The meeting opened with comments from the group's director, Dr. Paul Gurian regarding the uncertainty plaguing the 2012 potential pool of candidates and their relative ideological homogeneity compared to the 2008 Republican candidates. Gurian pointed out that the candidates were considerably more ideologically diverse, even on important issues like immigration. He also commented on the lack of a clear frontrunner as is evidenced by pre-announcement polling. He pointed out that in 2007, Giuliani was the clear frontrunner. Although some consider that status to belong to Romney right now-this is by no means the consensus opinion and seems to be contingent on whether other relatively moderate candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and (although it is a long shot) Jeb Bush or Chris Christie throw their hats into the ring.
The discussion then turned to possible scenarios should candidates widely considered to be likely to enter the 2012 nomination fray indeed run. Romney could take Iowa if the field is mostly composed of social conservatives who will be forced to split the vote. Again, Romney's ability to capture Iowa could be severely compromised should a Pawlenty or Daniels enter the race because neither candidate carries the baggage of RomneyCare-Romney's health insurance reform that passed when he was the governor of Massachusetts which closely resembles the eventual reform package passed by the Democrats in 2010.
This led to a discussion regarding the importance of South Carolina in the Republican primary because of the state's open primary system-which allows independents to vote in either party's primary. With the Republican nomination highly likely to be the only game in town, it is likely that South Carolina's primary will attract a high number of independent voters. Should there be a "tie" coming out of Iowa, with a social conservative carrying that state and a fiscal conservative carrying New Hampshire, South Carolina may well be the decisive in determining the nominee. Should this happen, the state's open primary system should bring rumors of attempts by Democrats to sabotage the primary by encouraging left-leaning independents to cast their vote for the socially conservative candidate in the hopes that the Republican will be forced to give the nomination to a candidate far to the right of the median voter, similar to the rumors that were circulated in the 2008 campaign during Texas' primary between Obama and Clinton.
The group discussed the possibility of the Republicans switching from their current winner-take-all delegate appropriation system to the proportional system used by the Democrats. Should a proportional system be adopted (although most of us agree it is not likely, at least for the 2012 cycle) then the importance of South Carolina would be decreased. This led Jaeyun Sung to comment that a proportional system for the Republicans may make it more likely for them to experience a long, and perhaps more importantly, divisive primary more similar to 2008 than to 2004 or 2000.
Finally, the group responded to the open question of what issues (other than the economy) are likely to be hot for the 2012 cycle. Immigration reform (in the wake of the Arizona's controversial immigration bill, versions of which are now being considered in 11 Republican dominated state legislatures) and if Mitt Romney is in the field-RomneyCare. Should Huckabee or another social conservative prove to be viable, social issues such as the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, as well as the usual issues like traditional marriage, gun control, and abortion will likely be important. Inevitably, this led to a discussion of the Tea Party's influence and how their presence will affect the nomination process-which is largely composed of partisans. Gurian cautioned against the dangers of party division and opined that the Republican Party will need to find a way to keep the party together going into the general election-a proposition easier said than done.
A few notes:
ReplyDeleteOn Giuliani in 2007:
It is true that America's Mayor was the clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination throughout 2007. However, Rudy was only ever the frontrunner at the national level. Polls on the state level -- especially in those early states -- were never quite as kind. There's a reason he backed off the early states and focused his efforts on Florida. Nominal frontrunner though he may be nationally, Romney has fairly clear advantages in both New Hampshire and Nevada and is neck and neck with Huckabee -- within the margin of error -- in most polls in Iowa. Granted, there's a long way to go in this and much of Romney's advantage is based on name recognition. That said, he has something in 2011 that Giuliani didn't have in 2007.
On Romney's "baggage":
Jonathan Bernstein -- political scientist at UT-San Antonio -- has a nice take.
On South Carolina:
I'll reserve judgment on the Palmetto state until after the courts figure out what to do with the SCGOP's efforts to close the presidential primary for 2012. I see it as a Romney/not Romney run through the earliest four states. Romney takes New Hampshire and Nevada. Not Romney (whether that's one or two candidates) takes Iowa and South Carolina. That makes Florida quite crucial -- if the state ends up on January 31 with only the exempt four ahead of them. This is what Florida is angling for anyway. They don't want to be first, they want to be the first after the first four go.
On the "proportionality" requirement:
The RNC has done a poor job of publicly defining what proportionality means. In that vacuum, the assumption has been that the GOP requirement is equivalent to the overarching proportionality requirement the Democrats have had in place throughout much of the post-reform era. They are not the same. In fact, in this memo that the RNC legal team sent me -- after they called to complain about where I had Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina positioned on my 2012 calendar -- it is clear that there are opportunities for state's to largely circumvent a proportional allocation of delegates (see comments below the pdf window).
If the GOP had straight proportional allocation like the Democrats it may have had the impact of drawing out the length of the Republican nomination process, but that will be dictated more by the presence or lack of a clear frontrunner. If a clear frontrunner emerges, then the contest could drag out, but if no frontrunner emerges, well...
...then it ends up being a divisive nomination like what Paul is describing.