As the semester winds down a CDG "core constituency" has been bravely keeping the conversation going. Without any declared Republican candidacies to focus on, the group has continued to discuss potential candidates, how they would match up against Obama, and how their individual presence in the race will affect the other potential candidates. The 4/1/11 meeting opened with a discussion of Romney, who is widely considered to be undeclared in name only. Because of his 2008 run, Romney enjoys name recognition, which is the main driver behind his 1st place ranking in most polls. But it is uncertain how Tea Party Republicans would view Romney, who is widely seen as a more moderate Republican. If the economy is still the central issue, Tea Partiers may more readily look beyond his support of the ObamaCare-like health insurance mandate he supported and implemented in Massachusetts when he was the governor there. But Romney also faces issues with Republican social conservatives because he is a Mormon. Would the specter of a 2nd Obama term be enough to unite the traditional Republican base and the Tea Party behind a candidate that most experts believe would be a viable candidate in the general election, or will the recent movement towards ideological purism drive the nomination battle?
The meeting on Friday opened up with some brief comments about economic voting inspired by a handout from group member Del on unemployment rates and one and two-term presidents. The handout also included a summary of poll results from 5 polls including Gallup and Pew. This led to a discussion of Donald Trumps strong second place showing in NH that made headlines last week and how this is likely being driven by Trump's name recognition from his considerable celebrity. The author volunteered that Trump's recent surge in support might be driven by his shameless pandering to the "birther movement" leading the group to offer various opinions as the whether his conviction that "the evidence is still out" is sincere or not. He is, after all, sending investigators to Hawaii.
The conversation then turned to the 1996 nomination battle between Lamar Alexander and Bob Dole that may (or may not) have turned out differently if the process had taken longer (inspired by an article passed on to the group by Paul). This led to more talk about the invisible primary and the role that name recognition plays in the pre-primary polls. Jaeyun reminded the group that at this point in the 2008 Republican primary, Guilani was leading most of the polls and the little known governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee was polling in Iowa at about 1%. He then went on to win the state. This led to more talk about Michele Bachmann and her relatively strong showing of 5% (average).
The meeting wrapped up with a conversation about the (then) impending midnight deadline for a budget deal and how a shutdown would affect both Obama and the Republicans. Del offered that this is a defining moment of the Obama Presidency and that the President would need to demonstrate Clintonesque qualities in order to come out ahead in public opinion. The group was mixed as to who, Obama or the Republicans had the tougher line to walk here-but nearly all agreed that there would be a political price to pay should a deal not be struck. And that’s what you missed!
Sunday, April 10, 2011
4/8/11 Meeting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think 1996 is a very good comparison to what the Republicans are currently dealing with concerning Trump. You have a nominal front runner (Bob Dole) who, while respected, is not loved or feared by the conservative base of the party. Eventually, a very rich guy (Steve Forbes) got into the race and took a lot of the air away from the non front-runners (Alexander, Lugar). After Buchanan's victory in New Hampshire, Forbes took a hard right turn in his campaign in attempt to draw those voters. While it didn't win him the nomination, he did improve his results. I think if "The Donald" does run (I remain very skeptical), his candidacy would hurt the lesser known but more experienced candidates (like Pawlenty, Daniels, and Barbour) by combining a very base message with tons of money to take away the possibility that someone could emerge from the pack, or if they did it would be too late.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Republicans, one of the reasons they're divided on the idea of nominating someone they love or someone who can actually win is that they feel they can do both. Unlike liberal Democrats, who have had many nominees go down to inglorious defeat (McGovern and Mondale) while winning with moderate candidates (Carter and Clinton), the Republicans won with Reagan in 1980, even though most people thought he was far too conservative to win the general election.
Thus the Republicans are at a cross-roads. While they lost races they really had no business losing in 2010 (The Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware Senate elections for example), there were a number of races that they won with candidates many thought too conservative to win (Rick Scott in Florida is the best example).
If 2012 is solely a referendum on President Obama, then it wouldn't matter who the Republicans run. However, if the election is "Is thus person an acceptable alternative to the President?" (which I believe it will be), then they have a major problem. I think they will eventually, begrudgingly, settle on a nominee with some support from moderates and independents as long as the President's numbers are in the questionable zone (mid to upper 40s, which I think they'll be for the foreseeable future). If they go higher (it doesn't matter who we run, we're going to lose) or lower (it doesn't matter who we run, we're going to win), you'll see the more conservative elements of the party (The Tea Party) demand a candidate closer to them.