Who is the most Republican candidate

[jdobbin]

Either you aren't comprehending what Dobbin just said or you just desperately want to discuss Canada despite its irrelevance to the conversation. Why didn't you mention that Clinton wasn't Black or HIspanic either? That would have fit in nicely with your series of copy-and-paste "Canada too/Clinton too" posts.

I guess I should have added not ready to see a black, Hispanic or female candidate elected President.

I had never mean to indicate that there hadn't been candidates that fit those categories...just none who had been elected President or Vice-President.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess I should have added not ready to see a black, Hispanic or female candidate elected President.

I had never mean to indicate that there hadn't been candidates that fit those categories...just none who had been elected President or Vice-President.

Better, but you still have not made the case. Candidates are elected to office by voters from each state...many such voters have selected "black, Hispanic, or female" candidates on their ballots.

And just for consistent measure, neither "black or Hispanic" has ever been Prime Minister of Canada, if that is what matters.

Edited October 27, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest coot]

And it would appear that you don't like such references for obvious reasons. The post revealed only a superficial understanding of US politics, political parties, ballots, and diverse candidates. Since this is a Canadian board, I look forward to demonstrating that such sanctimonious posts ring hollow, and I will do it as often as I please.

The obvious reason why such references are annoying is because they often have nothing to do with the topic and are derived only from your own inferiority complex and not actual reality. By stating that the U.S. may not be ready to elect a woman or Black or Hispanic or Mormon or adulterer as president, there is absolutely no implication that Canada is more progressive in any way (in fact, I would agree it is not). That implication is all in your head, pretty much every time you bring it up (over and over again).

[bush_cheney2004]

The obvious reason why such references are annoying is because they often have nothing to do with the topic and are derived only from your own inferiority complex and not actual reality. By stating that the U.S. may not be ready to elect a woman or Black or Hispanic or Mormon or adulterer as president, there is absolutely no implication that Canada is more progressive in any way (in fact, I would agree it is not). That implication is all in your head, pretty much every time you bring it up (over and over again).

Worthwhile, if only to irk you so.....whether agreeing or not. The original flawed assertion is equally unrelated to the topic, but that doesn't bother me in the least.

[Guest coot]

Worthwhile, if only to irk you so.....whether agreeing or not. The original flawed assertion is equally unrelated to the topic, but that doesn't bother me in the least.

Doesn't bother me either. In fact, it's kind of amusing. One of the few entertaining things left in what has become an otherwise tedious forum. By all means, please continue.

[jbg]

After yesterday's debate on FOX, many of the Republican candidates continued to say they were the most Republican of the candidates. Who is the candidate who will appear to the right in the party *and* win an election?

I didn't watch debate but here's my $0.02.

Giuliani was a great mayor, who converted an ungovernable city back into a great one. Also, as to McCain and Thompson, I have a problem with people with solely legislative records becoming presidents. I want to see what they do as opposed to what they say. Giuliani's record is far better than his rhetoric.

[jbg]

So far the polls disagree with you on the electability issue of a Democratic candidate for President.

Ever been to Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (even though it was first state to let women vote), Utah, Nevada, or Kentucky?

[jdobbin]

I didn't watch debate but here's my $0.02.

Giuliani was a great mayor, who converted an ungovernable city back into a great one. Also, as to McCain and Thompson, I have a problem with people with solely legislative records becoming presidents. I want to see what they do as opposed to what they say. Giuliani's record is far better than his rhetoric.

And yet Guiliani is having a tough time with the Republicans who are saying he is not a real Republican. The problem has gotten so bad that some on the religious right say they will support a third party candidate if he is nominated.

Edited October 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Ever been to Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (even though it was first state to let women vote), Utah, Nevada, or Kentucky?

Think I've been to all those states. You are saying that there is no way they will ever vote for a Democratic candidate for President?

[jbg]

Think I've been to all those states. You are saying that there is no way they will ever vote for a Democratic candidate for President?

Not for Hilary or Osama Obama.

