« Older Entries
February 19, 2012 9:54 pm

The Primary Parallel

By Humza Bokhari

Let’s take this scenario: A highly successful politician from a well-known political family decides to run for president, starting to unofficially prepare for a run years and years in advance. Confident about their chances, they assume the title of presumptive nominee far before the primaries begin.

But they can’t make the sell. Seen as polarizing, out-of-touch, and entitled, their support hits a ceiling. They lose Iowa after pouring in millions to a surging candidate people didn’t take seriously. They win New Hampshire, though, regaining the mantle of inevitability. Nevada bolsters their credentials, but their percent of the vote in South Carolina is embarrassing. And February is somewhat of a disaster, with the potential to hit the breaks on their campaign entirely.

Clinton campaigning for Obama in 2008. "Well, this isn't exactly the party I'd planned, but I sure like the company," she famously said in her concession speech in 2008. Romney probably isn't planning one like it either.

We could be talking about Hillary Clinton, the current Secretary of State and former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, or Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor running for the Republican nomination this year. The Clinton-Romney comparisons have been being made for a while now, especially since Politico took the matter quite seriously back in December, but it’s only now that the comparisons are becoming even more evident and noteworthy. As a Clinton supporter, I followed her campaign really close in ‘o8 – and the parallels between her campaign and Romney’s are striking. Thus, there are a number of takeaways from Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign that Romney should keep in mind:

Take caucuses seriously. Hillary Clinton famously won only one caucus, the one in Nevada. The terribly flawed caucus system (definitely a conversation for another day), which made her leave Texas with a delegate deficit, was completely non-representative of her support in several states. The numbers are surprising: In Idaho, Clinton won 17% of the binding caucus vote, but 36% in the non-binding primary. In Washington, she won only 31% in the caucus but came within striking distance of Obama with 46% in the primary; in Nebraska, the story was similar. In each of these cases, the primaries were just held for fun, but display clearly part of the reason why Obama ended the race way ahead in pledged delegates. And of course, in Texas, where Clinton won the primary, a third of the delegates were given away in a sketchy caucus that Obama won with 56% of the vote. Romney took quite a hit in Minnesota and Colorado recently (Missouri’s was a pretty primary like the ones that did Clinton no good in ’08), un-won Iowa, and may not have won Maine - caucuses, other than Nevada, have not been great for him. Caucuses are a great way to fall real behind in delegates for no good reason, and pouring money into caucus states doesn’t work, as both Clinton and Romney have seen.

Don’t let yourself be the underdog. A supposed frontrunner should really try to avoid spending the majority of the race with their back against the wall. Yes, that’s when Clinton performed best, but ultimately, it wasn’t enough for her to win, and didn’t do much for her media narrative. Her memorable March 4th victory speech included a shout-out to underdogs. “For everyone here in Ohio and across America who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you.” But it’s hard to be an underdog when you are a popular former First Lady or governor with tremendous establishment influence.

Don’t ignore the “first” factor. In today’s unfortunately unequal society, where discrimination on the basis of gender and religion is still very much a problem, Romney and Clinton both have had to tackle with the problem of being the first – Latter-Day Saints or female, respectively – candidate from their respective groups to come close to the presidency. Romney, seeking the nomination of a party with a serious religious litmus test, attempts to downplay his religion, as Clinton, with her short hair (which is now much longer, incidentally) and pantsuits, tried to draw the focus away from her gender. It was only too late that Clinton realized how significant her run actually was, when Sarah Palin, who symbolized a whole different set of gender stereotypes, single-handedly iceberged Clinton’s efforts to make the national stage one where women would feel welcome. Yet Romney’s religion is perhaps not a huge barrier the way Clinton’s gender was, and overcoming it would not be the historic accomplishment Clinton’s win would have been

Don’t discount third-wheel candidates. One of the Clinton campaign’s unfortunate mistakes was not being concerned enough about John Edwards, who though he was indicted last year on six felony charges came second in Iowa and won a fair amount of the South Carolina vote, making Clinton’s losses in those states that much worse. Romney’s failing to take Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich – all of whom have spun around in third-wheel status at some point in this campaign – seriously has hurt him in almost every state there has been a race.

Never trust the establishment. I would argue that for the bulk of the 2008 campaign, after the dust had settled from the first two months of primaries, Obama was the establishment candidate. The same establishment, famously characterized by the ritzy cadre of “superdelegates” that were to hand Clinton the nomination, abandoned her in a heartbeat when it looked like Obama was going to win. Clinton calmly waited until 2008 to run, cheering on John Kerry in 2004; he did not return the favor, and now seems interested in her spot at State. The very Ted Kennedy who had famously defenestrated the Carter campaign in 1980 called for Clinton to quit; his niece Caroline, another Obama supporter, hypocritically leaped at the chance to grab Clinton’s senate seat after the election. Clinton superdelegates jumped ship faster than Francesco Schettino when the Obama train became fashionable. I would argue bitterness and jealousy towards the Clintons, a self-made political success story, led delegates to back Obama, whom they had no reason to hold personal grudges against. Romney has been leaning on the establishment far too much this campaign, rolling out fancy endorsement after endorsement – but that hasn’t been resonating with the voters, who are leaning towards Santorum possibly because he isn’t the establishment’s poster boy. As long as high-profile insiders keep telling GOP voters who they should be supporting, they’ll sound patronizing and won’t make the sell.

