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.
