THE STUMP JANUARY 21, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The story of 2011 was that Republicans had a frontrunner they weren’t in love with. Mitt Romney spent the entire year below 25 percent in national polls; a new Mitt alternative surged ahead of him every few weeks, only to collapse when it turned out he or she couldn’t pass an eighth grade civics class. The pundits concluded from this that Romney’s grip on the nomination was tenuous and that, even after his (apparent) Iowa win, the race was a lot less stable than it looked. If three-quarters of the party had reservations about Romney, the thinking went, it shouldn’t be that hard for someone to consolidate the anti-Romney bloc and bump him off.
That was the conventional wisdom up until New Hampshire, in any case, at which point a revisionist theory took hold. According to the theory, put forth by some of the smartest analysts around, Romney was much stronger than he appeared to be. Twenty-five percent in national polls was actually a respectable showing in a seven-candidate field, the argument went. Moreover, many of the Republicans who favored someone else told pollsters they wouldn’t object if he were the nominee, and so it was a mistake to equate support for a rival candidate as opposition to Romney. In fact, when you looked at one-on-one matchups between Romney and the other contenders in mid-January, voters typically supported Romney by a two-to-one margin. As John Sides, one of the proponents of the theory, argued, “This suggests that as the field narrows, Romney’s support will grow, in contrast to the notion that the ‘anti-Romney’ vote could coalesce around another, apparently more conservative candidate if there weren’t so many conservatives in the race."
0
false
18 pt
18 pt
0
0
false
false
false
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
There’s still something to be said for this theory—surely most Republican voters will accept Romney as their nominee if/when it comes to that. But, after South Carolina, it’s clear that Sides’ theory overstated Romney’s strength, and that the original take on Romney was largely correct. There’s simply no other explanation for how a candidate as deeply flawed as Newt Gingrich, and as widely-regarded as unelectable, could wipe the floar with the erstwhile frontrunner in such a critical contest. Republican voters may not have spent 2011 implacably opposed to Romney, but they harbored a deep ambivalence toward him, and the ambivalence never subsided. If proponents of the anybody-but-Romney theory mistakenly conflated support for another candidate with opposition to Romney, then Sides and proponents of the Romney-is-pretty-strong theory conflated the willingness of GOP voters to settle for Romney (which existed) with actual settling (which was still a long way off).
I’d argue that what we saw in South Carolina was just an extension of the dynamic we’ve observed for several months now: Voters seem resigned to Romney in the abstract, but every time his nomination becomes “inevitable,” they grope for an alternative and deny him a clean grip on it. It happened during the clown-show that was 2011. It happened in Iowa, and it happened again tonight. And, unfortunately for Romney, I suspect it’ll happen at least a few more times. Romney will almost certainly recover from this lost, as voters and the media refocus on Gingrich’s flaws (with the help of Romney’s millions). The ex-governor will then run off a string of victories that make the nomination look inevitable. But then, just before he can clinch it, Newt will enjoy yet another resurgence as voters work through their commitment issues.
In many ways the dynamic in the 2012 GOP primaries is the mirror image of the Democratic primaries in 2008: Every time it looked like Hillary Clinton was about to lose, voters rallied around her—in New Hampshire, then Texas and Ohio—even though her loss in the broader nomination fight looked increasingly inevitable. This time it’s a similar dynamic operating in the opposite direction, with voters defecting from Romney when it looks like he’s about to win, even though they consider him the likely nominee. As 2008 showed, the inevitable-looking scenario is probably the one that wins out in the end. But it could take weeks if not months for that to happen.
Update: A couple have commenters have complained that they see no analogy between Hillary and Newt. As it happens, I'm not drawing one. The analogy is entirely between Hillary and Romney. In 2008, Hillary's loss looked increasingly inevitable. But voters didn't seem to want it to happen on any given day. Any time she was about to get knocked out, they tried to prevent it from happening, until she basically lost on a judges' decision. This time, Romney's win has looked inevitable for months. But any time it's been on the verge of happening (with a bona fide win in Iowa, a win in SC), voters have gotten second thoughts and tried to prevent this, too, from happening. I think Romney may have to win on a judges' decision.
But none of this has anything to do with Newt (or, for that matter, Obama). I'm not saying the race matches up with 2008 in every particular--or even many particulars. Just in terms of the mindset voters have toward the inevitable-seeming outcome.
follow me on @noamscheiber
15 comments
Now, if Romney had thumped Newt by 14 points (where it stands as I type), then the Big Mo style of reporting would have something behind it. I also think that the Republicans will eventually come around, reluctantly, to Romney, but maybe they really are crazy enough to go for Gingrich....
- JEFF FREY
January 22, 2012 at 12:21am
I had thought all along he was John Kerry. And he may still turn out to be. But Gingrich being bizzaro world Obama has a certain gestalt appeal.
- miceelf
January 22, 2012 at 1:01am
The difference between Gingrich in 2012 and Clinton in 2008 is that Clinton was a plausible candidate in the general election. [Indeed, I'm fairly certain she would have defeated John McCain, though perhaps not by such a great margin as Obama did.] When Democrats voted several times to deny Obama his inevitable nomination, they were supporting a reasonable alternative to the nominee. When Republicans vote for Gingrich they are marching their entire party off a cliff. That's fine with me, but I just think we should recognize it for what it is.
- DC Spence
January 22, 2012 at 9:38am
The NYT exit poll (Edison Research) reflects that Gingrich won most every voting group except youth and females. Doesn't that contradict Scheiber's point? A couple of items in the exit poll caught my eye. First, Romney was considered to have run the most unfair campaign, and not by a little but a lot. Second, Gingrich won the evangelical vote, not by a little but a lot, but under candidate qualities considered to matter the most, those who considered strong moral character to matter the most, only 6% went with Gingrich. Square that circle?
