Mark Halperin takes an early look at the shape of the Republican primary field for the presidential election in 2012. One thing I’ll note right off the bat is that this will be the second straight election without a natural successor for the Republicans. And it’s even worse than that. With the exception of 1964, every election since Eisenhower left office has seen the Republicans nominate an obvious choice. In 1960 and 1968, it was former vice-president Richard Nixon, who had held the highest office of any of the contenders. The same was true in 1988 when then vice-president George H.W. Bush captured the prize. In 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992, and 2004 the incumbent Republican president won the nomination. And the remaining years? In 1980, 1996, and 2008, the Republicans selected the runner-up from the last competitive cycle (Reagan, Dole, McCain). The 2000 contest was a bit of an anomaly but George W. Bush at least shared a name with the last Republican president.
If the Republicans follow suit, they’ll nominate last cycle’s runner-up, Mitt Romney. But for a variety of reasons, this seems unlikely. Halperin goes into some detail on Romney’s shortcomings, but it really comes down to the president passing a national version of RomneyCare in a very polarizing manner that should make it all but impossible for Romney to appeal to the Republican base-voter. With no obvious alternative to Romney, we’re left speculating about two sets of Republicans. One set includes the well known. p>
As a failed vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin finds herself in the same position as Bob Dole, Dan Quayle, and Jack Kemp. That’s not strong company, even if Dole did finally win the nomination twenty years after losing his bid to become Ford’s vice-president. But history isn’t Palin’s biggest problem. She lacks focus and drive. She displays none of the qualities that successful primary candidates need to persevere over a two-year campaign.
Another well-known Republican whose name gets bandied about its Newt Gingrich. The narrative on Newt is that he is a Man of Ideas, which is supposed to distinguish him from nearly every other Republican. I don’t think Newt is truly armed with many fresh, appealing ideas, but he does have political smarts. What he doesn’t have is a clean record or natural charisma. It’s not impossible to imagine him winning the nomination (for a while, I predicted he would enter and win the 2008 nomination), but it is impossible to envision him winning the presidency.
As for Mike Huckabee, he’s already announced that he has no intention of running again.
That leads us to the second group of Republicans. These are people with little national profile right now, but who have some potential ability to rise out of nowhere, as Barack Obama did in the last cycle and Jimmy Carter did in 1976. The main names I hear are Govs. Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal. But, for my money, the most formidable dark horse is Senator John Thune of South Dakota. He looks like a president and he has the ability and discipline to be a consistently serious politician. If he has a fault, it may be a lack of personal ambition and drive for the top job. It’s also possible that we really are approaching a reprise of 1964, where the Republican electorate is going to go for the ‘extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice’ candidate without any regard for the short-term political consequences.
I also think it is quite likely that we will see a high profile third-party candidate from the Right. That risk will become more pronounced if the Republican establishment succeeds in pushing through a ‘moderate’ nominee like Thune.
As bad as the polls are for Democrats these days, it’s still difficult to imagine a competitive election in 2012. It’s actually easier to envision a huge blowout win for Obama of a type not seen for a Democrat since 1964. But, it’s too early to predict something like that. One way the Republicans will try to prevent such a blowout is to keep the country as polarized as possible.
