Not-Romney Race Killing Not-Romney's Chances
The 2012 Republican primary election season, so far, has been a fairly normal one, at least on the surface. The "next in line" candidate (traditionally either a sitting vice president or the guy who lost the last GOP nominating contest) seems about to coast to a pretty early and pretty easy victory. Pundits everywhere are predicting Mitt Romney will win both South Carolina and Florida, and at that point they will pronounce the race all but over (except for Ron Paul's campaign, of course, which they will ignore). By the time the race solidifies into a "two-man race," one man will likely already have won the contest, to put it another way. Some folks are even predicting Mitt's inevitability, should he handily win South Carolina this weekend. If this script plays out according to the normal Republican playbook, the party will soon fall into line behind their nominee, and all agree to ignore all the things they don't like about him, to present a unified face of the party in the fall general election.
Of course, underneath this surface read of the situation, there's a roiling fight going on. This, too, isn't all that out of the ordinary for Republicans, because (after all) the second-place finish in the Republican primaries may become determinative in 2016, should Obama win a second term -- the same way Mitt's second-place finish in 2008 has set him up in this cycle. I'm not saying that's necessarily what's going to happen, but rather that it fits in with the way Republicans normally nominate people in each cycle.
It wasn't supposed to be this way, for a number of reasons. The first came from the party apparatus itself, which had determined that a prolonged primary fight was exactly what they wanted. This sounds odd, but they were attempting to apply the lesson of the Obama/Clinton showdown in 2008 -- a longer primary season supposedly toughens your eventual candidate for the fall race. To (partially) achieve this, the early-voting states had to award their delegates proportionally to the candidates, rather than the more traditional Republican method of "winner-takes-all." This would give secondary candidates a fighting chance, and avoid wrapping the race up too early. The Republican Party machine only partially bought into this scheme, as later races would revert to winner-takes-all, so that the primary battle didn't go on too long. But Mitt Romney may still wear the "inevitability" crown, post-Florida. The only thing the proportional races may change is Ron Paul arriving at the convention with a solid bloc of delegates in his pocket -- not at all what the party had planned.
The second reason this election wasn't supposed to be a normal Republican cycle was the Tea Party influence. The 2010 midterm election was virtually all about the Tea Party, for better or worse. The Tea Party Republican faction was the tail wagging the Republican Party dog, due to their outspokenness and supposed strength. But the Tea Party folks have either been extremely quiet this election cycle, or they've been so fractured that their message is indecipherable. They have reverted to being just one demographic of the Republican Party, and not any kind of majority or leading voice among the rank-and-file Republican voters.
This has led to the real race within the Republican primaries -- the race to be the prime "not-Romney" candidate. Ironically, this "not-Romney" race is killing the chances of the "not-Romney" candidate actually winning any primary races against Romney. Again, this isn't entirely out of the ordinary for Republicans -- Iowa and New Hampshire rarely set a two-man race into stone, even in the GOP. But the dream all along, for those Republicans not enamored of Mitt, has been to coalesce around one strong conservative who could take the fight to Romney, and prevent him from walking off the field with an easy victory.
The problem with this, though, was the relative weakness of the not-Romney wannabes, and the fractured nature of the campaign at the end of 2011. Candidate after candidate was supposed to be anointed "not-Romney," only to crash and burn when they got to the spotlight. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain... all were so seriously flawed that they even lost the support of the Tea Party voters in turn. At the end, the contest devolved into one between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum -- both also seriously flawed candidates. Ron Paul holding a solid (and ultra-committed) 10-15 percent of the voters didn't help matters, either (Paul isn't really in the running for the "conservative not-Romney" slot, he's far outside the criteria for such a candidate, as far as the voters are concerned).
Which leads us to where we find ourselves. Newt Gingrich will likely come in second place in South Carolina. The fight between Gingrich and Santorum will likely continue (at the very least) to Florida. Perry may drop out, but it won't affect this race much. Ron Paul will stay in, but this won't affect the not-Romney race much either. But even supposing that either Gingrich or Santorum knocks the other out of the running after Florida (by coming in a strong second), by that point it likely won't matter much.
