect for the question as asked for by conservativecurmudgeon.

      • freentn

        I am for Anybody but romney because I do not want to see boHillary re-elected which will surely happen if romney is the nominee.

        • Craigpennsylvania

          Mr. Freentn, if you can show where there is someone named “Anyone But Romney” that is running for president, then I will stan corrected.

          If you cannot, please stop. Just stop. This is a thread for intelligence, not hysteria from someone lacking reading skills.

          • freentn

            That is my final answer!

          • rightwingmom52

            I would dance a jig. And I don’t dance.

      • gekster

        Hinz Rule.

        What is

        • Craigpennsylvania

          ;)

  • lottoj

    For me.

  • Common_Cents

    A combo of a wealth of history, DC insider knowledge combined with new energy, tea party new conservative influence, self made man, clear communication is a winner.

  • aesthete

    All dull, older men with a melanin deficit and records of cutting government spending. Really, just about anyone who has actually managed to cut government, rather than just flap their gums about it, would get my vote.

  • johnconradarens

    Sarah Palin.

    The only clear reason she’s been dissed and dismissed is because her press has been awful since the moment McCain picked her. Of course it would be: She’s a strong, conservative woman.

    Can you imagine what her polls would be like if she’d gotten the same fawning, glowing press that Hillary has? The New York Times would be doing puff pieces about being a supermom that can govern a state, raise a Down Syndrome child, run for president, hunt moose, and still look great at the end of it all. Instead, she’d been absolutely slimed, and it’s had a terrible effect on her polling.

    Intellectually, she could run over the likes of all the leftist women luminairies: Pat Schroeder, Patty Murray, Maxine Waters, Janet Reno, Janet Incompetano, and, of course, Dame Hillary herself. But, no, she’s an attractive, athletic, dynamic, engaged conservative. So, by definition, she’s dumb. Just read her press accounts.

    • snowshooze

      She was my Governor.
      She is no conservative.
      Socially or fiscally.
      Now she happens to be selling conservative values, and doing well in sales, but you need to look at her record before you lay down your money.

      • johnconradarens

        This is presented as a fictive “what if” sort of thing..

        As an Alaskan, what, in your view, disqualifies her conservative label? I only know what I’ve read, and the telling is often quite different from the facts. I’ve read many of her writings and so on, and she sure seems conservative.

        So, please, educate me. Also, I don’t know how much it changes the basics of my point: The press absolutely despises Sarah Palin, and it is what has molded the view of most folks here in the lower 48, and as a consequence, her polls.

  • wilgolden

    Between Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. Leaning cain, but too close to call. So far.

    Fortunately, I seem to remember that I have several months to decide between the three. Old Dominion resident.

    Romney – well, I’m not gonna say it. Y’all know my feelings about Romney, by now.

    Sarah Palin should have thrown her hat in the ring at least a month ago, and I was one her strong supporters. Too late, now.

    Michelle is . . er. . how do I put this, . . showing substantial wierd flashes, of late.

    Everybody else is spinning their wheels, for one reason or another. Nice enough guys, probably all deserve a cabinet position of some type, but just not on, you know?

  • chbroussard

    With that, I’ll take Perry or Newt.

  • gator_hoo

    Those are illegal now, Mr. Bad Man! I’m onto your game!

  • Change Jar Conservative

    At this point, I think Newt.

    I like Cain, but I’m concerned about his potential to verbal gaffes and hyperbole. Not that Newt couldn’t.

    I might jump on the Christie bandwagon.

    Now if the question is “If you could randomly pick someone to be the next President” then that would be Mitch Daniels.

  • mbauer

    As for the title question~
    Of the running, I’ve come around to the Newt camp in the last week, with Cain in second. You know, I could really like Santorum if he could present himself with a more positive aura.

  • rightwingmom52

    I’d vote Cain. Perry’s my second choice. I’d be happy with either. Gingrich even has a shot.

    Since I played the game and chose from the candidates on the stage, this does not mean if someone else is the nominee, that I will not support that nominee or that I’m not conservative or a traitor to the GOP or a Cainbot or a Perrybot.