[gc1765]

And yet that is what the race for the Republican nomination has come to: who is the most Republican?

In other words, who is most likely to lose the general election

Thompson, Romney and Tancredo seem pretty conservative. I think Giuliani is the only one who can actually win...well, maybe Colbert

[maldon_road]

Ever been to Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (even though it was first state to let women vote), Utah, Nevada, or Kentucky?

All small states with few electoral votes. Not the states Hilly hopes to win.

[Guest coot]

It's popular to characterize many Americans as resistant to any kind of progressive change, but I think they are open-minded enough to accept even a black woman candidate (hello Oprah?). But given the choice of a mormon or a pro-choice cross-dressing adulterer versus a woman who, like Tammy Wynette, would faithfully stand by her man no matter his indiscretions, I think they might go with the woman who kept her family together against all odds rather than the man who split his families apart to take up with his mistresses.

[bush_cheney2004]

Giuliani was a great mayor, who converted an ungovernable city back into a great one. Also, as to McCain and Thompson, I have a problem with people with solely legislative records becoming presidents. I want to see what they do as opposed to what they say. Giuliani's record is far better than his rhetoric.

Yes...and presidential election history is on your side, with governors prevailing more often than Senators or Congressman. Leading an organization as executive is far better preparation that debating and voting on legislation.

[jbg]

Ever been to Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (even though it was first state to let women vote), Utah, Nevada, or Kentucky?

All small states with few electoral votes. Not the states Hilly hopes to win.

Explain that one to Al Gore circa 2000. In the US each state has a minimum of three (3) Electoral Votes. When you add in Alaska and a few others I forgot about, the Democrats are already starting from way behind. And if you consider that some of thethe so-called "big states", to wit, Texas, Georgia and Florida often, though not always, vote Republican, the Democrats are starting even further behind the eight-ball. Basically, the system makes it much harder to elect a non-Southern, non-centrist Democrat than almost any Republican. As JDobbin correctly pointed out, 1992 was somewhat skewed by Perot, but it's unclear who he hurt more.

If Giuliani is the nominee, Clinton will have to spend an awful lot of time campaigning in New York and New Jersey. While this doesn't seem such a big drawback, the Democrats will be forced to make promises that will be inimical to their chances in the "swing states" of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. While Clinton will wind up taking New York (and probably though not definitely California) it will be at the price of the swng states. Thus the small states do matter in the US. There are not as few of them as "small provinces" in Canada, so they do make a major difference. I.e. no Quebecs or Ontarios in the US.

Edited October 28, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

Yes...and presidential election history is on your side, with governors prevailing more often than Senators or Congressman. Leading an organization as executive is far better preparation that debating and voting on legislation.

I can't think of any provincial premiers that have become PM's in Canada's history. By contrast, in the US, the following recent Presidents (arbitrarily starting in 1900) have become Presidents, and every one except Jimmy Carter was re-elected once (now the maximum re-elections):

1. Theodore Roosevelt (of New York) (President 1901-1909)
   
2. Woodrow Wilson (of New Jersey) (President 1913-1921)
   
3. Calvin Coolidge (of Massachusetts) (President 1923-1929)
   
4. Franklin Roosevelt (of New York) (President 1933-1945)
   
5. Jimmy Carter (of Georgia) (President 1977-1981)
   
6. Ronald Reagan, (of California) (President 1981-1989)
   
7. William J. Clinton (of Arkansas) (President 1993-2001)
   
8. George W. Bush (of Texas) (President 2001- )
   

You can see that with very few exceptions Presidents during modern times are former governors.

[Guest American Woman]

You can see that with very few exceptions Presidents during modern times are former governors.

That's not correct. Less than half of the presidents since 1900, your arbitrary starting date, were former governors.

Edited October 28, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest coot]

Maybe change that to "lots and lots of exceptions."

[jbg]

That's not correct. Less than half of the presidents since 1900, your arbitrary starting date, were former governors.

