SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Can We Just Cancel The GOP Primaries?

THE STUMP NOVEMBER 10, 2011

Can We Just Cancel The GOP Primaries?

I've been wrestling all day with what wisdom to draw from last night's Republican debate, other than the dazzlingly brilliant insight, shared by a few other outlets, that the debate was not good for Rick Perry. I've finally given up, and am instead going to ask a question: why, exactly, are there are going to be Republican primaries?

Seriously, folks. Normally at this time in the cycle we have some sort of a competition underway. Candidates are building a campaign infrastructure in the early states, wooing local officials, holding town hall meetings in Derry and Dubuque. Reporters assess the candidates' message on the stump, their fundraising operations, the strength of their local support network. Most important, there are at least a few candidates who are...plausible.

What do we have now? We have Mitt Romney, who has prepared for this for years. We thought we had Rick Perry (The governor of the second biggest state in the country! The client of Dave Carney! A prodigious fundraiser!), but apparently we don't anymore, because the punditocracy has decreed, in a judgment as harsh as that of any middle school clique, that a single brain freeze is now fatal (boy, is Dubya glad he ran when he did.) We have Herman Cain, but he now has as many women making sexual harassment allegations against him as he has paid staff in Iowa, and he might have even more if they refuse to be cowed by Cain's lawyer's threat that other potential accusers better "think twice" before coming forward. We now apparently also have Newt Gingrich, whom I would gladly take seriously (a former Speaker of the House!), as it would give readers reason to reacquiant themselves with this sorry episode. Except it's hard to take Gingrich seriously given that when I asked a leading conservative activist in New Hampshire two weeks ago for the names of some Gingrich supporters in the state, she told me that she could not think of a single one. (My colleague Esther Breger, to her credit, managed to dig up a couple Newtites -- Newtonians? -- in South Carolina.)

So why are we going to go through this whole business? The pre-caucus crush in Iowa over Christmas. The lethally icy roads of New Hampshire in early January. The forced attempt to conjure up the usual narrative and suspense: will there be an Iowa bump? Who will make it to Super Tuesday? Will the new GOP system of splitting delegates proportionally, rather than winner-take-all, mean an elongated fight, or even a brokered convention? Non, je refuse. Or as Cain would say: nein, nein, nein. Until someone can make a convincing argument for any candidate other Willard Mitt Romney having a prayer of becoming the nominee, or unless there is any sign that someone else is in fact going to enter the race to challenge a man who still cannot get over 25 percent of his party's support but is nonetheless poised to sweep the primaries in a march to victory so dispiriting and predictable that it will make Kerry '04 and Dole '96 look scintillating by comparison, I say we put this baby on hold and reconvene in June, with Romney, Obama and whoever these guys manage to nominate. Granted, this is not in the self-interest of a political reporter to suggest, but goodness knows there's plenty else in the world for us to think and write about these days. So: Congrats, Mitt. We know you didn't even really want to run for president, so all the better for you not to have to go through the motions for the next six months.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 7 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

7 comments

After over 200 years, this is where we are -- wondering if it is even worth it to have debates, like we prefer arranged marriages. Even if dating has its problems, there's something to be said for getting to know someone well before tying the knot, which is why 50% of first marriages 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Politics is the same. When is the last time everyone even liked the president and for how long?

- Nusholtz

November 10, 2011 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've got another suggestion: get rid of plurality voting and then get rid of all the primaries. Just allow Romney, Huntsman, Perry, Bachman, Cain and the rest to run against Obama and probably several Democratic challengers as well. Under either range or pairwise-ranked voting, this type of arrangement would not put either party at a disadvantage against the other. Also, without the need to secure the blessing of the party faithful to run in the general election, Romney and Huntsman would not need to pander to the Tea Party.

- sighthnd

November 10, 2011 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alec, your premise is wrong. You assume that the purpose of primaries is to select delegates and nominate someone for president. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of primaries is the same as the purpose of the debates: to provide a platform for gaffes and meals for the journalists who publicize them. Do you really want to miss the excitement of waiting for Mitt's next howler? I would far rather have you delightfully summarize Mitt's contortions on, say, ethanol subsidies in Iowa or the Confederate flag in South Carolina or Social Security in Florida than leave all that to some stringer for Fox News.

- timteeter

November 10, 2011 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alec, thank you for referring to the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and current--among other things, director at Marriott International--by his full name "Willard Mitt Romney." I've actually heard about Berkeley PhD candidates that have taken to calling our reluctant savior "slick Willard." Let's raise a glass, then, to "slick Willard"--the candidate who knows the most about the real economy. He'll win for sure: just ask Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.

- mcmahon.an

November 10, 2011 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nicely done, Alec.

- NR409654

November 10, 2011 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

kind of missing those smoke-filled rooms when television was so very young - that was how we got Truman and Eisenhower. and somehow money poisoned the entire process. have decided that humans truly are the earth's most destructive invasive species. OMG thirteen more GOP debates between now and April? is our water spiked with LSD?

- K2K

November 10, 2011 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arranged marriages seem strange to our Western sensibilities, but I have known quite a few people from India and other countries where such marriages are quite common, and they (including people who are in arranged marriages) tell me that when properly done, arranged mariagges work out pretty well (that is no worse than our marriages by romantic mishap, which are successful about 25% of the time). So as has been pointed out, representative democracy is a terrible system, except for all the others.

- skahn

November 11, 2011 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close