POLITICS FEBRUARY 1, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
After last night’s bitter defeat, Newt Gingrich is vowing to stay in the presidential race for a long, long time (“six to eight months” he said in Florida yesterday). Of course, that’s what candidates usually say just before and immediately after bitter defeats (see Jon Huntsman’s “Ticket to Ride” sound bite after finishing a poor third in New Hampshire), even if they have every intention of cutting a deal with a better-positioned candidate and getting off the campaign trail. But Newt may actually mean it, particularly if his sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson, who is largely financing his largely Super-PAC-based campaign, continues to write checks. Gingrich is reportedly very angry about the negative ads Team Romney used to bury him once in Iowa and bury him again in Florida, and he is unpredictable. Newt may well choose to hang around for a while yet as a zombie candidate. But his vows to take his campaign “all the way to the convention” are nothing more than bluster. Newt has no realistic chance of winning the nomination, and he almost certainly knows it.
Those looking for more optimistic historical precedents won’t have a lot to go on. Since 1972 (when the current nomination system came into place), there has been exactly one occasion when the delegate selection season ended with no clear nominee—the GOP contest in 1976, which pitted an unelected incumbent president against the universally acknowledged leader of the conservative movement. There has been one other occasion when the nomination was in some doubt going into the final stages of the primary season: the Democratic contest of 2008, when two historic campaigns slugged it out on relatively even terms for months, with a raft of uncommitted superdelegates having the theoretical opportunity to decide the contest. There have also been two instances—the Democratic contests of 1980 and 1984—when a late run of victories by a candidate on the brink of elimination has created some suspense. And there has been one other—the odd pincers campaign by Frank Church and Jerry Brown against Jimmy Carter in 1976—where “late entry” candidates made a splash.
But if Newt Gingrich were to stay in the race, he’d be following a different sort of precedent: candidates with no real shot at the nomination who have hung around anyway, because they represented distinct party constituencies (like Jesse Jackson in 1988) or because they hoped to benefit from a consolidation of “buyer’s remorse” voters after it was all decided (such as Jerry Brown in 1992, and, for a while, George H.W. Bush in 1980) to boost their status as Big Dogs. As was amply demonstrated by the attacks on Gingrich from conservative opinion-leaders after his win in South Carolina, he is not the universally acknowledged leader of an important ideological faction like Reagan in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980. He also has none of the vast financial resources of a Reagan or a Kennedy, and given his consistently poor general election poll standings (especially as compared to Romney) he cannot make the kind of electability argument that supported Bush in 1980 or Hart in 1984.
And when you look at the actual timetable of this year’s nominating contest, it doesn’t give Newt a lot of natural advantages. In the February contests, he faces Romney in his home state of Michigan and Mormon-heavy Nevada, along with resource-intensive caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota—contests where Ron Paul is sure to split the anti-Romney protest vote. He’s not even on the ballot in Missouri. His best shot is the Arizona primary, and that’s an uphill battle. It’s also not clear when (or if) Rick Santorum, who will take most of his votes from the pool otherwise available to Newt, will drop out.
His odds on March 6, Super Tuesday, are no better. Gingrich must win Georgia (particularly after his endorsement by fellow-Georgian Herman Cain), is not on the ballot in Virginia, can’t win in Massachusetts, and again has to deal with an assortment of expensive caucuses scattered around the country. If he survives all that, he must then navigate another series of probably-hostile caucuses before arriving at the cash-sucking oasis of Texas on April 3. Then comes April 24, when a battery of northeastern primaries (including delegate-rich New York and Pennsylvania) looks impossible. Remember, too, that the ban on winner-take-all primaries ends on April 1, which will help the front-runner bank big delegate totals.
Throughout this horrible gauntlet, Gingrich will be exposed to increasingly intense pressure from party leaders to get out of the race—or at a minimum, to play nice—even as Romney does what he likes. Mitt will probably begin skipping the candidate debates that have been the main source of oxygen for Newt’s campaign. And in general, the media coverage—even hostile media coverage—Gingrich craves would largely dry up.