The "non-governors" were

1. Wiliam Howard Taft - 1909-1913;
   
2. Warren Gamaliel Harding - 1921-1923;
   
3. Herbert Hoover - 1929-1933;
   
4. Harry S. Truman - 1945-1953;
   
5. Dwight David Eisenhower - 1953-1961;
   
6. Lyndon Baines Johnson - 1963-1969;
   
7. Richard Milhous Nixon - 1969-1974;
   
8. Gerald Ford - 1974-1977;
   
9. George Bush Sr. - 1989-1993
   

In the narrow sense you're right. But three of these succeeded to office by death or resignation of predescessors, and five were one termers. Two of the remaining ones, Nixon and Johnson, left office ignominiously, and Hoover left only one step better. Maybe the fact that only Eisenhower, among these officeholders, served relatively uneventfully and honorably. One of those that died in office, Harding, was a playboy who died of syphilis. Perhaps my perception was colored by the fact of the brief and ignoble service of so many of the non-governors, but you do make a good point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still, reviewing the "non-governor" list, Truman, Johnson, and Ford were not first elected in a general campaign. Being governor is not a lock (e.g. Mike Dukakis), but it certainly helps. Al Gore couldn't even win his home state!

[jbg]

Still, reviewing the "non-governor" list, Truman, Johnson, and Ford were not first elected in a general campaign. Being governor is not a lock (e.g. Mike Dukakis), but it certainly helps. Al Gore couldn't even win his home state!

If someone was a poor administrator, i.e. Dukakis, being governor hurts.

But in general I think Americans like to see a foretaste of how a candidate governs when given the chance. Giuliani was something special in that regard.

[capricorn]

But in general I think Americans like to see a foretaste of how a candidate governs when given the chance.

It often works this way too in Canadian politics. For example, from a seat on a city council then to the provincial level then to the federal level. Of course, there are exceptions. Such as when Aline Chretien plucked Dion from behind a university desk and he made it into Jean Chretien's federal cabinet. Now he's leader of the opposition. These days if it weren't for bad luck, the Liberals would have no luck at all, so to speak.

[jbg]

It often works this way too in Canadian politics. For example, from a seat on a city council then to the provincial level then to the federal level. Of course, there are exceptions. Such as when Aline Chretien plucked Dion from behind a university desk and he made it into Jean Chretien's federal cabinet. Now he's leader of the opposition. These days if it weren't for bad luck, the Liberals would have no luck at all, so to speak.

Interesting, but what provincial Premier has made it to become PM?

[capricorn]

Interesting, but what provincial Premier has made it to become PM?

Two.

John Thompson 1892-94.

http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primemini.../pmthompson.htm

Charles Tupper 1896.

http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primemini.../p/pmtupper.htm

Many Prime Ministers got their start in provincial politics.

[Guest American Woman]

The "non-governors" were

1. Wiliam Howard Taft - 1909-1913;
   
2. Warren Gamaliel Harding - 1921-1923;
   
3. Herbert Hoover - 1929-1933;
   
4. Harry S. Truman - 1945-1953;
   
5. Dwight David Eisenhower - 1953-1961;
   
6. Lyndon Baines Johnson - 1963-1969;
   
7. Richard Milhous Nixon - 1969-1974;
   
8. Gerald Ford - 1974-1977;
   
9. George Bush Sr. - 1989-1993
   

In the narrow sense you're right. But three of these succeeded to office by death or resignation of predescessors, and five were one termers. Two of the remaining ones, Nixon and Johnson, left office ignominiously, and Hoover left only one step better. Maybe the fact that only Eisenhower, among these officeholders, served relatively uneventfully and honorably. One of those that died in office, Harding, was a playboy who died of syphilis. Perhaps my perception was colored by the fact of the brief and ignoble service of so many of the non-governors, but you do make a good point.

I make a CORRECT point. Less that half of the presidents in modern times were former governors, making your claim that there were "few exceptions" totally incorrect. Furthermore, you forgot:

#10 John F. Kennedy

You want to smear him now too in an attempt to save face?