I agree with Josh Marshall here:
It would be quite difficult for Newt Gingrich to beat President Obama. The bigger story is that he would likely devastate the congressional Republican party. He’d probably weigh down the GOP up and down the ticket. And that puts the whole thing in much sharper relief for Republican officeholders, committee chairs and money folks.
If I’m right about that, that means they have to and will do virtually everything possible now to crush Gingrich and make Romney the nominee.
But I’m not sure it matters.
We buy a lot of crap in this country. We buy a lot of things we don’t need, and in many cases haven’t even known for very long that we wanted. Much of what we buy is of terrible quality and questionable value, and there is an entire, multi-billion dollar industry – a science, really – devoted to making us want to make that crap our very own. And then, when it turns out to be, well, crap, to make us want to turn around and buy the next shimmery thing, and so on.
To my mind it’s impossible to understand US presidential elections – any elections, really, but especially the presidential races – without understanding that the candidate is a product. Every word, every gesture, every tic we see from a presidential candidate is quite possibly part of a conscious and very detailed strategy to get you to “want” – to vote for, or even to send money to or volunteer for – his or her campaign. The idea that voters are searching for authenticity is, in this context, somewhat laughable, because all it means is that the top-flight marketing gurus who run presidential campaigns spend months figuring out what the best way to project authenticity is.
(cont’d)
As with certain other types of brands where authenticity is prized – some types of pop music, for example – it’s enormously helpful if you have a politician who really is authentic. One of the reasons Obama was a strong candidate in 2008 was that he seemed to be who we saw, and seemed comfortable in his own skin and less beholden to his phalanx of advisors than, say, Hillary Clinton. (McCain was authentic, too – but, unlike Obama, he seemed like an authentic, erratic, pandering asshole. Obama seemed not only authentic, but competent and likeable.)
Genuine authenticity, of course, can be faked. Reagan, for example, was derided in his day for being a “mere” actor, but his acting skills as a genial, likeable “great communicator” were a core reason for his success. They masked policies and priorities that had nothing in common with his projected demeanor. As in the consumer world, just because a product is crap doesn’t mean it won’t sell.
But sometimes – rarely, but every now and then – a product is so bad it can’t be sold effectively, even with all the hype in the world. New Coke. Heaven’s Gate.
Mitt Romney?
For the last year, I’ve been pretty confident that Romney would be the Republican nominee in 2012. He fits the pattern of Republicans nominating their previous runner-up, but more importantly, he’s had a lock from the start on the big money and DC/New York establishment party support that is usually essential for a GOP nominee. And Marshall is right that in a Gingrich v. Romney showdown, all that muscle will mobilize frantically for Romney.
Nobody else in the Republican field, at any point, has shown any level of acceptability to that crowd, and there’s really no modern precedent on the GOP side for a nominee being chosen over establishment preferences – even when there is a viable alternative. My assumption all along has been that however flawed a human being, however inconsistent on his record, however wooden and arrogant his presentation, Romney could be crafted by all that money and power into a product that would at least get enough GOP voter support to win him the nomination against the worst batch of competitors in memory.
I’m starting to wonder. Last week was a brutal week for Romney, after a less than inspiring performance all through the debate season. There was a moment, after his New Hampshire win, when the inevitability of his nomination seemed very close to assured, mostly due to the complete lack of viable alternatives. But even without those viable alternatives in place, it sure feels like the grass roots Republican base, which much more closely resembles the South Carolina or Florida GOP electorate than the voters in New Hampshire, is rejecting Romney with the vehemence of a mismatched organ transplant. (Remember the month when the Frank Luntz talking point du jour was for GOP talking heads to object to things being rammed down their throats? Like that.)
Romney’s newfound attacks on Gingrich tonight and in his new TV ads, attacks which destroyed Newt in Iowa but were never deployed in South Carolina, will help erode Gingrich’s Florida support. But by how much? The Mittster’s bizarre combination of being an unapologetic banner-carrier for the one percent and a panderer to the basest of the Republican base seems designed to project an image of a person so inauthentic and unlikeable he could unite the country, with people despising him across the political spectrum.
At this point, the conventional DC wisdom – that Romney, as the most relatively sane GOP candidate, would be the most difficult matchup for Obama in November – has been stood on its head. First impressions are everything in politics (or any other product launch), and the first impression many people are getting of Romney as a potential GOP standard-bearer is of a guy nobody much likes and a lot of people hate for a lot of different reasons. Of course, a lot of people hate Newt, too. But they’re not the ones, generally, voting in Republican primaries, and we now have enough of a closed universe in GOP media that Newt’s huge negatives in the larger (read: real) world don’t really figure.
Romney has still got all that money and establishment support – and right now that money and establishment support has nowhere else to go. But no matter the promotional budget, some products just can’t be sold. And we may be seeing one of them. Either in the next couple of months, or, if he survives the nomination process, in the general election this fall, Romney has the potential to be a truly epic fail.
If Gingrich manages to win the nomination, won’t it be because he’s excited the passions (and numbers) of the kinds of voters who dominated in the 2010 midterms? Wouldn’t those people be the ones Republicans would want fired up for all the down ballot races?
I guess I don’t understand why Marshall thinks that Romney would be better for down ballot races? I could see many independents votin for Romney (when they wouldn’t have for Gingrich) but not votin Republican for the down ballot races.
What am I missing here vis-a-vis each guy’s down-ballot strengths and weaknesses?
Gingrich is exciting the 27% of general voters who would vote for anything Republican; however, based on his history, he would not attract much of anyone else.
Romney would attract those disaffected with Obama due to the delays in recovery engineered by the scorched-earth Congressional tactics of the Republicans, in addition to, hopefully, those of the 27% who would vote for a blind Guatemalan fruit bat if it was called a Republican.
