Mark your calendar – March 2
In what may be the biggest political event in Huntsville since the 1819 Constitutional Convention, Right On Huntsville and the Madison County Young Republicans will host a Republican Gubernatorial Forum on Tuesday March 2, 2010.
Robert Bentley, Bradley Byrne, Kay Ivey, Tim James, Bill Johnson, Roy Moore, and James Potts are all expected to face off before a packed house in what will probably be (no kidding this time) the biggest GOP debate in the State. Details are still TBD, but expect to see it on TV or show up in person to meet the candidates. If the event comes off as planned (so far so good), it should be very successful and a credit to Huntsville. Maybe we’ll even get a few roads out of it…
Yes, I know that NCIS airs on Tuesdays at 7PM, and that it’s the #1 show on TV (as of Sept 2009), so we’ll try to keep the candidates on schedule.
What a horrible event. I hope that we loose about five candidates before this media circus so the primary isn’t decided by 100 votes.
Tom – who knows, we may have even more candidates by then. IMO it’s too early to describe the event as horrible – the forum may be a bit rushed (after all, can’t interrupt NCIS) but there will also be time for people to meet with the candidates.
@Reactionary Did no one learn anything from the Republicans’ failed Presidential bid last year or the Democrats’ “Nine Dwarfs” from 2004? I thought the United States was supposed to be a land of educated people, not a bunch of numbskulls full of mush.
Tom, you do understand that running for office is not some endeavor that is carefully orchestrated by some shadow committee somewhere, right? Anyone who wants to run and meets the qualifications is free to do so. Organizations that hold debates, especially early ones, should invite all candidates.
I think this will be a worthy event. Fortunately I don’t watch NCIS or even know what the show is about.
Tom – are you saying that a large crowd of candidates in the primary hurt the republicans presidential bid, while a smaller primary crowd helped the democrats?
Would you prefer the republican party decide which candidates the party thinks we should support and just put two out there for the primary?
Just to clarify – my questions on the presidential primary are both related to 2008 (not 2004).
@Brian
Tom, you do understand that running for office is not some endeavor that is carefully orchestrated by some shadow committee somewhere, right?
Of course I do. But surely you realize that there is a way to win and a way to lose. Right now, there are too many candidates for Governor.
Let’s say they all make it to the Primary. There’s currently 7 people running on our side. Here in Alabama, you can’t vote for both parties in the Primary. So let’s look at the total number of people in Alabama. Subtract out those who don’t vote. From that, subtract those who don’t vote in primaries. Further remove those who will be voting Democrat. How many votes are we talking about at this point? Now divide that number by 7. See how few votes it takes for someone to win a primary? Then we’re stuck with that choice for the rest of the election. This is how you get weak candidates on the ballot. Best to prune the tree now so that we all have a place to concentrate our efforts.
Just think about the size of the war chest if there were only two candidates instead of 7. Let’s say that our side raised $100 million. Evenly distributed, you’re talking about $14 million a pop. Wouldn’t it be better if it was more like $80 mil to one candidate going into the primary?
@Jonathan
Yes, I do believe that having a large number of candidates in the primary hurt the Republican Presidential bid last time. I also believe that the smaller numbers helped the Democrats.
There were other factors as well. If Hillary got elected, we’d have the first
shemalefemale President whereas if Obama won, he would befirstsecond black President. So there was a reason for sheeple to vote. Furthermore, not one time did any of our candidates step up and say, “I’m better than all the rest of the line up because of X.” I sincerely believe that if Ron Paul would have done this despite his foreign policy, he’d be in the White House right now and McCain would have lost the primary.I don’t want the part to pick candidates. What I want is the people running for office to concede for the good of the Country, State or City when they realize they don’t have a chance at winning and all they are doing is dragging the party down.
I know this is America, the land where dreams come true and there is something to be said for hanging until the last minute and crossing the finish line. But this is not the time for some Hollywood feel-good happy ending. This is a fight to the death. It’s not Right vs. Left, it’s Right vs. Wrong. If by not dropping out a Republican candidate costs us the election and our State accelerates it’s pace towards instituting evil, that candidate ought to be disgraced publicly for the rest of his or her days. This isn’t politics as usual. This is the same fight we had back in 1776. It’s time to end the tyranny.
Tom, would mind ratcheting up the rhetoric? I don’t think you understand the gravity of this situation!
I think you need to come to terms with a few concepts.
One, there is a diversity of opinions and ideologies in this country. The real world is not binary. In politics there is no absolute right and wrong. What metrics would you use to make such a determination?