Gingrich has very few reasons to stay in, and lot of reasons not to. He has always been the kind of political showman who is capable of expressing anger strategically, and then cheerfully talking with the objects of his bile. And he has already executed two miraculous returns-from-the-grave this cycle, so it’s not as though a departure at this stage would label him a hopeless loser. The strongest obstacle to a marathon might have to do with his personal bottom line: The more Gingrich’s chance at victory approaches a mathematical impossibility, the more he will sacrifice the future affection of rank-and-file Republicans—the same people he expects to buy the books and videos, and attend the lectures, on which he depends to afford Mediterranean cruises and Tiffany’s.
So yes, Newt can stay in for a good long while, and burnish his reputation as an unconquerable pain in the ass. But barring yet another strange twist, persistence is likely to earn him little other than enduring opprobrium from party elites. Sure, he’d have the pleasure of competing pointlessly with Ron Paul to trade last-ditch delegates for some early evening convention speaking slot where no one other than hard-core CSPAN viewers will even know he was there. But that’s about all. Newt may have a “ticket to ride” to the convention, but it definitely won’t be in first-class. Even Sheldon Adelson can’t afford to buy him that.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic, a blogger for The Washington Monthly, and managing editor of The Democratic Strategist.
15 comments
Newt likes campaigning. I doubt he has much interest in winning. He's a good martyr. Even for a politician, he has very little self-awareness.
- skahn
February 1, 2012 at 12:21am
I suspect this is right and that Newt will drop out sooner rather than later. Most of the punditocracy is, per usual, reading too much into the dynamics of the moment as they make predictions about the race. Newt's venom for Mitt makes good copy, but I'd be surprised if it alone (plus Adelson's money, if it's still available to him) will be enough to keep him in the game through the convention. My best guess is that he won't make it much further than Super Tuesday, at the latest.
- interloper
February 1, 2012 at 7:26am
I thought that the headline referred to Romney. He has a zombie- like look about him. Gingrich is having a great time and this is his last hurrah. How come Callista doesn't speak?
- paskunac
February 1, 2012 at 7:44am
Look, we all have our criticisms of Newt, I don't like him any more than anyone else on here. But putting a picture of Callista without makeup to lead off the article... man, that's just MEAN.
- Tristan
February 1, 2012 at 10:02am
Democratic consultants love media buys: They design campaigns around marketing data and are paid by creating and collecting the "gross" from candidates and "investors" but paying media the "net". That is net the accounting term, not net "a series of tubes". These wannabe and sometimes lobbyists hate grass-roots organizing, voter registration, and caucuses, in a word, political parties as distinct from PACS or, better yet, SuperPACs. That is why they "winter" in the Beltway and pronounced Hillary Clinton -- now Mitt Willard Romney -- "inevitable!". They nearly all work within the Democratic Party mostly around the DCCC against, say, Howard Dean. They have wrecked party governance in Texas and everywhere. That has forced Barack Obama to organize a parallel party. No, consultants love perpetual incumbents who pile-up money by pretending "all politics is local" only so long as they have no opposition, then dumping it all getting wiped out in low-turnout "wave" elections like 2010 that mostly express well deserved popular disgust with Congress. Obama has been piling up money too. But, he will have to be the wave, not ride the wave. Like mercenary soldiers during the 30 years war, legatees of the 40-year Congress, panic and flee at real competition but also avoid anything like the Obama "Long Game". So, Ed, do you assume the GOP operates the same way? Is it your desire to restore bi-partisan concession-tending and incumbent protection as the norm in politics? I do not know if Newt Gingrich -- a self-styled strategic genius -- can defeat the GOP mercs as handily as he did you and the rest of the Democratic ones by at least pretending to be a republican -- little r. He is a radical, not a conservative, and his opponent this time is merely rich, not really conservative either. In any event, he has no more game, much less a long game, unless he can keep Adelson and get the Koch Brothers. The financial collapse that is crushing the middle-class is withering the grass-roots of both the parties. This means Romney and Obama may end up conducting a "high net worth" auction rather than an election, both competing for money from the 1%. I expect Obama to win that auction because he is much more effective at protecting the actual interests and recognizing the real intelligence of some wealthy people rather than just pandering to the vanity of the very rich. But, to "win the future", President Obama needs traditional coat-tails, a competitive -- not a complacent, undisciplined -- Congressional faction, and a strong republican (egalitarian) and democratic (majoritarian) party with functional civic foundations. That would not be just a decrepit professional and racial patronage chain with a baggage-train of mercenaries, camp-followers, and spectators from the DNC and DCCC in their carriages with parasols out to observe the campaign like it was a picnic.