Unfortunately for the Republican brand…Gingrich’s attacks on Romney are disaffecting the 27%ers, possibly to the point where a farther right populist splinter could develop that wouldn’t support him as the nominee. Gingrich as the nominee wouldn’t gather the 20% middle that everyone covets.
Both scenarios have either the right or the middle staying away from the down races in droves, as they either feel that a) the President won’t be one of them, so why bother or b) I don’t want this wacko has-been next to the button. Obama, for all of his center-right moderation, would appeal to the latter group.
Maybe this is where we get the splinter into right (27%) center (moderate Reps and Dems) and liberals nationally.
That makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you for taking the time to post such clear response to my question.
And Joe’s point about negative turnout right below seems appropos as well.
There’s such a thing as negative turnout. More people would show up to vote against Newt Gingrich than against Mitt Romney.
What people look for is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
Yeah, but…
Ronald Reagan was a very bad actor. Even in the schlockfest of pre and post-WW II Hollywood his acting stood out like an arthritic thumb. He was wooden, without much of any presence but a physical one. Plus, that presence was block-like and not really very well coordinated physically. He appeared almost oafish, in an All-American sort of way.
What does this tell us about the presidency in post-JFK assassination times? It tells us that you don’t actually have to be a very good actor to be successfully presented as a product by the media. I mean…how good an actor is a box of Wheaties? It just sits there and lets the voiceover tell you how good it is. What was it that Spencer Tracy said about screen acting? Something to the effect of “Know your lines and hit your marks and you’ll be just fine.” Ditto w/the presidency. The thing about Gingrich that is scaring the shit out of the PermaGov media presenters is that he’s liable to start improvising at the drop of a hat. And further that he can’t be counted upon to improvise within the limits of their talking points.
UH oh!!!
And so it shall be.
Imagine this:
The various PermaGov hustlers have snaked their way into a rapprochement w/some problem state like North Korea or Iran. They have paid off their hustler counterparts, assassinated or otherwise discouraged any ideologues that might be in the way and are about to “solve” a problem for the empire, when suddenly Newtie has a hot flash and starts publicly calling said regime a bunch of goat-fucking turds and murderers.
UH oh!!!
Or…Newt inserts his hand so deep into the till by his second year in office that the even the ghost of Bebe Rebozo is outraged at the graftiness of it all.
UH oh!!!
They will be forced to stop him.
A big payoff ought do it.
Watch.
Or, if he thinks he can get more by forcing the issue…all bets are off.
Watch.
He’s just Sarah Palin in drag.
Watch.
Sump’n’s gonna happen to stop him.
Watch.
AG
When you’ve got one prominent sugar daddy, it doesn’t take much to stop him. One bad investment by sugar daddy would do it. The question is how long will the drama play out.
Newt is useful as a bomb-thrower as long as he doesn’t win.
Precisely.
AG
This is a very personality dominated debate, but surely the context is also important. If the key issue is the economy, stupid, then Romney, with some sort of track record as an economic achiever has to be a stronger opponent for Obama even if he does switch off the wingnuts. Gingrich’s sole track record is with Congress, which is at record levels of unpopularity, so how can he be a strong opponent to Obama, especially as he embodies all that is perceived to be wrong with congress and its domination by special interest lobbyists?
I would tend to the view that Romney remains the strongest opponent to Obama because even the wingnuts will vote for him in preference to Obama – so strong is their hatred for Obama. The risk to his campaign is if Paul or some other credible candidate runs a third party campaign.
The ideal process for Democrats has to be a prolonged slugfest between Romney and Gingrich which spends all their potential sources of money, divides the party, damages both candidates, and provokes such public revulsion that a third party campaign becomes viable and Obama is made to look like a moderate way above the fray of squabbling children.
Throw in a recovering economy, and you could see GOP self annihilation at all levels of the ballot box where GOP candidates are forced to take sides and fail to attract the support of the other side of the GOP divide..
It doesn’t matter what Josh Marshall thinks.
It matters what the congressional Republicans think.
Well?
Mitt has the establishment, but Gingrich has a single sugar daddy willing to put more and more money into Newt’s campaign to build momentum. The question is how far will sugar daddy’s money take Newt.
Likely, Romney did not deploy his attack ads in South Carolina out of caution. After Newt’s Bain Capital ad in South Carolina, Romney’s campaign probably thought tit-for-tat would produce a backlash that would make Mitt lose more.
The bigger issue about the packaging and marketing of political candidates (an extreme perversion of democratic political discourse, by the way) is the use of increasingly strident attack campaigns to plant fear, uncertainty, and doubt about competing candidates based on outright lies that go unchallenged by the truth. This causes voters in the voting booth to irrationally and subconsciously change their minds in the last few seconds before voting. And vote for a candidate they did not rationally intend to vote for and might not remember actually voting for. This is why the common wisdom is that negative ads work. Voters might rationally discount a Swiftboat Veterans for Truth ad and it still prevent them from voting for John Kerry, for example.
And the only way to counter this is to keep people away from the carpet bombing of political ads coming over the TV and radio. And make their decisions in with information from other sources.
When there is likely to be $2 billion to $4 billion devoted to political advertising over a span of 15 months, avoid the ads is going to be difficult for most people. And of course, the Wall Street Media, will be hyping the horserace in order to increase the ad purchases.
I would not count out any Republican candidate in this campaign environment. Just ask President Gore.
The question is how much damage can Newt do to Romney, the GOP down ticket and the party as a whole before he is tossed. After that it will be up to Obama and the DNC how well that damage is translated into their narrative.
But for now the GOP’s inability to understand their own electorate’s mood has virtually stymied their kill Newt strategy.