Showing posts with label Republican Field. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Field. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

And Then There Were 23


Pardon the brief hiatus dear readers. 

You see, my compadre Slats was mistaken for being a man of confidence by a handful of local officials in a small fishing village in Guatemala, about 10 kilometers outside of Champerico.  So that took a bit of time to sort out.  Two tips: taking the 14 out of Escuintla is not a “short cut” and there is no Yelp for locating top-notch English-to-Spanish-to K’iche’ translators.  Lessons learned. Crisis resolved.  Situation = Askew.  Back to “Normal.”

Oh such flights.

As the calendar pages hurtle (of their own accord??) off the wall, we find ourselves slightly less than six months away from the Ames Straw Poll.  With the Iowa Republican Party deciding (unsurprisingly) to retain the event for the current presidential cycle, this means it is quite likely that at least one GOP presidential candidate, someone who hasn't even officially announced yet, will see their electoral ambitions dashed on a hot August night, somewhere in the general vicinity of Pearson Hall, on the Iowa State University campus.  Home of the Tusslin’ Cyclones.      

The thrilling element here, and there is one, is that I count 23 potential serious or semi-serious Republican candidates who might jump into the fray.  I anticipate that that number will dwindle down to 14 by August 2015, but the prospect of such a crowded field should tantalize any self-respecting political junkie. 

Consider this:  from 1980 to 2012, in the election cycles when there was a legitimate contest for the GOP nomination, the fields included 10 to 13 candidates.  Now, I am including some, let us call them lesser lights, in those tallies.  For example, Fred Karger in ’12, Alan Keyes in ’08, Herman Cain in ’00 (yes 2000, but he didn’t get past the exploratory stage),  Morry “The Grizz” Taylor in ’96, as well as Ambassador Ben Fernandez and future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld…a couple of times. Not to disparage any of these individuals, but they either exited the process very early (as in the year before the Election) or they performed miserably once the caucuses and primaries got underway.  As was expected of them.

In this cycle, there are fewer apparent “longest of long-shots” in the race.  Are there favorites and relative heavies? Absolutely.  Moderate long-shots?  Sure. But complete non-starters?  Not so much.  Even some of the non-traditional candidates are interesting from an electoral perspective.   Consider Dr. Ben Carson.  Some are quick to dismiss him out of hand.  Will he emerge as this cycle’s Santorum 2012?  Doubtful, but he has a personal narrative and a bit of a nascent constituency.   I think he ends up somewhere between Bauer 2000 and Gingrich 2012.  The presence of other, better-known, social conservatives in the field will block his path to the nomination, but I predict he will run a credible campaign.

With six (yes six), occasionally over-lapping, significant voting blocs in today’s Republican Party, potential candidates are envisioning multiple paths to victory, based on the coalitions they believe they could forge…with the right financial resources, talent, communications, calendar, fortune, intervention by Providence, etc….I will elaborate on this in future posts but the six are, in no particular order:  Social Conservatives, Libertarians, Establishment Center/Right, Tea Party-Aligned, Working Class Cultural Conservatives, and the small number of remaining GOP Moderates & “Liberals.”      

Examining each of those blocs, with the recent decision of Senator Bob Corker to take a mighty pass this time around, are 23 likely candidates. 

I believe that at least seven and possibly all nine of the following group will announce that they are running for President this year:

Paul, Carson, Cruz, Perry, Santorum, Bush, Huckabee, Walker, and Christie. 

With the exception of Carson, all are Governors or Senators or former Governors and Senators.  All have appeal within multiple GOP constituencies (some more pronounced than others).  This is the single strongest Republican field since ’80.  Frankly, it is probably deeper based on this tier alone.

Beyond that first grouping, I anticipate that at least half of the following will enter the race:

Jindal, Fiorina, Graham, and Rubio.  

No slouches here.  I think Graham’s entry, if it transpires, could diminish the perceived value that South Carolina primary generally enjoys. It could be akin to Harkin ’92 when other Democratic candidates avoiding competing on the Senator’s home turf, which inflated the importance of the New Hampshire primary, which helped Clinton and his “Comeback Kid” narrative and the rest is history.  Fiorina, despite her 42% performance against Senator Boxer in 2010, should not be underestimated.  With her business credentials and (potentially) being the only woman on many Republican presidential primary ballots, she could catch fire and go deeper into the calendar than most of the other contenders.

Many within the third group will ultimately decide to forego being a presidential candidate in 2016, but I project at least a couple will mount challenges:

Bolton, Pence, Gilmore, Ehrlich, Pete King, Pataki, Kasich, Snyder, Palin, and Trump.

