The unified consensus of the Netroots Nation panel on the 2012 election was that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republicans’ nominee. It’s a topic that was also credibly covered by Joe Klein in this week’s Time magazine. I think I do a pretty good job at political prognostication. I’m proud of my record. But, when I err, I always err in the same way. I consistently underestimate how radically the Republicans’ will behave. It’s gotten to the point where I’m at risk of overcompensating and not trusting my instincts.
Take, for example, a second consensus opinion of the Netroots Nation panel: that the likeliest alternative to Romney is Michele Bachmann. I have to say that I don’t agree with either conclusion. I still see the Republican electorate as too radical for Romney and not radical enough for Bachmann. Could this be an example of me simply giving too much credit to the Republicans? Maybe, but then I think predicting that Romney will prevail is giving them much more credit. There has to be a middle ground between the two, and that’s why I still see room for Perry, Pawlenty or Hunstman to make a move.
And I still see the potential for an almost unthinkable brokered convention.
The primary and caucus schedule is still in flux, but under new rules adopted by the RNC, all contests held prior to April will assign delegates proportionately, A quick look at the present schedule shows that very few states will be left after March. There’s the Pennsylvania contest on April 24th, and then there are contests in a bunch of relatively low-population states in May and June. The biggest contests in terms of delegates will be in North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, and Oregon.
How could a brokered convention become inevitable? Well, since way over half the delegates will be assigned proportionately, any three way split of delegates in the early contests could leave an outright majority of delegates out of the reach of any single candidate. Imagine, as Joe Klein does, that there is basically an insider and outsider battle represented by the winner of the Iowa caucuses and the winner of the New Hampshire primary. But, then imagine that a third faction opens up that is basically Southern. Here’s a scenario (and I’ll use Bachmann against my better judgment).
Let’s say that Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa caucuses and then gets beat very badly by Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. Then, let’s say that both are rejected in South Carolina in favor of Texas Governor Rick Perry. Romney should have little difficulty winning the Nevada caucuses, owing to its large Mormon population. Then, on Super Tuesday, Perry sweeps the southern states while Romney picks up wins in New England and the Mountain West, and Bachmann takes a midwestern state or two. Because of proportional representation, all three candidates will have far fewer than 40% of the delegates. Bachmann will be under pressure to drop out, but she’ll be in a position to use her delegates as a negotiating ploy, especially to deny Romney the nomination. Perry and Romney will go on swapping states: Texas to Perry, Michigan and Illinois to Romney, but with their relative delegate ratio barely changing. By the time April comes and the winner-take-all contests arrive, even winning all of Pennsylvania’s delegates won’t be enough to put Romney over the top. Then Perry will win North Carolina, Arkansas, and Kentucky, effectively guaranteeing that no one enters the convention with an outright majority of the delegates.
I’ve looked at these scenarios, and I just don’t think it is implausible at all that something along these lines will occur. The field is too weak for people to easily coalesce around a single candidate, but too strong for it to reliably break down to a two-person contest early on.
Here are the results from the RLC straw poll:
I told you…nobody is passionate about Mittens. the only thing they’re passionate about when it comes to him is that they believe his checks will clear.
After Iowa and New Hampshire the field will dwindle dramatically. It is pretty rare for three candidates to be viable after these two states. Often the race is decided by then.
There isn’t going to be a brokered convention. The most dangerous candidates are, as they always are, governors.
That’s begging the question.
First of all, one of my key points is that the rules change on proportional representation means that the past is not prologue in this case. You saw what happened between Clinton and Obama in 2008, which was only possible because of proportional representation.
Clinton behaved as if winning New Jersey meant she was going to gain a delegate advantage, but Obama wiped it out by crushing her in Idaho, of all places. Obama maximized his wins and minimized his losses, and before Clinton knew what happened, she’d lost the ability to gain a delegate advantage even if she won every future contest.
The key, though, was that Obama had a majority and didn’t need Edwards’ delegates to win.
If Bachmann held the needed delegates, she would surely deny them to Romney.
And the potential for a three-way race is very strong in this cycle because other than Romney there are no obvious front-runners. It’s quite easy to imagine different winners in Iowa, N.H., and South Carolina, as different Republicans seem fit to appeal to those diverse electorates.
If Perry jumps in, I admit I’ll have to retool my thought process. But I still have Bachmann winning it as of right now, and I have had her winning it ever since she floated her name as a possible contender…back in 2010.
I also might start preparing Excel sheets, but it’s still too early for that. Maybe after August or something.
based on what?
I’ve also thought that Bachmann is going to win the nomination for quite some time. My reason are:
Seems like Sarah qualifies on all the above except #5.
But Sarah isn’t running. If both Sarah and Michele were running, I think they’d split the vote. But, I don’t see Sarah jumping in now that Michele has officially declared.
