JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 8, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
With few declared candidates and no clear frontrunner, the Republican presidential primary appears to be as muddled as ever. But I actually think things are shaking out in a way as to clear the path for Tim Pawlenty.
My view of the primary selection system is that it consists of two basic constituencies, the elites and the base. The elites want to find a candidate who is electable and committed to their policy agenda. The elites are the prime driver of the process; they can communicate, via organs like Fox News and The Weekly Standard, which candidates may be undeserving of serious consideration despite their emotional appeal to base voters. That’s how the elites have disqualified insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan (too right-wing) and John McCain (too left-wing); they are now doing the same to Sarah Palin (too unelectable).
But elites don’t always control the process. Sometimes they can get together and virtually determine the winner in advance (i.e., George W. Bush in 1999-2000), but, often, they can’t pick candidates without the assent of the base, which is capable of winnowing out elite-approved candidates. Think John Connally, Phil Gramm, or others for examples of candidates who made it through the elite primary but were nixed by the voters.
So, if you want to find the next Republican nominee, you need to find a candidate who’s acceptable to both elites and the base. A good summation of the list of elite-approve candidate’s can be found in George Will’s column from last Sunday. Ruthlessly purging every candidate of potential candidate lacking electoral plausibility, Will lists five possibilities. Other candidates—Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, or others—may have some appeal to the base, but Republican elites will probably be able to dissuade voters from considering them on electability grounds. Will’s five: Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts Governor Romney, and Pawlenty.
One way to arrive at Pawlenty is through process of elimination. I’ve argued many times that Mitt Romney is fatally wounded. If he lacked any serious competition at all, he could possibly—maybe—consolidate establishment support and fend off attacks on his health care plan. But, in a contested race, he simply has no answer for attacks on Romneycare. Romney is finished.
Huntsman, too, will be disqualified as an ideological traitor for his service in the Obama administration, a weakness compounded by his lack of name recognition, which will serve only to make his Obama connection a more prominent part of his identity.
Barbour is the kind of person the party elites would love to have as president but would hate to have as presidential candidate. He’s a walking GOP stereotype who has never had to run outside of a wildly Republican state. I have expressed constant astonishment at the possibility that elites would rally behind such a clearly unelectable nominee. The mere fact that Barbour’s candidacy has advanced this far gives me pause, but I continue to believe the party establishment could not possibly be so inept as to nominate him.
Then there’s Daniels. He has the advantage of strong elite connections, through his service in the Bush administration, and a reasonably compelling case to make to the base. But he has severe weaknesses that have gone largely unnoticed. Social conservatives hate his call for a truce on social issues. Economic conservatives hate his humane health care reform. As a short, bald former pharmaceutical executive and Bush administration official, Daniels is not a whole lot more electable than Barbour. Plus, he sounds unlikely to run, anyway.
That leaves Pawlenty. He has demonstrated political talent, having worked his way up the party hierarchy and winning the governorship in blue-ish Minnesota twice. His record contains only one major ideological deviation—support for cap-and-trade, at a time when cap-and-trade seemed to be emerging as a consensus GOP position, which he has thoroughly recanted. Because cap-and-trade is dead with no prospect of revival, I think Pawlenty could survive this apostasy. Ramesh Ponnuru’s cover story in National Review makes a persuasive case for Pawlenty as the strongest combination of conservatism and electability.
In the end, Pawlenty’s calling card is an ability to appeal to white working-class voters. Pawlenty calls himself a “Sam’s Club Republican.” The phrase has also been used by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam in urging the party to adopt a more working-class friendly platform. But the coincidence between the two uses of the phrase ends there. Pawlenty does not dissent in any way from the party’s plutocratic platform—his notion of working class appeal lies purely in the realm of personal style. This, too, places Pawlenty squarely in the George W. Bush mold of nominee, a reasonably (though not wildly) talented pol who uses charisma to demonstrate working-class authenticity while reliably toeing the party line.
I’m not going to proclaim Pawlenty a lock or even an outright favorite. But I do see him as the leading contender, and his intrade value (currently showing a 13.5 percent chance of winning) should probably be two to three times higher. In a wide-open field, Pawlenty is where I’d place my bet.
24 comments
Hmmm ... pretty persuasive.
- NR409654
March 8, 2011 at 1:00am
I think Pawlenty would get the nod too. But how would he do in general election? I mean he is going full blown TP now, saying we need to re-introduce DADT, etc.
- MikeB.
March 8, 2011 at 6:29am
I think that most voters don't know who he is yet and that might be an advantage. Most of the other candidates are getting pretty stale. If Gingrich and Palin were loaves of bread they would be in the day-old bin at half price. It is,though, hard to see Pawlenty beating Obama in 2012.