As a disclaimer, I would support Clinton if she ran again, and I support President Obama now. But it’s valuable to see how the events of four years ago offer insight into the campaign playing out in front of us today. That’s not to say Romney won’t win – he still might – but even if he does, lessons learned might make another run easier.

 

Cover Photo Credit: The Week

Photo Credit: Bbsrock via Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HillaryPA.jpg


No Comments »

February 15, 2012 3:40 pm

A Different Look at Electability

By Alex Boota

A key question Republicans have been asking this primary season has been, “Which candidate has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama in the general election?” So far, Republicans seem to be settling on Mitt Romney as the most electable in this sense. But what exactly does “electable” mean?

For Republicans, electable seems to mean harmless, moderate, and politically adept; that is, while it may be hard for some Republicans to be passionate about Mitt Romney, it is unlikely that other people would strongly dislike him. Other candidates are more attractive to parts of the Republican Party, but they also tend to turn off independent voters en masse—Newt Gingrich has too much baggage, Rick Santorum is too socially conservative, and Ron Paul has too many extreme ideas that alienate too many voters. Or at least this seems to be the reasoning of Republican voters.

But what does electability mean mathematically? In reality, the general election will be decided by a handful of swing states, and it will be the independent voters in those states that determine the winner. In 11 of the 12  states that were hotly contested or saw a party change in the 2008 general election, the candidate that won the majority of the independent vote won the state. The only state in which this was not the case was North Carolina, where there was a significantly larger Democratic turnout that propelled Obama to victory despite McCain’s edge among independents. Thus, the most “electable” candidate is really the candidate that would win over the most independent voters in a few states. Is that candidate Mitt Romney?

Let’s examine some primary exit poll data from a few of these crucial swing states. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are good states to analyze for two reasons: they could go to either party in the general election and all four remaining candidates actively campaigned in them. In the first contest in Iowa, Ron Paul won the independent vote overwhelmingly, garnering 43% against Mitt Romney’s 19%. In the second contest in New Hampshire, Paul’s 31% narrowly edged out Romney’s 30%. Finally, in the Nevada caucus, Paul again dominated the independent vote, receiving 46% to Romney’s 28%. In all of these states, Gingrich and Santorum trailed Romney by sizeable margins among independents. Romney did manage to prevail among independents in Florida, a state largely ignored by Paul.

Clearly, Ron Paul has been the most successful at exciting independent voters in swing states. History has shown that this is all that really matters when it comes to winning the general election. Paul’s ability to attract independents may seem odd due to his far right convictions, but perhaps it is precisely his detachment from the stumbling Republican brand that appeals to independent voters. Also, his following among young voters, especially on college campuses, eerily resembles Obama’s success in doing so just four years ago.

According to this data, it appears Ron Paul would be a stronger candidate than many people realize in the general election. Though his relatively meager campaign has thus far focused on smaller states, and it remains unlikely that he will have similar success in upcoming primaries in larger states, he just might be able to woo independent voters nationwide in a general election with more money and media attention. My assessment does have one major assumption: that a Paul nomination would neither scare off a disproportionate number of Republican votes nor significantly hinder Republican voter turnout. While this may seem to be a lofty assumption for a Paul nomination, if Republicans are as truly motivated to beat Obama as they claim they are, then it should be a valid assumption. If Republicans’ main concern is electability, they should look at the numbers. While the numbers may not have dashing hair, a confident poise, and private sector experience, they certainly don’t lie.

 

Photo Credit: http://www.zimbio.com

7 Comments »

January 31, 2012 6:26 pm

Romney and Gingrich Fight over the Airwaves in Florida

By Matt Shuham

The four Republican primary candidates are learning the hard way something that every orange-juice-drinking, airboat-riding, sun-bathing, Sunshine State resident has known for a long time: Florida is one big state.

All 50 of Florida’s delegates, now “at-large” due to RNC sanctions, are up for grabs to today’s number one vote getter, but Florida’s political landscape is truly unique. Pinellas County, home to Tampa, holds 26% of the primary electorate. Seminole County has 21% (Orlando), and Miami-Dade County has 14%.

That’s right; more than half of Florida’s Republican primary voters are split between just three counties. What this means for the four Republicans currently romping across my home state is simple: The battle of the airwaves will determine Florida.

