I saw somewhere that Rep. Thad McCotter (R-MI) is not planning to run for reelection. In itself, that’s not very interesting, but now the Moonie Times is floating him as a presidential contender, touting his opposition to the widely successful TARP program and the critical stimulus bill, and his supposed foreign policy chops. Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman heads to New Hampshire to give a commencement speech and spend a few days on the campaign trail. Michele Bachmann is expected to announce that she’s a candidate on May 26th at a Polk County, Iowa fundraiser. Mitch Daniels is still doing his Hamlet routine, but has advisers out there saying he wants to make a run but doesn’t want to talk about problems in his marriage. Newt Gingrich is getting ready to announce his candidacy on Facebook and Twitter, and somehow got Matt Bai to compare him to Charles de Gaulle and Ronald Reagan in the New York Times.
One thing all these people have in common is that none of them appeared at the first debate in South Carolina. Neither did Mitt Romney. If all these candidates get in the race, they’ll never be able to seat them all for debates, nor will they get more than ten minutes to answer questions.
With Obama’s approval rating hitting 60% in the most recent Associated Press-GfK poll, you would think that candidates would be dropping out, not getting in.
I still think the GOP might face a novel situation where no candidate can win the majority of the delegates. By eliminating most winner-take-all primaries, the GOP is setting itself up for a long primary season much like we saw between Obama and Clinton in 2008. But, with so many cooks in the kitchen, and no clear front-runner, it could easily prove impossible for a single candidate to emerge who can win delegates consistently in all regions of the country. And, even if one candidate has a clear lead in delegates, if they’re winning primaries with just a quarter of the vote, they’ll have a hard time accumulating a majority of the delegates before the convention.
Ordinarily, under these circumstances, a ton of pressure would come down on lesser candidates to get out of the race. But candidates like Gingrich and Bachmann and Paul have a ton of money and the ability to raise much more. Moreover, the GOP Establishment may actually want to pick their nominee at the convention rather than accept whichever loser emerges from this gang of fools.
The way things are shaping up, 2012 could resemble 1972 (McGovern), 1984 (Mondale), or 1988 (Dukakis) in reverse. Basically, the GOP is at risk of nominating someone who is not seen as a plausible alternative to Obama even in many very red states. And the Establishment knows this, which is why they may prefer a brokered convention, where they can pick someone with a damn chance.
Much as I’d like to see the Republican convention next year to bring back memories of the 1972 Democratic convention (nominee Bachmann delivers her acceptance speech at 3 am!) or the 1924 Democratic convention (compromise nominee Haley Barbour selected on the 103rd ballot!), I think the more likely scenario is: 1) 3 “serious” candidates (as anointed by the voters and then the media) emerge from IA, NH, SC and NV; 2) proportional primaries in March keep at least 2 of them going, along with “fringe” candidates who have the money or desire; 3) the April winner-take-all primaries produce a winner.
The Republican Establishment is, as Jonathan Bernstein says repeatedly on his blog, a complex organism and would have almost (note, almost) as much difficulty brokering a nominee at its convention as the Democrats would. In addition the “someone with a damn chance” category is almost vanishingly small, as best I can tell.
The way things are shaping up (worst case scenario), 2012 could resemble 1992 (Clinton emerging from “the seven dwarfs”, winning on a weak economy).
Regardless of what happens, whoever wins the Republican nomination will immediately receive a couple of weeks (at least) of flattering media coverage and soaring poll numbers, and can also expect to take the lead in the wake of the GOP convention.
Obama’s reelection is likely to be a long, hard slog that calls for as much energy, discipline, time and money as we can muster.
Or 1964, when the grassroots produced their far right candidate, who lost big time, allowing the Establishment to gain control again.
The closest analog to Barry Goldwater that I see is Ron Paul.
Not BG — at least not the ’64 version, who was as rigid and doctrinaire a RWer back then as there was. Anti-JFK’s Medicare bill, anti-civil rights, pro sending the US military to VN to finish the job against the commies.
But a decade or so later, Goldwater had softened up and became more sensible libertarian along the RoPaul lines you suggest — not the knee-jerk cold warrior he once was, assisted in persuading Dick Nixon to step down from the presidency, advocated for gays in the military, and other similar liberal-libertarian positions. Even seemed to regret his anti-CR vote in 1964 (bad advice from a couple of RW lawyers, iirc).
I generally second your overall assessment. And as I note below, it just doesn’t seem reasonable to think the GOP would allow themselves to have to wait so long, until the start of their convention Aug 27, 2012, to pick their guy, not when they’re up against a fairly popular incumbent who seems to be beginning to find the way to re-elect. If the economy can pick up a little faster in terms of jobs, and if O doesn’t wimp out about withdrawing substantially from the waste of people and resources in Afghanistan, I think he’ll be hard to beat in any case, but almost impossible to beat if Repubs wait too long to come together.
