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 Did Tim Pawlenty Blow It?

TIMOTHY NOAH NOVEMBER 1, 2011

Did Tim Pawlenty Blow It?

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

[Guest post by Isaac Chotiner]

November has begun. The first voting in Iowa starts in almost exactly two months. Mitt Romney is the front-runner, but he can't crack 25% in the polls. (It's hard to remember a front-runner with any comparable ceiling). Rick Perry has a lot of money, but is suffering from laughably bad debate performances and poor strategic campaign decisions. Herman Cain leads some polls, but even before the sexual harassment allegations that arrived last night, no one seriously thought he had a sliver a chance to win the nomination. Newt Gingrich is a punch line, even if he does not realize it. Jon Huntsman can't get any traction. Ron Paul is Ron Paul. Michele Bachmann's support has collapsed. And Rick Santorum is arguably the most unlikeable person to run for president in the last three decades. Which all begs the question: what if Tim Pawlenty had stayed in the race?

The conventional wisdom several months ago was that a credible challenger with some establishment backing would rise to take on Romney. Pawlenty auditioned for this role, and floundered. He had a weak debate where he didn't attack Romneycare head-on, and his campaigning was leaden. After struggling through a few tough fundraising months, he quit the race, endorsed Romney, and is likely to be, say, a HUD Secretary in a Romney administration.

It seems possible, however, that Pawlenty badly miscalculated. If we have learned one thing from this election, it is that every candidate will get his or her time in the sun. Bachmann did. Cain did. Even Gingrich is likely to, as Ed Kilgore explains here. Surely this would have been true of Pawlenty, who is a much more credible alternative to Romney. What's more, when Pawlenty quit it was not even clear that Perry would be a strong candidate (he has not been). Paul Ryan and Chris Christie were always longshots to enter the race. The scenario we are seeing now was very plausible.

The best objection to this argument has to do with money. Pawlenty could not raise much, and thus would have had trouble competing with Romney and Perry. But he still would have had a shot in Iowa, and a win there would have boosted his fundraising numbers. It's true that Mike Huckabee always had trouble raising cash, even after his Iowa win, but this is a much different election than the last one. In that race, McCain, Romney, and Giuliani all looked like potential nominees. Here, only Romney does. Were he still running, Tim Pawlenty would have a better chance than everyone else (minus Romney and perhaps Perry) of winning. That should have at least been enough to merit staying in.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 16 comments

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

16 comments

Forget Pawlenty, he was doomed from the minute he entered the race and saved himself a lot of headaches and money by dropping out. The only smart candidate left in the race is Huntsman, because he is doing the leg work required to position himself for a credible 2016 run. The rest of the candidates are just doing their part to keep some political operatives employed.

- Attrill

November 1, 2011 at 12:13am

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

I agree with you, At. T-Paw was a weak candidate and he did himself a favor by taking himself out of the race early.

- liberalref

November 1, 2011 at 2:06am

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

Can this be attributed to the dominance of the Tea Party? Does anyone remember if the Republican party suffered from unpopular candidates when the Religious Right dominated the party?

- Nusholtz

November 1, 2011 at 8:30am

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

The Tea-Party contains the Religious Right, or have you not been paying attention? Anti-abortion rights, anti-separation of church and state, pro-voucher and private education. Shoot, the Tea-Party Republicans in the House want to vote to confirm "In God We Trust" as the "motto" of the US. And yes, the Republican party has had lots of "unpopular" candidates. What's new is this "More Conservative Than Thou" theme that would reject Reagan as too moderate. It's impossible to satisfy. So marginal candidates rise up trying to satisfy it, until they say something too "moderate" (or too idiotic) and fall back for the next one.

- AllanL5

November 1, 2011 at 10:17am

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

Cain's and Perry's problems aren't likability. Similarly, Bachmann. And the candidate everyone agrees is the least likable (Santorum) is the one who is also the vestigial religious right candidate. The problem isn't social; it's mental. Other than the Romneybot and the giant head, the other candidates are either pathologically stupid (Perry), clinically insane (Cain), or both (Bachmann).

- miceelf

November 1, 2011 at 10:19am

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

AllanL5 I didn't mean to imply that the Religious Right and the Tea Party were mutually exclusive. I meant to address whether general Republican poll unpopularity is derived from a sub-party dominating the candidates selection through narrow based criteria that might not be shared by the entire party.

