Sunday, 13 November 2011

The Angry Elephant: Republicans 2012

The Republican Party logo, via Wikipedia
You're probably vaguely aware of the ongoing Republican Primary. That's because it's been insane.

I started this blog when I was forced to go cold turkey by the end of the 2007/2008/2009 US presidential election. Americans have the best elections. Well, I mean, the best for an outside observer. I imagine that as a way of choosing a government, it's suboptimal. In fact, most of the things that make it fun to watch (soundbites, balloons, goodies and baddies) are pretty obviously detrimental to making good decisions. But heck, this is Democracy Fan and I am sitting at my computer with a bucket of popcorn.

In November 2012, Barack Obama is going to run for re-election, and the Republican party are now picking someone to run against him. Various states will hold primary elections, the first being Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, all of which will probably happen in January. At this stage the contenders are all competing for volunteers, donations and the support of party bigwigs to maximise their chances of winning: they call it the "Invisible Primary". So friends, foreigners, countrymen, lend me your ears, and I'll tell you what I think of the runners and riders.

Jon Huntsman

Image from Time magazine
Jon Huntsman was the former Governor of Utah. Conservatives liked him: his approval rating averaged 80%, in a state that preferred McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden by a ratio of about 2:1. Independents like him: he left the governorship to become Ambassador to China, proving he can work productively with a Democratic administration, and his position on gay rights is a very moderate compromise. Technocrats like him: during his tenure, Pew rated Utah as the best-run state. He's telegenic, intelligent, has a big adorable family and can ask the way to the airport in Mandarin Chinese. Of all candidates, he does the best against Obama in polls of the general population- and by quite a margin.
Will he be the nominee?
No.
Well, why not?
Remember, the electorate of the Republican primary isn't the same as the general population. Jon Hunstman is the only person on this list who has been unambiguous in agreeing with the scientific consensus on evolution and climate change (Romney has been ambiguous). A lot of Republicans are never, ever going to vote for someone who accepts a "liberal" position at the first sign of decades of overwhelming scientific evidence.
Polling average: 1%

Mitt Romney

Image from The Daily Caller
There are few political moves more time-honoured than the the flip-flop attack, or, as we know it in Britain, the dreaded U-turn label. It's a classic for a reason; people on both sides of the issue get to see your opponent disagreeing with them, and people who don't have a firm opinion get the impression he's a typical two-faced politician. Mitt Romney is going to have a very hard time avoiding the flip-flop attack.

The problem is that his previous political career was in Massachusetts, which has always been something of a special case in American politics.  It's in a fight with Vermont and Rhode Island for the title of Most Liberal State, which means that if you want to be governor you don't campaign there by calling for the abolition of corporation tax, quoting the Old Testament and firing a gun in the air. Sadly, as it turns out, you can't campaign in the Republican primaries without doing those things. You could give up in the face of that, but Romney's no quitter.

Mitt Romney's strategy now may be to shoot the moon: to become so synonymous with doubletalk that in the future, when conservatives hear him say "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose", or when liberals hear him say "I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade", both sides will assume he's just pandering to the other. Obviously, he can't come right out and make his campaign slogan "Mitt Romney: Maybe I Don't Mean A Word Of It". That said, I struggle to think of a reason other than lampshading for him to have said "I've been as consistent as human beings can be".

So will he be the nominee?

Well, he has the most money, endorsements, best staff and most consistent showing in opinion polls. So it seems likely, but he actually has a bigger problem than flipflopping. In Massachusetts, he worked with the Democratic-dominated legislature to come up with a broadly right-wing market-based health insurance reform plan. Unfortunately for him, a few years later Barack Obama did the same thing. Which, by the transitive power of partisan rage, means that Mitt Romney was born in Kenya.
Polling average: 22.5%

Rick Perry
Image from the Office of the Governor
Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. This is a traditionally strong position; state governors do a lot of the things that a President has to, and Texas is one of the biggest and hardest states to run. Perry has a strong list of endorsements and is popular with conservatives.