Btw, re 1992 and the “seven dwarfs” — I think that was the 1988 Dem cycle (according to the snarky description from the MSM of that time). Way to remember is that it was preceded by “Snow White and … “, and I’m sure most here remember who that candidate was w/o my reminding you. 1992 actually had a smaller field and less impressive field, iirc, and certainly a very uneven one in terms of quality and Dem loyalty (i.e., Bob Kerrey the Demican-Republicrat mavericky crank, and flat-taxer Jerry Brown the anti-Dem Dem …)
GANG OF FOOLS
BWA HA HA HA HA AH
interesting scenario…I don’t buy it, BooMan.
they want Mittens..they just haven’t figured the way to get him past the primaries.
Here’s my prediction: The Republicans will choose Robert Gates. Why? Well, for public consumption he appears to be a “grown up”, he’s said things about laws and military budgets that sound vaguely liberal to voters, and it would be hard for teabaggers to accuse him of being born in Kenya.
The greater reason is that Gates is part of the core military-industrial complex, toiling for the Bushes and the CIA for decades.
How will Gates explain working for Obama to the primary voters. I’m sure he is seen as a “copperhead”.
To be honest, I’m not sure who the “GOP Establishment” is anymore. As far as I can tell the anti-tax nuts and the religious right have completely co-opted the party. The former political and corporate “owners” of the party seem to have been marginalized out of the picture, except to the extent that their interests align with the anti-tax nuts. Are the guys like the Koch Brothers the “GOP Establishment” these days? Those guys are basically just anti-tax nuts who have lots and lots of money – they don’t seem to be running the typical Republican-backer playbook.
I’m thinking that the old GOP Establishment mostly became irrelevant back in 2008 with McCain’s nomination and loss. Who are the “serious old men” who might pull the strings here? There aren’t any left with any actual pull. Poppy Bush and his crew – who seemed to be the Establishment back in ’08 – don’t seem to be that influential anymore. If anything the Establishment seems to have become the anti-tax nuts and Roger Ailes FOX News along with the religious right. The footsoldiers have staged a coup on the leadership, if you will.
If anything, the remnants of the old GOP Establishment – those remaining “serious old men” – may be HOPING for a “McGovern moment” within the GOP. If the anti-tax nuts and religious right and Roger Ailes all get their way and the person they nominate loses miserably it at least opens up the possibility of a course back to sanity – marginalizing the 27%ers in a way that no appeals to reason might manage.
The moldy, fringe Wingnuts have the power in the Republican Party as evidenced by Trump rocketing to the top of the polls when he winked at the Birthers. The GOP establishment will have to use lots of dirty tricks on the Teabaggers to get an “serious” candidate past them.
I just don’t see it really. None of these fools have what it takes to convince people to keep funding their campaign through many states like Hillary and Barack did. They were both really good candidates and most of these Republicans are just a circus side-show. Rodeo clowns. Really. Think about it.
The Republicans will quickly narrow down to a few pathetic fools and then arrive at just one loser before the convention. Then they will pick someone like Marco Rubio to be Veep and hope they stand a chance. But they won’t.
I have yet to see anything in the Republican field for 2012 that could possibly beat Obama, even if Obama is buried under a pile of cryptonite. He’s playing his cards right already but he could sleepwalk through this thing considering what the Republicans are offering as policy and how the average citizen is perceiving the interests of Republican politicians.
Daniels has more baggage than marital grief, but yesterday he and his women-hating cronies in the Indiana General Assembly accomplished what Mike Pence failed to do in Congress, deny all state funding to Planned Parenthood. The Indiana ACLU has filed in Indianapolis U.S. District Court seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction barring enforcement. A ruling is expected soon, possibly today.
More than a few long-time state employees, now with retirement locked in, should be quite willing to spill the beans to anyone interested about the Daniels hit squads that patrolled many state departments earlier in his term, with the mission to clean house, apparently of anyone remotely familiar with what was going on in the state bureaucracy. Number 1 crony installed was Mitch Roob, who even the wingnuts are beginning to wonder about.
There’s, of course, his dismal record as Dubya’s budget guy, with the laughable underestimation of the Iraq debacle, among other things, questionable insider dumping of IPL stock just before the Duke Energy acquisition made it virtually worthless overnight…
…and, I imagine, many other instances of stupid like privatizing every public asset in sight, public employee union busting and teacher bashing, etc. soon to be unearthed. Just start turning over a few rocks and watch what scuttles, slithers and crawls out.
Well, the union busting and teacher bashing is very popular will the general public, who view their economic woes on “fat cat” unions and teachers, teachers having the additional burden of being blamed for high property taxes.
True, but I am heartened by the number of supporting honks & waves from passersby as opposed to being flipped off at rallys I’ve participated in this spring. Certainly not a scientific polling method by any means, but encouraging nonetheless. I didn’t get to experience the Madison tractorcade firsthand, but wow, what a genuinely heartfelt speech from a farmer!
I think you are letting wishful thinking cloud your predictions.
60% approval? At this time in 1991 GHW Bush was in the 80s. All the top Democrats were dropping out of the race leaving only an unpolished southern Governor and a barely-known cancer survivor from the northeast. Not a chance — especially after the poll-leading governor was hit with that sex scandal in early 1992.
