I had a hunch Ken Cuccinelli was going to join the long list of crazy-base martyr/heroes, and the Daily Caller proves me right:
Ken Cuccinelli urged to run for SenateUm, in 1976 Ronald Reagan lost his party's presidential nomination to the sitting president of the United States. The fact that he failed said nothing about his ability to win in a subsequent race. Cuccinelli just lost a race for an open seat against an ethically challenged party hack whose backers didn't even like him much. That should not have been a tough challenge.
It's only been hours since Republican Ken Cuccinelli narrowly lost his bid for governor to Democrat Terry McAuliffe, but some conservatives are now arguing that Cuccinelli should turn his focus to a 2014 Senate campaign.
Conservative writer Quin Hillyer is the first person to openly make a full-throated case for Cuccinelli to throw his hat into the ring to take on incumbent Sen. Mark Warner, a popular Democrat in the Commonwealth.
"The best news from Ken Cuccinelli's hugely disappointing loss in Virginia's gubernatorial contest yesterday is that Cuccinelli is now free to run for U.S. Senate against Mark Warner," Hillyer wrote.
" ...Cuccinelli is actually well positioned, politically, to make a go of it, even against an incumbent as seemingly bulletproof as Warner has been.”
"Cuccinelli's loss this week surely isn't the end of his political career," Hillyer said. "It has more the feel of Ronald Reagan's loss to Gerald Ford in 1976, laying the groundwork for triumph to come."
But it doesn't surprise me that there are some Republicans who think this is a good idea -- the party that treated Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as plausible presidential candidates in 2012, and may treat Allen West as one in 2016, loves to embrace anyone of sufficient ideological purity who seems unbowed and claims to have been driven from office as a result of sinister, evil liberal forces. (For modern wingnuts, "sinister, evil liberal forces" now include the Republican party establishment.)
If Cooch were more of a firebrand, I think Wingnuttia would be talking him up as a presidential contender. No, really -- if he were egomaniacal enough to fall for the notion that he could win nationally, and started doing angry, Cruz-like speeches denouncing party bosses, no one in the crazy base would think he was delusional, and he'd actually outpoll Rubio and Bush in a few polls. The base would welcome his candidacy and take it very seriously. Ask Rick Santorum.
5 comments:
You know, the entire motto of the punditing class is "lets you and him fight." It costs literally nothing for people to start drafting a candidate--these people very seldom put their money where their mouths are or, if they do, its a fraction of the people they always imply are behind the candidate.
What, "Cooch" run for Senate?
Why, when you have the street cred and the looks for FUX Noise, and make a lot more money?
Or, "Cooch" could go on the Wingnut Welfare/Jesus-grifter rubber-chicken/chicken-'n-biscuit circuits, and give speeches about 'coochie'-only sex between a man and a woman.
He'd make a lot more money, there, too.
But I think his ego will convince him that he can take on and beat Warner next year - as a springboard to a Presidential run in either 2020, or 2024.
1) Midterms are largely decided by people who think voting is a civic duty even if knowing the candidates are not (generally older people). This greatly favors Republicans
2) Other than those in category one, midterms are decided by highly motivated voters and hot issues. McAuliffe had absolutely nothing to offer. Even his ads were toothless drivel. And Cooch often tried to deny his positions.
If anything, this election was a referendum on Cooch's ideas, with McAuliffe representing "anything else."
Warner would destroy Cuccinelli, or any other Republican for that matter. He's the most popular politician in Virginia by a huge margin. Not even Cuccinelli is that oblivious.
The only risk to the Democrats is if Warner decides not to seek re-election.
Steve M
I have always been morbidly fascinated by the American right's obsession with their navel gazing when it comes to politics. This is to the utter exclusion of, in this case the differences between most states constitutions.
e.g. Virginia is a COMMONWEALTH not a republic.
By definition it's purpose is different from non constitutional commonwealth states.
Not that you would notice from Virginia's right wing practices which are decidedly UN commonweath like.
Having said that unlike you, and considering the above I'm not surprised.
When it comes to bizarre political reasoning Virginia has never surprised me.
Post a Comment