Jay Cost goes back to 1948 and demonstrates that all Republican nominees for president have fit into three categories: incumbent presidents, runner-ups in a previous contest, or “dominant figures.” He lists three dominant figures: Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Richard Nixon in 1960, and George W. Bush in 2000. The only exception to this pattern in the post-war era is the 1964 election where the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater and took a frightful beating. What’s evident in the current cycle is that either Mitt Romney wins the nomination and fulfills the runner-up role or we’re going to see something not seen since 1964, which is a Republican nominee who is not a dominant figure, not a prior runner-up, and, obviously, not an incumbent president.
Here’s what Cost has to say about Romney:
…psychologically speaking, it should not be a huge surprise that Republicans are nervous. The one candidate who could in theory fit on this graph – Mitt Romney – has real problems within the party. That’s not to say that Romney cannot win, but it does make for the most open contest since 1964.
Here’s what the Wall Street Journal has to say about Mitt Romney:
It’s no accident that RomneyCare’s most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks…
…For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw. Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on “data.” Mr. Romney’s highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.
More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.
I don’t know. I am having a hard time seeing how Romney doesn’t flame out Guiliani-style when it comes time for Republican primary-goers to vote. I don’t see Huckabee or Palin getting in the race, either, so it seems very likely that we’re going to be dealing with a dynamic that has a lot in common with the Lyndon Johnson-Barry Goldwater race. Of course, some basics will be different. Johnson was a Southern Democrat and he still had some support in the South (just not in the Deep South). And he had a giant reservoir of good will built up because of the death of John F. Kennedy. People weren’t in a mood for the third president in fourteen months. But, however you want to parse it, we’re headed into nearly uncharted waters. For Republicans, it could be 1952 or 1964. I’d say it is their choice, but I don’t see any Eisenhowers on deck anywhere. Petraeus is going to be the next Director of Central Intelligence. It seems to me like that’s checkmate.