Assume for the sake of argument that Newt emerges from South Carolina and Florida on top of Santorum (assume, if you wish, the other way around -- it doesn't really matter for the purposes of discussion). Then the candidates move on to eight states before Super Tuesday dawns in early March. Ron Paul may win a few surprise caucuses, or he may not. Gingrich, on the other hand, will be fighting the headwind of the entire media universe proclaiming that the race is over (and getting bored with covering the story), and the even-stronger headwind of the Republican Party apparatus screaming for him to concede the race and drop out. Add to this the fact that Gingrich will have serious problems raising money at this point, compared to Romney, who will be raking the big bucks in as the presumptive nominee.
Gingrich (or Santorum) will be relegated to "voice crying in the wilderness" status both within the party and in the media. So will Ron Paul, but for Ron Paul this is familiar territory and he knows how to operate in such a position. Gingrich, on the other hand, will get more and more desperate for attention. Which likely won't do him any good. Unless Romney stumbles in a big way, Mitt will likely be running up larger and larger victories all the way to Super Tuesday. The chances of Gingrich coming from behind and racking up enough delegates to win will become more and more mathematically improbable.
If either Gingrich or Santorum (or even Perry) had managed to cement their status as the alpha "not-Romney" in the race at this point, they might have had a chance in that fabled "two-man race" (or, more properly, "two-man-plus-Ron-Paul race"). Adding Gingrich and Santorum's support in South Carolina easily shows that Romney could have been defeated here, if the field had narrowed. Florida would even be in play, likely.
I don't blame Gingrich and Santorum for staying in as long as they have, though. Both have a very good case to make that they are the stronger candidate to take on Romney. If Gingrich places a strong second in South Carolina, this will only even the argument out between the two about how "electable" they are.
But by the time this fight is truly settled, it is likely to be too late. To use a way-too-early 2012 Olympics metaphor, it won't matter who wins the epic struggle for silver and bronze, if Mitt Romney walks off the stage with the gold medal around his neck.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
So, what you're basically saying here is that whatever happens in the GOP race for the Republican presidential nomination, and regardless of how it all turns out in the end, it won't really matter much.
And, I couldn't possibly agree more!
LizM -
No, no, I'd put it: No matter how the media hypes it, the GOP guy with the most money is going to win... yet again. Oooh! Big surprise!!!
Heh.
-CW
What do ya'all think this ex-wife of Newt's interview will do to his chances??? :D
And about the "debate" over at ABC???
Michale
Michale,
I don't think the debate or the interview will matter much in the overall.
I'll tell you what, though, it's going to be no small amount of fun to watch the Republican cult of economic failure and foreign policy disaster crash and burn this coming November.
I think we should wager something on this! :)
On the interwebs, my conservative friends are circulating stuff like this ...
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Obomney1.png
One of the things I've found quite interesting also (and that you don't hear a lot about) is that Bain Capital owns Clear Channel.
Now this might not mean much until you realize that Clear Channel is the company who syndicates Hannity, Rush, and Beck. And they also broadcast a number of the other conservative pundits.
Now in 2008, all 6 of the top conservative pundits endorsed, oddly enough, Romney. I say oddly enough because I would have guessed that they would hate Romney.
I searched the big 3's shows just to see what they thought of the candidate and none of them are too hard on Romney. Hannity gushes over Romney. Limbaugh had one show a while back where he claimed Romney wasn't a true conservative, but he's backed off this recently to attack Perry and Gingrich. And Beck hasn't really focused on Romney either.
Mostly I'm with Chris, the GOP guy with the most money is gonna win. No surprise as it's usually true for Dems too.
I just find this interesting. If you wanted to buy your way into the heart of conservative America, it'd be hard to find a better way than to purchase Clear Channel.
-David
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Obomney1.png
You got to admire the photoshop on this. It's nearly flawless...
Michale
BTW, in other big money spin.