As we've seen, a major problem for Mitt Romney is that people are afraid he is opposed to people dying. Rick Perry, on the other hand, has signed over two hundred death warrants, even when Amnesty International said he really shouldn't. He also apparently carries a gun tucked into his running shorts in case he comes across a coyote.

Will he be the nominee?
It's possible. His fundamentals are good; really there's only one big problem. Let me put it this way: I'm not a good public speaker. When I give a speech people might say "He seemed really nervous" or "He needed to project more". They don't say "I wonder if it was the back medicine he's been taking".

Well, at least that was just a New Hampshire town hall, right? It's not like it was on national TV, or easily described in ten seconds, or splashed across every English-language newspaper in the world. Well, that was last week.

On one hand, now everyone has heard his plan to abolish the departments of Commerce, Energy and Education. The problem with that is that among their other duties, Energy maintain America's nuclear weapons so they don't go off unexpectedly, Commerce runs the census (which is constitutionally required) and if you're about to say something stupid, it may be best not to talk about abolishing Education.

Finally, of course, America has recently had an evangelical Republican governor of Texas who gets his words mixed up,and even some Republicans aren't quite willing to go back there yet.
Polling average: 10%

Herman Cain
Image from the Telegraph
Herman Cain is a definite puzzle for political buffs. A few weeks ago, my assessment would have been a fun uncle to joke with at your cousin's wedding, but that almost anyone else at that wedding would probably make a better president. He's never held elected office, he doesn't have much money on hand and what he does may have been collected illegally, and his ads look like they were made in GCSE Media Studies. When I started writing this note, he was the front runner.

His doesn't know much about foreign policy, and appears to be proud of the fact. His tax plan involved doubling or trebling the taxes for poor families, little old ladies, and disabled veterans, all to pay for massive tax cuts for Wall street bankers and CEOs like himself. It turned out that his company had quietly settled out of court to make a number of sexual harassment cases go away, and people just kept cheering for him anyway.

Will he be the nominee?
Man, who knows? I'd bet quite a lot against it, though.
Why not?
Well, for one thing, he has slipped a bit in the polls since more details about his sexual harassment suit have come out. It now seems a lot less like what voters had assumed- that is, a Democrat feminist political correctness gone mad- and a bit more like, well, sexual assault. Depressingly though, what may have more impact on his chances of getting elected is how the campaign dealt with the scandal. Apparently Politico, which had the scoop, gave the Cain campaign ten days grace period before running it; despite that, they seemed to have no strategy in place at all. So at first he denied any knowledge, then said he thought maybe there was some kind of unfounded accusation but there was no settlement, or maybe there was and it was three months pay, or maybe six months, or maybe a year, or maybe there were three or four cases. It starts to look like compulsive lying, and there's not much scope for more charitable interpretations.

The more general case is that the Herman Cain campaign seems a bit like a prank that's gotten out of hand. They don't have state offices organising volunteers, they don't have a coherent media message, and there are definitely no Josh Lymans or CJ Creggs around the candidate. In other words, it seems very likely that either this scandal, or the next one along, will fatally wound the campaign. Or, failing that, when we get to the actual elections there'll be no-one to remind voters that the election's today and offer to give them a ride down to the pollbooth.
Polling average: 22%

Newt Gingrich
Image from Gawker
If Herman Cain is a lovable buffoon, then Newt Gingrich is the exact opposite.

Newt was Speaker of the House in the nineties, so there's no question over whether he knows how a bill becomes a law. He has a doctorate in Modern History and has been described as the brain of the Republican Party; in some ways he is to this race what Al Gore was to the Democrats in 2008. He's deviated from orthodoxy a few times, and so is probably not to afflicted with epistemic closure. The man is no dummy.

What he does have is a likability problem. His experience would normally be an asset, except that this year people the fashion is to be an outsider- plus, many who remember the nineties remember his as belligerent and petulant. His attitude towards the media oscillates between loathing and contempt. Finally, he's running for the nomination of a family-values party when he's been divorced twice- according to legend, having the "We need to talk" talk with his first wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.