Because of Florida’s size and diversity, it’s fairly impractical to try and win the state in a ground game, especially if the election is “winner-take-all,” as it is this year. Rick Santorum won Iowa by knocking on doors and stopping by pizza ranches, but in Florida, we have a name for the cross-state road trip: The 1,000 Mile Journey. Combine that with a reliable elderly voting population that would rather stay home than go to campaign events and the message is clear: stick to commercials.

So who’s the smartest guy in this regard? Mitt Romney. In terms of sheer numbers, Mitt Romney has vastly outspent any of his competitors by millions of dollars in Florida, and the results show it. Including the super PACs that support him, Mitt Romney has aired 12,768 television commercials in Florida as of Wednesday, according to a study by the Wesleyan University Media Project. Newt Gingrich and his super PAC allies have shown just 210. And indeed, according to the most recent poll by Quinnipiac University, Mitt is ahead 43% to 29%.

This influx of advertising is an increase for Romney compared to his 2008 campaign in the state. This is mainly due to the increased influence of super PACs since 2010′s Citizens United ruling.

So, what’s a poor old Speaker of the House to do? Frank Luntz said it best in a recent quote to the Washington Post: “Newt may not have the money, but he has always had the skill of grabbing attention.” Targeting Florida’s space industry, immigrant population, and huge amount of foreclosed homeowners, Speaker Gingrich is focusing his energy on trying to break Romney’s momentum. Besides his sermons preaching a moon colony, Gingrich launched fierce attacks on Mitt’s supposedly anti-immigration past. And increasingly, Newt is hitting Mitt where it hurts: the Governor’s history at Bain Capital and on Wall Street.

As usual, Newt Gingrich shines when he has an enemy. Mitt can count on the Speaker’s unrelenting wrath until at least tomorrow night, but it seems as if the sheer amount of money involved on Romney’s side will carry the day. For now, at least, the lesson is hammered home once more: For a precursor to Florida’s primary results, look to the TV guide, not the town bulletin.

Photo credit: www.adweek.com

No Comments »

January 29, 2012 2:15 pm

The Significance of Florida

By Jacob Morello

 

With the fourth contest in the 2012 Republican primary season just days away, the race in Florida has become increasingly heated. As evident from recent debates, tensions run high and attacks abound. The Florida primary may very well be the most significant election in the nomination process, providing the champion the momentum necessary to convince the GOP that he is the most qualified. Governor Mitt Romney and Speaker Newt Gingrich have fought tirelessly for the lead in the primary season thus far, and a victory in the Sunshine State would provide a valuable boost to the winner’s campaign. Senator Rick Santorum, recently declared the victor in the Iowa caucus, would also greatly benefit from a first or second place victory, as it would provide the spark that his campaign has lacked since his impressive finish in Iowa. Finally, Congressman Ron Paul, the only candidate who has not claimed a top finish to date, is perhaps most in need of a victory in the near future to provide confidence to his supporters and voters across America.

Photo Credit: David S. Holloway/CNN

Florida offers the winner of Tuesday’s election far more delegates, fifty, than any of the past three states, despite losing half of its votes (it had 99 originally) due to a penalty for setting its January 31 election date earlier than March 1, the earliest date allowed by the Republican National Party. Florida is one of five states, along with New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Arizona, to suffer delegate losses in 2012 for violating voting date regulations. However, the loss of delegates is likely compensated for by increased influence in determining the future of the election and this is presumably the Florida Republican Party’s motive for setting its date earlier than permitted. This highlights a recent trend of states attempting to move their primary election dates earlier each election year in an effort to be more influential in determining the nominee. A primary in a state such as Florida with an earlier voting date could play a significant role in the primary process, resulting in a candidate dropping out or gaining momentum that he rides to the nomination, while a state whose election is on Super Tuesday (when eleven other states are voting) is relatively inconsequential in determining the nominee, who may have all but won the race at that stage.

So who is in prime position to win Tuesday’s race? Following last week’s South Carolina primary in which Gingrich defeated Romney by a 13 point margin, Gingrich enjoyed a seven point lead in Florida. His strong debate performances were mostly responsible for this lead, in which his fiery rebuttals to Fox News’ Juan Williams and CNN’s John King received standing ovations and impressed conservatives. Coupled with Mitt Romney’s relatively dry debate performances and the criticism the Governor received for how he handled calls to release his tax return statements, Gingrich began to win over skeptics who previously thought he was incapable of defeating President Obama. However, according to the latest Rasmussen poll released Thursday, Speaker Gingrich’s lead has evaporated, as Mitt Romney has jumped into the front runner position, claiming 39% support in Florida, compared to Gingrich’s 31%; Rick Santorum has 12% support in Florida, and Paul (who has actually already moved to Maine to begin campaigning) has just 9%. Without the luxury of another debate, Gingrich may not be able to recover his lead before Tuesday.