Copy-pasted from before:
I see her as a Pat Buchanan type. In my mind, Pat Buchanan had a very good shot at winning the nomination in 1996. The Establishment did everything that they could to take him down, and they eventually succeeded by the time Super Tuesday came. They were then stuck with Bob Dole, and because of these turn of events, Dole threw the base a bone and nominated Jack Kemp as his running mate. It wasn’t enough, especially because of the three-way race.
I’m seeing the same thing happening this time, except the genie is out of the bottle. With Palin becoming their last VP nomination, the Republicans were forced to defend her nonsense (and as we saw with Paul Revere, they STILL clamor to defend her, including bigger whig types like Ed Morrissey…and even people at the LA Times).
Then the crazy got worse: the Tea Party movement was stolen from Ron Paul, although it was largely unknown and small, and funded by Dick Army with astroturfing bullshit. Then it became more mainstream, so much so that during elections when the funding comes around that they kicked away easy wins in the Senate in Nevada and Delaware, and almost in Pennsylvania.
Anyway, you know the history. The 2012 GOP is not the 2008 GOP. I’m not saying she will win with certainty, but I am saying it’s a similar situation to 1996, and I’m not certain the “Establishment” cane hold off the crazy as they did then. Buchanan would have gotten much closer to winning the nomination without the Estab attacking him to that degree. They’ll no doubt do the same again. But will it be enough? I don’t see how. Process of elimination mixed with a perfect storm of Tea Party hysteria…think about it.
Also, check this out. Perry, back in 2007:
http://www.librarygrape.com/2011/06/conservatives-laughed-at-rick-perry-in-2007-now-hes-their-savior
.html
I’ll buy any and all Romneys you’re selling, at the market.
I’ve already stated why I don’t believe Romney will win the nom, but I’m interested in what might happen in a brokered convention. What do we know about what sort of people are likely to be delegates? Has the convention process been infiltrated by the Teabaggers and/or Libertarians? If so, it seems like a brokered convention could very easily result in a Bachmann or a Ron Paul win, if he manages to hold out that long.
You raise a good point. How wide open would brokering be? Would there be the possibility for bringing in a dark horse candidate as a surprise? A Tea Party businessman and Christian conservative for example? Or a military figure, like but likely not Petraeus? Like outgoing DOD secretary Gates? Who are likely dark horse candidates?
Gates run against Obama? That doesn’t sound right.
It’s too early to tell how it’s going to shake out. A lot depends on the public mood after the debt ceiling hostage crisis comes to a denouement.
I would be very surprised if Rick Perry won the South Carolina primary unless he lined up the Chamber of Commerce GOP types and the libertarians in a coalition. Bachmann is going to appeal to the fundies. But watch for who campaigns in South Carolina as surrogates for Bachmann and who Nikki Haley endorses (which could cut either way by the time of the primary).
I agree with your assessment that we will know by South Carolina whether there is going to be a brokered candidate. I suspect that like the Obama-Clinton agreement, the brokering will occur before the television extravaganza and will suck the air out of other media stories during spring and summer 2012.
.
Hawkish foreign policy has been a Republican trade of the Bush/Cheney years tied to National Security. After OBL has been taken down, fighting terrorists is not in the Republican election playbook for 2012?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."If there’s a brokered nomination it seems like it will go to Romney. He may be poison to the base, but like the progressive Dem base, they have nowhere else to go. Romney has the trading cards that his newbie competitors don’t. Populist appeal doesn’t do much for you in a brokered convention.
Depends on the delegates who are there. Right now, the GOP doesn’t have the “circuit-breaker” of super-delegates to save the party from disaster. But if the delegate slates have a large composition of business types, who although elected for more religious right or Tea Party candidate, it is indeed possible that they could switch to Romney just to have an establishment candidate and unify the party.
Possible, but it is more likely the Chamber of Commerce types allow a disaster so that they can pick up the pieces in 2014 in preparation for 2016. The religious right and Tea Party depend on strong emotional identification; the CofC types are not as motivated by emotion as crass rational self-interest.
Will it not be Romney and an ABR (Anybody but Romney) candidate slugging it out – with the ABR candidate possibly varying depending on whether it is Iowa, New Hampshire, the Deep South or Mid West you are talking about?
Even with the establishment behind him, can Romney get more than 40% of the GOP vote (and therefore more than 40% of the delegates in all of the early primaries? And if not, there are 60%+ of the delegates to play for for all the ABR wannabees.
And then it only takes some ABR candidates to endorse the best placed remaining ABR candidate for him/her to have perceived momentum and “electability”. Romney suddenly becomes yesterday’s story and the media slavishly serve up the remaining ABR candidate as the uniter and saviour of the nation…
Under your scenario it will be Bachmann in Illinois, not Romney. You underestimate both the Tea Party’s disdain for Romney and their strength in Illinois. This is not the old business-oriented Illinois Republican Party. This is the full-throated abortion-hating gun-loving God-fearing Republican base, climbing out of their caves.