First, remember this: the Republican base has been fed so much Obama-is-Satan propoganda that their hatred is almost unbounded, and that means no matter what they say now they will coalesce behind whoever the nominee is in fall 2012, as they did with McCain in 2008. This means that the Republican powers-that-be will pick a candidate who the media will label as centrist (even if their policies are hard right, as we saw with GWB and McCain), as they have every year since 1964. And unlike the Democratic primary system, which allows moderate dark horses to win if they have enough money, the Republican system of winner-takes-all and strategically-scheduled primaries allows the powers-that-be to pick their winner.
All this talk about whacko candidates like Bachman and Gingrich serves their cause, because it will make someone like Daniels look moderate by comparison. And the GOP will have all the usual unfair advantages of money and media, bolstered for 2012. But Obama will have the advantages of incumbency which may offset the drop in pro-Obama enthusiasm from his base.
In the end it will, as usual, come down to the economy. If Obama is like Reagan he’ll luck out and have the rebound start to kick in a year before the election despite (like Reagan) his failure to actually do anything to help the economy in the last 3.75 years of his first term. However, it doesn’t look good right now … Reagan had Volcker, the Fed chairman, starving the stagflation beast, despite the intense contemporary complaints of the Reagan’s supply-siders, and that is what finally triggered the rebound in late 1983. Not only does Obama not have a Fed chairman who is addressing the economic problems Obama is preparing to give into the austerity demands of the beltway (look at the UK and Ireland today to see what effect the austerity program has one and three years, respectively, after it starts).
It’s all working so well for the GOP. They completely f*cked up the economy and handed it over to Obama in time for the Democrats to take the blame. Then they are getting Obama to agree to the GOP prescription of austerity and he’ll get the blame when it makes things worse.
Of course, if you want to believe in the economic recovery fairy, like Obama apparently does, go right ahead.
My sense is that Obama is not counting on a strong recovery. They’re probably basing their plans on slow but steady recovery. They might be wrong in that of course.
If “the Republican powers-that-be will pick a candidate who the media will label as centrist,” why haven’t they done so already? Because I’m not seeing anyone even give a scintilla of effort to pretend to be centrist.
Why haven’t they done so already? Why would they need to? They can let the pseudo-candidates flail around for another 7 months before the ultimate winner suddenly emerges as “fresh” and “new”.
Yes, GWB was the foregone conclusion in 1999, but that was an unusual case. In most other years there has been some suspense — Reagan, for example, didn’t jump to the front until well into the primary season.
I think it’s just an assumption on your part that party elites will be able to designate a nominee late in the game. All the current front runners have obvious and hard to hide flaws. If they had someone better I’m sure he’d be out there.
I agree with the main thrust, but I’ll quibble with some details. Bachmann et al are sideshow distractions to make the winner look moderate, yes, however…as of right now I think the crazies have just as much of a chance at winning as the “moderates”. I wouldn’t be surprised with a brokered convention, nor would I be surprised if one of the “true crazies” actually wins.
To refine and hone in on this point, if they tried a brokered convention, the candidate would still have to win over a majority of delegates, many of whom would be teabaggers. How does a “sensible” candidate win? So even with such a convention, I don’t see how the elites force out the crazies.
One way would be to give the crazies the #2 slot — Rubio presumably being acceptable there. VP + first 2 Scotus picks + (if necessary) one or two major cabinet slots.
I mean, at a certain point, even the crazies have to recognize reality. If they aren’t in the cat bird’s seat, with their guy the frontrunner in delegate count, then they’re going to have to play ball and deal reasonably. Sometimes this takes time with certain people, but eventually all but the certifiably insane (who may vote in the primaries for sure, but who aren’t necessarily going to the convention as delegates) know they’ll have to accept something less than ideal.
A large point of my analysis is based on the fact that the GOP has eliminated winner-take-all primaries from the front-end of the primary process. They actually want it to take a while to settle on a nominee and have gamed the rules to try to assure that outcome.
We are witnessing the late-stage clownification of the Republican party.
Hard to believe the out-of-power party trying to unseat a not-unpopular incumbent would want to roll the dice and wait until their party’s convention — August 27, 2012 — before deciding on a nominee.
Likely along the way some of the also-rans, the ones not getting more than 10% consistently, will be pressured not only to drop out but to request that their delegates pledge to switch over to such and such a front-runner (i.e. either to Milt, T-Paw or the Huntsman, the 3 most likely to be in the lead).
Much as this lifelong Dem would love to see the Repubs continue to fight it out for a few months in the summer and go into their convention undecided and divided, I doubt if we’ll be so lucky as to see that circus. I see pols like Santorium, Bachmann, Daniels and even Gingrich yielding to intraparty pressure to withdraw sooner rather than later (actually Newtie will withdraw more because he doesn’t want to continue to be embarrassed publicly by his poor primary showing). The very independent RoPaul probably would hold out the longest.
I still see Milt Romney as the frontrunner, with Rubio the favorite for VP (no Bachmann — the GOP won’t want another Palin fiasco two elections in a row). Huntsman is the one to watch for the upset. T-Paw will hang around viably as everyone’s 2d or 3d choice.