Columnist Steve Chapman surveys the current field of presidential wannabes, takes a look at history, and wonders just who the hell can possibly make it to the White House. And then prays he's wrong.
Reason Magazine
smartass sob|12.24.07 @ 9:04AM|#
I think I am in the wrong place...
I think somebody forgot to flush.
Jasonomics|12.24.07 @ 9:15AM|#
I just got a slightly sickening feeling after reading this article. My previous sentence contained a lot of gerunds.
|12.24.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Can Anyone Win This Thing?: Why none-well, maybe one-of the presidential hopefuls can possibly win.
BakedPenguin|12.24.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Slightly off topic, I wrote this about a Giuliani ad that appeared in an alternate universe.
|12.24.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Yeah, but I don't buy this "it hasn't happened since crap"
Unless specific reasons are produced then the failures of previous
candidates may be because of personal flaws and unlikable
positions, than because 'people don't like to elect senators, or
mayors.
I mean with the exception of Ron Paul, I am glad all those people
are disqualified. But I don't think they really are in the minds of
the voters disqualified.
And I think that Huckabee still has an uphill fight.
I do prefer Huckabee to Guliani, Clinton, Obama, McCain, Edwards,
and maybe even Fred Thompson.
|12.24.07 @ 10:09AM|#
Here is how I see the political possibilities in relation to my
hopes and to America:
A victory for:
Ron Paul; America wins
Fred Thompson or Huckabee; Break even maybe slight loss.
Anyone else; America loses. And so do I. Start stockpiling
ammo!
And if the zombie uprizing is near, it can only make things
better.
Bingo|12.24.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Huckabee would get along well with the Democrats in congress. Just think of how many nanny-state laws would get bi-partisan as well as executive support.
Daniel Reeves|12.24.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Well the article is a bit silly imho, but I like the concept. It should be weighted, though, as in, "how many have ran against how many got into the primary against how many have won."
|12.24.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Anyway, next year will be the year we elect the
least-qualified president since whoever it was that came after
Grant.
I don't think Bush is allowed to run again.
|12.24.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Huckabee can't win, either. Anti-Christian feeling has swelled
over the past 8 years, and the Religious Right is on the
defensive.
Having eliminated the last remaining candidate, we are forced to
conclude that no one will be elected president, and as of next
January the White House will sit empty, accumulating frost damage.
What a pleasant thought.
Middle Class Worker|12.24.07 @ 10:46AM|#
"Just think of how many nanny-state laws would get bi-partisan
as well as executive support."
"Nanny state" is such a sexist
and patriarchal term made up by you wingnuts.
Bingo|12.24.07 @ 10:49AM|#
The more I read about Huckabee the more he scares the shit out
of me.
Seriously, courting preachers who believe that we are currently
acting out God's will for the end times.
What the hell.
|12.24.07 @ 11:09AM|#
disclaimer: I am not claiming to know God's will for the
Huckbilly, just speculatin.
So the best place for a preacher of the gospel in the "end times"
is not in the pulpit enticing souls to Christ? I am trying to
remember the percentage of apostles that christ called that kept
their day job.
need some more hrrumphs back there
|12.24.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Recent history suggests that to win the presidency, you have
to be a white male from the South or West, preferably with
experience as a governor. That description fits only one candidate
in the race-Mike Huckabee. So by examining the portents of history,
we find that he's the only person who can possibly be elected next
year.
That's it Steve! Coal in your stocking tomorrow morning.
Edward|12.24.07 @ 11:15AM|#
It's interesting to watch the loonies squirm when something semi-sensible is thrown into the cage. My only problem with the article is the Henry Ford quote. Ford was such a pig.
Prescott|12.24.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I just got a slightly sickening feeling after reading this
article. My previous sentence contained a lot of gerunds.
--Jasonomics
Your previous sentence didn't contain any gerunds.
|12.24.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Recent history suggests that to win the presidency, you have
to be a white male from the South or West, preferably with
experience as a governor. That description fits only one candidate
in the race-Mike Huckabee. So by examining the portents of history,
we find that he's the only person who can possibly be elected next
year.
Shhh, don't tell George H.W. Bush. He doesn't stand a chance.
|12.24.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Prescott
Bingo.
And you don't even get called a "grammar nazi" since Jasonomics was
the person used the word incorrectly.
(Actually, I thought it was a malapropism for "grounds", but that
didn't make sense, either.)
Edward|12.24.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Wait a minute. Haven't we ever elected a fringe lunatic who wants to abolish most government departments, thinks the founding fathers were fixated on God when they wrote the constitution, and allowed racist comments to be published under his name? Damn!
Grammar Freedom Lover|12.24.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Actually, faux-grammarian smartasses, "feeling" in that sentence
can be interpreted *either* as a gerund *or* as a participle. The
gerund interpretation makes more sense.
His statement still isn't true because one gerund is not a "lot",
though one may argue it is "one too many".
Episiarch|12.24.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Edward, I normally ignore you, but I have to ask: when did Ron Paul shoot your dog? Srsly.
Edward|12.24.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Episiarch
I just get a kick out of making fun of your silly candidate. You
guys take him so seriously, and some of you are goofy enough to
think he can win. If fascinates me that getting extremist
libertarian ideas out there actually discredits libertarianism. Add
Ron Paul's deficits--Nazi money, racist comments, lies about the
constitution--and it's all down hill. And you think you're going up
hill. I mean, fuck!
|12.24.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Edward | December 24, 2007, 11:46am | #
Wait a minute. Haven't we ever elected a fringe lunatic who wants to abolish most government departments, thinks the founding fathers were fixated on God when they wrote the constitution, and allowed racist comments to be published under his name? Damn!
