A few weeks ago, Jonathan Bernstein tried to shoot down speculation about a brokered Republican convention. He made some good points, particularly about the largely mythical proportional representation in the early primary and caucus states. Even in the early contests, the overall winner will take home considerably more than their proportional share of the delegates. Yet, I don’t think his argument is completely convincing.
It comes down to a disagreement over the role of winnowing. Under ordinary circumstances, candidates must do very well in early primaries or their fundraising dries up and they can’t afford to travel, let alone maintain field offices and staff, or run expensive television/radio/internet advertisements. So, for example, we should expect candidates who do poorly in Iowa to simply drop out of the race. Then more candidates will drop out after New Hampshire, and more again after South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida. By the time Super Tuesday rolls around, we should be down to two candidates, or three at the most.
This is, indeed, how all recent nominating processes have proceeded. But this year is different. For starters, the current frontrunner, Newt Gingrich, has almost no money, almost no field staff, and has run basically no advertising. And the same could be said to only a slighter lesser degree of previous poll-leaders Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. The polls confirm that Iowans vastly prefer Gingrich to Romney, and this despite Gingrich not having lavished on them the attention they usually demand.
Can Romney (or Perry or Paul) overwhelm this advantage with advertising and field organization? Maybe they can, but the fact that the polls have shown a consistent preference for Anyone-But-Mitt indicates that simply not being Mitt is more effective than having money and organization. You don’t even need to travel to the states you are campaigning for as long as your name isn’t Mitt. You just have to time things right so that you’re the not-Mitt flavor of the month when the music stops.
So, how do we get to a brokered convention? Two things need to happen. First, we need to see a continuation of the same pattern we’ve been watching for months. Say that Gingrich wins Iowa and everyone instantly has buyer’s remorse. Maybe Ron Paul wins in New Hampshire, and everyone has buyer’s remorse. Then, perhaps Romney finally wins something, say in Nevada, and he gets a little traction. Maybe Rick Perry sticks around and does better than expected in South Carolina and Florida. That’s the second thing that needs to happen; candidates need to keep running without much money. Rather than settling down into a contest between Mitt Romney and a single opponent, imagine that it settles down to Mitt Romney vs. Perry, Paul, and Gingrich, with each bobbing up and down enough to prevent anyone from clearly rising to the top.
It’s not that far-fetched.
Approximately three out of every four Republican base voters are not interested in voting for Mitt Romney. If that doesn’t change, he isn’t going to be the nominee. He’ll either lose a one-on-one contest against whomever emerges as his chief adversary, or the delegates will be divvied up too much to give anyone the majority of the delegates at the convention. But, here’s one of the most important considerations. All of the alternatives to Romney are deeply unacceptable to very sizable and powerful factions in the Republican Party.
You can see how beltway insiders like Michael Gerson, George Will, David Frum, and a host of Republican congressmembers are savaging Newt Gingrich. Prior to that, you saw Karl Rove and his minions go after Rick Perry very aggressively. Ron Paul’s foreign policy views (e.g., blaming 9/11 on America) are anathema to the Pentagon, the Intelligence Community, 98% of elected Republicans, and the vast majority of the base. So, as long as Romney can’t break above the 25% mark, whoever rises up to challenge him will be beaten back down like a game of whack-a-mole. It’s been going on all through 2011, and I see no obvious reason why it should change in 2012.
And, if that’s the case, Romney is only going to win in states where he can do so with a small plurality of the vote, and he may be losing to a rotating cast of not-Mitts, none of whom are acceptable to the whole party, but all of whom have important and motivated constituencies that can keep them going on a shoestring budget using free (and social) media.
Oddly, Romney wants three or more opponents to split the not-Mitt vote and to avoid the electorate settling on any one alternative. Romney might not be able to survive if he knocks out too many opponents too early.
Now, we’ve seen the Republican base take a long time to digest Poppy Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain as their nominees, only to come around in the end. That’s what most people expect will happen with Romney. But this time could be different.
Because Romney only appeals to a quarter of the Republican electorate, and because every alternative to Romney is hated by important parts of the Establishment, there is no solution. The campaign may simply fail to resolve itself, and it could go to the convention for the final decision.
