After South Carolina, this one’s different
Reading the day-after quarterbacking on the Romney-Gingrich (or “Newt-Mitt”) face-off in South Carolina, I detect a certain amount of denial.
A lot of America’s punditry corps want this primary race to look like Bush vs. McCain in 2000 or Obama vs. Clinton in 2008 or even Rockefeller vs. Goldwater in 1964.
They want it to follow historic patterns. How many times can they tell us that South Carolina has picked the eventual Republican nominee every year since 1980?
But I think it’s time to nod at the fact that this one looks different — really different — for three reasons.
The first is the demise of the Republican Party as a monolithic institution.
The rise of independent tea party-like groups, the emergence of powerful media institutions like Fox and Rush Limbaugh, the ascendancy of free-operating conservative personalities like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and the legalization of Super PACs with unlimited spending power have all eroded the ability of the GOP to control its destiny.
Yes, the vast majority of Republican leaders want Mitt Romney, and they bear deep distrust for Newt Gingrich. But the choice has been taken out of their hands.
Which leads us to the second issue: There is no longer such thing as a “Republican voter.”
In three contests so far, voters in different parts of the US have given dramatically different levels of support to very different candidates.
The regional and ideological factions that make up the conservative base are so far apart on the issues that it’s hard to call it “a” base anymore. Call it the legs of a stool. Or the legs of a centipede. Or the roots of a tree.
Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire laughed at Newt Gingrich. Voters in South Carolina crowned him.
Keeping all those moving parts together would be challenging even for a strong party apparatus. But that apparatus simply doesn’t exist.
Which leads us to the final factor: The candidates.
Each of the leading GOP contenders can boast a narrow, niche appeal (“Santoum=evangelicas,” “Romney=establishment,” “Gingrich=Southern voters” and so on) and they all have the resources to keep muddling forward.
But none has offered a broad, unifying message that will put everyone on anything like the same page.
What’s more, they all have enormous political flaws and weaknesses as candidates. Watch Mitt Romney talk about his taxes, or Newt Gingrich talking about his role in history, and you’ll see what I mean.
Yes, a Ronald Reagan could probably put all the pieces together again. But none of these guys are anywhere near his caliber. In contrast with this slate, George W. Bush really was a uniter.
So what’s the takeaway? The takeaway is that we don’t know what the takeaway is. This one’s different.
A conservative movement that hoped to be focused like a laser beam on unseating Barack Obama has instead embarked on a costly, muddled journey into uncharted waters.
In a way, I suspect, we’re still watching a painful evolution that began with heavy GOP losses in 2006, when the old Republican Party was wiped out — and 2008 when John McCain was defeated handily.
Conservative victories in 2010 helped to disguise the fact that the rebuilding effort, in many regions, has led to more factionalism, more division, and to louder calls for ideological purity.
All of those problems are resurfacing now.
The GOP’s next venture into terra incognita takes place in Florida. Anyone who says they know what will happen there is full of baloney.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
It is a very odd campaign for sure. The good thing for the pundits and the media is that it looks like this will drag on for some time.
CNN made a brilliant move (even of unintended) when they opened the debate by asking Newt about his weird relationships. They tossed him that one and he blew it out of the park. That helped ensure that Newt would win and make sure that viewers would have to keep tuning into CNN and others for more debates. $$$$$$$$. Good move.
They can also thank the dumb republicans that decided that it was a good idea to jump on the president’s class warfare bandwagon and start making an issue out of what kind of tax rate that Romeny paid on some of his income. Which happens to be the same tax rate that a middle class or poor person would pay on capital gains.
I think we do know what the take-away is …and it is implied, Brian, throughout your post.
The takeaway is love him, hate him, or have mixed feelings about him, Obama WILL be President for another 4 years. Unless an unexpected dramatic economic downturn occurs, the ongoing slow economic recovery plus the damage these weak Republican candidates have done to themselves will make it an easy win for Obama. The campaign will be divisive, and exciting or disgusting depending on your point of view.
