As in Republicans. Who will run for President for that grand ole party now that it has lost two elections in a row?
First, let us get one thing very straight, the Republican party is not dead. It won't be dead. It will come back and win an election again sometime in the future. Nothing in politics lasts forever, just ask Tom Delay.
With that said it's time for some wild speculation:
The contenders:
Sarah Palin.
Plus,
Name recognition! Everybody knows her and she's a star! How is it possible that Palin, the loser #2 has managed to get more press than the actual winner of the election? Really, there have been more media stories about Palin's wardrobe than Obama's tax plan. Like it or not she is interesting and most of those who are close minded and hate her would not ever vote for her. Out from under the McCain campaign she may well be a very different candidate. She was the person who raised taxes in Alaska, passed gay civil union rights and destroyed the Republican party in Alaska. She's not just a little responsible for Young's close call and Stevens possible loss. Before she started screaming corruption I suspect the Democrats in Alaska and investigators would never have asked the questions they did. Finally, why not Palin? She's a populist Republican woman who is probably still the most popular person among conservatives.
Minus,
Women hate her. It's shocking, a bit of eat your own in this case, but the fact of the matter is her pro-life politics are far more of a problem for her than they would be for a man. Where as abortion is not a terribly important issue in American politics any longer, it seems to follow Palin and kills her among self identified feminists. That creates a real problem. Women tend to be less partisan and vote more often. Where woman might be gettable for the right Republican man, ironically they're more closed to Palin. She's also a conservative who refuses to apologize which makes her hated by the media. The bald-faced nature of the media's preference for Obama this year and hate of Palin is a real problem. Palin can turn this issue to her advantage but the constant drum beat of vitriol towards one person is difficult to over come over the course of months. Just ask Hillary Clinton what she thinks of the mainstream media.
Chances,
Pretty good. She's got to keep her head down, keep Alaska working well and try not to get dragged down by the loss against Obama. I'd say she's got a better than 50/50 shot of ending up in Washington as a leader of the party eventually. Don't count on 2012 for sure... but also remember that she's in her 40's and that she's got plenty of time.
Romney
Pluses,
He's vetted and suave. He is a well spoken, hansom and undeniably able dude. The fact that there are probably not many skeletons in his closet also helps him. He was generous to McCain when he lost the primary and managed to keep his nose clean though out the general election. He's also fabulously independently wealthy which might help off-set the fact that the Democrats have become the party of riches. Finally, the conservatives have to support him. The 3 week rally to Romney by the radio hosts and Evangelists at the end of the primary inoculates Romney from the right. If Sean Hannity starts in on Romney for flip-flopping on abortion or gay rights he'll be contradicting himself. Finally his expertise is in the economy! That is the most important political issue and will stay that way. He can credibly criticize anyone on that front and will benefit.
Minus,
He's very slick. The produced and polished candidate makes some folks nervous. He also has a record that is pro gun control, abortion and gay rights. That might make him more viable in a general election but vulnerable from the right. It translates into an enthusiasm gap. He's perfect... almost too perfect. So folks don't get too excited for him. Then again, give him 4 years in the public light for folks to gain confidence in him and he might end up shedding these problems.
Chances,
Good, he did lose. He also has a life. I think he's the most likely Republican to throw his hands up and decide he's just not ambitious enough to bother. The family, money and time that a retired multi-millionaire has at least a decent chance of making him not bother to turn in his paperwork to run for president in 2012.
Mike Huckabee
Pluses,
He's well spoken, has a good record as a governor and is a true member of the base of the Republican party. Unlike Palin, or Romney there is no twist to Huckabee. Look up Republican in the dictionary and there you have it, a picture of Mike. This will help him in the primary and will help him because he doesn't have to worry about answering questions about being a hypocrite.
Minuses,
He's a bit nutty! He's gotten on a few strange policy schemes such as a national sales tax and an anti-abortion amendment. While I doubt he would actually use these things as issues in an election it does make him vulnerable to the accusation that he's on the fringe of politics. That makes it possible to marginalize him and then dismiss him. He just doesn't fight like a heavy weight. He might fix this over time but for now it's a temperament issue. He's not presidential.
