New at Reason
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.
Comments to "New at Reason":
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 | December 24, 2007, 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. And then prays he's wrong.Looking For Internet Porn | December 24, 2007, 8:38am | #
I think I am in the wrong place...Spolier Alert | December 24, 2007, 8:39am | #
Mike Huckabee is you nursed whitemare.smartass sob | December 24, 2007, 9:04am | #
I think I am in the wrong place...I think somebody forgot to flush.
Jasonomics | December 24, 2007, 9:15am | #
I just got a slightly sickening feeling after reading this article. My previous sentence contained a lot of gerunds.CharlesWT | December 24, 2007, 9:23am | #
Can Anyone Win This Thing?: Why none—well, maybe one—of the presidential hopefuls can possibly win.BakedPenguin | December 24, 2007, 9:57am | #
Slightly off topic, I wrote this about a Giuliani ad that appeared in an alternate universe.kwais | December 24, 2007, 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.
kwais | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 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."Les | December 24, 2007, 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.
Bob | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 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.
brotherben | December 24, 2007, 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
Aresen | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 11:20am | #
I just got a slightly sickening feeling after reading this article. My previous sentence contained a lot of gerunds. --JasonomicsYour previous sentence didn't contain any gerunds.
Mo | December 24, 2007, 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.
Aresen | December 24, 2007, 11:37am | #
PrescottBingo.
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 | 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!Grammar Freedom Lover | December 24, 2007, 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".
Edward, I normally ignore you, but I have to ask: when did Ron Paul shoot your dog? Srsly.
Edward | December 24, 2007, 12:26pm | #
EpisiarchI 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!
Aresen | December 24, 2007, 12:26pm | #
Edward, we would really prefer that you choose some other website to announce your candidacy.
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!
Prescott | December 24, 2007, 12:28pm | #
"Feeling" in that sentecne can not be a participle.toddb | December 24, 2007, 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.
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.
Edward | December 24, 2007, 12:30pm | #
Tarran,So Ron Paul's the Nazi army in your analogy? Interesting.
toddb | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 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?
tarran | December 24, 2007, 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.
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 | December 24, 2007, 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.Ayn_Randian | December 24, 2007, 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.
Edward | December 24, 2007, 2:25pm | #
Who's leaving? Pass the eggnog.Jamie Kelly | December 24, 2007, 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 | December 24, 2007, 4:45pm | #
My comment on Huckabee:When the dumbing down of America comes, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
Another thing that history teaches us is that no trend lasts forever.
John Rhoads | December 24, 2007, 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.Edward | December 24, 2007, 5:05pm | #
Thanks, Jamie. I hope Baby Jesus bites your dick off. Merry Xmas.Brian Courts | December 24, 2007, 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?
joe | December 25, 2007, 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.
Jack | December 26, 2007, 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 | December 26, 2007, 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.