I used to think that it would be a close election. I am beginning to think Obama will win more states that he did against McCain.
“So what’s the takeaway? The takeaway is that we don’t know what the takeaway is.”
I don’t want to denigrate reporters as individuals because I think they’re a bunch of smart people. But I also think they’re prone to group think and that there aren’t enough of them. That the big papers and networks no longer have correspondents in enough places to really know the terrain they are covering. You have the same people moving from state to state thinking that the story is moving with them when the story was there before the reporters got there and will be there after the reporters are gone.
It is only the 2nd primary along with one caucus. Maybe there isn’t a take-away to be had yet. There are several candidates and 47 more states to go along with some territories and DC, and twenty-some hundred delegates to be allotted.
The take-away will come along. When it gets here report on it. Are we waiting for Godot or choosing a presidential candidate?
Newt is MUCH more prepared to talk about his adultery and affairs than Romney is prepared to talk about his Cayman Island accounts and all of his billions secreted away. He actually is acting kind of surprised about the demand to see his taxes.
Anyway this is now a great race. We have Newt pointing out in a very obnoxious way that indeed President Obama has presided over the largest increase in poverty and dependence we have seen in a long time, indeed the food stamp president. This is much better than Romney droning on about Capitalism or corporations or something that sounds like Jack Kemp talking points 30 years ago.
This is a much more interesting race now.
never ending horse race politics…. yawn.
“his billions secreted away”
These are not secret accounts but what does it matter?
The guys spent years doing what the president has done with your tax money for the last three years. The bailout of the automakers was nothing more than a Bain Capital move. The only difference is that the president did it with our tax money instead of private money like Bain.
First,
“A conservative movement that hoped to be focused like a laser beam on unseating Barack Obama has instead embarked on a costly, muddled journey into uncharted waters.”
The GOP candidate has to face a public flogging with $1billion worth of media at Obama’s disposal. Unfair as it is, that is causing some “good” candidates to stay away.
Second,
“The rise of independent tea party-like groups, the emergence of powerful media institutions like Fox and Rush Limbaugh”
I would add, “the demise of the once-great belief in the MSM (main stream media). Hencefore, the ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, et. al. conglomeration will be reduced to an acronym.
No I don’t have a problem with Romney beyond his being boring and simply looking like he has zero new ideas beyond what republicans have said for the past 30 years.
My point was simply he should have been better prepared to talk about his massive wealth and how it was made and what he has done with it. He seems surprised people care about his tax returns, not that it is fair, but he should not be surprised.
For me the take away is that the notion that the nominee should be decided by now based on partial representation of the parties involved in only 3 of the smaller states is at last exposed as obviously flawed. There should be one national primary day. Do it, get it over with and have candidates with national appeal. Of course (as Paul observed) this nonsense makes better TV.
Jim Bullard,
Nonsense is definitely the word that best describes this whole process.
One national primary day, along with being impossible to achieve, would fail to bring out important information about the candidates that is revealed over the course of the primary season. What if it had been held, for example, at the apogee of the Herminator’s popularity ?
Not that the current system is even marginally sane.
Earlier primaries in the only states that matter in our winner-take-all system, Florida and Ohio, would be a step in the right direction.
“Newt is MUCH more prepared to talk about his adultery and affairs than Romney is prepared to talk about his Cayman Island accounts ”
Not quite. Newt was much more prepared to tell the “main stream media” that he would NOT talk about his adultry and affairs. Romney should have done the same. “Yes I admit I am wealthy and successful and pay a low tax rate. There need not be any more questions on that topic from the despicable “main stream media”.
I wish the Republican candidates would just submit a list of question that they don’t consider “gotcha questions”.
The republicans have become the “white men as victims” party. Its a strange kind of populism/class warfare. rail against the government, the media and the poor.
Amen, Peter.
There is a personality type at work here. Not unlike that found in a certain large, central European nation about 80 years ago. Fortunately, we, as a nation, are better than that.
Yes Brian, you are right that the mainstream media is relentlessly trying to anoint Romney. This is what they do. They talk about the establishment candidate’s “inevitability,” the “unelectability” of any other candidate and the pretend piously that they don’t make news they just report it. They do the same with Ralph Nader and other smaller party candidates in the general election. They’re doing it to Ron Paul in the primaries. It’s pathetic and people have figured them out, which is why their influence is waning.
Lets not bash the media. The role of the media is primarily to entertain us in exchange for a financial reward (e.g. listener support). There is a part of the media that entertains us by informing us of stuff – like news and analysis. Even “Fox news” is primarily interested in making money by entertaining their audience.
I think Krauthammer said it best in the Post last week here where he described Newt’s foolish attacks on Romeny:
“Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage reelection by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse. ”
He hit it right on the head. The republicans may have just cost themselves the election with this colossal blunder.
OWVnewt – lets hope we are better
“Its a strange kind of populism/class warfare. rail against the government, the media and the poor.”
Yes, it is a shame that the president has decided to talk about these things rather than the issues that the country faces.
I am ashamed that republicans have joined in this silliness. The main “class warfare” that was going on last week was railing against Romney for being successful. It is pointless but people have really caught on to the distraction.
Peter: I understand what you’re saying about the media being a business and having, at least to some extent, to give the consumer what it wants. The objections come from the fact that most journalism claims a higher purpose than mere commerce (e.g. why mainstream journalists often speak with contempt about the NY Post or National Enquirer). If you claim a higher purpose, you should expect people to hold you to it.
Why hasn’t Buddy Roemer gotten any coverage? A serious candidate with excellent credentials but has gotten virtually zero attention in the mainstream press.
http://www.buddyroemer.com/
But it’s all talk. Republicans are not railing against the poor, they are railing against a President who has presided over a MASSIVE increase in making more Americans poor. Is it Obama’s fault? Who knows, but it is a fact that poverty has drastically increased under his watch and he has done nothing to really stop it.
Newt is right in pointing out that fact and I think those are the kind of basic and effective attacks on this President that Republicans want out of a candidate, which is why Newt is viable against Romney.
Mervel, that is completely disingenuous. The Republicans did everything in their power, with the help of big businesses and the Chamber of Commerce, to stop Obama from achieving any part of his agenda and then they claim that he didn’t do anything and that he made things worse.
Obama has presided over a terrible economy, unemployment is extremely high, people have lost homes, lost income, become poorer (at least the bottom 95% or so), all true. But the Republicans have have gloated about all of it. The Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) are all satisfied that Obama has failed, at least in their eyes. That is not presidential.
I am not Obama’s biggest fan, but the Republican party is smug and satisfied with the economic misery of the American people. That aint right.
The world has gotten to be a little bit better place over the last three years. It’s not much to get up and sing about, but it could have been MUCH worse. Obama will be our president for the next term, and then I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren.
I look forward to a day when the Republican party lies in the past with McCarthyism and the Ku Klux Klan. I think the tea party can do it.
No, not really knuckle, sounds like the Democrats crowing about things under Bush to me.
The fact is Obama had the majority of government for his first two years and blew it, his ideas were not effective we see that now, none of what he said would happen has happened. All he has now is that it could have been worse?
I may end up voting for him largely because I think we have a better chance of totally getting out of all these stupid wars with him (we will see if he follows through this year on Afghanistan), but I have no confidence in his general ideas or leadership for the domestic economy, the proof is in his results which are dismal. All of his ideas sound like one shot gimmicks, cars for clunkers, his health care reform is a joke, his banking reform is even a bigger joke, and on and on, and yes he has done very little for the poor except talk about how he cares about them, he must since he has created so many new poor, which IS a fact.
Toothnight you are totally out of touch with what is going on, and Republicans can throw just as many flames as the kind of stuff you are saying.
But anyway that was not really the topic, I was mainly saying I think Newt will win because he gets people fired up, both on the left and on the right.
“I was mainly saying I think Newt will win” Not very likely.
You may not like Romney but one thing you gotta give him is that he appears to be squeaky clean so far. Lat year he made 20 million paid about 3 million in taxes, and donated over 7 million to charity.
Sorry my last comment was inaccurate. He gave something like 4 million to charity it was taxes and giving combined that made 7 million.
“The fact is Obama had the majority of government for his first two years and blew it.”
You do realize not controlling both houses of congress in the partisan environment that is now Washington pretty much guarantees much of his or any presidents platform can be struck dead in the water the minute it gets to congress if the other sides wishes it, correct?
Remember, he’s never had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate and two years in also no longer controls the House. So your assertion that he controlled the majority of the government is debatable given the way Congress operates.
Poll result: “A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than is President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-economy-its-still-bushs-fault/2012/01/17/gIQAE7Dy6P_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics
Walker: I guess that tells us something about Washington Post readers.
I guess it means that George Bush can forget about changing the constitution and trying to run again for a while.
It is interesting that a third of the country “blames” the current president. If many of those are independents than he has his work cut out. What percentage of the country do you suppose blames Mitt Romeny?
We will learn more tonight, but as I understand it, apparently the income inequality gap that has been growing over the last 30 years is to blame for all our woes.
JDM: Nice try. It was a nationwide poll, conducted by Washington Post-ABC News.
Paul: “Independents, widely considered the most critical voting bloc this fall, continue to blame Bush far more than Obama for the economic troubles. Fifty-seven percent of unaffiliated voters put the blame on the former Republican president, while 25 percent believe the blame rests more with Obama.”
Other results: “One in five Republicans say Bush is more responsible than Obama for the state of the economy.”
Overall, “fifty-four percent of respondents said that Bush was more to blame while 29 percent put the blame on Obama; 9 percent said both men deserved blame while 6 percent said neither did. Among registered voters, the numbers are almost identical; 54 percent blame Bush, while 30 percent blame Obama.”
Walker, thanks I looked at the link you provided. I still don’t think it matters much moving forward. The only part that is really relevant is the 30% who seem to blame the president. A significant percentage. But sure it is interesting that so many people still blame Bush. So I guess I should just ask. Is there more of a point that you are trying to make?
Walker, was there a link to the poll data? Did they ask the ones that blamed Bush if they would support the president because of their “blame” on Bush. If that is your point I think it is a stretch. Some of them for sure but maybe not that many. Many people who think Bush screwed it up (myself included at times) are now ready for yet another change to see if we can make any real progress. I live in an area that had all the “bush must go” placards and the like and they will blame Bush to their grave for anything that happened and probably things that have not yet happened. If the fox news types put up “Obama must go” signs I wonder what kind of reaction there will be??
I responded to the poll. I said that it was Newt Gingrich’s and Ron Paul’s fault!
It is all of our fault, we have 1/4-1/3 of our children dropping out of high school in this country, what kind of a future does that hold? What will those 25-30% do that couldn’t even graduate from a US high school? How will they create a 21st century work force? No president can solve that.
The problem for Republicans is that they don’t have a candidate that can unite social and fiscal camps in this election cycle. It also doesn’t help that the Republican has become largely a southern regional party. It is perfectly capable of nominating an unelectable candidate this year.
Paul, to me, and to a lot of those poll respondents, the last four years looks like this:
Team A drives the car into the ditch. Team B brings a tow truck, and while they’re trying to pull the car out, Team A siphons the gas out of the tow truck’s gas tank, bleeds the air out of the truck’s tires, trips the driver every chance they get, cuts the tow rope, and yells “the driver doesn’t have a driver’s license! Where’s his license? Show us his license!”
Then, when Team B manages to get the car part way out of the ditch, Team B yells “Oh, look, the car’s still in the ditch! Team B sucks! They’re doing it all wrong! Let us try it!”