Former senator from New Hampshire Judd Gregg points out something that was confirmed by Gallup last week. The Republicans have no frontrunner for their presidential nomination and this is completely atypical in the post-war era.
I have participated in presidential primaries in New Hampshire since 1976. It is part of the fun of being from that state. There has always been a presumptive favorite or two. Not this year. The field is wide open, the names numerous with more to come, one expects, but it is difficult to see clearly who might be the nominee.
In the past, there would be an heir apparent or maybe two. It would be between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan or Reagan and George Bush or Bush and Bob Dole or Bush and John McCain, but not this year. There does not seem to be an envelope floating around with a winner in it. This raises the issue of how the process will evolve.
The frontrunner has not always gone on to win the nomination. Nelson Rockefeller lost to Barry Goldwater and Rudy Guiliani lost to John McCain. But the Republicans have always had someone by this point who was polling over thirty percent. As Gallup explains, there is no modern precedent for this:
History thus provides no guidelines for how today’s highly fragmented Republican race might play out, or for when a strong front-runner is likely to emerge, or who it will be. If the race remains close throughout 2011, it may also create unfamiliar political and fundraising dynamics for the national party. As of today, Huckabee is supported by 18% of Republicans and Republican leaners, while Palin and Romney are each favored by 16%. However, it is quite possible one of the three, or perhaps a different candidate, will break out from the pack before too long, particularly given that some of these candidates may decide not to run. And as the field is clarified, certain candidates may benefit more than others.
Because we’ve never seen a nominating race begin this way, it’s not only hard to predict how it will shake out, it’s hard to know if any of the things we’ve come to expect will occur. Fmr. Sen. Gregg wonders if New Hampshire will have its normal influence.
The winnowing of the field, which has been the role of New Hampshire, might not occur if there are no presumptive front-runners. In fact, the situation might simply become more muddled, as New Hampshire does not seem like fertile ground for the likes of former Govs. Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or even Newt Gingrich. And yet, these candidates, if they run, might all still be very viable post-New Hampshire because of their name recognition if there is no heir apparent.
The assumption here is that Iowa Republicans are so socially conservative and the caucus system is sufficiently closed that whomever wins the state will be far too right for the voters of New Hampshire. Meanwhile, New Hampshire’s Republicans are more socially tolerant and their primary system is sufficiently open that the state will probably nominate someone different than Iowa. But, the winners of those two races may not wind up in two-person race. They may not even last long past those contests.
It’s possible that Mike Huckabee could win Iowa, Mitt Romney could win New Hampshire, and yet, Palin, Newt, and others could solider on. It could unfold in a way that no single candidate has the votes to secure the nomination when things open at the Republican National Convention. Gregg’s nightmare is that Palin will benefit.
Because the nominating process has become so dominated by primary elections, with the vast majority of the delegates chosen by direct vote, it is entirely possible that with no presumptive winner or even favorites, a candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates.
Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement. And primaries tend to be populated by people who go to the polls with the purpose of making a statement.
Finishing second and third isn’t really a big deal — until you get enough delegates to be the nominee. And picking a nominee who it seems would be easily defeated by President Obama might not be the best statement.
Can you imagine a modern-day brokered convention with Sarah Palin in the driver’s seat?
I’d buy that for a dollar.
Can you imagine a modern-day brokered convention with Sarah Palin in the driver’s seat?
Who owns Orville Redenbacher’s? Buy their stock!! LOL! 😉
The only way it could get better than Palin in the driver seat would be Michelle Bachman.
Palin won’t announce until the Fall, though, because she wants Fox News’s money.
I still doubt that she’ll run. I don’t think she wants the job, just the publicity that goes with being associated with it. Running for president is the biggest grind imaginable. She has no grind.
The Republicans have no frontrunner because they have nothing to run on, other than Vote the Black Man Out. They have no comprehensive budget, no plans for health care, nothing whatsoever to appeal to voters. The Tea Party is the group of movers and shakers; they’re making all the noise now and they’re being seen and heard as party leaders.
So who will the Tea Party nominee be? Do they trust Palin or Bachmann, or do they have someone else in mind?
Yes.
They do have an agenda, of sorts, but it’s entirely negative. There is the long list of people they despise, and there is another list of things they don’t want government to do. But there is no positive agenda. Even something as straightforward as balancing the budget, which could have positive aspects, is framed entirely negatively. Obama, for example, talks about areas to increase investment like education and green energy, even as he concedes that the budget must be slashed. But there are NO areas of the federal government that the Republicans want to see increased investment in.
How do you differentiate between the candidates in a situation like that?
To put it into purely racial terms, to see the first time in the Party’s history that they are stumbling forward with an empty (in so many ways!) envelope when they face a black incumbent President absolutely warms the cockels of my heart.
it made me smile just to read your comment.
A brokered convention? Horrors! Delegates having to actually have votes that count. Multiple votes into the night. Intra-party division and anger. TV coverage that networks won’t miss because “if it bleeds it leads”.
Don’t bet on it. All the deals will be cut before the convention. And if they aren’t, Democrats better have candidates for every office. The Republicans invented the staged for TV convention. I don’t expect them to depart from that script in 2012.
I think you’re onto something. The GOP knows they can capture the narrative in the mainstream media by this never-before-seen, rough and tumble convention that has all the intrigue and mystery that the media pundits love. I envision round the clock pundit circle jerks dissecting all the possibilities and personalities involved in this battle. A sprinted horse race of monumental political proportions. By the time it’s all said and done, every reporter involved in this will have had to change their shorts numerous times because they will have crapped them from the sheer breathless excitement of the spectacle. Chris Matthews might well not survive this.
The excitement of the event will be translated by osmosis onto the anointed candidate, thereby giving them instantaneous start status in the media world.
And no opportunity will be missed be the media to compare and contrast all this Republican “excitement” with the dull, stodgy and predetermined Democratic convention where absolutely no surprises translates into there being a complete lack of enthusiasm within the Democratic Party.
The GOP knows how to play this game. They know what the media dogs lap up. And they are only too willing to provide it.
Never was a Village pundit yet who didn’t fall for the elephant’s bait-and-switch routine.
With everything going on in the world, I’ve taken to streaming the online news from many overseas new sources. And I’ve got to say, I’m not sure I can go back to what passes for news information in this country. It is so much mindless babble that I can’t take more than a few minutes before my brain is revolting. At least when it comes to international news, this side of the pond offers almost nothing of substance. It really is a joke in so many ways. Many of the people we have are merely idiots.
if they truly think POTUS is beatable in 2012, they’ll kneecap Caribou Barbie.
if they don’t think he’s beatable, then they’ll let her get the nomination, and let her flail out there in 2012.
Neither you nor I, nor our children, will ever see a brokered convention.