The candidates know the economy will be at the forefront of concerns for Floridians, who suffer from a 9.9% unemployment rate. While all claim they will cut taxes drastically and balance the budget to reduce the U.S. debt, Romney has an edge as a result of his business experience at Bain Capital (though this has been used against him in recent weeks as well). Another issue that is significant to Floridians (17.3% of which are retired) is entitlement reform, and Social Security and Medicare reform are issues that all the candidates have promised to address as President. All candidates publicly support Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposals for reform, but none have offered specific plans that have attracted significant attention. These two issues, the economy and entitlement reform, are key issues in the Florida election, and will be in the general election, but no candidate has emerged as having the strongest, most supported plans to date, which emphasizes the significance of this election to the future of the primary season.

One thing is certain: Tuesday’s election has the potential to provide momentum to the victor and a major inhibitor to those with weak performances. And while the selection of the nominee does not hinge solely upon the results, it will likely provide clarity on the future of the race, with the hectic March rush just around the corner.

Photo Credit: International Business Times

4 Comments »

January 28, 2012 11:59 pm

The Gingrich Appeal

By Frank Mace

The Harvard Political Review is a nonpartisan publication that strives to offer critical analysis and a wide variety of opinions and perspectives. The author of this piece is a US Associate Editor, and works as an intern with the Romney campaign.

Like many Establishment Republicans, I spent last weekend wondering what was happening to the world. Newt over Mitt? Why?

Because Newt is more conservative? No

Labeled “the least conservative candidate” by conservative standard-bearer George Will, Gingrich has often strayed from modern conservatism—here’s a (partial) rundown. He pushed the federal health insurance mandate long before Romney implemented a state mandate, and he later applauded the passage of Romneycare. He has savaged Bain Capital in particular and private equity in general, fundamentally questioning free enterprise and “embarrassing” himself in the Wall Street Journal’s estimation. He attacked Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform plan, the conservative political Bible, as “right wing social engineering.” He appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi pushing for climate change solutions, his immigration stance is well to the Left of Romney’s, and he was the victim of conservative rebellion as Speaker of the House.

If Gingrich had stood by his less-than-conservative beliefs, that would be one thing. He could say, ‘yeah I have some positions that don’t mesh with orthodox conservatism, but at least I’m being honest with you about what I believe.’ He hasn’t, though. He branded his support for a health insurance mandate “wrong,” called his denigration of Paul Ryan’s reform plan a “mistake,” and referred to the climate change ad as “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years.”

So Newt isn’t more conservative than the alleged Massachusetts moderate, and he’s a flip-flopper too. We can rule out consistent conservatism as the reason for the Gingrich surge.

Is it because he is the populist in the race? No

Romney and Gingrich may both seem out of touch—Romney because he really is smarter and more successful than most, Gingrich because he only thinks he is. Romney is an elite by nature, Gingrich by choice. Newt is the author of perhaps the most elitist note in history in which he characterized himself as an “Advocate of civilization, defender of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, and leader ‘possibly’ of the civilizing forces.” He was pompous enough to suggest he is such a good historian, not just such a good Washington insider, that Freddie Mac paid him $1.6 million for his opinion, and he has revealed that he made $60,000 per appearance on the speaking circuit. Personal qualities in general can’t be driving the Gingrich surge given his history of infidelity, ethics charges, Tiffany’s expenditures, and more.

If voters were looking for the most non-elite candidate (Ron Paul aside), they would have gone to Santorum, not Gingrich.

 So is it because Newt is better equipped to handle today’s issues? No

The central issue of this entire election season is the economy—Romney markets himself as the turnaround artist and business expert who will fix it, but Gingrich has no similar case to make. Romney’s strengths and the needs of the country overlap well, but Gingrich has no business experience to bring to the White House. Instead, he is a Washington insider and former politician, and thus he cannot speak to the anti-Washington sentiments and economic frustrations many Americans are feeling.

Voters may be looking for someone who can debate Obama in the fall, and Newt is a good talker, but so is Mitt. It’s not critical current issues that are behind the Gingrich resurgence.

What the Gingrich appeal is really about

If the Gingrich appeal is not about conservatism, populism, or solutions for today’s pressing issues, then what is it about? It’s about anger. Gingrich has been successful because he has been the maddest.

Republican primary voters are furious about the Obama presidency and the direction of the country, and Gingrich manifests that anger better than any other candidate. His tirades against the liberal media and personal attacks on President Obama are met with standing ovations and roaring applause. Romney, meanwhile, channels Ronald Reagan, cheerfully focusing on American exceptionalism and optimistically looking forward to an “American century” guided by conservative ideals.

