In 2008, I couldn’t imagine anyone other than John McCain winning the Republican nomination. The alternatives were too pathetic. In 2012, I felt even more strongly that no one other than Mitt Romney could possibly win, although I wondered how the base could stomach his authorship of the Massachusetts health care law that served as the model for ObamaCare. For a long time, I have had a hard time imagining anyone other than Jeb Bush winning the 2016 nomination, and I still feel that way. Yet, I have the nagging feeling that the Republican establishment won’t be able to get their way this time around.
I’m from New Jersey and share some of Chris Christie’s personality flaws, so I know how poorly “Jersey” translates in most of the country. I never thought he was a serious threat to win the nomination. If he had a chance, it was only because all the other choices would be too ridiculous. But, with some midwestern governors to put on the ballot, the GOP has some plausible candidates who won’t remind people of Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann. Assuming they win reelection, Michigan’s Rick Snyder, Ohio’s John Kasich, and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker would all be more viable and broadly-appealing candidates than Chris Christie.
I can make arguments against all three of them, but if any of them succeed in winning a second term in a vote-rich blue state, they’ll have an argument to make for their candidacy. The establishment would have to choose between them, and then they’d have to sell them to a party base that it itching to finally get a candidate that truly represents their values. Since 1964, the establishment has never failed to get their guy, but I am not so sure that they still have enough control to dictate the result.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but I think Ted Cruz will get the nomination. I also think that since the Republican establishment will never accept Cruz, that the nomination fight will appear to tear the party apart. I do not think it will last, however. A section of the party establishment will coalesce around Cruz and they will try to ride the tiger. If I’m right, it will be a very, very frightening campaign. That man scares me a lot.
As with NJ democrats who voted for CC, the liberal voters of WI, MI, and OH have a special responsibility to the nation to destroy the presidential chances of those GOP governors. If they choose to support those candidates for governor, they can hardly complain if they win the presidency in 2016.
I did the math on that yesterday. turns out about 1/3 registered dems voted for Christie; the key was repub turnout [high for their registration], rough figures:
overall turnout – 37%
dem 50% [are 33% of reg voters]
repub 44% [20 % of reg voters]
I turnout 23% [but are 48% of reg voters]
With the registered I’s it was the Christie voters who turned out
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/nj.gov.exit.polls.1050p.110513.v2%5B1%5D.pdf
overall turnout was historically low
http://nj1015.com/voter-turnout-a-record-low-in-nj-governors-race/
The Christie wide margin spin makes it sound like lots of dems voted for him – indeed, too many did, but not as many as they make it sound. his “bipartisanship” was sold successfully to the I’s.
Didn’t he make the taxpayers pay for a special election to keep Cory Booker off his ballot?
yes, alot, don’t recall how much but Brendan and/ or Calvin and / or Boo probably know
ok, here it is, an estimate of $12 million
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/04/2101471/new-jerseys-special-election-will-cost-taxpayers
-a-desperately-needed-12-million/
I’d say this did (or will do) to Chris Christie what the contributions scandal did to Bob McDonnell: their careers in politics are more or less finished.
I thought they’d lose control in 2012. And I thought Bachmanns superior fundraising abilities and the surge of conservative machismo in 2010 would be enough, especially combined with Mitts own weaknesses. Despite her decent polling at some points I was obviously wrong about that. So now I feel like a Ron Paul crank constantly talking about the collapse of the dollar “any day now.” I just don’t know when the establishment will lose its grip bc each and every senate primary and newest GOP majority has me thinking the establishment has already lost. And then the nomination comes and they win again. So…I just don’t know.
Bachmann’s fundraising abilities are outstanding in the relatively small pond of Congressional races. Presidential campaigns are wildly different kettles of fish, and there are only so many wild-eyed loons with money in America.
I felt certain that billionaires would not feel safe putting their money toward the election of a Dominionist to the White House.
The pundits were talking up Christie alot, so much so that I noticed that alot of conserv in Louisiana that I know all knew Christie’s name, but I think had no idea about his bullyish style of politics. So you’re right, I wasn’t sure how he’d play style-wise nationally.
Now I see other talking up Bobby Jindal. It’s one thing for a pol like Christie who for whatever reason NJ voters liked (dems and repubs) to be consider prior to this thing, but Jindal??? The national pundit should really step inside Louisiana and see how well Jindal is “liked”…answer NOT AT ALL.
Even though it won’t happen, I can betcha that Louisiana voters would elect Edwin Edwards again if he ever ran against Jindal and that’s saying a lot that voters would prefer a known criminal pol to the current government.
I’ve heard republicans I’ve met in other parts of the country supporting Christie because they thought he could win, despite his apparent cooperation with Obama, but that’s without having seen much of him. I never thought he’d play well in other parts of the country, but hope we don’t have to find out.
speaking of Christie…this actually happened:
Frank Luntz On Christie Controversy: Despite “What Some Pundits Have Said Here On Fox, It Is A Legitimate Scandal”
One thing that made Luntz so effective was that he always had at least a partial grasp on reality. This isn’t surprising or out of character at all.
