« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A reminder on long primaries.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  January 8th, 2012 at 11:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In 2008, the Democratic party had one of the longest, one of the most expensive, and one of the most bitter primaries in American political history. It was a drawn-out, unpleasant affair where Hillary Clinton, the expected front-runner, was eventually beaten – despite the fact that she won almost all of the top Democratic-leaning states, arguably won the popular vote, and nobody actually won enough pledged delegates to win outright. Insurgent candidate Barack Obama then, of course, proceeded to win the general election handily, pretty much none the worse for wear for the grind.

Please note that I am not directly comparing any of the Republican candidates* for President to Barack Obama; such a thing would be incredibly cruel to President Obama, who has under-performed in office in precisely the way that one would expect of a liberal academic with no executive experience whatsoever and a legislative ‘record’ that consisted of faithfully voting where, when, and how he was told. What I am doing is noting that I for one am not terrified of having a long, drawn-out, and expensive Republican primary. Admittedly, I may end up being in the minority in this one – it wouldn’t be the first time, and it wouldn’t be the last – and, honestly, the decision isn’t mine to make. If the candidates don’t decide to fight it out, there’s not much I can do in response.

But if they do decide to fight it out, then I have a heartfelt suggestion for anybody inclined to pout: suck it up and walk it off. Nobody’s entitled to a nomination. And certainly nobody’s entitled to use ‘shut up, he explained’ as a debate tactic. Particularly since trying that trick doesn’t in fact work, anyway; it merely annoys the folks who are the target of it…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Note that I do not consider Ron Paul a Republican.  Then again, neither does he, really.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • jakeofalltrades

    nt

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because, as repetitively argued, the key is “process”-thinking over focus upon specific “events.”

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    No clear candidate on Day One.

  • ctredstater

    the nightmare for me is having “Mr. Electible/Mr. Inevitable” as the ‘only viable candidate’ after FL.

    I hope and pray that Governor Perry is still standing. If not, with all his warts. Newt.

    A great point, Moe. So glad this is being explicitly made. It counteracts the Driving Media Narrative – which is trying to set up the “lets choose the Republican Nominee so we can spend the rest of the year destroying him” situation.

  • jakeofalltrades

    on electability grounds. It’s the same to me as a clear Mitt win minus the legitimacy of a normal primary.

  • haumea

    It’s better not to let a candidate waltz into a nomination without a full vetting – like a sitting duck for the Obama Campaign and the MSM (but I repeat myself.) That could backfire in a big way.

    The Republicans need to get all their candidates’ dirty laundry out and in full sight so they can decide without uncertainty which candidate they’re willing to live with.

    A long campaign would enable such a vetting, and partly immunize the candidates against general campaign surprises.

  • haumea

    If it goes to a brokered convention (or even to April, I think), that means the Romney electability narrative has gone kaput.

  • jakeofalltrades

    And I hope that this will better enable them to separate Perry fi-con wheat from the statist chaff that is all the other candidates.

  • texasroots

    as long as possible. No one should be screaming for anyone to drop out because so and so is going to be the nominee. I’ll never forget when Mrs. Couric on NBS was interviewing Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Clinton said, “oh but I will be the nominee”, and look how it turned out.

    What’s the rush?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    If it’s brokered I’m looking at Daniels.

  • acat

    is a reasonable proof, jake, that the fresh fish are remarkably uninformed…

    Mew

  • acat

    …

    I agree in principle that, should Romney not clinch before GOPCON, he should end up with a parting gift, the question is what favors Willard can call in.

    Mew

  • jakeofalltrades

  • acat

    I will be a very happy cat.

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    HOPE is NOT a plan.

  • kowalski

    …and we really need to redouble the efforts to blow holes in the kinds of things the SuperPACs are getting away with saying. I’m really disgusted by it. So far the race to the nomination has begun with the most shameful collection of near-lies and near-slanders that I can recall. Then the candidates smirk and say: “I can’t control them. I just can’t.”

    It’s like they have delinquent children they refuse to control, and they’re proud of not being able to control them. And everyone is sitting around with the same facetious smirk saying: “Yeah. I understand…” because they all have their delinquent children too. It’s no way to run a neighborhood and it’s no way to run a Party, either.

    They could at least express genuine disdain and approbation and make their own corrective statements through their official campaign apparatus, instead of saying: “This ain’t beanbag.” In other words, if the campaign is receiving support from the SuperPACs it should take responsibility for monitoring them.