- paskunac
March 8, 2011 at 6:53am
On the one hand, he's sort of the next in line because he was the guy who should have been McCain's running mate (though McCain would have still lost). He's the Alternate Universe Republican candidate. On the other hand, he's TOO obvious and he's just too plain vanilla. Cap and trade is his only flaw? That does not fit the current Republican base obsession with sin-and-redemption. He NEEDS either a flaw that's more serious and personal, something that he has overcome (like Huckabee's weight) or an enemy he can rail against (Palin vs. the Murkowskis, Christie vs. teachers) to win the hearts and minds of the Republican primary voters.
- timteeter
March 8, 2011 at 7:50am
There is, of course, Pawlenty's unique elephant in the room: the I-35 bridge collapse. As Obama ramps up calls for public infrastructure spending, are Republican strategists really silly enough to put up a guy who ignored his state DOT's concerns about a bridge collapsing, only to have it actually collapse during rush hour, causing thirteen deaths? The ads would write themselves.
- janus
March 8, 2011 at 8:24am
I don't believe I've ever seen the word "charisma" in a sentence along side Pawlenty's name, except in the exclusionary sense.
- IowaBeauty
March 8, 2011 at 9:02am
"without the ascent of the base"? What kind of mountain climbing lesson is this? Proof reader, proof reader!
- yerubal
March 8, 2011 at 9:35am
If Huckabee runs, he wins. If Palin runs, she wins.
- DC Spence
March 8, 2011 at 9:38am
If Huckabee runs, he wins among his immediate family and musical fans. If Palin runs, we all win.
- janus
March 8, 2011 at 9:40am
You are a bright guy, Jon, but I still think that you may be wrong and that Mitt Romney can run the gauntlet. After all, look at the fierce opposition that John McCain ran into from the base and the Republican Party establishment and yet he won the nomination in 2008. The primary electorate will decide the nominee, not Rich Lowry, nor El Rusbo, nor even Reince Priebus. T-Paw is a possibility, too, as you eloquently outline here. Next year will be fun.
- liberalref
March 8, 2011 at 10:24am
That's a good point liberalref, I'm also not sure that the slippery Romney is out of this thing yet. However, one thing Romney can't do that McCain could is to wrap himself in "The Surge" which McCain supported early and which gave him some serious cred until the economy/Palin collapse in the fall.
- Pnaut
March 8, 2011 at 12:04pm
I don't think y'all should write off Barbour too quickly. He seems like just the kind of "Nobama" the Republican Tea Party would want; a good ol' boy, hard working, bit of a bumpkin and rough around the edges, but smart as a snap and down to earth...all the personality of Palin with 100x the political savvy. Of course, even with the Republican Tea Party's propaganda machines he'll require extensive coaching so as to not offend the more moderate portion of the electorate at first, but I'm sure he's trainable. The most dangerous aspect is that he'd give Obama a run for his money with the swing voters, with his ability to sound reasonable; Palin sent a lot of moderates and even hard-core Repulicans running for safety, Barbour probably wouldn't have that problem.
- GSpinks
March 8, 2011 at 12:38pm
I think unlike in previous races the overwhelming majority of party faithful see quickly lining up behind the gop heir apparent as their primary mission, not the larger picture of electibility. You have to hand it to the republicans, after all: despicable, dishonest, and delusional they may be, they tend to close ranks quickly, and not necessarily around the most logically thought out concepts. IMHO, if one of them can take Iowa and NH, that will be that. If Palin runs, I think she can take Iowa (she has yet to ramp up the ground game there as Romney has done) and though NH will be a tough nut to crack, she'll have Kelly Ayotte pitching for her, and that may be enough. If she takes both, the only one with a prayer of challenging her in SC is Barbour and he'll be smart enough to cut a deal. She'll take SC, and it will be all over. If she doesn't run, Romney has a great shot at Iowa, and will crush in NH. I just don't see the gop allowing long, drawn out infighting for the nom. Not this cycle.
- Tristan
March 8, 2011 at 1:34pm
I have some doubts that Barbour can stop looking and sounding as if he just wandered in off the set of The Long Hot Summer. Also, he has a girl's name.
- ironyroad
March 8, 2011 at 1:45pm
"The mere fact that Barbour’s candidacy has advanced this far gives me pause, but I continue to believe the party establishment could not possibly be so inept as to nominate him." But if this guy has strong superficial good ol' boy charm... Remember, how strongly and sadly superficial charm sells, even if the actual substance is horrifying. We almost elected George W. Bush in 2000, and re-elected him in 2004. Until things start really noticeably going wrong, in the present, on their watch, sadly, superficial charm can be a huge reason people choose a President of the most powerful nation in the world (and, of course, this is largely just due to ignorance and misunderstanding of the substance, but don't expect this to change drastically any time soon; the Republican propaganda machine spends massive amounts to make sure it doesn't.)