- rayward
January 22, 2012 at 12:30pm
I don't see the comparison between Hillary and Newt on any level as valid.
- arnon
January 22, 2012 at 12:31pm
Rayward. Evangelicals don't care about character. There. Done.
- miceelf
January 22, 2012 at 1:32pm
I don't buy this theory that voters, in the aggregate, decide to slow a candidates momentum down or "rally" to another one because individuals have no way of knowing how everyone else will vote (I am not discounting herd voting, where friends influence how you vote). I think Hillary would have won Ohio in either case, whether she would have been leading Obama in the race or being behind, because Ohio was her type of state. And Hillary's theatrics had a lot to do with her win with her winning the women's vote. I just don't see people saying, I prefer Obama but I will vote for Hillary because I don't want Obama to win just yet and I am relying on many other Obama voters to feel the same way, but not too many that Hillary fatally damages Obama. Romney had 2 terrible debates in a row, he is a real plastic man. Santorum himself had a fairly respectable 3 and if you took away 10% away from Gingrich I am pretty damn sure 9% would have gone to Santorum, with maybe 1% to Paul and Romney might have come close to being in third. Anyway, this is South Carolina, I really don't give a rats ass about the tendencies of one of the reddest states in the Union.
- blackton
January 22, 2012 at 3:26pm
I worry about the Red States because of the Electoral College and their outsize power; ditto the ability of a minority party, a minority of a minority even, to throw a monkey wrench into Congress and effectively cripple the nation, as we've seen recently. Also, the hatred of Obama in much of the electorate is visceral and apparently racist. Newt's been playing that like a violin. That's a rotten thing to watch in this day and age. One could say the same about the harping on "elites." What does this mean exactly? That the Communist Jewish Post-Colonial Kenyan Muslim Liberal Community Organizing Unionized Elites are taking money from Hard Working Persecuted Christian White People With Family Values, ie, Real Americans; and giving it to black folks who have no work ethic, whose kids should work as janitors and destroy the unions? Or what? Romney does have obvious shortcomings, he's just flat depressing and his outlook on how America really lives - the 99% at least - is stunning in its disconnect. But this other - it's frightening. I had so wanted to believe this was behind us forever, that we could have honest discussions about race and also about class; but apparently, the demagogues are winning the day.
- Sophia
January 22, 2012 at 4:34pm
I wish Sophia was exaggerating, but I'm afraid she's understating. The crazy thing is that they're just as afraid of us as we are of them. Most of them are better off today than they would be if the Repubs had managed to stymie Obama's entire agenda (instead of a big chunk of it), yet they think they're worse off, and that their welfare and the future of the country is in jeopardy if Obama is re-elected. Sheesh.
- GeoffG
January 22, 2012 at 5:15pm
It's also repellent the way they consider the country "their" America and anyone on the other side who wins an election has stolen it. And before anyone leaps onto the keyboard to instruct me how liberals said the same thing in respect of GW Bush, let me say quite clearly "BS!" because that was political metaphor (made somewhat sharper by the memory of the Supreme Court's intervention), not a delegitimizing of one's opponents.
- ironyroad
January 22, 2012 at 5:32pm
ironyroad "It's also repellent the way they consider the country "their" America and anyone on the other side who wins an election has stolen it." There is an answer to that. Let's consider our country our country and if they don't like it let move to Montana. I can live without Montana.
- arnon
January 22, 2012 at 5:58pm
I don't live there, but I could not live without Montana - not after having actually been there. Some old cowboy once said, "Montana is what little boys imagine when they hear Texans talk about Texas". Ok, I'll grant the taxidermy gets a little extreme there, but it is a beautiful country. Even if most of the people suck. (OK, the last sentence is a JOKE folks!)
- Haole45
January 22, 2012 at 9:25pm
Yes, Montana is truly lovely. So, what can we part with? Hmmmmm:) JUST KIDDING. Mostly:)
- Sophia
January 23, 2012 at 1:58am
Texas, then Delaware. Texas would be easier, as I imagine Mexico would take it back just on principle. Delaware we'd have to push into the sea.
- janus
January 23, 2012 at 9:27am
Blackton: "I don't buy this theory that voters, in the aggregate, decide to slow a candidates momentum down or "rally" to another one because individuals have no way of knowing how everyone else will vote (I am not discounting herd voting, where friends influence how you vote). I think Hillary would have won Ohio in either case, whether she would have been leading Obama in the race or being behind, because Ohio was her type of state. And Hillary's theatrics had a lot to do with her win with her winning the women's vote. I just don't see people saying, I prefer Obama but I will vote for Hillary because I don't want Obama to win just yet and I am relying on many other Obama voters to feel the same way, but not too many that Hillary fatally damages Obama." "Romney had 2 terrible debates in a row, he is a real plastic man. Santorum himself had a fairly respectable 3 and if you took away 10% away from Gingrich I am pretty damn sure 9% would have gone to Santorum, with maybe 1% to Paul and Romney might have come close to being in third." Very good points, very well put. More generally in response to Noam's piece, I think it underestimates Newt's success to attribute most of it to Romney's deficiencies. Gingrich is giving a large swath of the Republican electorate the red meat they hunger for. He articulately presents a passion, however phony and hypocritical, that none of the other candidates match. (The partial exception is Ron Paul, but his presentation isn't as coherent and his positions are more idiosyncratic.) In comparison, Romney and Santorum come across as too moderate in style (though no more moderate in their policy positions, with Santorum being more radically right-wing than Gingrich in many respects) for fed-up, frustrated Republicans. As many commentators have noted, Newt may lack the organization, funds and above all discipline to march all the way to the nomination. But his strength is not simply a product of Romney's weakness.
- Thunderroad
January 23, 2012 at 11:54am