Skip to footer

Why Republican presidential re-runs are faring badly

Thus far in the 2016 cycle, candidates who made a strong showing – or at least had a boomlet – in previous cycles are doing horribly.

|
Paul Sancya/AP/File
Republican presidential candidate, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, speaks at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 19, 2015. Perry’s cash-strapped presidential campaign is set to keep going in Iowa with just one paid staffer and some volunteers.
  • By James Joyner Voices contributor

Historically, the Republican Party has tended to nominate the candidate whose “turn” it is. Typically, that has meant someone who made a strong run previously. Mitt Romney in 2012, John McCain in 2008, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Richard Nixon in 1968 all fit the pattern. In the modern era, George W. Bush in 2000 has been the only exception. (The races not mentioned above all featured a sitting president.)

Thus far in the 2016 cycle, though, candidates who made a strong showing – or at least had a boomlet – in previous cycles are doing horribly. Yesterday, Rick Perry, who was briefly a front-runner in 2012 before his campaign imploded over a series of gaffes, cut his paid campaign staff in Iowa to one. His Iowa co-chair has “has moved back to the team for presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the candidate she supported in the 2012 cycle.” Alas, Santorum, who won Iowa and finished second overall last time, isn’t faring much better than Perry this go-round.

Look at the RealClearPolitics poll aggregate:

All the usual caveats about early polling notwithstanding, the re-runs are mere blips.

John Kasich is technically the leader among the re-runs, since he made a short-lived, if not-much-remembered run, in 2000. At the time, he was a mere congressman, if the chairman of the Budget Committee. He’s now governor of a major swing state. He’s at 4.7 percent, lagging a failed tech executive whose only political experience was a 10-point loss to Barbara Boxer for the US Senate.

Mike Huckabee has made two reasonably successful runs, including technically finishing second to McCain in 2008 (Romney was the real runner-up but dropped out once it was clear McCain would be the nominee, while Huckabee hung around to rack up meaningless votes). He’s at a whopping 4.3 percent, good enough for 9th place.

Perry is a 1.3 and Santorum at 1.0. That puts them statistically tied with my dog Molly.

None of the top seven candidates at the moment have made a previous run for the Republican nomination. Donald Trump has flirted with several runs for president, including actually running for the Reform Party’s nod in 2000. Ben Carson never ran for anything. Jeb Bush is, of course, the son and brother of previous Republican presidents but is making his first go of it himself. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio are all relative newcomers. Cruz came onto the national scene with his successful 2012 Senate campaign. Walker won the Wisconsin’s governor race in 2010, having failed in 2006.  Rubio also won his first major election in 2010.

Again, it’s early. It’s possible that Kasich will emerge as the last serious candidate standing not named Bush and go on to win the thing. But the current mood of the Republican electorate is not only anti-politician, it’s anti-anyone who has run before.

James Joyner is editor of the Outside the Beltway blog at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Why Republican presidential re-runs are faring badly
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0901/Why-Republican-presidential-re-runs-are-faring-badly
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe