South Carolina: Second Comeback
Fascinating. After having been written off a second time, Newt Gingrich is making another comeback. According to the most recent polls, he seems to be the favorite to win in South Carolina. His recent rise isn't that mysterious. There's still a lot of anti-Romney feeling among conservatives and the main question is which candidate will it coalesce behind. You'd probably think Santorum--especially now that Perry is out of the race--but Gingrich hit it out of the park in the last two debates. Conservatives hate the media, and Gingrich attacked the media. Conservatives are tired of being called racist, and Gingrich defended them. And he did it with some panache.
Let's assume Gingrich wins and Santorum drops out. Would that be enough to give him a decent chance of taking down Romney? I'd guess not. Romney is still better organized and funded, and there are enough Republicans who want to win in November and figure Newt's general unpopularity would prevent that. For that matter, the kind of stuff that plays well in debates now will probably hurt him against Obama (by making him look angry, petty and perhaps hypocritical while Obama seems farsighted and above it all).
But if he does win, at least it'll make the campaign more fun.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:01 AM
13 Comments:
In this race -- as in most races -- candidates drop out only when their support is so tiny that their candidacy has become irrelevant.
If Gingrich had dropped out and endorsed Santorum after the Iowa caucus, that might have put Santorum over the top. Or maybe it could have worked the other way around.
But as long as they continue to stay in, they will split the conservative vote. Even if Gingrich were to win South Carolina and even Florida -- unlikely! -- what would he get for it? By the new rules, the early primaries are proportional, not winner-take-all, so the delegate count will be approximately even anyway. Then on Super Tuesday, Romney will win because he has so much money that he will drench the market with TV commercials. And those primaries will be winner-take-all.
On the other hand, if the Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich votes were added together -- in other words, if there were one unique conservative alternative -- that candidate would be easily outpolling Romney and Paul.
While there is plenty of conservative doubt about Romney (though last time he was one of the "conservative" candidates running against the "moderate" McCain), it's far from certain how the votes would split in general if any of the other three candidates left the race.
I can almost see Newt winning SC big and telling Santorum "if you drop out you'll be my running mate." Almost.
I do like, however, how the losing party loves to tinker with the primary rules, figuring that's what got them into trouble last time.
Its kind of interesting that rationality is being attacked as liberalism. Mitt's trying to preserve his reputation for the general and it is backfiring (this is written post- SC results)- maybe he needs to go back to the "oceans of pornography" ad and go back after the Lowest common denominator in the primary process
But that's sort of how it always works. Republicans run right and Democrats run left in the primaries. Only after they take the nomination do they run toward to center. I wonder if that's tougher to get away with today? Anyway, every voter has to ask (of both candidates) is he lying now or was he lying then?
It's true that Romney was the "conservative" in 2008. And I think most fair observers don't think that has changed. Right-wing talk radio is not especially anti-Romney; in fact, I have heard several of the big names in talk radio say "Not only are all the current candidates much better [i.e., more conservative] than Obama, they are all much better than McCain."
But since 2010, the tea party has moved the GOP's center of gravity further to the right. In 2000 or 2008, Santorum would have been much too socially conservative to be a plausible candidate, and Paul would have been much too economically conservative. But in 2012, they are serious contenders.
The odd thing is how Newt has managed to cast himself as a tea party conservative, when his actual record is much more erratic. But I think that his combative style somehow gives him conservative "cred". Which is sort of sad.
I guess this is why a lot of Republican establishment figures fear the Tea Party. The TP not only forces out establishment candidates, they then put up candidates who sometimes lose races that could have been won (or so the Establishment claims).
Newt has long had to defend himself against charges that he's not a true conservative. Whether he is or not (and who really cares about labels?-it's programs and how successful the candidate will be at getting them passed or blocked that count), he's the kind of guy who's often been enthusiastic about new ideas, which is why many conservatives are suspicious. They're afraid he's flighty enough that some hot new fad or concept will catch his fancy and suddenly he'll support a big new government project that won't work and we can't afford.
Personally, I don't think there would be any substantive difference in a Romney vs. Gingrich presidency. The President can only sign or veto legislation, so neither can for example, "repeal Obamacare." The Congress has to do that, and if they did, does anyone truly believe Romney would veto it?
Now there is a difference in style - the ability to persuade and cajole the Congress and the public to support the platform of the party. The skills involved there is akin to the skill that would get one elected, so I would think the one who is more likely to beat Obama in the election is also the one more likely to become an effective President.
The only other basis I see for voting in the primary is the underlying character of the candidates. In 2008, Edwards might have been the most skilled politician running (and would have been a more effective President than Obama, imho). But the discovery of what a truly disgusting individual Edwards was disqualified him. Gingrich is not Edwards, but he's farther along that direction than Romney by a long shot. let's see if Gingrich releases the records of his House ethics investigation, or the $1.5 Million report he prepared for Freddie Mac.
