US Elections

Scoping the GOP field

By Jonathan Bradley in Newcastle, Australia

17 March 2011

---

I enjoyed Lesley's portrayal of the Republican presidential field as a bunch of penguins shivering at the edge of the ice. Republicans confidently predicting that the water's fine and Barack Obama will be an easy beat are a bit harder to find in recent months. Karl Rove and Mike Huckabee are some of the high profile conservatives warning the president's opponents of the steep task before them.

One problem facing the GOP, and this is probably the reason for the reticence of the field, is that there is no obvious challenger for them to either rally behind or oppose. Ross Cameron's op-ed in today's Sydney Morning Herald effectively sketches out the hopefuls, but explains better why some won't win than who will. He correctly dismisses Sarah Palin and Ron Paul from contention, and though I believe he's too hasty in proclaiming Mike Huckabee's comfort in his Fox News role, the outcome will be the same whether Huckabee runs or not: the Arkansan won't win the nomination. Cameron also correctly identifies the flaws with Tim Pawlenty (boring), Mitch Daniels (uncharismatic — and I'd add unpopular among the religious right for the "truce" he called for on social issues) and frontrunner Mitt Romney (insincere). He predicts Newt Gingrich will get the nod, which is audacious, but that's OK. I'm fine with audacious predictions, so long as they're not absurd.

The problem for the Republican party is that it's really easy to come up with reasons why each of their candidates will not win the nomination. Jonathan Bernstein's rebuttal to Gingrich-boosters, for instance, is ferocious:

However, the idea that absent his divorces Newt would be a strong candidate is just silly. First of all, Newt's severe lack of popularity predates his second divorce and remarriage; he was terribly unpopular during most of his years as Speaker. So we're talking about someone who has been out of office for over a decade and wasn't popular nationally when he was in office. Not to mention that capturing a presidential nomination without rising [above] the House hasn't been done in over a century, anyway.

But second, and probably more to the point -- Newt Gingrich is a snake-oil salesman, and he was fully exposed during his run as Speaker. It's possible that Zeleny is correct that "Rival Republicans marvel at his deep well of ideas, his innate intellect and his knowledge of government," but unlikely that those marveling Republicans would include those who served with him in the House in 1995-1998. That's among the reasons they were prepared to toss him out when he saw the jig was up and quit ... As a presidential candidate, Newt is...well, he's less of a joke than Donald Trump, but more of a joke than Sarah Palin has been (unlike Newt, she has a solid, enthusiastic faction devoted to her).

At the end of last year, Bernstein also cautioned against dismissing candidates like Pawlenty. Nate Silver's dismissal of the former Minnesota Governor, however, is convincing:

The other potential flaw is in assuming that name recognition itself is something exogenous from candidate quality. In plain English: the fact that a candidate hasn’t been very successful at getting voters to recognize his name is often a sign that he is an unremarkable candidate.

Mr. Pawlenty has not exactly been invisible. In 2008, he was the governor of the state where Republicans held their convention, and was widely speculated upon as John McCain’s vice presidential nominee — indeed, he was used as something of a decoy, before Mr. McCain picked Ms. Palin. In 2009, he played a key role in the state’s contentious recount between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. In 2010, he’s gotten a ton of face time on national television because of his interest in the Presidential race. But voters don’t seem much to remember him — or they don’t seem much to care.

You can effectively knock off every contender out there if you continue in this fashion. One smart point Cameron's article makes is his comparison of the GOP field in 2012 to that of the Democrats in 2004. The left was united then in its desire to keep George W. Bush to one term, but it never enthusiastically cohered behind any of the many contenders — all of whom seemed flawed in some vital way. In the end, John Kerry won more or less by outlasting his opponents, and the party eventually tried to warm itself to him. I don't think Gingrich will be 2012's John Kerry, but someone will be. That someone will probably have some significant flaws. But as Donald Rumsfeld might advise his party: You campaign for an election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you might want.

Tags: Election 2004, Election 2012, John Kerry, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republican Party, Republican Primary 2012, Ross Cameron, Sarah Palin, Sydney Morning Herald, Tim Pawlenty

Print This Post