Chances,
I think pretty poor. The Republican party is not moderating so that's not his real problem. What the Republican party is going to do is reemphasize it's point of view on the economy, role of government and taxes rather than values. With the spotlight moving away from wedge issues such as gays, guns and bibles the Huckabee isn't as attractive.
Bobby Jindal
Pluses,
He's not a white male. Seriously, novelty votes matter. Look at all the folks who stated that they voted for Obama because he was making history not because of his policies. Right or wrong being a non-white male is now a plus in American politics. Shocking right? He's also got a very strong record in Louisiana. That state was a wreck after a decade of one party rule and he's done a good job of cleaning it up. His role during the hurricanes this summer was widely lauded and it is not possible to paint him with the "Bush Brush" because he came into power in 2006. He's also got plenty of time to build whatever ideological platform he wants. The advantage of low name recognition is that he gets to make himself from scratch. Obama did this very effectively, so can Jindal.
Minuses,
He's very young. While well spoken and suave he's got very little experience on the national stage. His time working on hurricane relief bodes well for him, but it's just not a sure thing. The fact is that the Republican party does appreciate comfortable faces and experienced hands. Reagan didn't get the nomination the first time he ran despite being very popular. It's a bit easier to engineer a meteoric rise in the Democratic party ideologically. Still, look for Jindal. If he goes for it, I believe he's got a shot.
Chances,
Fairly low. First, he might not even try. He's got a decent thing going in Louisiana and might step up to a different post than President. Just keep an odd eye on him. He is in Iowa this week...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great to hear your thoughts on this.
I'm surprised you're still taking Sarah Palin so seriously. This is someone who David Brooks called a "fatal cancer" to the GOP, she was cited by numerous papers who endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004 as a large part of their reason for citing Obama this year - this is just a few examples of people on the right who were, lets say underwhelmed by her candidacy. I think ultimately she would face the same difficulty that Hilary Clinton might have faced in a general election: big problems with independent voters. Both of their unfavorable are quite high among that group of voters.
I do agree with you about Republicans tending to stick with the standard bearers of their party giving her a big institutional advantage. One thing that might hurt Palin, Pawlenty or Jindal is the financial crisis continuing to put pressure on state and local governments to make some very unpopular decisions.
I would actually favor Pawlenty over Jindal when it comes to the rising GOP Governors. He has family ties to the president of the NAE which would give him huge evangelical cred, without the nuttiness of Huckabee. Jindal would be a great candidate though, don't get me wrong.
My dark horse candidate? Newt Gingrich. Hes already been mentioned in some circles and is still active in GOP politics. He would have the support and the fundraising connections to make it through the primary. As a political communicator hes second to none, it might be enough to engineer a Nixonian rise from the ashes to the white house.
Suggestion: First, edit "where as" to "whereas" and "over come" to "overcome." Second, submit this piece to a site with a wider audience. Excellent, interesting, highly readable analysis.
I disagree with your demographic slicing-and-dicing on the Sarah Palin question. I certainly agree with you that she's been unfairly treated by the media, but I also think that women, like male voters, had many really legitimate (not "shocking" or "eat-your-own") reasons for opposing her. If one wants to leave aside questions of knowledge or policy positions and look only at demographic voting trends, there's the tendency of women to skew more Democratic than men, which suggests that any McCain VP nominee would have had trouble winning over women, and any 2012 GOP ticket will continue to have trouble. Really, Palin's inability to get women's votes is only surprising if you expect all women to vote purely on the basis of matching genitalia.
That said, my money's on the Republican party to emerge from this election as a smaller, more tightly-knit, and frighteningly (to me, anyway) socially-conservative party. Centrist Democrats have been sweeping the moderate Republicans out of Congress, and I suspect the 2012 nomination will absolutely, as one of the commenters above me said, go to the candidate with the backing of the evangelical community. However, I don't think that puts Jindal out of the running, from what I've heard of him.
In any case, I don't think the election spin I'm hearing out of the far-right side of the party--that McCain's defeat just shows that centrist Republicans can't win, and they should play to "the base"--is correct, but I suspect it may become accepted. The more flippant part of me wants to shrug and smile at what I think is a losing strategy, but I fear that even if the party were to lose elections this way, it could open up some pretty nasty rifts in American society in the process. We saw a bit of that this election, and I worry we'll see more as the party becomes radicalized.
Pawlenty!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-18/governor-cool/
Post a Comment