Luntz actually fully buys into the wingnut view of the world, but he has the rare (for wingnuts) ability to compartmentalize his thinking and thus separate himself from his worldview and study, through focus groups, how non-wingnuts think and figure out ways to communicate with them.
This is what has made him so frustrated now. For years he’s been trying to get people to vote for a party that will provide no social programs or support, and to give the rich unfettered ability to do anything they want. For years he’s been able to do that with various word and image trickery. But back then the idea of killing off the social programs was abstract – Luntz’ dupes were led to imagine that this meant cutting off funds to welfare queens and strapping young black bucks with t-bone cadillacs and obamaphones – but NOT cutting off funds to “deserving hard working white folks like me”. Now that the programs are kicking in at the state level and now that the GOP-semi-austerity (limited only because the Dems have the white house and the Senate) is resulting a a severely long recession people are no longer thinking of social programs in the abstract but as something that impact them.
And while Luntz the focus-grouper is able to understand that this is how people think Luntz-the-rich-wingnut can’t stand that people actually want their government to provide services.
One observation about the GOP candidates you mentioned is that except for Jeb Bush all of them have very thin, very recent track records. This is in stark contrast to most of US political history in which presidential candidates needed a resume of a decade or two in politics before even thinking about running.
Of course, Obama is also an exception to this – only 4 years a US senator, and before that a state legislator, not even a party leader. Perhaps unwittingly the election of Obama opened the door such that GOP governors and senators in their first terms are immediately entered into the discussion for the presidency. Granted, the Palin nomination may have contributed to this, but part of what made Palin possible was that McCain’s opponent was Obama.
I do think this trend is yet another important indicator of how extreme the GOP has become recently. If you’ve been in office for two or more terms you have a track record of having cooperated at some point with the Democrats, and that is toxic in your own party. Or, if you don’t have that track record, you have a track record of doing really bad shit (as was just exposed with Christie) because, of course, being a wingnut means you are also and authoritarian Thug and thus you cannot be in a position of such power for two terms without some real nasty stuff being revealed.
Eh…not too fast Booman.
“Karl Rove: Bridge scandal proves Christie is `what we want’ in a president” | http://goo.gl/3dQ1cQ
This is what I said a couple days ago. This bridge thing would look good to the GOP. Standing up to, and making look bad, any Democrat plays well in their world.
Karl Rove is the idiot who launched the attorney dismissal scandal and the person who undoubtedly put Christie up to investigating Menendez.
Karl Rove is a lot of (bad) things, but I’ve never heard him described as an idiot.
did you miss election night?
Yeah, Rove did not distinguish himself on that occasion. I still would not underestimate his political abilities — he’s a dangerous opponent, definitely not an idiot.
I get a nasty thought every now and then that the GOP establishment has given up on their party and is now turning a serious eye toward co-opting the Dems. And that Charlie Crist figured this out early.
It’ll be either a general or Gates. The MIC needs to firm up control of the GOP before the brand is ruined forever. The bonus is that a Gates can portray a reasonable man so that self-inflicted wounds on the campaign trail will be held to a minimum.
I’m with you that it will be a midwestern Governor. The bloom is off the rose in LA, FL, NC, and SC wrt to Republican Govs in the South; Perry is a non-starter I thin
After Walker, Kasich seems a good second bet.
Wisconsin and national Dems would be smart to really do all they can to prevent Walker from being re-elected.
Well, the Wisconsin Dems’ answer to this proposition has been to put Michael Bloomberg into a pair of high heels and nominate her:
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/likely-scott-walker-foe-reported-earning-at-least-68-mill
ion-since-2008-b9982263z1-220835331.html
Your bet is on Walker? I live here, and my bet is on Walker too.
It’s too bad Feingold couldn’t be persuaded to run.
Walker is bad, bad news (as I am sure you more than know). He’s the one Republican that scares me in ’16 against Hillary.
(Oh and the part about national Dems was of course a joke. There is no real strategic thinking that I can see coming from either the DNC or OFA)
Keep in mind that if Santorum and Gingrich had been able to join forces, that is, to settle who should have been top of the ticket, it is hard to see how Romney would have won. The base was so desperate to not nominate him, they briefly lined up behind the likes of Cain and Bachmann. It looks the same to me now. The base can have it if they can unite behind a halfway credible candidate, but the base is not actually that united. The Fundamentalists and Libertarians have a lot of differences difficult to paper over. If it’s another free for all, the establishment can slip in again.
Although you said no one but McCain could win in 2008 because the alternatives were too pathetic. But the biggest alternative was Romney, and I don’t see why he was any less pathetic in 2012 than in 2008. We missed a bullet with Guilliani, who I don’t see as pathetic, but as someone who overplayed his hand on 9/11 in a way that offended people. By 2008, people were finally sick of being manipulated on that. Once Biden had the courage to call him on it, he imploded. That, plus his relatively socially-liberal views would always keep part of the base against him; but that could be said also of Romney and probably McCain.
The Republican circus is certainly entertaining, and we should carefully and completely fillet our Jersey Whale to maximize our gain but, maybe, shouldn’t we focus also upon the disaster ahead of us with our Congressional leadership?
Hoyer, Israel, Menendez At Senate Foreign Relations,…
A bleak lineup of Corrupto-crats.