Why did the Republican party choose George W Bush as their candidate?

[Fencer128]

Hi,

I was just wondering why it was George W Bush that was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. From what I can tell he only had 7 years experience as a politician prior to taking up office. Who were the other options and why were they rejected over him?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Queasy]

There were other candidates, the one who came gave Bush the biggest run for the money was AZ Sen. John McCain. However, they held Republican Primaries and Bush won.


Link to Republican 2000 Primary Resultscan show you the primary results of the 2000 elections.

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

I was just wondering why it was George W Bush that was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. From what I can tell he only had 7 years experience as a politician prior to taking up office. Who were the other options and why were they rejected over him?

Cheers,

Andy

He was voted over the other Republicans in the primaries. Bob Dole is theonly other candidate that I can recall at the moment....

 

[Fencer128]

What are the "primaries"? (excuse my ignorance) and who votes in them? Party members?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
What are the "primaries"? (excuse my ignorance) and who votes in them? Party members?

Cheers,

Andy

Primaries are when the candidates for each party are voted on to see who runs as the Presidential Candidate. Party members and independents can vote in primaries (depending on state laws).

Link to Republican 2000 Primary Results

 

[Ornery]

We went with Dole once. Guess substance doesn't cut it, eh? Fine, then whoever can garner votes from now on!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Fencer128
What are the "primaries"? (excuse my ignorance) and who votes in them? Party members?

Cheers,

Andy

Primaries are when the candidates for each party are voted on to see who runs as the Presidential Candidate. Party members and independents can vote in primaries (depending on state laws).

One last thing (well 2 really)!

As a proportion of the electorate - is partry membership quite high (ie do you think that if it was a free vote for all republicans it would of gone the same way).

And is it normal to have a president with such limited political experience? I would have thought that someone who'd been around in politics a bit longer might be a better choice?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Ornery
We went with Dole once. Guess substance doesn't cut it, eh? Fine, then whoever can garner votes from now on!

Yup. It was all about name recognition.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: Ornery
We went with Dole once. Guess substance doesn't cut it, eh? Fine, then whoever can garner votes from now on!

Yup. It was all about name recognition.

I was kind of hoping that there was more to it than that.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

The name was familiar, a lot of people vote on 'That sounds familiar...' alone, and why he was put forward in the first place... I presume his dad and his friends pushed him forward, always nice to have a puppet in a high place.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Fencer128
What are the "primaries"? (excuse my ignorance) and who votes in them? Party members?

Cheers,

Andy

Primaries are when the candidates for each party are voted on to see who runs as the Presidential Candidate. Party members and independents can vote in primaries (depending on state laws).

One last thing (well 2 really)!

As a proportion of the electorate - is partry membership quite high (ie do you think that if it was a free vote for all republicans it would of gone the same way).

Party membership is not that high in the United States. The base of independents is quite large and is what both parties fight over each election.

And is it normal to have a president with such limited political experience? I would have thought that someone who'd been around in politics a bit longer might be a better choice?

It's not abnormal. The position that Bush held was as governor of the state of Texas. It is common, especially in recent years, to see Presidential Candidates come from governor positions (Clinton, Reagan, Bush II, Carter, Nixon, etc)

 

[Corn]

As a proportion of the electorate - is partry membership quite high (ie do you think that if it was a free vote for all republicans it would of gone the same way).

Primaries are "free" votes for all registered voters. The only restriction being that most states don't allow voters who are registered as Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and vice versa.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Because republican cadidates always have to be idiots. Bush fit the profile.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Corn

As a proportion of the electorate - is partry membership quite high (ie do you think that if it was a free vote for all republicans it would of gone the same way).

Primaries are "free" votes for all registered voters. The only restriction being that most states don't allow voters who are registered as Democrats to vote in Republican primaries and vice versa.

?

You mean paid up members of the republican party? Its not like they know who you vote for! is it?

Andy

 

[Pliablemoose]

Why did the Republican party choose George W Bush as their candidate?

One could argue that using the primary system, the US voters chose GWB as the Republican candidate.