Will he be the nominee?
It doesn't seem very likely. He doesn't poll very well, even now that Perry and Cain have taken a bit of a beating and the anyone-but-Mitt-Romney crowd are getting desperate. His more likely route to power is to be picked a Vice President if one of the "lightweight" candidates- say, Cain or Perry- were to win.
Polling average: 14%


Ron Paul
Image from runronpaul.com
Let's get this out of the way now. Ron Paul's polling average is 8.5%, which in itself would make him a serious contender. He isn't, though.
Why not?
Ron Paul isn't really a Republican. He's opposed to the PATRIOT act, supports the legalisation of cannabis and heroin, and would bring in massive defence cuts by ending all overseas wars (No more Iraq or Vietnam, but also no more Libya or WWII). On the other hand, he is certainly no Democrat- he's for abolition of the Income tax, thinks that people without health insurance should have thought of that before getting sick, and opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that if a school district wants to put up a sign saying Whites Only, it is their constitutional right to do so.

Ron Paul is on 8.5% today, as he was yesterday and will be forever. He's a third-party candidate and while there is some overlap with the Republican field, he's no more likely to be the Republican nominee than Nick Clegg is to be the next leader of the Conservatives.

You've got to give the man this, though: his guys get to the polls. He's a living lesson in polling statistics, and I love him for it.

Michelle Bachmann
Image from TPM
Michelle Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota. Michelle Bachmann is pretty right-wing. Michelle Bachmann thinks that global warming is a hoax because carbon dioxide is natural. Michelle Bachmann thinks that the financial crisis would be solved if Wall Street were deregulated some more. Michelle Bachmann says that there are no gay people, just gay acts. Michelle Bachmann believes that rape victims should cary the foetus to term. Michelle Bachmann has heard that vaccinations cause retardation. Michelle Bachmann is worried that the census is the first step to a totalitarian government. Michelle Bachmann wants to be assured that the New World Order aren't planning a one-world currency. Michelle Bachmann wishes congress would set up a committee to investigate Unamerican activities. Michelle Bachmann is worried about the rise of the Soviet Union. Let's just say that Michelle Bachmann says a lot of things.

Will she be the nominee?
Well, she's arguably the favourite in Iowa, but the odds are it won't go much further than that. Since the straw poll, she's made an unfortunate habit of doing things and saying words, and that has really hurt her chances.
Polling average: 3.7%

Rick Santorum

Image from NY Daily News
Poor old Rick's on only a few percent of the vote, and it doesn't look like he has much prospect of improvement, possibly because his whole schtick is blaming everything bad that's happened since Nero on gay people. Santorum is mostly famous for his Google problem; that is, if you spend your career saying incredibly mean-spirited things about sexual minorities and people on the internet, then it is possible that over time your Google hits will take a turn for the lurid. I advise anyone considering typing "Santorum" into a search engine to think of it like swimming in the sea off Blackpool: only do it with adult supervision, and not within an hour of eating. And don't expect to feel clean when you get out.
Polling average: 1.5%

Sarah Palin

Will she be the nominee?
No.
Why not?
Not running, too hard. Also, she already has a new job.


It's actually too late for Palin to apply to even have her name on the ballot in several early states. The only route now would be if the Primaries turned into an epic bitter death-match (say, between Romney and Perry) and the Nominating convention decides to basically throw out all the results and find a new candidate.This has happened before, allbeit not for decades. If it did, they'd probably want a consensus-builder, and would have one eye on the General election where they have to appeal to Independents.They might settle on Chris Christie, Jeb Bush or Tim Pawlenty. They would not settle on Sarah Palin.
Polling average: 0%

A word of warning


At this point in the 2008 election, most people (myself included) thought the general election would be between Guiliani and Clinton. At this point it's too late for anyone new to enter the race, but we can definitely see a lot of movement yet. Things often start going wrong when people actually go out to vote.

2 comments:

  1. You know what? I may have been too quick to put down Bachmann and Santorum. Turns out they do have some strengths, if you can just get them to stop thinking about gays for five minutes.
    http://gawker.com/5859544/jon-stewart-highlights-some-surprises-from-the-latest-gop-debate

    ReplyDelete
  2. And Newt Gingrich thinks we should do the opposite of whatever it is Obama's doing:

    http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002855/

    ReplyDelete