Michael Barbaro and Nick Confessore have a piece up at the New York Times about big donor Establishment Republicans who are considering dumping their support for wounded Governor Chris Christie and shifting their political contributions to Jeb Bush.
It’s good click-bait, but I think there is less here than meets the eye. Barbaro and Confessore understandably sought out comment from Rangers and Pioneers, meaning folks who had bundled huge amounts of money for George W. Bush’s two presidential runs. If you look at a sample of big Bush donors, you shouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of residual support for Jeb.
If there’s an interesting insight in the article, it’s that these donors largely see Christie and Jeb as interchangeable. They also appear to believe that there are no other conceivable choices. So, what is it about Christie and Jeb that makes them so indistinct from each other? And why are they both seen as uniquely qualified?
I mean, I understand that Big Money trusts them, but why don’t they trust any other Republicans? I can see that Christie and Jeb both represent states that have more moderate electorates than Texas or Kentucky, but so does Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich.
Maybe there is a perceived moderation on immigration reform? Maybe there is less of a culture war flavor to Christie and Jeb? I can’t really put my finger on the rationale for why just these two gentlemen are considered acceptable.
Meanwhile, out in the sticks, the common wisdom is that Sen. Ted Cruz has this thing all but wrapped up. He’ll crush all comers in Iowa; New Hampshire will split its support ten ways; Cruz will win a giant victory in South Carolina, and that will be all she wrote. Could be. Could very well be. And Hugh Hewitt could be correct that the smart thing for the Big Money folks to do is to recruit Rick Santorum to peel off the big chunk of Cruz’s evangelical support in the Hawkeye State. It never made sense to me that a pre-Vatican II Catholic like Little Ricky would have much success in winning over evangelicals if they have an evangelical alternative. If you want Huckabee, you pick Huckabee. If he isn’t running, you go with Cruz. At least, that’s how it seems to me. But I have trouble thinking like an evangelical Republican.
As long as we’re brainstorming the 2016 Republican primaries, I’d like to know where Rand Paul is supposed to win. Iowa seems impossible. I saw a poll where he had a weak lead in New Hampshire, so maybe that’s a possibility in a very split big field of candidates. South Carolina seems unlikely. So, maybe the Nevada caucuses?