  • explodinghead

    I am fine with a long primary season, but I would really like only Republicans to be able to vote in our primaries. I don’t need democrats or Independents in early states making the choice for me.

  • clintonformccain

    It’s the fact that the primary battle most closely resembles midget wrestling. Does anyone find a Santorum/Paul fight at a debate the least bit compelling?

    The longer this goes on, the more a slate of seriously weak candidates tarnishes the party.

  • ctredstater

    I am not aware of any precedent in which the Conclave of Cardinals invites in Protestant Ministers, Rabbis or Muslem Clerics to assist in the choosing of a new Pope.

    Why should Republicans invite in mischief-making outsiders to help us choose our nominee?

  • flgal208

    Let Romney talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk…the more he talks, the more he sounds like BO, always talking and gets under my skin—aren’t we sick of another talker in chief???

    WHY I KNOW BO will win if Willard gets the nom—both sides want him…and that should say it all.

    If you’re left-wingers like George, Diane & Gregory, do you a) give the most time to the person you think BO will lose to OR b)to the person you know you can beat?????

    If you’re left-wingers like George, Diane & Gregory, do you give the LEAST time to the person you think BO will lose to??? do you cut him off TWICE when he scores with the audience??? Yes, to both, as we witnessed last and this morning…

  • flgal208

    to you both

  • clowngirl

    Or there’s a brokered convention.

    There’s a great article over at Weekly Standard that explains why Romney would be virtually the LEAST electable candidate and also why the establishment supports him so strongly. It’s called Safe+Moderate (does not equal) Electable. (does not equal is in symbol form)

    Basically Romney is a low beta candidate (predictable – not a big distance between his floor and ceiling) and low beta candidates tend to perform well in situations where your party has a big advantages and will almost assuredly win unless the candidate screws it up.

    But in order to take out an incumbent President, in recent history, it’s generally taken a high beta candidate (high risk, high reward – big gap between the potential ceiling and floor) the high beta candidate might get blow out but also could win. Whereas the low beta candidate could be expected to perform respectably but lose. (Reagan and Clinton would both have been very high beta)

    This is an argument that both Gingrich and Perry should be making.

    This won’t be an election where the GOP can coast with a boring, cautious nominee. Obama’s been a terrible President but his approval rating isn’t nearly as low as it should be and there’s also the possibility of a Ron Paul candidacy sapping some Republican voters.

    We need an exciting, interesting candidate who can inspire contagious enthusiasm. It should be clear that isn’t Mitt Romney. Better to have a long bloody primary and have some chance of losing than to default to Romney and lose almost certainly.

  • clintonformccain

    We need an exciting, interesting candidate who can inspire contagious enthusiasm.

    Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that we don’t have a candidate like that to run against Obama. I’m sorry we don’t, but it is what it is. Of the available options, let’s at least get a candidate of plausible stature who doesn’t walk around shooting himself in the foot, hearing voices from space aliens, doing the 1990-s style full-metal Falwell, or cheating on every wife he’s ever had.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    The true weaklings will be out by the time Super Tuesday comes around. Santorum will fade, Paul was never going to win the nomination anyway (he might win a couple of western caucuses), and New Hampshire is the only place Huntsman has a shot at pulling second. Santorum’s big government record and whiny debate antics will kill his campaign in South Carolina, and I fully expect to see him down where Perry is now. The question is: Who gains from Santorum’s fall: Gingrich or Perry? How much does each gain? Is it enough to beat Romney South Carolina and carry the momentum into Florida and beyond? Will there only be one anti-Romney on March 6th? If there is only one anti-Romney on March 6th, it’s over for Romney, and our strongest candidate will have prevailed.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    We need to dispense with the hope and myth of a brokered convention. Too many times people fall prey to this thinking due to not getting their favorite candidate. Primaries are not set up to make this happen unless we have the unusual situation of just 2 equally strong candidates. That’s becuase enough have winner take-all rules that gives lion share of votes even to candidates who get a plurality of votes. McCain barely cracked 50% in Texas but got all the delegates. And voters will NOT pick an un-vetted non-candidate over the candidates in the race.

    Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney will be the nominee – 99% odds. So the real question will be which of those 3 we want. Intrade shows 83% chance for Romney, and everyone else in single digits in terms of odds. Huntsman and Perry are around 1% odds .

    At this point we need to get behind one strong conservative … or it will be Romney.

