Random 2012 Thoughts
I don’t follow presidential politics as much as I used to, but given last night’s events in South Carolina, I’ll offer a few thoughts.
First, I’ve heard talk of a “brokered convention.” The likelihood of such an event is statistically insignificant. Even if the primaries conclude with no one candidate having a majority of pledged delegates, there will be a couple of months before the Republican National Convention for the candidates involved to strike a deal. Let’s assume things shake out with Mitt Romney in 1st place, Newt Gingrich in 2nd, Ron Paul in 3rd and Rick Santorum 4th. Romney and Gingrich will simply strike a deal. Gingrich accepts the vice-presidential nomination and a majority of the delegates ratify the new ticket, at worst on the second ballot. There won’t be some spontaneous movement towards Paul or Santorum. And if Gingrich refuses a deal, his delegates will simply abandon him.
The flaw in Gingrich’s candidacy is that he has no real base of support. What we saw in South Carolina yesterday was a pure protest vote against Romney. Ginrgich may continue to gather protest votes, but he lacks the financing and organization to make anything out of it. His campaign is 80% ego and 20% free media coverage.
Romney, Paul and Santorum each represent one of the GOP’s broad constituencies. Romney represents the chambers of commerce; Paul the libertarians; and Santorum the Christian right. The latter faction, Santorum’s, has been significantly weakened over the past few election cycles. This group is not insignificant, but it no longer scares anyone.
Paul’s libertarian faction is well-financed and well-organized, but it has a natural ceiling. There just aren’t that many libertarians in the Republican Party. Nor for that matter are there many libertarians in the general population. Paul’s campaign can only succeed by drawing in enough independent libertarian votes into the Republican primaries to overcome the entrenched advantage of Romney, particularly in the larger states.
The storyline on Romney is that Republican voters aren’t that excited about him. This is hardly a Romney problem. Look at the last five Republican presidential nominees: John McCain, George W. Bush, Robert Dole, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Only Reagan was “exciting.” Democrats tend to nominate first-time, charismatic candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Republicans operate like a bakery that call your number when it’s your “turn.” Reagan broke through because of his extraordinary charisma and his political base in California. In all other cases, Republicans look to the least threatening white guy available.
That’s not to suggest Romney is the inevitable nominee. Scandals always pop up at unexpected times. And Romney may simply crack under the barrage of constant attacks from his three remaining opponents. A Gingrich nomination is not inconceivable. There’s ample historical precedent for a fiery protest candidate winning the nomination: William Jennings Bryan and Barry Goldwater spring to mind. Of course, both men lost in the general election, so that’s not a good omen for those hoping to unseat Barack Obama.
(As an aside, I’m not terribly worried by the prospect of Obama’s reelection. Contra Gingrich’s view that a a re-elected Obama would be untethered and therefore more dangerous, recent history suggests second-term presidencies often go limp and get bogged down by residual scandals from the first term. I have every confidence the same would be true with Obama.)
The only thing that interests me during election cycles is who are the vice-presidential nominees. I find the superfluous fascinating. Four years ago at this time, I briefly published a blog called “Veepwatch” that speculated as to who the veeps would be. I’m proud to note I was one of the first to seriously float Sarah Palin’s name. I did not directly predict her nomination, but I strongly suggested it as a possibility.
There have already been calls for Obama to dump Joe Biden and replace him with a stronger personality, especially Hillary Clinton. I would consider any move to dump Biden a major upset. Dumping a VP is a sign of weakness that no president wants to show. It doesn’t matter if the president dislikes his number-two. Whatever chance George McGovern might have had in 1972 was destroyed when he was forced to replace his original vice-presidential candidate, Thomas Eagleton, after revelations were published about his medical history. Replacing a VP is a sign you’re giving up.
I don’t think a VP selection has any significant impact on the outcome of an election. Vice presidents are generally not chosen with an eye to the electorate; they’re usually chosen to settle intra-party strife. Sometimes, as with Palin, they’re just desperate attempts to get attention.
If Romney is the nominee, his VP selection may prove moderately interesting. Since he’s an ex-governor, he won’t feel any pressure to “balance” the ticket one way or the other. In other words, he’s not a senator who might feel the need to pick a non-senator. I also don’t think he’ll feel compelled to select a female or non-Caucasian candiate for novelty value. If anything, he may double-down on boring white guydom (hello, Bob McDonell!)