I certainly hope so.
How much does the GOP establishment matter any more(See: Christine O’Donnell)? If I am one of Bob VanderPlatts’ funkies in Iowa, do I give a crap what George Will says/wants?
No, you’re right. George Will doesn’t matter a whole lot. But it isn’t just George Will. It’s Joe Scarborough and dozens of other congressmen and former congressmen, and actual conservatives who have principles they care about. Gingrich is detested by a huge bloc of powerful Republicans. That does matter.
So what? JoeScar is on MSNBC, which is liberal according to idiots like Rusty the Clown(aka Limbaugh). Limbaugh holds a lot more sway with the GOP base than does a guy like Brooks, Will or JoeScar. Besides, we should start attacking Newt and ignore Mittens. I think you know why.
Also, Bobo hits Gingrich hard today. Try taking that back later on.
Wait, Gingrich actually suggested space mirrors?
Can’t have darkness.
What is he going to do about clouds?
So? Brooks appears on NPR. Which the GOP base thinks is Commie propaganda.
How does a brokered convention benefit our team?
Clearly, if one of the whackos wins, that’d be great, but If a brokered convention results in Romney getting the nod because most of the elites are behind him, is it just that he will have spent much more money than he would have if he had locked it up earlier? Or are there other benefits to Obama (and down ballot races)?
Yeah, the benfit is that the GOP winds up with a candidate that most Republican voters detest. So why even vote? See what I mean?
In addition, a brokered convention would get huge media coverage, and the full voting public would witness a divided GOP with the nominees all trying to outcrazy each other. It would be something like their 1968.
Makes sense, but with Obama Derangement Syndrome in full force, I wonder just how much their turnout will be negatively (positively, for us) affected. Hopefully, at the very least, it will impact how many volunteers and general campaign donations they get.
Far from counting out a brokered convention, I’m beginning to have trouble imagining it playing out otherwise.
Here’s what we know: the establishment candidate Romney is set to lose 3 of the first 4 contests, and it looks as though Huntsman may be eroding his support in NH, the only early contest he leads in.
But he’s losing to Newt, who, so far and for unfathomable reasons, has yet to experience any real media scrutiny despite all the abundant outrageous material out there, some of which is as recent as last week. The media vetting is coming; we just don’t know when it will be. But you can be damn sure they’re chomping at the bit already. If there’s one thing we know about American news media, it’s that the low hanging fruit is going to get played, sooner or later, and a lot.
But we also know that Romney is just deeply unpalatable to the GOP rank-and-file. They’ll be searching for an alternative as long as there’s still hope.
But that creates a vacuum. Who steps in? Somebody with resources. Ron Paul has a base and money, so he’s likely to stick it out to the bitter end. Perry has crap for poll numbers but he has money too, and given the fickle nature of the GOP electorate this year, he might as well stick around. Tim Pawlenty must be chewing his liver right now for having thrown all in to contest Michele Bachmann for the Ames straw poll.
Paul has a ceiling. Even if he gets some outreach, I don’t see him cracking more than about 30%. Romney, absent a flame-out, has the funds to hold out, and he’s still the frontrunner despite his negatives, so there’s a potential 35% or so. Gingrich, in all likelihood, can’t maintain the momentum he’s enjoyed this last couple of weeks, but he remains a wild card. If Perry stays around then he’s another factor.
Bottom line: no clear winner. Out of all the plausible contenders (Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Perry) there’s not one that a majority of GOP voters can get behind and feel good about, and as a result there will be a lot of hem-hawing and shifting support, probably all the way up to the end.
I think a brokered convention is the likeliest outcome from all this. And that brings me back to a question I began asking a month or two ago here: who are the delegates to RNC? How do you get there? If there’s one thing the Teabaggers have shown an aptitude for, it’s seizing control at the local level for just this kind of thing. If there are enough of them at the convention, we might see something truly weird at the end of it.
I think it’s safe to say it’ll be interesting, no matter what the outcome.