    EE’s dismissal of Santorum is unfortunate because he’s the most plausible unifying not-Romney at this time. It’s too late for Huntsman to catch fire and Perry to come back, and if you take out Santorum that leads to the inevitable conclusion of … Gingrich or ‘settle for Mitt’.

    The real reason for conservatives to prefer a long campaign is if they prefer Newt or Santorum over Romney, because those are the only 2 to go the distance. Romney may well ‘wrap it up’ in Florida if Mr Inevitable is not stopped.

    That’s the real likely choice, not ‘we will get the perfect candidate in a brokered convention’. Aint gonna happen.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I don’t think we can ever have that kind of candidate again. Because the 24hour news cycle, the examination of the minutia of everyone’s life, and the overall cynicism of our age all conspire against it.

    We will have leaders that we deserve, people just as jaded and fractious as we are.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Santorum is no better, and arguably worse, than Romney. He’s not “plausible” or “unifying”, he’s a SoCon big government fool. He consistently comes across as a whiner, and his latest tax plan is a nanny state nightmare that adds complexity and compliance cost to the tax code. He’s fading in NH, according to The Hill,down to fourth behind Newt and I expect to see him fall a couple of more points.

    I don’t expect his big government message will sell in SC either now that it is getting some attention, and when you put that together with a guy who is a not-likable whiner, it’s not pretty.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Franz died a year ago.

  • Samsara

    This will be wrapped up by Florida.

    Romney is going to win New Hampshire.

    He is leading in South Carolina by 10 Points.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html

    With those two wins under his belt Romney will win Florida.

    At that point, anyone still in the race will be labeled an Obama enabler for not falling in line. The pressure to get out will be enormous. No future political with the GOP establishment. No book sales. No Fox sweetheart deal.

    None of this applies to Paul, his moment of truth will come when he has to decide whether or not to run as a third party candidate. No doubt, team Romney already has a closet full of carrots and sticks ready for Paul and Company.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    You are right, the process is setup to prevent this. The stars would have to align, but it is possible, if only a quixotic possibility. We still wouldn’t get a perfect candidate, and I’d rather be sure Romney wasn’t the nominee before then. It’s not something to shoot for, and if you are shooting for it, the irony is that you will more likely to miss than if you just took a random shot. It’s something that just has to happen on its own in a weird scenario.

  • Common_Cents

    Won’t Romney have the momentum if the other candidates don’t consolidate quickly? It’s going to be tough for several candidates to raise enough money and get enough support to take on Romney, rather they’ll just manage to exist. As it goes on and Romney wins NH, does well in SC or possibly wins, same w/ FL, much support will cave and go for Mitt. It could happen that soon.

    I don’t see how this can go to a convention scenario just by the difficulty of multiple candidates sustaining their campaign and not consolidating money/support to take on Romney.

    Romney could probably finish off Perry w/ the ‘sending troops back into Iraq’ comment. Polls say 80% or better are against it. McCain came out and said it won’t work, its too late. But Romney prob wants Perry to stay in and dilute the field as long as possible.

    We need a consolidation between Gingrich and Perry somehow some way soon for a legitimate challenge to Romney. Perhaps a couple major endorsements could tip things one way or another.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And yes, to your question about Romney.

  • acat

    Willard has quite the collection of the things, and they haven’t helped him break 30%.

    Mew

  • clintonformccain

    …that his whole full-metal Falwell schtick is SO last century. This election, if the Republicans want to win, must be about the economy, stupid. To nominate a guy whose whole career has revolved around beating the Christian Coalttion drum is, to put it bluntly, insane.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    I should premise this by saying I go to Liberty University, the school Jerry Falwell founded, but what is up with the anti-Christian conservative thing lately? “Social Conservative” is becoming a dirty word even in some conservative GOP circles these days.

    Like it or not, “Christian Conservatives” are the largest GOP voting bloc there is, and it is absolutely essential that someone is nominated that is acceptable to that wing of the party. That is why Perry is probably the best nominee (if he can keep down the gaffes, which is a big if), followed by Gingrich (acceptable to SoCons, but not loved). Romney is simply unacceptable to a large portion of the Christian conservative base, and that will kill his campaign. Santorum might be alright if he can focus on the economy while keeping the SoCons, but he is a wee bit protectionist and has a mediocre-at-best spending record, so that will turn off a chunk of the party base as well.

  • runner12

    A long primary season may be exactly what we need. Perhaps it will wake people up and cause them to think about who they will support rather than just support who the MSM tells them to support.