The problem is, this isn’t the Reagan era. Just look at how many times per day Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, “thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” is violated. Good candidates like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty who didn’t embrace the doctrine of anger have failed. Huntsman’s characterization of President Obama as a “remarkable leader” was a near campaign-ender in its own right, and Tim Pawlenty was derided for refusing to repeat his attack line on Obamneycare in front of Romney. They weren’t mean enough, mad enough.

In South Carolina, this primary was really about, to the exclusion of nearly all other considerations, who showed the most anger. Gingrich’s indignation may score him more victories, but only if Romney doesn’t take note. All Romney has to do is start spitting some venom. Candidates for public office attack and question one another’s character and qualifications all the time, but this is different. This is about anger for anger’s sake.

 

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

No Comments »

January 27, 2012 11:07 am

What If No One Wins? A Brokered Convention Is Possible

By Daniel Lynch

In the days following Mitt Romney’s overwhelming victory in New Hampshire, his route to the nomination looked relatively easy. He appeared to have won in both Iowa and New Hampshire—something no non-incumbent Republican has ever done. He was leading in the polls both nationally and in South Carolina, which has picked the eventual Republican nominee since before 1980, and appeared on the brink of going 3 for 3. Add to all this the Romney campaign’s superior financial and organizational strength, as well as the backing of many establishment Republicans, and it appeared that the nomination fight would be over before it even got started.

The Tampa Bay Times Forum, site of the 2012 Republican National Convention

However, that changed dramatically over the course of a week. Newt Gingrich, who has thrived in debates throughout the campaign, wowed many South Carolina conservatives with fiery performances in two consecutive debates. Romney, meanwhile, spent much of the week leading up to the South Carolina primary on the defensive about his reluctance to release his tax returns. Meanwhile, Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich; Santorum was declared the winner in Iowa after a recount; and Gingrich ultimately won a resounding victory in South Carolina, putting a serious dent in Romney’s aura of inevitability.

It is not yet clear what Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina means long-term. It likely makes Florida almost a must-win for Romney, while Gingrich needs to at least do well enough in Florida to remain a viable alternative in the eyes of voters. Even assuming Rick Santorum stays in the race following his third-place finish in South Carolina, he may not stop Gingrich from achieving his goal of creating a united conservative, anti-Romney coalition. Gingrich seems to have enjoyed at least a short-term bounce in Florida polls from his performance in South Carolina. Nevertheless, recent polls show an extremely close race in Florida. There is still a decent chance that Romney wins Florida and goes on to win the nomination, even if South Carolina allows Gingrich to carry on the fight longer than was once expected.

However, there have been some rumors about another scenario—a scenario which presently seems far-fetched, but might become less so if Gingrich wins Florida. Nate Silver wrote back in December that “Republicans are dangerously close to having none of their candidates be acceptable to both rank-and-file voters and the party establishment.” Indeed, a sizeable bloc of conservative primary voters remains unenthusiastic about the prospect of Romney as the party’s standard-bearer. Gingrich, meanwhile, is unacceptable to many establishment Republicans, who view him as undisciplined, unreliable, and likely to self-destruct in the general election. Gingrich has near-universal name recognition and an unfavorable rating approaching 60% among the general electorate, meaning that he would have an uphill battle in the general election, even if he could manage to stay on his best behavior. If the fight between Romney and Gingrich continues for months, both candidates may become so damaged that they seem even more unappealing and/or unelectable. This raises the question: what if neither candidate wins enough delegates in the primaries to secure the nomination?

According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, many prominent conservatives in Washington are “trying to figure out a way to get to a brokered convention.”

A brokered convention occurs if nobody secures a majority of delegates on the first ballot at the national convention. At that point, all delegates are free to switch their allegiances, and horse-trading and further ballots ensue until someone gains a majority of delegates. This has not occurred since the Democratic National Convention of 1952. The last Republican brokered convention was in 1948. There have been more recent conventions—the 1976 Republican National Convention and the 1984 Democratic National Convention—that began without any candidate having won a majority of delegates, but in which the eventual nominee won enough delegates on the first ballot. Whether by coincidence or not, in all of these cases, the eventual nominee (Thomas Dewey in 1948, Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Gerald Ford in 1976, and Walter Mondale in 1984) lost in the general election. The same is true of several other contentious (but not brokered) conventions in recent memory. Hubert Humphrey, nominated at the notorious 1968 Democratic National Convention, George McGovern, nominated by the Democrats at the contentious 1972 Convention, and Jimmy Carter—who had secured a majority of delegates before the 1980 Convention but had to fend off an unusual convention challenge from Ted Kennedy, who lobbied for a rules change to allow Carter delegates to switch to him—also all lost in the general election.