Edward, we would really prefer that you choose some other website
to announce your candidacy.
toddb|12.24.07 @ 12:28PM|#
All you need to know about Huckabee...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838
I have no idea why anyone remotely interested in libertarian ideals
would consider voting for him.
|12.24.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Edward's comments invariably put me in mind of Paris newspapers during the Blitzkrieg in the early days of World War II; every day, the newspapers would announce that the French Army had stopped the German advance near a town that was 50 miles closer to Paris than the town from the previous day's headlines.
toddb|12.24.07 @ 12:30PM|#
It's a short article, but you really don't need to read passed
the title to get the whole point:
"Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative"
founding mother|12.24.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Edward | December 24, 2007, 11:46am | #
Wait a minute. Haven't we ever elected a fringe lunatic who wants
to abolish most government departments, thinks the founding fathers
were fixated on God when they wrote the constitution, and allowed
racist comments to be published under his name? Damn!
Jefferson? Adams?
|12.24.07 @ 12:51PM|#
So Ron Paul's the Nazi army in your analogy? Interesting.
Not quite, in my simile Ron Paul and his
supporters would be the Wehrmacht the Regular German Army.
I don't think the SA or the SS (the Nazi armies) played a
significant role in the Blitzkrieg.
Of course, the simile is more concerned with your reaction to his
rise; the confident predictions of imminent defeat which invariably
seem to fall flat.
Although, to be fair, until you found that comment about references
to God in the Constitution, you were far more unhinged than you are
now - you seem more relaxed now that you have a flint knife to wave
at him.
Episiarch|12.24.07 @ 1:18PM|#
So he didn't shoot your dog? Then what was it, sleeping with your wife? Cheated off of you in math class? Beat you for homecoming queen? Don't take it so personally, dude.
Edward|12.24.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Okay, I admit that Ron Paul seems like a pretty nice guy and is probably principled. If I were a supporter, I'd wish that he had shown immdediate outrage about the racist stuff that appeared under his name in his newsletter and given evidence that the culprit had been fired. I find his views on immigration and religion disturbinmg, but I imagine most of you do too. The Nazi money is a red herring; there is absolutely no evidence that the man has Nazi sympathies. There. Merry Christmas.
|12.24.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Anyway, next year will be the year we elect the
least-qualified president since whoever it was that came after
Grant.
That's my hometown you're talking about!
Rutherford
B. Hayes
Fretroit represent.
There. Merry Christmas.
You mean you're actually leaving? Woo-hoo, maybe there is a
god.
|12.24.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Edward | December 24, 2007, 1:27pm |
#
Okay, I admit that Ron Paul seems like a pretty nice guy and is
probably principled.
edward:
Make up your mind. Are you a full-fledged twat or just an annoying
little bitch?
We reject your olive branch and shove it straight up your
ass.
Merry fucking Christmas. I hope you get herpes in your
stocking.
Gene Berkman|12.24.07 @ 4:45PM|#
My comment on Huckabee:
When the dumbing down of America comes, it will be wrapped in the
flag and carrying a cross.
John Rhoads|12.24.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Man, that's some bad logic in this article. Haven't elected someone from Massachusetts since 1960 means that people from Massachusetts are less likely to get elected? Since 1960, we have elected 7 presidents. Massachusetts is 1 state in 50. Granted 3 were from Texas and 2 were from California, but this data certainly doesn't suggest any systematic anti-Massachusetts bias among voters. Since 1960, there are 46 states that have failed to elect a president. Since 1956 there are 5 states that have succeeded in electing a president, one of which was Massachusetts. Many of the other implications are equally problematic.
|12.24.07 @ 6:50PM|#
Man, that's some bad logic in this article.
Relax -- I think you're taking the article just a bit too
seriously. Do you really think this was meant as a completely
serious analysis of who cannot win the presidency?
|12.25.07 @ 8:24PM|#
Senators haven't historically won because presidential elections
are either change elections, continuity elections, or change-back
elections. Either the public really wants a continuation of the
last presidency (in which case the someone from the executive
branch of the sitting party wins) or they really want a change (in
which some insurgent outsider without DC dust on his boots wins) or
they want to go back to the administration that preceded the
incumbent (in which case someone from that previous administration
gets elected). Each of these scenarios rule out experienced
legislators.
But if you look at the leading Senators in this race - HIllary,
Obama, and Edwards - two of them were barely in Washington long
enough to figure out the Metro, and the third went to the Senate
directly from the White House.
Obama and Edwards can each play the Washington Outsider "change"
card perfectly credibly, while Hillary can run as a Clinton
administration figure who's been slumming it.
The other senators in the race - Biden, McCain, Dodd - are all the
standard Kerry/Dole/Tsongas model of experienced Capitol Hill hand
that never wins.
|12.26.07 @ 12:21AM|#
Steve Chapman wrote: "Unless 2008 is one of those years that
confirm what Henry Ford insisted: History is bunk."
Ddn't Henry Ford say that in the context of his anti-semitic
conspiracy theories?
Big Nanny|12.26.07 @ 5:20PM|#
"Nanny state" is such a sexist and patriarchal term made up by
you wingnuts."
I don't understand how you can say that, unless....oh I get it. You
think it's sexist because you think only a woman can be a
nanny.
Leave a Comment
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- It’s Enough to Literally Make Your Head Explode (2.3)
- The Second Amendment Cases the Supreme Court Doesn't Want to Hear (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
ed|12.24.07 @ 8:20AM|#
Isn't it customary to provide a link or something? Anyway, next year will be the year we elect the least-qualified president since whoever it was that came after Grant.
Customary Link|12.24.07 @ 8:35AM|#
Columnist Steve Chapman surveys the current field of presidential wannabes, takes a look at history, and wonders just who the hell can possibly make it to the White House. reply to this