Since 1928, the Republicans have not won a presidential election...

[KansDem]

Without either Richard Nixon or a member of the Bush Family on its ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Something to think about when pondering Mitt's dilemma and what might be ahead in 2016...

[ananda]

1. Ermm..

Hoover.. Reagan to name two who were not Bush family or Nixon.

[RockaFowler]

2. Bush was on the Reagan ticket

[NYC Liberal]

4. "On the ticket"...so either president or VP.

Hoover/Curtis was the last Republican ticket to win without a Bush or Nixon (in 1928).

Poppy Bush was on Reagan's ticket as VP.

[hifiguy]

6. Hoover was elected in '28. FDR crushed him in '32.

And the OP is right. No winners w/o Nixon or a member of the Bush Crime Family ever since, though H.W. Bush lost in '92.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. now I have no idea what you are taking about

[KansDem]

8. Power brokers?

I don't know who backed Nixon, but we know the Bush Family goes back to at least Prescott Bush who tried to overthrow FDR. And we've had two generations of Bushes: as VP to Reagan, then as POTUS in 1988 (one term) and 2000 (two terms).

I'm beginning to think Romney is a sacrifice, just like Bob Dole was in 1996. So that begs the question, who will the "power brokers" put up in 2016?

[Nye Bevan]

5. Jeb Bush for VP? (nt)

[Blanks]

7. That's why they need Condi...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=942660

[hughee99]

9. Is Nixon comming back?

because even the repukes seem like they're all done with *.

[KansDem]

10. You may be right...

But after Mitt, who's to say?

Jeb may come out looking pretty good for 2016 (maybe as VP to some "Reaganesque" candidate?)

[progressoid]

11. Nixon is too liberal for today's GOP. eom