Many Republican voters have long wished that another candidate would enter the race. Several conservative favorites, including Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, declined to run, although some have continued to beg them to make a late entrance. A brokered convention could be the perfect opportunity for those who are not happy with either Gingrich or Romney to make a final pitch for an outsider to enter and save the day. Interestingly, Daniels was tapped to give the GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union address, giving Republicans a chance to see him perform before a national audience.

The Republican Party’s rules could also increase the likelihood of a brokered convention. According to Republican Party Rule 38, “No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” This has been taken to mean that delegates are technically free agents, even on the first ballot. Under normal circumstances, a delegate who does not vote for the candidate to whom she is pledged might face considerable opprobrium. However, that might not be the case if there is a widespread embrace of an outside candidate. Another rules-related issue that might increase the likelihood of a contentious convention, if not a brokered convention, is the fact that some states (including Florida) have disregarded party rules by holding primaries before party rules permit and by declaring their primaries to be winner-take-all. Thus, a candidate who loses such states could demand that some or all of their delegates be disqualified (recall the controversy over the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan in the 2008 Democratic campaign).

The likelihood of a brokered or chaotic convention may still be slim. However, given the volatility of the current race, and the number of unexpected twists and turns so far, it seems that nothing is impossible.

 

Photo Credit: http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com

No Comments »

January 25, 2012 11:19 pm

A Bitter Wind Blowing

By Jacob Drucker

The radio waves are heavy with the sound of presidential attack advertisements, and nobody seems able to escape unscathed.  Over the past few weeks, President Obama has faced a whole wave of criticism calling his presidency failed and his leadership ineffectual.  Others have attacked Newt Gingrich as unreliable, undisciplined, an embarrassment, and “chaos.”  Ron Paul has been branded as an egomaniac and a racist lunatic, among many other epithets.  Mitt Romney has been described as a vulture capitalist, a serial killer (if corporations are indeed people), and a perfectly lubricated weather vane.  Think the election is becoming vicious?  You ain’t seen nothing yet.

This campaign will go down as the nastiest presidential election in American history. For the first time, a president will run for office attacked by Super PACs which have unlimited money to spend, thanks to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.  To date, this race has seen Super PACs spend twice as much as the presidential campaigns themselves.  The airwaves in South Carolina have been so saturated with political commercials that they could devote an entire channel to air purchased TV segments.  There are only so many times one can hear that Romney is a perfectly lubricated vulture killer before the ads begin to lose their effect.

To see how nasty the race will get, one needs to look no further than Super PAC ads already on the internet and blitzing the airwaves of Florida.  No candidate is spared: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum are featured in new attack ads. But the existence of Super PACs and free flow of money doesn’t necessarily mean the ads have to be negative.  The 2012 campaign will be so brutally ferocious because Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, assuming he wins the nomination, have nothing to spend the money on but attacking the other.  Neither has a record he can comfortably publicize in this race, which will invariably come down to choosing the lesser of two much maligned evils.

Let’s start with Romney.  He seems unable to pick a record and stick with it- there is the record of what Mitt did as governor, what he said he did, and what he plans to do.  The man has taken more positions regarding abortion than most Americans knew existed.  As governor, he passed sweeping health care reform, which is less than popular among his Republican base.  And before he entered politics, Romney served as the CEO of Bain Capital.  He managed to either create thousands of jobs or destroy thousands of jobs, or both, depending on whom one asks.  And these days, any ties to Wall Street are less than popular.  This leaves Romney with precious little private sector experience to emphasize.  He did successfully run the 2002 Winter Olympics, which has been conveniently boiled down to the important fact that he speaks French.

Obama doesn’t have much to emphasize either.  His signature health care reform remains largely unpopular, and Romney’s ties to it dilute the saliency of the issue.  Obama also bailed out Wall Street, which cost him support among Occupy Wall Street crowds, who just might take a break from their drum circles to vote in November.  Obama will focus on his foreign policy, which has been a mixed bag.  Yes, he got Gadhafi and Bin Laden, but he has been unable to do much about Iran or Syria.  Moreover, foreign policy chops simply do not win elections.  George H.W. Bush handily obliterated an opposing Iraqi army and won only 37% of the popular vote in the following year’s race.  Sure, Obama can take credit for some successes, such as bailing out Detroit and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  But these will not change electoral maps.

The election will then focus largely on the economy.  Romney supporters will publicize pessimistic economic data, unfairly deemphasizing the severity of the mess Obama inherited.  Obama’s backers will play up the extent of the recovery, to which Republicans will point out that unemployment anywhere close to 8.5% is not very good by any measure.  And so the economy, finally, will lose much of its limelight.

Which leaves us right where we started.  Candidates will have somewhere in the ballpark of a billion dollars each to spend, and Super PACs will spend billions more.  Neither candidate seems to have much of a popular record to run on, leaving nothing but to do but assassinate the other’s character.  The election is going to get very ugly, very quickly.  When we really need hope and change, we will have to settle for smear tactics and personal attacks.