 

[wyvrn]

The rise of television has change our selection process. 25 years ago, candidates had to go through a rigorous selection process which involved lots of campaigning and refinement of the platform to meet the needs of the party and constituency. Normally several candidates established there worthiness and the primaries remained a viable step in picking out the single best qualified candidate.

Today, the candidate is usually "chosen" way before the primaries are done. States like New Hampshire that have early primaries tend to pick the presidential candidates, because it is though whoever takes the early lead has the momentum. Why has this changed? People see the results of early primaries on TV and assume that candidate is going to hold his lead, and usually don't rally around a underdog candidate to oppose the early leader. Secondly, with the advent of TV, people get to see what the candidate looks like. Nixon was thought to have lost the presidency to Kennedy because of the televised debate in which Kennedy looked better than Nixon, even though those that heard the debate on radio strongly favored Nixon's answers. It has been shown that looks and appeal have as much to do with the selection of candidates for presidency as political prowress and experience. Bush looked the part, fell in with the party line, and road the coattails of his dad right into the Republican nomination. Also, candidates with any spec on their past history are eliminated early on because the media tends to focus on dirt on candidates rather than qualifications. So if you have a candidate that is very well qualified but has any blemishes in his past, he will not be chosen over the inexperienced candidate that has a clean record.

It is widely believed by many political experts that Gore was better at debating and arguing his platform than Bush in the presidential race. But Gore looked stiff on television, and many experts believe that is what caused him to lose a very closely contested battle.

This is all supported by the govt. class I took last semester where we examined changes in the political process.

 

[achiral]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

I was just wondering why it was George W Bush that was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. From what I can tell he only had 7 years experience as a politician prior to taking up office. Who were the other options and why were they rejected over him?

Cheers,

Andy

why was Al Gore chosen by the democrats. that guy is a total tool. we would have been speaking arabic right now if he was the president

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Queasy
There were other candidates, the one who came gave Bush the biggest run for the money was AZ Sen. John McCain. However, they held Republican Primaries and Bush won.


Link to Republican 2000 Primary Resultscan show you the primary results of the 2000 elections.

Don't fool yourself. George Bush, just like Al Gore was tapped to represent the party long before the primaries. In both cases, there were better men running who didn't get the nominations.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
The rise of television has change our selection process. 25 years ago, candidates had to go through a rigorous selection process which involved lots of campaigning and refinement of the platform to meet the needs of the party and constituency. Normally several candidates established there worthiness and the primaries remained a viable step in picking out the single best qualified candidate.

Today, the candidate is usually "chosen" way before the primaries are done. States like New Hampshire that have early primaries tend to pick the presidential candidates, because it is though whoever takes the early lead has the momentum. Why has this changed? People see the results of early primaries on TV and assume that candidate is going to hold his lead, and usually don't rally around a underdog candidate to oppose the early leader. Secondly, with the advent of TV, people get to see what the candidate looks like. Nixon was thought to have lost the presidency to Kennedy because of the televised debate in which Kennedy looked better than Nixon, even though those that heard the debate on radio strongly favored Nixon's answers. It has been shown that looks and appeal have as much to do with the selection of candidates for presidency as political prowress and experience. Bush looked the part, fell in with the party line, and road the coattails of his dad right into the Republican nomination. Also, candidates with any spec on their past history are eliminated early on because the media tends to focus on dirt on candidates rather than qualifications. So if you have a candidate that is very well qualified but has any blemishes in his past, he will not be chosen over the inexperienced candidate that has a clean record.

It is widely believed by many political experts that Gore was better at debating and arguing his platform than Bush in the presidential race. But Gore looked stiff on television, and many experts believe that is what caused him to lose a very closely contested battle.

This is all supported by the govt. class I took last semester where we examined changes in the political process.

Thanks for that - although I have trouble with the part I have highlighted. I'm sure there are skeletons in everyone's closet - but I've seen a few programs that question Mr Bush's financial past (Texas Rangers, etc, etc.)

Andy

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: achiral

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

I was just wondering why it was George W Bush that was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. From what I can tell he only had 7 years experience as a politician prior to taking up office. Who were the other options and why were they rejected over him?

