Romney's Nomination No Lock
An ABC News review of Mitt Romney's new book ends thus: "If history is any guide, however, Romney stands a decent chance of getting his party's nod. Although he was hurt last time by questions about his authenticity, Republicans have a long tradition of nominating second-time candidates: think Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, and John McCain in 2008"
This is the conventional wisdom; we're all used to hearing it. It's the idea that Republicans nominate the "next-in-line" candidate, or the runner-up from last season's primaries. It's superficially plausible. But it doesn't hold up to close examination.
There seems to be no discernible pattern to the examples continually raised. Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential run was his second time running for president, but he also was a previous presidential nominee -- and a former vice-president. Ronald Reagan actually won among primary voters in his 1968 run, and did not win the nomination until his third attempt at the presidency, in 1980. John McCain made his first run as a national unknown and won the nomination the second time as a known commodity. I can't find much of a pattern in this.
George H.W. Bush's win in 1988 was due not to the fact that he was the runner-up in the 1980 primaries, but because he was Ronald Reagan's vice-president. Bob Dole's 1996 nomination seems plausible at first, but why wasn't Pat Buchanan able to topple him, given his run against George H.W. Bush? And if we're not counting races against incumbents, then why does Ronald Reagan's 1976 run count? And if Republicans really nominate the "next-in-line," then wouldn't we have to subscribe to the idea that Pat Buchanan would have been the frontrunner, had he run against George W. Bush?
One might argue instead that Republicans prefer the familiar, and tend to fall in line behind known commodities. But that doesn't even hold. Nobody "fell in line" behind John McCain; his hitherto-unknown rivals Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee accumulated a majority of the votes in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida. A clear majority of Republicans opted for the unfamiliar. One false move by John McCain and he'd have been knocked out of the primary fight for someone who was clearly not "next-in-line." He walked a tightrope to the nomination.
Why do reporters and pundits keep parroting this myth? The "next-in-line" idea makes it easy for media types to sound like they've stumbled onto an important insight into the Republican psyche. Alas, as with so much of the conventional wisdom, there's just no 'there' there once history is put into its proper context.