Or possibly a weather vane.

No Comments »

January 11, 2012 11:34 pm

Progressives Shouldn’t Vote for Ron Paul

By Sandra Korn

Glenn Greenwald wrote a thought-provoking piece in Salon in which he noted that progressives disappointed with Obama’s policies have a viable alternative. While explicitly not endorsing Ron Paul, Greenwald declared:

“For better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues)…

… if you’re someone who believes that things like Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime, and the vast power of the Fed are merely minor, side issues that don’t merit much concern… then lock-step marching behind Barack Obama for the next full year makes sense. But if you don’t believe those things, then you’re going to be searching for ways to change mainstream political discourse and to disrupt the bipartisan consensus which shields these policies from all debate, let alone challenge.”

Across America, progressives have expressed disappointment with Obama’s failure to follow through on campaign promises like ending Bush-era tax breaks. As Greenwald notes, the lack of truly progressive policy implemented in the last three years comes as a result not only of a divided and obstinate Congress, but from Obama’s own moves to consolidate power in the executive branch and extend problematic Bush-era domestic and foreign policy. The promise of a viable candidate who might endorse an end to an unnecessary and unjustified foreign war that has killed hundreds of thousands, who might end the racist and expensive “War on Drugs,” and who might actually check corporate influence in government seems promising.

However, Ron Paul is not that candidate. Although he may support legislation introduced by progressives, he comes to his decisions from a single-minded desire to decrease the size of the federal government. Paul’s anarchist-leaning political thought dictates his policy decisions (with the single exception of abortion, which he incomprehensibly thinks should be illegal).

Libertarian reasoning leads Ron Paul to endorse policies that no progressive could support. Although Paul opposes the War on Drugs, which many cite as a racist policy that predominantly incarcerates African-American and Latino men, he also opposes policies like birthright citizenship and welfare that benefit American communities of color. (Paul also opposes any form of legal amnesty for undocumented immigrants, such as the DREAM Act, and has even spoken out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed other civil rights legislation.) He even opposes the very existence of an income tax in favor of a Flat Tax, which progressives know would place America’s tax burden disproportionately on the poor.

Vote-mongering and corporate lobbying may compromise Obama’s progressivism. But his background and campaign platform suggest that he at least cares about rectifying race- and class-based oppression. On the contrary, Ron Paul’s concern about the free market and individual liberty comes at the expense of the equality, social justice, and basic right to economic insecurity valued by progressives.

When Ron Paul’s libertarian interests align with progressive interests, he can certainly provide valuable support for liberal House members, as Greenwald referenced. In fact, Paul has effectively and admirably brought many often-controversial policies to mainstream political discussion. His opinions have sparked constructive and interesting discussion, both on this website and across America, about issues ranging from the War on Drugs to American intervention in Israel to war.

However, for every Paul position countering existing economic inequality in America, another ten would perpetuate or worsen existing wealth disparities. Ron Paul may be an interesting, controversial, and perhaps even viable candidate for the 2012 presidency—but he is certainly not a progressive one.

4 Comments »

January 9, 2012 4:50 pm

HPR’s 2012 New Hampshire Primary Live Blog

By HPR

Join us on Tuesday evening at 8 PM to hear from four panelists on our U.S. Team and discuss the results of this contest and its implications on the 2012 GOP presidential nomination race.

No Comments »

January 7, 2012 6:12 pm

Why New Hampshire Matters

By Alexander Chen

Tuesday’s photo finish in Iowa cemented Rick Santorum’s emergence as the latest anti-Romney in the GOP race. Several candidates are now campaigning in New Hampshire, a tiny New England state with a contrarian streak. With Romney cruising in the polls and only 12 delegates at stake, HPR alum Alex Burns recently wrote  that next Tuesday’s contest would not be important, something most GOP contenders are likely to reiterate. Nevertheless, the first in the nation primary will have key implications for the Republican nomination contest, and cannot be ignored. Here are three storylines I’ll be following:

The Gingrich Factor

Blitzed by Romney’s Restore our Future super-PAC and quixotic Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the former Speaker’s political standing fell precipitously and Gingrich came away soundly defeated in Iowa. But, the wounded Gingrich is furious, and his concession speech was anything but conciliatory. He has effectively taken a berserker posture, implicitly promising to take Romney down at any cost and proposing a conservative alliance between himself, Perry, and Santorum.

Unlike Perry and Santorum though, Gingrich has a strong ally in the Granite State, New Hampshire Union Leader publisher Joseph McQuaid. McQuaid, whose paper endorsed Gingrich late last year, is a titan in NH conservative circles. He eviscerated Romney four years ago, and has already hammered the former Massachusetts governor for being another “squishy-moderate Republican”.