OK, Trump is a non-starter, but his celebrity (read: notoriety, apparent lack of filter, and not inconsiderable wealth) will generate some buzz…if he gets in (I don’t believe he will).  Governor Mike Pence is serious, as is John Kasich, but they will have to ramp up their efforts, soon, if they want to compete in the Not-so Invisible Primary.  Especially with fellow Midwestern Governor Scott Walker garnering attention and making interesting staff hires. 

Sarah Palin.  She has indicated interest.  Ignore that.  If she runs, it will be an attempt to prop up the Brand.  Based on her public statements, I generously estimate a 9% chance that she gives it a shot in 2016.  In reality, it is most likely under five percent.

Beyond these 23, are there others?  Why yes, I am glad you asked.

My long list has 67 Republicans.  Don’t worry, I won’t run through them all, I will just mention one more worth noting:

Mitt Romney.  Yes, I know he just bowed out.  I peruse Le Monde like you do.  But let’s assume, for a moment, that it is late August 2015.  The Bush campaign is hobbling along. His controversial positions on Common Core and immigration, in conjunction with some gaffes, lower-than-expected fundraising totals, declining poll numbers, and various miscues make him look vulnerable.   Christie acts like Christie and is on the brink of imploding after yelling at some Iowa farmers. Pence and Kasich decided to stay home, so Walker is left standing as the top choice of the Establishment Right…barely.  Would Mitt see himself as the only one standing in the way of a Cruz or Santorum or Huckabee nomination?  He is probably the only one who could jump-start a campaign around Labor Day and pull a serious organization together.  In short, keep glancing over at Romney.  It might not be over for him. And if he is a candidate by September 15, 2015, you read it here first!

A long post?  Absolutely.  Yet the primary season itself is long and full of wonder.  Savor it.  I mean it, commence with the savoring already!

Now if I can only find that luggage.  Waiting for a call from La Aurora International Airport…

Stay tuned, as more will follow.  Count on it.



Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Episode 90: The GOP Awakens (2016)


Well I promised a brief look at the potential contours of, and possible candidates within, the 2016 GOP field, so here it goes:

First, my long-list contains 64 names.  Beyond the Heavyweights and several Contenders, it includes some complete non-starters, a few has-beens, and a couple of never-was types.  The most shocking element here is that the road to the Republican presidential nomination is so open that many of the lesser names could gaze into a mirror and say, without an excessive amount of self-delusion, “You know, I could pull 15,000 votes in Iowa and win a ticket to New Hampshire.”  And the mirror wouldn’t even laugh back.

Charlie Cook, the celebrated political analyst and prognosticator of the highest order (who, by the way, nailed the closeness of the MD gubernatorial race while some folks Who Shall Remain Nameless were saying that LG Anthony Brown had a 93% chance of victory), was recently quoted in The Kansas City Star as expecting the eventual GOP nominee to be a “tea party Senator or Governor from the Midwest.”

Actually that call isn’t as bold as it might seem.  If you winnow the list of names down to the 20 candidates most likely to run, and further assume that only around 12 of those will go as far as establishing an exploratory committee, there are multiple tea party-aligned Senators and heartland Governors in the mix [in boldface below].  Let’s assume the following field going into August of next year:

Senator Rand Paul (KY)
Senator Ted Cruz (TX)
Governor Bobby Jindal (LA)
Dr. Ben Carson (MD)
Governor Rick Perry (TX)
Former US Senator Rick Santorum (PA) or former Governor Mike Huckabee (AR)
Business Executive Carly Fiorina (CA)
Governor Chris Christie (NJ)
Former Governor Jeb Bush (FL) or (unlikely) former Governor Mitt Romney (MA)
Governor Scott Walker (WI)
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton (MD)
Possibly either Governor Mike Pence (IN) or Governor John Kasich (OH)
And a couple of others, such as a Congressman Peter King (NY) or Senator Bob Corker (TN)

Carson falls somewhere between Morry “The Grizz” Taylor and former Senator Fred Thompson on the Serious Candidate Spectrum.  Is he really running for a statewide office in Maryland?  For an appointment as Surgeon General? Stay tuned, as…

Wait. I am not done.  Bolton is one-note on defense and is no more than a Cabinet possibility at best.  If you assume the “others” will end up being “also-rans” then at least a third and possibly close to half of the Serious Candidates [in terms of likelihood of obtaining the nomination, not necessarily ability to govern] will be tea party Senators or Rust Belt Govs.