Delegates to the Republican convention are generally handpicked by the respective campaigns. So, for example, if Iowa’s 28 delegates are won by Gingrich-13, Paul-7, Perry-4 and Romney-4, then the Romney campaign gets to pick who their four delegates are. And similarly for the other campaigns. That’s why delegates almost never flip to another candidate at the convention—unless at the request of the candidate they’re pledged to.
Josh Putnam at frontloadinghq.com has the most detailed, and knowledgeable argument for why there won’t be a brokered convention (or a late entry into the race) that I’ve seen yet: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/12/jeb-bush-is-running-for-president.html
Well, I can see why my original question as to delegates went unanswered back when: it was a stupid question. Of course the candidates pick them.
Putnam makes some interesting points, though. I find this one highly important but easy to overlook here in the early stages of the process:
A highly fluid situation can gel overnight when the returns come in. Still, I don’t see a full-scale rally to either Romney or Gingrich, and to a lesser degree, Paul or Perry.
What I see coming is a deep, deep existential freakout coming, no matter who among the current contenders ends up on top. And I don’t see a savior charging in to save the day from outside the current field.
I think the lack of press scrutiny of Newt comes from the fact that his sins and outrages are all old news and just more of the same. No reporter is going to get plaudits for revealing that he’s a wife-betrayer, adulterer, flipflopper, and loose canon. We already knew that, so it’s not much of a story.
Plus, nobody really thinks he’s going to go anywhere. If he maintains his rise, the scrutiny will rise, too, much of it planted by the captive GOP establishment press.
Seems to me Paul is a new and crucial factor. He has substantial support and his base does not seem in it for a win, so his money/volunteer resources may not be impacted by a failure to win early primaries. If he manages to stay at 25 or 30 percent and Gingrich or others don’t totally flame out it’s hard to see how Romney gets a decisive win on votes. In which case a brokered convention would seem inevitable.
Oddly with so many of the Right’s base that have been malinformed by the Fox media; they were simultaneously taught that any messenger that wasn’t Right Wing approved was surely lying.
But now, with this many Presidential hopefuls afield, gradually the talking points and loosely jumbled facts are being brought to the mic by their own and so you can almost see a collective cocking of their heads as they hear noises not Fox approved.
This weekend’s talking heads may find the room filled with Rep inflighting.
It’s nice that Newt Gingrich hadn’t lost his singular talent from throwing the GOP into disarray during his years of wondering in the wilderness.
I see that Nate Silver basically agrees with me.
Seems to be more or less what I’ve been trying to say. But he says it better.
Which is funny because that’s a flip-flop by him from just a few weeks ago.
Get a nice comfy chair, a HUGE tub of popcorn, and an adult beverage of your choice. And watch the cat fud fly in MASS QUANTITIES! So much will be flying, the goopers will have to import it from Canada! LOL
You forgot….Occupy will be there too. Everywhere all over Tampa. Maybe the revolution will be televised.
ot,
But can someone try to explain to me in completely rational and evidential terms why Tweety et al seemed to think that Newt Gingrich will be sooooo much tougher for POTUS to debate than Romney?
So Newt’s a bomb thrower? Has Obama ever been one to “take the bait” as it were? Plus as the House GOP did last time at their retreat, you under-estimate the 1000 ninja cuts by thin blades that is Obama on a a slow day and not even trying hard.
I know, I know, SASTQ, but I am seriously just agog at this BS from Tweety et al?
Think of it in sports terms: the Vikings were tougher for the Packers to defeat than the Rams, but the Packers still came away with two easy wins and one they had to work a little bit to get (Vikings twice, Rams once). Gingrich would be tougher than Romney, Gingrich being a knowledgeable policy wonk as opposed to Romney being a pragmatist, but Obama will still eviscerate him. It will just take a paragraph instead of a sentence.
So apparently agents of Mexican cartels are just carrying truckloads of military style rifles, bought in cash from american dealers, back to the border. And using them. A lot. Amazing.
Anyone have a guess as to which of their current “viable” candidates (Gingrich, Romney, Perry, & Paul) would most hurt their down-ballot race chances?