Meanwhile, Gingrich’s pledge to maintain a positive campaign has been thrown out the window. His campaign is already blanketing the state with television and newspaper ads attempting to contrast himself with Romney. Furthermore, look for Gingrich to broadside Romney in two debates this weekend. Gingrich’s attacks could very well diminish Romney’s final performance here, gift-wrapping a present to Santorum.

Can Huntsman Survive?

The Huntsman campaign has stumbled badly over the past few months: his service to the Obama administration as Ambassador to China hurt his standing with rank and file Republicans, and the media certainly did not help by anointing him the “moderate” in the race. His campaign narrative emphasizing bipartisanship disastrously misread the mood of the GOP electorate, which wanted someone to pugnaciously take on Obama.

The NH electorate is tailor-made for someone like Huntsman: state laws allow the independents and Democrats Huntsman is banking on to vote in the primary, and the state lacks a strong social conservative presence. He has put more time into New Hampshire than any other candidate, holding hundreds of events and bypassing other states. But, he trails Romney by approximately 30 percentage points in recent polling. Huntsman’s limited fundraising will assuredly dry up without a strong showing here, and should he poll a distant third or fourth behind Romney and Paul, his campaign will likely end.

Santorum’s Staying Power

Santorum’s emphasis on family values won him the endorsement of Iowa heavy hitter Bob Vander Plaats, whose backing provided a critical conservative seal of approval. However, New Hampshire is considerably less religious than Iowa, and Santorum’s economic populism (for example, he proposes eliminating the corporate tax entirely for manufacturers) may not resonate here.

Nevertheless, for Santorum to demonstrate his viability as a national candidate, he must exceed expectations. No Republican has won the nomination in the past half century without placing first or second in New Hampshire. Given that Romney’s expectations for the state are stratospheric, a strong second or third place finish for Santorum would dominate the post-primary narrative and position him to consolidate the anti-Romney vote in South Carolina. A distant finish, coupled with Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich’s continued presence in the race, would likely relegate Santorum as perhaps the final anti-Romney to emerge.

Photo Credit: The Boston Gobe

No Comments »

January 3, 2012 7:42 pm

HPR’s 2012 Iowa Caucuses Live Blog

By HPR

No Comments »

January 3, 2012 2:28 pm

Election 2012: Republican Candidate Profiles

By Caroline Cox

The 2012 Republican nomination process has officially started with Iowa Caucuses on January 3. Although coverage of the horse race has been constant since the field of candidates first started taking shape, close looks at the candidates’ policy positions and potential strengths and weaknesses are not often discussed. The Harvard Political Review is now featuring profiles of the major candidates. As the results come in and the candidates drop out, the profiles will be updated to reflect the changes.

The complete list of profiles, as compiled by HPR writers:

Mitt Romney

Ron Paul

Rick Santorum

Michele Bachmann

Rick Perry

Newt Gingrich

Jon Huntsman

Buddy Roemer

No Comments »

January 3, 2012 12:47 am

Michele Bachmann

By Humza Bokhari

BACKGROUND

A native of Waterloo, Iowa, Michele Bachmann is a representative of Minnesota’s Sixth District, which she has served since 2007.  She is a former Minnesota State Senator and federal tax litigation attorney. Bachmann, 55, is married with five children, and is a graduate of Winona State University, Oral Roberts University, and William & Mary Law School. Read More…

No Comments »

January 3, 2012 12:47 am

Mitt Romney

By Ross Svenson

BACKGROUND

The son of former Governor George Romney of Michigan and Lenore Romney, a 1970 Republican Senate candidate, Mitt Romney comes from a political family. He chose, however, to begin his career in the private sector, first working at Boston Consulting Group, then Bain & Company. In 1983, he co-founded the Bain & Company private equity spin-off firm, Bain Capital, where he accumulated a large fortune and developed a reputation as a skilled businessman. In 1994, Romney dove into politics, running against Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on his business record, but ultimately coming up short. Romney met political success in 2002 when he won the Massachusetts gubernatorial election. Governor Romney then ran for president in 2008, losing the Republican primary to Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Romney launched his second bid for the presidency in June 2011. Read More…

No Comments »

January 3, 2012 12:45 am

Jon Huntsman

By Alexander Chen

BACKGROUND

Jon Huntsman first gained national prominence for becoming the youngest ambassador in 100 years after George H. W. Bush appointed him the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore in 1992. Under George W. Bush, Huntsman served as a Deputy Trade Representatives. Huntsman then served as Governor of Utah from 2001 to 2009, leaving with an approval rating of over 80% and Pew Center recognition of Utah as the best managed state. President Obama appointed him U.S. Ambassador to China in 2009, a position that he left in April of 2011 in order to return to the United States to explore a bid for the presidency.

Read More…

No Comments »

« Older Entries

custom writing