JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 1, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A striking thing about the press coverage of the Republican presidential nomination contest is that it assumes a field that sits far to the left of the Republican electorate. Conventional wisdom-meister Mark Halperin tabs Mitt Romney, who is both ideologically and religiously unacceptable to large segments of the party base, as the runaway front-runner. His second-most likely contender is Jon Huntsman, who is not only completely unacceptable to the conservative base but is perfectly aware of that fact (and is probably setting himself up for 2016).
I've been talking up the chances of Tim Pawlenty winning the nomination, largely by default, as the only candidate acceptable both to party elites and to grassroots activists. But I believe the prospect of a more conservative candidate winning the nomination is very real, and the field for such a candidate is wide open. Herman Cain has attracted some attention, but I don't take him very seriously. Cain's knowledge of policy, especially foreign policy, is so thin that he can't even bluff his way through basic questions. My unconfirmable suspicion is that some Republicans like the idea of supporting Cain as proof that their opposition to Obama isn't racist, but don't actually want to nominate Cain.
The candidate best positioned to win this constituency is Michelle Bachmann, who I've also been touting as a dark horse. She's been honing her pitch before Tea Party rallies for two years, building a national constituency and a fund-raising base. A Sarah Palin candidacy would probably siphon off too much of her base, but Palin doesn't seem to be preparing to run. And if Palin doesn't run, and an outsider like Paul Ryan doesn't run, then you're looking at a field overloaded with candidates catering to the small pragmatic wing and nearly devoid of candidates catering to the Tea Party base.
I've been trying to figure out why the media has given such relatively short shrift to Bachmann. (Halperin upgraded her from a preposterously low 10,00-1 odds to a still ridiculously low 1,000-1.) The answer, I suspect, is that she's being conflated with Palin. Reports about Bachmann compare her with Palin constantly. And of course Palin has cratered. News reporters probably assume that Bachmann -- who also terrifies GOP elites -- would crater as well.
But while Bachmann may be even crazier than Palin on questions of public policy, she seems to manage to hold things together as a candidate. She can answer questions from the news media. She is putting together a professional campaign rather than relying on amateur advisors. She takes care to point out frequently that she is a former tax lawyer, and she does not engage in Palin's visceral anti-intellectualism, giving herself the aura of a plausible president, at least in the minds of Republican voters. Bachmann may well combine Palin's most powerful traits without her crippling organizational failures.
It's worth keeping in mind that the 2010 election cycle featured a long series of conservative upstarts shocking the mainstream media by knocking off establishment-approved candidates in nominating contests. Obviously, the nominating contest is a series of state-level nominating primaries generally dominated by an activist base. Right now, the right wing of the party nominating field is a vacuum. Somebody is going to fill that vacuum.
11 comments
I think the group filled with the most eager anticipation are the comedians. Who will be the lucky dead on impersonator, the next Tina Fey, to ridicule and then be adored and sought?
- Nusholtz
June 1, 2011 at 2:38am
I keep saying, don't count Bachmann out in Iowa. Not sure how she turns an Iowa win or place into a nation campaign, but I won't be surprised to see her come out of here near the front of the pack. She's crazy as a loon on substance, but she's poised, articulate, widely admired by women in the working class Republican base, and a good fund raiser. She makes Pawlenty look like the completely vanilla, spineless climber that he is.
- IowaBeauty
June 1, 2011 at 7:29am
Agree with all of this, but her extremely high staff turnover points to some kind of problems with her as a manager, if not with her sanity. Fine if she's a high-profile loon from the House, but in a national campaign, crazy stories from former staffers will be coming out of the woodwork until she stands down. I'm sure it's giving Halperin too much credit but I don't doubt his odds have something to do with that.
- misterpibb
June 1, 2011 at 9:02am
Having seen Bridesmaids this weekend, I personally nominate Kristen Wiig to play Bachmann. Can one see Canada from the MN 6th?
- Tristan
June 1, 2011 at 9:06am
misterpibb, I suspect the real problem isn't her managerial skills, or even her sanity, except for the degree to which both of them flow from her personality. Well, sanity, I'll give you. Tristan, agree- Wiig would be great. Hasn't she done it already? (turns out the answer is yes) http://www.hulu.com/watch/211063/saturday-night-live-michele-bachmann-cold-open
- miceelf
June 1, 2011 at 10:15am
To go a little below the belt for a moment, I feel like Palin is more dumb than she is crazy and Bachmann is more crazy than she is dumb. The GOP base has no problem with crazy, and since she's not dumb she'll do a better job of making herself look presidential (not saying she'll do a good job of it, just better than Palin ever could). Ergo I agree with Jon that there is a path to the nomination for Bachmann and her crazy eyes.
- Jonas
June 1, 2011 at 11:39am
Jonas, I largely agree, but I will point out that distinguishing between crazy and stupid at the bleeding edges will be the work of generations of doctoral students who examine our current era.
- miceelf
June 1, 2011 at 11:56am
Michele Bachmann will get nowhere near the nomination. Yes, I am an optimist, sometimes, anyway. I wasn't converted when I recently read The uses of Pessimism by the crusty Tory philosopher, Roger Scruton, who had his clock cleaned by Tyler Cowen in a debate on social media recently. And Jonathan, you keep forgetting that the loopy base is not congruent with Republican primary electorates. We saw that in 2008 when El Rushbo's nemesis, John McCain, won the nomination.
- liberalref
June 1, 2011 at 1:09pm
Well, libref, if you ever want to reconsider your optimism, you might want to check out The Promise of Happiness by Sara Ahmed. It's main thrust is a critique of happiness as an ethics criteria, but it also offers a great deal of thought about the uses and misuses of optimism. As to the loopy base vs. Republican primary electorates, I think you may be right about the primary electorate in general (although, I wonder, just as one can't step into the same stream twice, can one ever deal with the same Republican primary electorate twice?). But it's certainly true that the overlap between loopy base and primary electorates is stronger in Iowa than it is elsewhere. Remember, John McCain came in 4th (!!!) in Iowa. The real surprise from the perspective of assumptions about the base was South Carolina. How much of that was Thompson splitting the nutter vote, no one knows.
- miceelf
June 1, 2011 at 1:34pm
So you keep saying. But why are you so certain that the Republican primary electorate in 2012 will still resemble the electorate in 2008? And didn't McCain's victory depend more on the GOP's winner-take-all primary structure?
- zardoz67
June 1, 2011 at 1:35pm
It's not a question of whether Bachmann can get traction--she probably can, especially in Iowa. It's a question of whether she has the discipline and sanity to avoid major mistakes, and on that score, Chait, you're entirely wrong. She has a very long history of serious gaffes, not to mention the staffing problems others are mentioning. She has even suggested phasing out Social Security. That will not fly with Republicans anywhere. The idea that Bachmann even has a chance of winning Iowa is very, very far-fetched. I'll give her 3rd at most, and a flameout as most likely.
- polcereal
June 1, 2011 at 2:01pm