- Nusholtz

November 1, 2011 at 10:55am

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

It was obvious what you meant, nush, to me, anyway.

- liberalref

November 1, 2011 at 10:59am

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

This is like arguing that Bob Graham should have kept running for longer in 2004, or that Bill Richardson should have kept running in 2008. It might seem to make sense -- until you actually see a video of them talking. This article seems to be written by someone who didn't see any of the Pawlenty debates.

- jaltcoh.blogspot.com

November 1, 2011 at 11:02am

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

I don't know...I always felt Pawlenty gave up too easily. Look at Huntsman - he's still hanging in there. He may yet have his day.

- Claris

November 1, 2011 at 11:48am

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

Nope. this just isn't the year for a sane, thoughtful, honest person to be seeking the GOP nomination. Where would Pawlenty be if he had stayed in? He'd be in the same boat as John Huntsman.

- gwcross

November 1, 2011 at 12:20pm

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

Yes, Jon Huntsman may yet have his day. Like in 2020, maybe.

- liberalref

November 1, 2011 at 12:38pm

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

I don't know if this was the point Allan was trying to make, but he did for me, anyway. The Tea Party is the perfect conglomerate of all the sub-cults of the conservative movement. That may explain why it's such a small part of the Republican base. Doesn't stop it from being the most vocal part of it.

- NR409654

November 1, 2011 at 3:20pm

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

wow - the first ever post about the GOP field where NO ONE has posted a comment complaining that Ron Paul was not mentioned :) Seriously, I think T-Paw preserved his dignity - and I write that without having watched the debates before he lost the Iowa Straw Poll in August. Pundits (and Democrats) should try to understand that the GOP field is very fluid, especially once George Will slams Romney. Today, the National Association of Manufacturers and Iowa Public Television had a very interesting forum where each of the five who respect Iowa had a fifteen minute Q&A with Governor Branstad, the business reporter for IPTV, and a few questions from the audience. Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, and Gingrich in that order. It was a serious forum, with good questions ( all about jobs, manufacturing, and energy - even Santorum could not find a way to change the subject to family): http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/story.cfm/8842/video/pfm_20111101_republican_presidential_forum I wish Obama had been included - the questions were that good. The same five will also be speaking for ten minutes each at the Iowa GOP Ronald Reagan Dinner at 7:00 pm on Friday, live broadcast on C-Span 2. NOT the same sequence - seems Gov. Perry got the last spot, just before the closing video homage to Reagan. I believe Romney and Cain will regret they are avoiding Iowa this week, and will both be speaking at a Koch Brothers "think tank" event in Washington, DC on Friday. The revenge of Iowans awaits!

- K2K

November 1, 2011 at 8:00pm

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

I sort of think T-Paw gave up a bit to early. It ain't over til it's over. And he had two great things going for him: 1. Sane; 2. Not Romney. I am seriously thinking of running for the GOP nomination myself. I expect I would immediately come within a point or two of Romney in the polls before anyone finds out I am a liberal Democrat. Then it's downhill all the way. But still, it would be cool to be a front runner for a couple of days.

- Vekert

November 1, 2011 at 10:03pm

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

The problem with the Huntsman 2016 calculus is that it only works if Mitt Romney never gets the nomination. If Romney is the 2012 nominee and wins, he's going for re-election in 2016. If Romney is the 2012 nominee and loses, is there any hope in the Telestial Kingdom that the GOP nominates another moderate Mormon governor, when it turned out so well the first time?

- jcovell

November 1, 2011 at 10:18pm

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

Perhaps T-Paw's bigger mistake was early endorsement of Romney. Huntsman just re-established legal residency in Utah, after having bought a Georgetown, DC home in the spring. Hopefully, he will work on his flat jokes and something more useful until 2020, when Huntsman will be 60 years old. Once upon a time, pundits thought Huntsman was running for SecState in 2012. I think he might still have a chance to be UN ambassador in any 2012 administration - at least he can get confirmed by the Senate. too late vekert: there are already thirty GOP candidates on the NH ballot, and 14 others :) Deadline for filing was Oct. 28.

- K2K

November 2, 2011 at 9:29am

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close