Two, politicians don’t run for office because they have nothing better to do. They run because they want to win and believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is possible. And every one of them thinks they are “right” (see previous point) and the best candidate. Until ultimate defeat is as plain as the nose on his/her face why would someone who felt they could and should win drop out? For example, we all know Kay Ivey (Bless her heart!) isn’t going to win. Can’t overcome PACT. But its a free country and you can’t just order her to stop running.
I know where you’re coming from. Large, bitter primaries often do more harm than good. But the primary process is how the “best” candidate is selected. The “tree is pruned” by an open and accountable method. Any other method is either fairy tale unrealistic (”Jim is such a better candidate, I’ll drop out.”) or subject to manipulation, back room deals, and miscalculation by a small group of people (like if Right On barred Ivey from participating because Flashpointblog’s expert analysis was that she couldn’t win).
The NY23 race shows what can happen when the Party picks the candidate. Thank goodness AL has primaries for special elections.
Tom – you suggest that Ron Paul could have won if he had spoken up, then you suggest that in a crowded field lesser candidates should concede for the good of the Party. Using your own logic: Paul was an also-ran who should have dropped out ‘for the good of the party’ (after all, history doesn’t record many votes for him).
@Brian
You’re right of course. I did get carried away. Sometimes I loose sight of the forrest for being amongst all the trees. Still, I think we are at a disadvantage with 7 people with that hat in the ring vs. the Dem’s 2.
Primaries are about beating people on your ticket. General elections are about betting the opposition.
P.S. I’ll see what I can do to impress just how serious an issue the governor’s race is in the future. :P
@Reactionary I think Paul got as little vote as he did precisely because he didn’t get off the merry-go-round. I would argue that by looking at the money he raised via the Internet and the records he set he had a strong enough base that could have compelled those who weren’t so sure to vote for him had there been a reduced choice.
For instance, if primary would have been between just Paul and McCain, who do you think would have won that race?
So the 7 republicans who did not drop out before the Iowa Caucus was so much larger than the 8 democrats who did not drop out before the Iowa Caucus – that the republicans never had a chance?
Ron Paul was the only republican who kept going even after being mathematically eliminated, do you feel he should have dropped out sooner for the good of country?
You’re assuming an equal distribution of money and at least a semi-equal distribution of votes. Let’s be honest, it will most likely boil down to the top 2 or 3 well before the primary and they will receive the money and votes. Also, there will be a runoff if nobody receives over 50% of the vote – completely negating the fear that somebody will win simply by a small plurality.
Professor Tom,
I understand your concern, but having more primary candidates isn’t necessarily a disadvantage. Remember our special elections in Madison County earlier this year. In the senate race, R’s had 6 candidates, the D’s had two. In the House race, R’s had 4 they had 3. We won both. The important thing is that after the primary and the voters have spoken, we unite around our nominee.
@Mike
I agree with you, but will add this coda: provided that there’s a strong rallying point (candidate).
I agree, a strong nominee makes it happen. We’ve got to put our confidence in the voters to make the right choice and hope that our candidates realize that they can’t afford to alienate the supporters of their primary opponents if they hope to win the general election. Contrary to what many might think, the Democrat nominee will not be a pushover.
@Mike
I never thought that the Democrat would be a pushover. I think that in the current climate Davis has an uphill battle to fight and Ron Sparks only has name recognition going for him, but then again, when do Democrats vote on issues? They vote on emotions.
Regrading strong candidates, I think it is like going to war. If we find a general who balances mercy and justice, someone who leads by example and inspires yet isn’t too proud to go to the back of the line–then we’ll have a candidate that we can all rally behind and move forward as a prosperous State being an example to our fellow States.
All, forgive me if I am ignoring something that has been mentioned previously, but after numerous posts from the Professor, I just lost all concentration and skipped down to the bottom…
Personally, I think the 2010 Gubernatorial race comes down to the Republican primary, winner take all. At this point, and it may still be too early to say, but I think Artur will probably take the Dem. primary and lose against any of the top 2 or possibly 3 GOP candidates in the general.
With that said, I see it to be tremendously important to get in front of the GOP candidates early for several reasons including to battle-test them in front of particular communities/audiences, but also to hear of their particular opinions on key issues. Even amongst the GOP candidates, there is wide difference of opinion on several main issues including abortion, gambling, lottery, PACT, vouchers, charter schools, Huntsville’s “Gas Pledge”, grocery sales taxes, property tax re-appraisals, Jefferson County, the list goes on and on…