Here's some headlines from when Romney finishes ahead of Santorum by 6 votes:
"Romney Wins By 8 Votes" - ABC, Des Moines Register
"Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by 8 Votes" - FoxNews
Here's some headlines from when they found out Santorum won:
"Santorum Kinda, Sorta Won Iowa Final Results Show" - MarketWatch
"Final Iowa Tally Gives Santorum the Edge over Romney" - WaPo
"Santorum Declares Victory After Revised Iowa Caucus" - MSNBC
"Iowa GOP declares caucuses 'split decision' after final count shows Santorum with 34 more votes than Romney" - Fox
Hahahahah. Get it. Romney winning by 8 is still Romney winning. Santorum winning by 34 is a tie.
-David
You got to admire the photoshop on this. It's nearly flawless...
p.s. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of these things, but I have to admit I did a double take when I saw it
Michale [3] -
I don't know, but I think it'll be impossible to measure the impact. The situation is so volatile, it's useless to try to search for specific causality. After all, Newt's numbers are surging, there's a debate tonight, there's Mitt's taxes, and then there's ABC. Whatever happens will happen, but it'll be tough to finger one of these and say "this was the definitive reason why."
Just my $0.02.
David -
What I liked about the Iowa story is that they have no idea who won. They obviously purchased Florida's vote-counting system, second-hand. They like to style themselves as the defining moment in American politics, and they can't even count a hundred thousand votes? Sheesh.
-CW
Color me impressed...
I thought ya'all would be salivating with glee at this Newtonian Implosion...
Anyone close to wining the quatloos?? :D
Michale
Michale,
Newtonian implosion? I have a funny feeling that Newt will win the SC primary. But, Romney will actually win it.
And, I think Newt will get a lot of sympathy votes thanks to his ex-wife. :)
This race is a lot more fun than I thought it would be ...
Hey, I didn't know Newt was a Mormon, too!?
Heh.
And, I think Newt will get a lot of sympathy votes thanks to his ex-wife. :)
I find it hard to have sympathy for a man who would treat his wife(s) in such a manner...
Michale
Have a drink, Michale, and make mine a double, would you?
Besides, I was talking about the female vote. :)
Woot!!!
Doubles around the house!! :D
Michale
Now, you're talkin'! The debate is only a(n) hour and a half away, you know ...
Drink every time one of the candidates says "Obama"?
Now, you're talkin'! The debate is only a(n) hour and a half away, you know ...
Oh crap, that's past my bedtime!!! :( hehehehehe
Drink every time one of the candidates says "Obama"?
Sheet, everyone will be plowed in no time!! :D
Michale
Hey, I didn't know Newt was a Mormon, too!?
Bahhahahah. Well played.
Drink every time one of the candidates says "Obama"?
Whew. Glad I didn't watch the debate :). Plowed is an understatement.
I thought ya'all would be salivating with glee at this Newtonian Implosion.
I don't believe his personal life has anything to do with his qualification to be President. I'm not a Newt fan but it's because of his economic and political beliefs.
Hey, I didn't know Newt was a Mormon, too!?
Bahhahahah. Well played.
"Can I bring a Plus More Than One??"
"Oh, I didn't know you were a Mormon."
-Royal Pains
:D
I don't believe his personal life has anything to do with his qualification to be President. I'm not a Newt fan but it's because of his economic and political beliefs.
I am sure I'll remind you of that down the road.. :D
All things being equal, I would agree with you.. But for me, being a Presidential candidate is a little bit stricter of a criteria...
Michale
I am sure I'll remind you of that down the road.. :D
Sure. I'd much rather talk about Newt's view of the economy- i.e. return to "trickle down".
I could care less who he's banging. It's the bible beaters that this is going to offend. But they seem to deal really well with hypocrisy so it's likely not going to be a big deal.
Sometimes I think the first law of Christianity should be: Do as we say, not as we do.
:)
-David
My impression is that the theocratic types have no trouble supporting egregious sinners. It's just that the sinners have to be penitent in the appropriate style.
Hey, David and Michale!
I was beginning to think I crashed and burned on my Mormon joke.
:-)