    Honestly, if Perry cannot rebound I am hoping for a brokered convention. I would much rather see a Daniels, Ryan, or Jinhdal rather than Mittens, Newt or Santorum.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    He hasn’t broken the 30% threshold save in one outlier poll, which I refuse to believe. There is still time to coalesce behind one candidate to the right of Romney enough to win South Carolina, Furthermore, Romney needs to win SC. The winner of the SC primary, if it is not Romney, will coalesce the anti-Romney vote, and start to beat Romney everywhere but the NE and scattered liberal states.

  • wennejunk

    and start actually looking at the records vs. the smooth talking.

  • jimcyr

    Not at all! But he won me over, debate issues and all. But now there seems to be a mindless stubborn streak in the party: “I will not, ever ever ever, consider Rick Perry! I will not ever, ever, ever consider Rick Perry”. He’s the only good candidate left and yet we are being so stupid, stubborn and irratinonal. What a truly idiotic party the GOP has become. (Oh, and I’m a GOP state committee member and Tea Partier).

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Do you have any idea WHY these people are saying this about Perry? What are some of their reasons? I’m trying to pinpoint them so we can target those problems and hopefully resolve them in conversation, Twitter, blogging, etc.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I have the same feeling, I just do not get it. Rick Perry fits almost every bill the so called Tea Party and Small government conservatives should be looking for. With his nomination we could have a fight against big government without having to explain why at one time our candidate supported the mandate, and why we have nominated a Washington lobbyist as our nominee.

  • jimcyr

    at this point, Lousianapatriette. In my professional work with people trying to help them sort out their issues, I call it “being stuck” when people are like this. So there’s little you can say that will make much difference right now—you must remember that first and foremost they are STUCK, and it’s the being stuck that is the primary problem. The first priority (and only hope) for someone who is as stuck as the GOP is right now is to “shake them up”. That’s the goal. Then maybe they can get unstuck and move on to something good.
    (Thanks for the greeting btw)

  • clintonformccain

    …is a losing strategy for the Republican Party in general elections. It didn’t work that well in the 1990s, and now, in 2012, with the economy as the obvious issue, it is even more out of step.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    “lead with social conservative issues.” I said that the nominee needs to be acceptable to SoCons, which requires being consistently pro-life and pro-family. I would like a candidate that could occasionally articulate why social conservatism is important, but I wasn’t saying that the GOP should lead with those issues.

    As I pointed out with Santorum, he can’t win if he puts SoCon issues at the fore. The economy and the size of the federal government has to be number one on the agenda, lest the candidate seem out-of-touch. However, we mustn’t ignore social issues and act as if a GOP candidate can win without Evangelicals and traditional Roman Catholics showing up to vote in droves like they do when the GOP does well.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    1. The number one priority for our nation right now is downsizing government. If we don’t do that, NOTHING else matters. NOTHING.

    2. There are very limited things a President can do relative to social issues. With respect to abortion, he can reinstate Mexico City and issue a couple EOs that are basically window dressing. As long as Roe is in place abortion will be the law of the land. Get over it.

    3. The horse is long gone from the barn on DADT. Not coming back.

    4. The states are flexing their muscle on gay marriage, that one is probably gone as well.

    5. The single issue socons simply want to expand the power of the federal government to make people act like they want them to. That is not small government conservatism, it’s stupidity.

    6. There is nothing in Santorum’s history that says he’ll focus on downsizing government. Nothing. Look at his latest piece of work, his tax plan. The guy is a big government socon, period.

    7. Want to stop abortion? SCOTUS appointments, at least two. There also may be some hope in the latest actions by, of all places, the states of CT and NJ. They are charging two abortionists with murder for late term abortions. Again, there is nothing a POTUS can do about this one but nominate Justices.

    The bottom line problem is that there are a group – sizable – of evangelical “leaders” who don’t give a damn about the economy or the size of government. They don’t have a clue that when Jesus talked about helping the poor – who he also noted would always be with us – he was talking to individuals NOT governments. They trot a candidate – Mike Huckabee was the last example – who is “right” on social issues from a very narrow and shallow perspective and ignore the fact that the government is running our lives and ruining them in the process.

    Full disclosure: I’m a socon, involved in the pro-life movement since 1976. I’m an evangelical Christian and a licensed minister – worked in prison ministry on a volunteer basis for 20+ years. I’m also bright enough to understand what can and can’t be done, unlike some of our evangelical “leaders”, who are leading us off a cliff.

