I’m surprised by Nate Silver’s analysis on the 2012 likely Republican nominee for president. I’m especially surprised by this part:
The other potential flaw in the analysis of candidates like Mr. Pawlenty and Mr. Thune is that some seem to think it an asset that they are bland and unobjectionable. In a primary election that isn’t an asset, but a liability. A primary election isn’t a reality show in which candidates are eliminated one at a time for failing some challenge. Instead, voters pick the one candidate whom they most like, rather than the one they most dislike; a candidate who has strong favorables and strong unfavorables is going to be more people’s first choice than one whom everyone feels indifferent about.
That analysis seems right, but all we have to do is go back to the 2004 primaries to see an obvious counterexample. John Kerry was certainly bland. Howard Dean was anything but. But Dean had two things working against him. First, the Establishment didn’t think he was electable. Second, the primary voters came to agree with the Establishment and denied Dean a victory in the first contest (the Iowa Caucuses).
It’s hard to see how any of the top four Republican candidates besides Mitt Romney will be able to hide rather glaring weaknesses with the general electorate. Palin has high unfavorables and a record of quitting. Mike Huckabee is too Southern and too socially conservative and too goofy to play well in the swing states. Newt Gingrich’s personal life and his ethical lapses make him a hard sell, even to Republicans. And, importantly, none of them can claim Establishment support. So, from the top four, Romney seems like the only one who will enter primary season with a good argument that he can win it all. The problem is RomneyCare, which was the precursor or prototype for ObamaCare that was signed into law in Massachusetts when Romney was serving as governor there.
Anyone who is listening to the rhetoric coming out of the Republican base right now knows that repealing ObamaCare is going to be the most debated topic of this next Congress. How can Romney hope to prosper is such an environment?
If we eliminate him from the conversation, I think we pretty quickly have to start looking down the bench to the next most electable contenders. And those would appear to be Thune and Pawlenty, who are ideally suited to win neighboring Iowa, and who can also make a credible claim to play well in the Upper Midwest, where the election will ultimately be decided.
It’s true that Thune and Pawlenty don’t bring the heat, but neither did Kerry.
Just saw this in the Guardian earlier today
AP-GfK Poll: Palin most polarizing of 2012 crowd
Mistake number one – thinking that Republican primary voters think the same way as Democratic primary voters. Democratic primary voters think very strategically with their votes – especially when they’ve convinced themselves that they are in a really bad spot. Kerry was a successful candidate over Dean exactly because of the “electability” that you’re pointing out. But that’s because Democratic primary voters play 11th dimensional chess in their heads and the Dem establishment knows it and uses it to narrow down the field to their advantage.
Republican primary voters don’t think that way. If Republican primary voters voted strategically the way Democratic primary voters do, George W Bush would never have gotten out of his primary. John McCain was the obvious “most electable” choice. He had almost everything going for him – except that the conservative activist base hated his guts purely because he was seen as being “independent” and ‘not conservative enough’ despite his voting record. And they were able to push the nomination the way they wanted it.
The question is going to be “who does the activist base want as their candidate this time around”. They won’t want a compromiser – they’re going to want a “true believer”. I have no idea who it might be at this point – the obvious ones are mostly non-starters as you suggest. Don’t be surprised if some nutter we’re not even thinking of right now decides to make a power play and throw his hat in the ring though – if the economy is bad in 2012 the Republicans could nominate someone truly awful and still win just because the electorate is scared and depressed. And the activist conservative base knows it.
Republicans traditionally vote for whomever is next in line. When no one was in line except Dan Quayle, they opted for the son of their last president. When no one was around to replace him, they went with the guy who came in second place the last time around.
Now, this year is more like 2000, where Palin plays the role of Quayle. But Jeb is probably not an option for them. So, the whole thing is up for grabs.
I’ve realized in the last two years that republicans are absolutely genious at the political game. Granted, their task is facilitated by the support of all big lobbies, the media culture, and the dysfunctional rules of political institutions. And the fact that they don’t play fairly and are never punished for it.
So, I would not be surprised if they surprise us. If President Obama continues to struggle, the GOP establishment will find a strong candidate who can seduce the “middle”, and lie his way to the WH. The Tea Party ?? No problem. The propaganda machine will succeed at keeping them in check. Look at Rand Paul changing his tune on earmarks this week.
Maybe I’m particularly pessimistic these days. But I don’t see the Tea Party as a trojan horse within the GOP anymore. They’ll fall in line. Mark my words. They are first and foremost authoritarians. Give them a leader to follow, and they’ll do it. And accept all his arguments. Because it never has been about policy, REALLY. It has always been about opposing systematically what democrats are for.
If the republican candidate says that earmarks are not that bad, they’ll accept it. If the republican candidate says he’ll protect seniors for medicare cuts, they’ll accept it and won’t see Medicare as a socialist plot anymore. And on and on…
The big big irony…. The republicans are screaming about deficit… President Obama is the one who will SERIOUSLY work on the problem. And he, and democrats, will be the ones to pay for it. While republicans will pose as the defenders of the american people. And sail back into power, after President Obama has cleaned part of their shitty mess.
It makes me sick.
Repying to myself..
I don’t think Romney nor Pawlenty will be the nominee. If President Obama continues to struggle, there will be plenty of republicans who will be tempted to run. The establishment will push for a “daddy” figure with name recognition. I don’t see Thune. Maybe for VP.
So quickly, they forget the Maryland GOP Senate primary…
lols
Chris Christie is clearly the best Republican candidate, with the highest liklihood of winning both the Republican primaries and the general election–he can attract both moderate and conservative voters.
Palin deciding to run is the single biggest threat to Republicans’ ability to win in 2012–if Christie announced, I consider it highly unlikely that Palin would run.
I also believe he is virtually the only candidate who can beat Obama if the economy is strong.
His only true weakness is lack of experience, which is becoming an increasingly less significant liability in our current political climate.
He can pick Marco Rubio as his running mate to help win a larger percentage of the latino vote.
Please run Chris!
The problem with Christie is he hasn’t actually done very much, and he won’t by primary season in 2012.
He’s a youtube hit with smack talk to teachers and the like (porn for those on the right), but he hasn’t/can’t actually negotiate with teacher and even his smack only pressured a handful of districts to forgo their contractual increases.
The budget is still a mess. He announced today that he won’t actually lay off state workers because he actually will hit is target number through attrition alone.
And canceling the ARC tunnel may be dramatic, but he even admitted this week that we need it and is looking to sell engineering work already done to Amtrak for a tunnel.
If Christie has a point about the tunnel it is one he barely has made. Namely that NJ was paying too much of the share and NYC/NYS was paying nothing at all. In other words, the project is good, the deal was bad. If he made that argument they he would be right, more people might actually agree, but it would be less compelling as a “deficit buster”.
It depends on the order of the caucuses and primaries for Republicans.
Iowa is an advantage for Thune and Pawlenty because it is a neighboring state to South Dakota and Minnesota and Thune and Pawlenty know how to deal with the culture there. New Hampshire is probably also an advantage, the establishment having co-opted its Tea Party. When the campaign turns South, it will start to get messy and a lot will ride on the media narrative. And that depends on what Rush Limbaugh’s political calculations are and which of the candidates strokes his and Rupert Murdoch’s egos.
primaries and we don’t. So, a bland candidate can finish in 2nd place in a few states and still pick-up delegates. In the GOP, it is winner take all. While the bland GOP candidate can win in Iowa, he/she won’t win in the South.