Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mind, I do not think the term 'dark horse' is exactly right. Mr. Newton would not be a 'dark horse' because, well, he is running. He would be a 'long shot'.
Back in the old days political conventions were interesting affairs. You would have several candidates running for, say, the Republican nomination. The convention day would arrive. Votes would be cast on the floor, but no candidate would garner enough votes to win the nomination outright. What to do?
If you went back to the 'smoke filled room' with the political bosses, they would hammer out an agreement on what man the various factions could accept. After an agreement, they would fan out into the convention hall, telling their 'people' who to vote for. If we were in 1920, the result was Warren G. Harding.
You see, a 'dark horse' is one unknown to the gamblers. You can't bet on an unknown person. Mr. Harding literally burst out of that smoke-filled backroom, won the nomination on the next vote (many did not know who the heck he was) and thence to the presidency.
I believe that Mr. Harding is the last 'dark horse' candidate.
Anyway, whoever is nominated at the Republican convention next year, you can be sure it will be one of those currently in the race. The horse may be a little 'shy', but not dark.
The filing deadlines for New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina's primaries have already passed so there won't be any new candidates between now and when voting begins. Nevada and Iowa have caucuses which don't have filing dates but 8 weeks isn't a lot of time to build up an organization and start pressing the flesh in both states to the extent one could stand a reasonable chance of winning either contest. Republicans are stuck with who they have now.
Yup. Idaho Republicans have switched to a caucus system this year as well, to be held on super Tuesday. Idaho will have now more convention delegates- 32, than Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada.
This can possibly be a game-changer, as Idaho is a solid red state with a large Mormon population in the south, who is solidly behind Mitt. The north is more far-right and much less Mormon, and Paul is more popular there. The caucus is winner-take-all, so whoever wins the nomination here may have a pretty big advantage at the convention. I believe the Idaho filing date is closed.
Looking back in 2008, does anyone think we have a dark horse candidate presently? Anyone think it's Newt Gringrich? He's the only one left that would be palatable to the mainstream media, and analyzing what he says, he's too John McCainish. You know, agreeing with everybody, the opposite of Ron Paul and Santorum. John McCain had sluggish performance in 2008, and yet he had a meteoric rise in popularity at the end and got the nomination, and he also agreed with everybody and with Obama on a lot. Watching the debates in 2008, it seemed like McCain agreed with Obama more than opposed him. We all know how that worked out.
Is Newt the 2012 McCain that will, ultimately, get the nomination? Honestly, I think Southern voters would rather vote for a neo-con cheating Gingrich than a mormon liberal like Romney or Huntsman.
I called Santorum as the dark horse. I claimed he'd be the conservative version of Obama who would come from nowhere, and tonight was no surprise.
Those who thought the tea party was weak better stand up and take notice.
It wasn't so much a meteoric rise, but the fact that support finally fell for the 'frontrunner', the guy was was staunchly-pro choice and staunchly pro-gun control. Anyone who couldn't see that Giuliani would eventually fall by the wayside just doesn't understand the fundamental concerns of the Republican Party.
As for McCain, he finished second the previous time the nomination was open (2000), just like Dole and GHW Bush and Reagan before him. The GOP gives it to the guy whose 'turn' it is, the guy who came in second last time. GW Bush is an exception to this rule, but in 2000 the candidate who had finished second the previous time (Buchanan, 1996) didn't seek the GOP nomination, so it was no ones 'turn'. They've been doing this for decades. They mostly likely do it again this year (Romney).
Which brings up the interesting question of who finishes second this time, positioning himself for 2016 (if Obama wins in 2012) or 2020 (if the GOP nominee wins).
That it is Romney's 'turn' is undeniable, but more importantly, Romney has done a lot of work for over 3 years. He has built and financed a very good organization at all levels from bottom to top, and pulled in the money.
Both really count in national politics, especially the organization. All it can take for a candidate to sink like a rock is for one state's campaign chairman to drop the ball, and the earth opens up under their guy's feet in a split second.
I don't see anywhere the same level of political expertise in any of the other guy's crews, and none have the same finances to keep up ad spending like Romney.
Like him or not Romney has his act together. His bigest problem is Mitt Romney, the stammering all things to all people guy, who is too often out of touch with the folks who are doing the hiring right now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