We certainly see things differently, Denver Guy. I would imagine a Gingrich versus a Romney presidency to be different in numerous ways on substantive issues. On the other hand, I can't imagine their characters would make any significant difference in how they run the country and think it's absurd that people would choose that issue as a reason to vote or not vote for one of them. (I also think it's silly to believe that any consulting work Gingrich did would tell us anything about his character.)
On the other hand, as a campaign issue, for better or worse (actually, just for worse), I do admit the electorate often cares about these things, so I suppose they should be taken into account in the primaries. I also think the qualities needed to get the Republican nomination are very different from the qualities needed to win the general election.
My point about the work for Freddie Mac was purely from a campaign standpoint - the fact that Gingrich earned money on his contacts and knowledge of how DC works doesn't bother me per se. It just doesn't look good in a campaign and would be used against Gingrich by Obama.
But while character isn't a "be all and end all" issue for me with politicians, it does play a role. Perhaps it's because I became politically aware during Nixon's presidency. I believe Nixon postponed the ascendancy of conservative political thought as much as a decade because he didn't have the moral fortitude to either prevent or prosecute blatant illegality. I know that many issues are not so black and white as the Watergate break-in, but I don't think our government should employ cads, no matter what party.
I think you would agree with me that a person who has been shown to have accepted bribes or used his office for purely personal gain should not be elected to office again (think Blago), no matter how much he or she later repents.
So, given that I don't think Romney or Gingrich would attempt to accomplish markedly different objectives, I look to character, and prefer Romney's (based on what I know). Since I don't think Gingrich is a very bad person, if I thought he would be much more successful in accomplishing the same objectives Romney would seek, I might still vote for Gingrich, despite character flaws. But in fact, I think Gingrich would accomplish less, because he would belittle and berate the Congress and generate an antagonistic relationship, even if Congress were controlled by Republicans.
DG- Private venality and public morality are only loosely connected. A bribe-taker doesn't necessarily bother me if he or she got the things done I wanted to get done (of course in my self-serving hypothetical, I am assuming the bribe-taker is discovered only after having delivered the political goods).
The only reason not to elect a horndog is that will be all the media talks about and will give high horsey types excuses to bloviate about this week's falvor of morality and the well meaning philanderer won't have any airspace to get anything done (this is the biggest criticism I have of Clinton- he allowed things to get derailed by his nookie-craving).
Edwards may have been disgusting because he was a trial lawyer but I don't fault him for picking women poorly (twice)
DG wrote: I believe Nixon postponed the ascendancy of conservative political thought as much as a decade because he didn't have the moral fortitude to either prevent or prosecute blatant illegality.
I agree. But another factor was that Nixon's paranoia caused him to isolate himself from his party.
After McGovern was nominated, Nixon could have campaigned for every serious Republican running for Congress against an incumbent Democrat, and proclaimed that the incumbent was basically the same as McGovern. If he had done this, he would have still won a 40+ state landslide, and had huge coattails in Congress. But instead, he made direct contact with dozens of moderate Democratic congressmen, and said "If you avoid campaigning for McGovern -- so that the local press will say 'Even our Democratic congressman seems to think McGovern is too far to the left' -- then I promise not to campaign for your challenger." The result was a 49-state landslide and absolutely no coattails (the GOP gained 12 seats in the House and lost 2 in the Senate).
Although I admire a lot of Newt's traits, he is also a loner (and perhaps a megalomaniac), and is despised by many of his former associates. Romney, for all his flaws, is praised by everyone who has worked closely with him. So I think Newt poses the Nixon danger not only because of his ethics, but because he's not a team player.
At the same time, being a space buff, I love two of Newt's ideas that everyone else thinks are crazy:
(1) Using a government prize to motivate private companies to go to the Moon and then Mars (an idea he got from Jerry Pournelle back when they collaborated in the 1980s).
(2) Fighting global warming by using geoengineering or even a space sunshade. (But recently Newt seems to have moved towards global warming skepticism instead.)
To the last Anonymous above, this conversation has moved up to today, but let me quickly say, if a person is willing to do bad things that they recognize are bad (of course on their assumption they won't get caught), then don't you fear that there is no limit on what they might do?
I don't believe the press is an adequate protection against a Politician who has no compunction against doing whatever he wants to further his ends. If he thinks he can get away with it, will he burglarize or assassinate his opponents? Will he allow nuclear secrets to fall into the hands of the Chinese in return for secret Chinese financing of his campaign? Will he create false information through the arms of government to destroy an innocent business or individual?
Note, with the last example, I have no problem with a gov't creating false information (propaganda) designed to destroy or destabilize an enemy of the nation - it's not a simplistic application of morality.
Post a Comment
<< Home