- JRBehrman
February 1, 2012 at 10:33am
I would think Romney needs Gingrich to keep him in the news for as long as possible. If Newt drops out soon, the later primaries will be boring as hell. Few Republicans will bother to vote and come November will feel that they were deprived of any choice in the primaries. Come the spring and summer, when Obama goes before tens of thousands of people at his rallies, and Romney goes before his ones of thousands of solidly white, old Americans and gives his plastic, awkward stump speech, the contrast will be striking and people will think "good lord, do we really want this pill to be President?" At least with Newt the elections would have been entertaining as hell. I enjoy Newts speeches even when I want to punch his face in, I truly can't watch Romney for more than a minute.
- blackton
February 1, 2012 at 11:12am
"The more Gingrich’s chance at victory approaches a mathematical impossibility, the more he will sacrifice the future affection of rank-and-file Republicans—the same people he expects to buy the books and videos, and attend the lectures, on which he depends to afford Mediterranean cruises and Tiffany’s." What a wonderful distillation of all that Gingrich stands for, and has stood for since leaving Congress. As is his wont, Kilgore bags Newt with one shot like Mike Vronsky, guts him, stuffs him, hangs him on the living room mantel above the fireplace and enjoys a nice venison stew with the family over a case of Miller Lite.
- wildboy
February 1, 2012 at 11:20am
Does anyone know what the heck Romney is up to with singing those verses of 'America the Beautiful'? Jon Stewart had some clips of him at a big event with lots of elderly folks in Florida. I mean, there is such a thing as sentimental patriotism and all that, and there's nothing wrong in trying to appeal to that side of people instead of promising to nuke Iran or whatever, but it all seems so condescending and . . . well, kind of pathetic. Almost like pandering in lyric form.
- ironyroad
February 1, 2012 at 11:34am
Didn't Bush SR stick around long after it became obvious he couldn't stop Reagan. If I remember right he dropped out after he actually won Pennysylvania. I remember suspecting that he was trying to get enough leverage to bargain for VP.
- stanmvp48
February 1, 2012 at 12:10pm
@Irony - I think his programmers in Palo Alto wanted to impress everyone with the new lyrical chip they installed.
- Tristan
February 1, 2012 at 12:20pm
I would just love to see some merry prankster at one of Romney's campaign events get him to sing "This Land Is Your Land" along with him. How much do you wanna bet that Romney would join in without considering that song's origins or meaning for one second?
- wildboy
February 1, 2012 at 1:02pm
I believe the turnout was way down in FL
- stanmvp48
February 1, 2012 at 1:31pm
Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Kilgore are both on to something. Mediterranean cruises, Tiffanys and a possible presidential appointment await any one who can throw a punch when the bell finally rings. Mr. Gingrich's value as a consultant increases as more and more primaries are visible through his rear view mirror.
- Doug12
February 1, 2012 at 1:31pm
wildboy -- it's so odd you should say that. Last night, watching the clip, for one crazy moment just before he began singing, a little voice in my brain murmured "I wonder if it's going to be 'This Land Is Your Land'?"
- ironyroad
February 1, 2012 at 5:28pm
I have a very childish [infantile] sense of humor. All the jibes here are entertaining me, but the fourth comment [by Tristan] is still appealing so vilely to my very worst instincts I can hardly stand it. I am a bit an insomniac and I have taught myself to put myself to sleep through various [very simple-minded] guided meditation tactics, but tonight I will fall asleep concentrating on the beautiful images of Callista and Coulter (see relevant post/discussion regarding that babe). Perhaps when I wake up screaming at 3 am, the other subscribers in WA, at least, will be able to hear me like a demented fog horn.
- skahn
February 3, 2012 at 12:00am