- RHSerlin
March 8, 2011 at 2:59pm
I think Barbour is a largely made up phenomenon. There is no way he gets close to the nomination. I cannot see Northern and Western republicans touching him with a mile long pole.
- NR409654
March 8, 2011 at 3:15pm
I dunno - in every interview I've seen with T-Paw, he comes across as dumb as a brick - probably at least partially an act to appeal to the one-eyes, but I don't know if he is has the ability to walk the line between the 'good 'ol boy' schtick that W perfected while still seeming somewhat competent (before he was elected) and just coming off as a dumb yahoo like Huckabee.
- bustedboom
March 8, 2011 at 4:59pm
Disagree about Gingrich. While he's clearly unelectable, he has enough friends in the establishment that most Republicans won't try to railroad him. Gingrich is the only Republican who simultaneously appeals to the teaparty and avoids the establishment electability backlash. He's your nominee.
- Virginia Centrist
March 8, 2011 at 5:25pm
You've got to be kidding about the appeal of Boss Hogg, GS. And the Tea Party will not pick the nominee. The Republican Party electorate will decide who gets the nomination, plus independents and crossover Democrats in states where that is permitted.
- liberalref
March 8, 2011 at 7:42pm
libref, We can ridicule Boss Hogg until we're blue in the face, our opinion of the guy doesn't mean didly in regards to him being able to win the Republican primary. If you can't critique him on any other grounds than appearances then you need to rethink your position.
the tea party activists pretty much ARE the republican party electorate: they are the most vocal and energized segment, and amount to about 50% of the entire party. Which pretty much guarantees that in the primary, assuming an even distribution of tea partiers across all states/districts, the candidate who pulls the most tea partiers wins.
So, no, for once there is no jest in my words. I think he has a Tea Party friendly political record, and I haven't heard anything about him that I wouldn't expect the average tea partier to overlook in a heartbeat. And I think he has enough political savvy to keep from coming off like an unhinged lunatic, which means he won't scare away the more moderate and/or less loyal segments of the Republican party, which means he stands a pretty solid chance again Obama in 2012.
I think he will defer this round because he doesn't want to break on to the national scene against a titan like Obama, plus he's a good plutocrat who is waiting his turn to take shots at the nomination. But I think he could win the nomination if he wanted it. And I think if he doesn't run, that he'll be in contention for the VP slot.
- GSpinks
March 8, 2011 at 8:26pm
You apparently didn't even closely read my very brief post, GS. As I have lamented for three years out here, hermeneutical skills are in short supply. I wrote that the Republican electorate will choose the nominee. I don't see how that could be any clearer. And I don't think the dour, dumpy Boss Hogg will hold much appeal for that electorate. If I am wrong, so much better for the Democrats. He is J. Chait's dream candidate - mine, too - for all of the obvious reasons. You seem to be almost panicked by B. Hogg. I say, bring him on, though I don't think he will even get out of the starting gate. And where were the Tea Partiers in 2008? They didn't prevent John McCain form getting the nomination. I know, I know, there was no Tea Party then, but they were in utero. One of the most fraudulent things about this party is how it was missing in action as GW Bush ran up the debt. As I have written on this blog recently, the Tea Party is the Republican Party on steroids. And the Tea Party is a motley crew, consisting of Christianists and libertarians and the occasional Naomi Wolfe, the batty writer and activist who advised Al Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign. As the economy improves, I expect some of the edge to disappear or ebb on the starboard side. Read irony and learn, GS. Newt Gingrich will not be the nominee, VC. I will bet you the Le Medaillon de Filet de Boeuf Roti au Gratin Dauphinois et Choux de Bruxelles dinner at La Grenouille in midtown Manhattan.
- liberalref
March 8, 2011 at 9:39pm
I think Chait is right on this one. Don't underestimate Pawlenty. He has the capability to hold his own and then some. He can be very charming in a family friendly way. He is more than just some pasty old white guy. Dynamic? No. His appeal is more to the likes of a trusted neighborhood elementary/middle/high school principal.
- jacko
March 8, 2011 at 10:50pm
If you could manage to stop admiring yourself in the mirror for a second, and read I wrote, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, if you could explain how "the electorate" for the GOP nomination is any different from the "republican party", I'd appreciate it. Failing that, please go back and eat your words.
- GSpinks
March 9, 2011 at 1:46pm
If Pawlenty wins the nomination, I get first dibs on calling him the "Republican Dukakis" in the general. I also predict that he will get approximately the same number of electoral votes as the Democratic Dukakis did in 1988, give or take a few.
- wildboy
March 9, 2011 at 2:25pm