Cheers,

Andy

why was Al Gore chosen by the democrats. that guy is a total tool. we would have been speaking arabic right now if he was the president

Yeah, we'd all be speaking Arabic...

 

[wyvrn]

It has to do with perception. Proving Bush's fault in his financial dealings would be hard. Proving Clinton cheated on his wife was much easier because people came forward. Bush's sketchy dealings are alleged, Clinton's are concrete. It would be harder for Clinton to pass the public litmus test as a presidential candidate (limitations on terms aside) than it would be Bush. Part of the reason Clinton was re-elected regardless of his scandal was the fact he already served as president, and people didn't doubt his political abilities. For a new candidate, scandal can be death.

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: wyvrn
The rise of television has change our selection process. 25 years ago, candidates had to go through a rigorous selection process which involved lots of campaigning and refinement of the platform to meet the needs of the party and constituency. Normally several candidates established there worthiness and the primaries remained a viable step in picking out the single best qualified candidate.

Today, the candidate is usually "chosen" way before the primaries are done. States like New Hampshire that have early primaries tend to pick the presidential candidates, because it is though whoever takes the early lead has the momentum. Why has this changed? People see the results of early primaries on TV and assume that candidate is going to hold his lead, and usually don't rally around a underdog candidate to oppose the early leader. Secondly, with the advent of TV, people get to see what the candidate looks like. Nixon was thought to have lost the presidency to Kennedy because of the televised debate in which Kennedy looked better than Nixon, even though those that heard the debate on radio strongly favored Nixon's answers. It has been shown that looks and appeal have as much to do with the selection of candidates for presidency as political prowress and experience. Bush looked the part, fell in with the party line, and road the coattails of his dad right into the Republican nomination. Also, candidates with any spec on their past history are eliminated early on because the media tends to focus on dirt on candidates rather than qualifications. So if you have a candidate that is very well qualified but has any blemishes in his past, he will not be chosen over the inexperienced candidate that has a clean record.

It is widely believed by many political experts that Gore was better at debating and arguing his platform than Bush in the presidential race. But Gore looked stiff on television, and many experts believe that is what caused him to lose a very closely contested battle.

This is all supported by the govt. class I took last semester where we examined changes in the political process.

Thanks for that - although I have trouble with the part I have highlighted. I'm sure there are skeletons in everyone's closet - but I've seen a few programs that question Mr Bush's financial past (Texas Rangers, etc, etc.)

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
It has to do with perception. Proving Bush's fault in his financial dealings would be hard. Proving Clinton cheated on his wife was much easier because people came forward. Bush's sketchy dealings are alleged, Clinton's are concrete.

True - but I would have still thought that its a big risk to take. If it is not true but enough people believe it - you could still bomb in the popularity stakes.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Pliablemoose]

I heard Gore speak in person when he was VP (during his first term), he seriously pi$$ed me off when I realized the "biological resources" he kept talking about was me:|

Yeah, I know I'm a biological resource but I thought it was a damn stupid way of referring to fellow human beings, especially a roomful of his supporters.

 

[jaeger66]

The best candidate, McCain, was not well supported by his own party. They didn't want an independent thinker.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: achiral

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

I was just wondering why it was George W Bush that was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate. From what I can tell he only had 7 years experience as a politician prior to taking up office. Who were the other options and why were they rejected over him?

Cheers,

Andy

why was Al Gore chosen by the democrats. that guy is a total tool. we would have been speaking arabic right now if he was the president

Yeah, we'd all be speaking Arabic...

Gore wasn't chosen, neither was Bush. Although they were favored to win the primaries, they were by no means chosen by the party. Primaries, if anything have made the presidential election less democratic rather than more. Before, candidates were chosen by the party, now they are chosen by the people. ALthough, in principle, this sounds better, in reality its not. Primaries are all about exposure and exposure = money. The richer candidates always tend to win the primaries and thus the party nomination. Without primaries, a (moniterily) poor candidate could (and often was) chosen by the party. Thus there was a much greater diversity of economic background within the candidates.