Unified Field Theory of 2012, Axiom One: The more the Republicans can make the 2012 election like 2010, the better their chances of winning.
The 2010 Democratic shellacking had the distinction of being the most ideological election in 30 years. It was driven by one central argument in its several parts: the size and reach of government, spending and debt, and, most fundamentally, the nature of the American social contract. 2010 was a referendum on the Obama experiment in hyper-liberalism. It lost resoundingly.
Advertisement
Of course, presidential elections are not arguments in the abstract but arguments with a face. Hence, Axiom Two: The less attention the Republican candidate draws to him/herself, the better the chances of winning. To the extent that 2012 is about ideas, about the case for smaller government, Republicans have a decided edge. If it’s a referendum on the fitness and soundness of the Republican candidate — advantage Obama.
Which suggests Axiom Three: No baggage and no need for flash. Having tried charisma in 2008, the electorate is not looking for a thrill up the leg in 2012. It’s looking for solid, stable, sober, and, above all, not scary.
Given these Euclidean truths, here’s the early line. (Remember: This is analysis, not advocacy.)
Long shots
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party favorite. Appeals to Palinites. Could do well in Iowa. Hard to see how she makes her way through the rest of the primary thicket. A strong showing in debates and a respectable finish would increase her national stature for 2016. But for now: 20:1 to win the nomination.
Donald Trump: He’s not a candidate, he’s a spectacle. He’s also not a conservative. With a wink and a smile, Muhammad Ali showed that self-promoting obnoxiousness could be charming. Trump shows that it can be merely vulgar. A provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton. The Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl.
The major candidates
Mitt Romney: Serious guy. Pre-vetted (2008). Tons of private- and public-sector executive experience. If not for one thing, he’d be the prohibitive front-runner. Unfortunately, the one thing is a big thing: Massachusetts’s Romneycare. For an election in which the main issue is excessive government (see Axiom One), that’s a huge liability. Every sentient Republican has been trying to figure out how to explain it away. I’ve heard no reports of any success. Romney is Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats. He goes out at 5:1.
Newt Gingrich: Smart guy. A fountain of ideas. No, a Vesuvius of ideas. Some brilliance, lots of lava. Architect of a historic Republican victory in 1994. Rocky speakership. Unfortunate personal baggage. 12:1.
Haley Barbour: Successful governor. Experienced Washington hand. Abundant charm. Baggage: Years of lobbying, unforced errors on civil rights, early neo-isolationist deviations. Rarely without a comeback, however. 7:1.
Tim Pawlenty: Formerly, an unassuming, unprepossessing, solid two-term Minnesota governor. Currently, mouse that roars. Uptempo style, middle-of-the-road conservative content. Apparently baggageless. Could be the last man standing. 5:1.
Mitch Daniels: Highly successful governor. Budget guru. Delightful dullness satisfies all axioms (see above). Foreign policy unknown, assuming he has one. Alienated some conservatives with his call for a truce on — i.e., deferring — social issues. If he runs, 6:1.
Likely not running
Mike Huckabee: Has a good life — hosting a popular TV show, making money, building his dream house in Florida. He’d be crazy to run. Doesn’t look crazy to me.
Sarah Palin: Same deal. Showed her power in 2010 as kingmaker and opinion shaper. Must know (I think) she has little chance at the nomination and none in the general election. Why risk it, and the inevitable diminishment defeat would bring?
Even less likely to run — the 2016 bench
A remarkable class of young up-and-comers includes Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley. All impressive, all new to the national stage, all with bright futures. 2012, however, is too early — except possibly for Ryan, who last week became de facto leader of the Republican party. For months, he will be going head-to-head with President Obama on the budget, which is a surrogate for the central issue of 2012: the proper role of government. If Ryan acquits himself well, by summer’s end he could emerge as a formidable anti-Obama.
One problem: Ryan has zero inclination to run. Wants to continue what he’s doing right now. Would have to be drafted. That would require persuasion. Can anyone rustle up a posse?
Perceptive, as always. I don't think we conservatives could win a charisma contest, nor should we want to. Personally, I'd like to see Paul Ryan as a GOP candidate, and maybe Mitt Romney for VP.
While I would vote for those listed if they won the nomination,please no Trump, Newt or Palin, I am diappointed that Charles and many others never mention Herman Cain. While he may not have the national recognition that some of the others have, he is the better candidate. He is not a politician and speaks the truth regardless of who it might offend. If you're offended by the truth, the problem is yours, not the truths. I will support and hopefully work on Herman's campaign. I can't wait until he gets into a debate. Cain/Bolton 2012.
Praise this glorious day of sacrifice! That He who died so we may live, should be glorified forever and ever. Amen.
Someone in the Conservative movement needs to have a closed door meeting with both Chris Christie and Paul Ryan and explain to them, in no uncertain terms, that their country needs them NOW. There is so much riding on the 2012 election that were we to nominate anyone else means that we are not serious about winning.
There are some glaring omissions to the "bench" list: Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence.
IF the public actually is not looking for frills, and I seriously doubt that they are NOT, then Daniels and Pawlenty would be stronger than usual.
But given how fast a liberal like Trump has risen in the minds of conservative GOP voters, it appears even THEY are smitten with the cult of personality.
The most important factor in 2012 most likely will be what it always is: Who would the American people prefer to watch on TV for 4 years?
Me? I'd rather we have an occupant in the Oval Office a little more attuned to actual reality than the reality TV show that leadership has become. Advantage Daniels.
And it's not even close. If any other candidate had his level of modesty, humility and seriousness about solving problems, I would never forgive his "truce" call.
Alas, I believe Mitch is just humble enough not to run in the first place.
And I still maintain that if Jindal declared, he'd win in a walk.
Low blow Mr. Krauthammer. The Lions finished the regular season last year on a 4 game winning streak (including a win over the eventual Superbowl winning Green Bay Packers) all without the help of our sidelined starting quarterback. Trump is a complete clown and an embarrassment, but his odds of winning the nomination are decidedly worse than the Lions chance at winning the Super Bowl.
Many people, notable pundits included, are missing the reason that Trump's persona is resonating with Americans.
He is expressing leadership. He may not have the conservative credentials the entrenched intelligensia would prefer but he does have an obvious ability to state his positions clearly.
One of the most important things a leader needs is a plan, an ability to tell people where he or she is, where he or she is going. None of the others mentioned by Dr K really have done much to prove that they have that leadership quality.
And it is vital because one of the other things that leaders desperately need is followers. When people listen to Trump many believe that he's a person they could follow. Can we say the same about any of the others yet?
For those not wanting to follow the link, it is a run-down of the last 66 years of the President's party's performance in midterm elections. In a nutshell, the President's party virtually always loses seats (often significantly) in both houses since 1938.
Perhaps a bit more painful for the Democtrats this time around, but this historical trend is strong regardless of party, 1st/2nd term, good/bad economy, war/peace time.
Read Mona Charen's article also on the front page today for even more indication that the 2010 mid-terms were nothing like a mandate. Double-down at your peril.
Mitch Daniels' offer to defer social issues - while apparently anathema - is probably the Republicans best bet against an incumbent who despite problems continues to enjoy relatively high approval ratings given the challenges. . .
One reason Bobby Jindal may not be eligible to run for President - he may not be a natural-born citizen. I think Nikki Haley, however, WAS born in the U.S.....
Aside from that, though, I think Bobby Jindal would be great. He showed a lot of leadership during the oil rig fiasco, for example.
I also like Mitch Daniels a lot, from what I've read about him.
Follow