Oh did I forget Senator Marco Rubio (FL)?  No.   I think he will choose to take a pass and look for another opportunity down the road. I think he understands that the electorate likes to “fix” the perceived shortcomings of the current Administration.   Carter too soft, too bogged down in details?  Let’s get a tough talking, CEO-type in Reagan.  George HW Bush too out-of-touch with the problems of working families?  Let’s elect the populist from Arkansas who eats at McDonald’s. George W. Bush doesn’t have the intellectual heft? Let’s vote for the Brainiac Senator from Illinois.  Obama too cerebral/aloof, lacking a long history of building relationships with Congress?  Perhaps it’s time for someone who comes across as warmer, or someone who has been around the Establishment longer, a “Known Entity.”    Hmmm…

Of course this is all incredibly reductionist.  If I had to bet, I would say the Republican field will consist of six Serious possibilities after the Iowa caucuses (slightly more than the historical norm as I believe multiple campaigns will be prepping for a long, drawn-out process).  There will be two social conservatives, two more establishment types, Rand Paul and someone else, perhaps Fiorina.  In the end, I expect it will come down to a slog for delegates with perhaps as many as three Serious candidates competing until the end of the primary season.  The Establishment choice (Bush although I would keep an eye on Pence), Rand Paul and maybe someone who was accruing just enough Delegates along the way to prevent anyone else from obtaining a majority, someone who might use that clout at the Convention to get a spot on the ticket or at least be a king (or queen) maker.  Senator Cruz may be that third person in this scenario.  Oh for the joys of a Brokered Convention.  Let the political scientists dream!

Anyway, I am certain I will talk about the individual attributes and policy stances of all of these people, and others, over the course of the next 14 months or so.  Everyone is in their decision-making mode now.  Go/No Go.  Internal/family deliberations will conclude over the next few weeks.  I expect a couple candidates will announce early, in the first quarter of 2015, while most will state their intentions in April, May and early June of next year.

Just a bit of Hot Stove League speculation as we hurtle toward 1/1/15.   

Looking forward to focusing a bit more on state and local public policy issues in the coming weeks.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.


Thursday, November 20, 2014

A Morning Conversation


“So why isn’t the Administration cutting deals on Keystone? On immigration?”

“Both fine questions Slats, but the President seems to be doubling-down.  Partially out of principle, partially because of optics…he doesn’t want to appear to be getting rolled, and the last element is that he doesn’t have much in the way of negotiating partners, with the GOP leadership in Congress being what it is.”

“Almost makes Newt look statesman-like.”

“Might be an overstretch. Is that coffee in that cup?”

“No. It’s a Drambuie Sunrise. It’s all the rage in Zurich now.”

“Sure.  Anyway, it is shaping up to be a brutal two years for 44. The only good news for the White House is that HRC is going to take a fair amount of heat.”

“The discourse is going to become increasingly polarized as candidates for the Big Chair appeal to their respective bases.  Compromise is going to be difficult on most domestic issues.  No will to deal, not with the aspirants bashing DC as they crisscross Iowa and New Hampshire. ”

“And the traditional pivot to a foreign policy focus isn’t promising either.   ISIS/ISIL, Putin indulging his revanchist inclinations, no hope of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.  What’s left? Maybe going after narco-terrorists in the Western Hemisphere?     
 
“It’s 11:45 pm in America.”

“Perhaps not so dour a prognosis, but Happy Days have not yet arrived.”

“They should have spun off Potsie and Ralph Malph.  A good screwball buddy sitcom could have really helped with ABC’s Tuesday night prime time line up.”

“That isn’t what I meant and that is also a debatable proposition.  But I would have watched “The Tuscaderos!”

“Santorum would love another popular resurgence of ‘50s nostalgia. Of course he would embrace it without any sense of irony and he would forget all of the ‘unpleasant’ parts.

“Of course not, the actual history of the time wouldn’t fit with his image of that decade as some sort of halcyon era of permanent triumphalism.”

Pleasantville all over again, at least the first half of that movie.”

“Might not even need to worry about Santorum running again.  He said he would announce his decision in June of 2015.”

“Late.   Who is going to sit on the sidelines that long…for him?  The money and talent will flow elsewhere.”

“Yep.  It would be a significant infrastructure deficit. However, he still has some support on the ground in Iowa.  But he doesn’t want to limp into the fall debates looking like an also-ran four months before the Caucuses.”

“But if he runs, it will just make the Democratic Party seem considerably more centrist.”

“Santorum.  Cruz. Paul.  All together on one stage?  Hillary should be so lucky.”

“Or Bernie Sanders.”

“You need to spend more time state-side.  That just isn’t going to happen.  Are you catching your news on RT?”

“Heaven forbid! Pravda redux.  Now, what do they have on tap here?”

“It's a Panera. So nothing.”

“Right, let’s go.”

Stay tuned, as more will follow.