  • clowngirl

    Ditto to Newt leading the Republicans to take back the House for the first time in 40 years and forcing Clinton to sign welfare reform while putting everybody to sleep.

    Funny to that Newt was, not to long ago, polling at 50% in Florida and almost 40% nationally when he generates no energy or excitement.

    just because you’re (apparently) down on the whole field doesn’t mean none of them are interesting or inspiring to anybody else.

    Just reading RedState is proof that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry inspire enthusiasm in many of their supporters. (RedState members particularly make that case for Perry)

    You obviously didn’t read the article I suggested which argued that, in a year like 2012 a steady predictable candidate who “at least doesn’t shoot himself in the foot” while a risky, potentially controversial candidate ( one who has demonstrated the potential for a much higher ceiling Romney) just might win.

    Up to you – but I’m not going to agree with you or anyone who just trashes the whole Republican field. We don’t have a “weak field”

    We have 2 very good candidates who’ve been trashed by the media but can overcome that.

    One guy with no executive experience.

    One embarrassment who shouldn’t be allowed to run as a Republican.

    One guy who people almost forget is running.

    And one mediocrity who the media keeps shoving down our throats but who is barely polling at 26% after months of having every external advantage.

  • clintonformccain

    Rick Santorum has positioned his entire career, leading with social conservative issues — in the way that many Republicans did. It’s who he is…along with being a military hawk. It’s just dated for this election cycle. That, and the fact that he got blown out in his Senate re-election bid leaves many of us long-time political observers scratching our heads that he’s even in the race. He’s kind of like the Republican version of John Edwards. Undistinguished career, hard to take seriously as a Presidential candidate.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    Yes, the number one priority is downsizing government. Pretty much everyone agrees on that one, and that should be the GOP’s focus in the upcoming presidential election, along with jobs and the economy (this is of paramount importance to me too, since I will be entering the full time workforce next presidential term).

    At the same time, it is important our next president provide some bold moral leadership. My generation has absolutely no clue when it comes to moral issues. It’s lost and confused, and this might be our last opportunity to elect a social conservative (even though it’s not the number one issue) without simply not bringing up the topic at all, whatsoever. I think if we have a halfway decent president who is also an articulate social conservative, it might help to influence my generation. Even then, it will take a miraculous intervention by God to save from going down the road that Europe has taken.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    Rick Santorum is my least favorite of the three anti-Romney candidates, so I’m not going to defend him here. I’d probably vote for Gingrich over Santorum, and that’s saying a lot since, if I ever vote for Gingrich, I will have to go and take a shower to ritually cleanse myself.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    namely Santorum, and you don’t have to worry about the future. There won’t be one. Just watch what happens in Europe this year.

    I don’t give a rip about “influencing” your – and my sons’ – generation. I care about leaving you a country where individual freedom and liberty are the bywords of the nation.

    And don’t kid yourself, our road to “salvation” as a nation doesn’t require a “miraculous intervention by God”, it requires a hard nosed conservative bastard in the Oval Office. I’m certain God is more than willing to allow the US to implode, it’ll probably ignite a new reformation.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    will provide a much better moral example and moral leadership than the current resident of the Oval Office. Including and especially Newt.

  • youngconstitutionalist

    See my comment in response to clintonformccain above.

  • crosley

    And honestly, even that’s being charitable to the other candidates.

    It’s not going to be a long, drawn out process that goes to the convention (which would be a guaranteed win for Obama if that happened)

    Romney wins New Hampshire by around 20 points, gets a huge amount of inevitable momentum and wins South Carolina by double digits (he’s already leading by over 10 right now) and easily wins Florida. Overnight, Romney’s national primary numbers will be over 50%. Game Over. Any sort of collusion with the other opponents will be too little too late. Had Perry and Gingrich dropped out after Iowa, the ABR coalition would have had a slim chance, but they’re too stupid/egotistical to do that because they’re just oh so close.

    This nomination could have easily gone to someone else, but all of our “starters” chickened out and thought they’d have an easy win in 2016. They’re going to instead be waiting until 2020 now, and likely long forgotten. Perry had this thing gift-wrapped, but he couldn’t stop screwing up (glad we found out now) Pawlenty should have stayed in, but voters ignored him picked the idiot Bachmann over a sensible conservative Governor with a solid record. We’re the Stupid Party, remember?

    Romney/Rubio will make Obama a one term President.

    Conservative in the primary, Republican in the General.

  • registrar

    Mittens has no path to 51% before the convention, without a bunch of miracles taking place.