How dissatisfied are Republicans with the current field of presidential candidates?
Sufficiently dissatisfied to flirt with a long-shot effort to draft Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, or Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan into the presidential race, despite the trio’s repeated statements that they’re not interested in running for the office.
The discussions began a few weeks before the New Hampshire primary, when one Republican consultant, who has worked for conservative Republican presidential candidates in the past but who is unaffiliated this cycle, wondered if it would be possible to repeat the results of the 1964 primary.
Advertisement
In 1964, the Republican party was deeply divided between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller. A small group of fans of Henry Cabot Lodge — Richard Nixon’s 1960 running mate who in 1964 served as U.S.ambassador to South Vietnam — launched a write-in campaign. The effort shocked the political world when Lodge won 36 percent of the vote, beating Goldwater’s 22 percent and Rockefeller’s 21 percent. Lodge somehow won the state without ever declaring his interest in the presidency or ever setting foot in the state.
Lodge began to think more seriously about running, and he ended up winning the Massachusetts and New Jersey primaries that year in a similar fashion. Obviously, Goldwater went on to win the Republican nomination in 1964, and he lost to Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson in the general election by a wide margin.
But to a couple of Republican consultants yearning for better, more unifying options than the current crop of candidates, the Lodge example offered a blueprint for a late entrant. The low expectations for a write-in bid added to the appeal of the plan; if the write-in bid finished with only a few percentage points, no harm was done. But a third- or second-place finish would generate enormous discussion.
Presuming the write-in candidate had finished respectably, he (or she) would still have time to qualify for the ballot in Rhode Island (January 21), West Virginia (January 28), Kentucky (January 31), Indiana (February 10), Pennsylvania (February 14), Delaware (February 24), Arkansas (March 1), Connecticut (March 2), Oregon (March 6), Nebraska (March 7), Montana (March 12), Utah (March 15), California (March 23), and South Dakota (March 27).
Most Republican caucuses do not have any formal filing deadline; to compete in those contests, the candidate would simply have needed a group of dedicated supporters registered to vote in those caucuses. These states include Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming.
The primary states still open to new candidates offer up to 623 delegates, and the caucus states still open to new candidates offer up to 371 delegates. That adds up to 994 delegates, which is less than the 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination. However, a strong performance in the remaining states would greatly enhance the likelihood of no candidate reaching the threshold. And that means, in short, a divided, dramatic, and probably very confusing run-up to the convention. ABC News summarizes:
If a single candidate fails to win 1,144 delegates, convention mayhem will likely ensue, and the nomination process will become a maze of state-party rules about when delegates are released from their binding and how strictly they’re bound. Arizona’s state law, for instance, requires delegates to use their “best efforts” to support the statewide winner. In Illinois, campaigns select their delegates and in the past have asked them to sign pledges of support — but it’s not entirely clear whether those pledges are binding.
The write-in bid was discussed among several prominent Republican officeholders and former officeholders, and the reaction was mixed. Few rejected the idea outright or claimed complete satisfaction with the current options in the GOP field, but even fewer wanted their names attached to a strange, late, high-risk effort that would most likely serve only to irk the eventual GOP nominee and perhaps the next president.
The consultants said the aim was not merely to create mischief, but to create “constructive mischief.”
The plan was to float all three popular non-candidates as options and see if Republicans coalesced behind any of them; if one of the three proved particularly popular, unaffiliated Republicans would begin mentioning the write-in option in the days before the primary.
For the candidates mentioned, the popularity might prove flattering but also embarrassing.
Jindal has endorsed Rick Perry and campaigned in Iowa for him. McDonnell has not endorsed any of the candidates but has said that he prefers candidates with gubernatorial experience and he has spoken repeatedly of his warm relationship with Perry. Ryan has said he will not endorse, citing his need to remain objective in his role with the national GOP’s “National Fundraising Trust.”
While the deadlines for most of the above states are weeks away, the chances of a late addition to the field diminish by the day. A candidate would have to jump into the race cold and undoubtedly would face furious attacks from the front runner Mitt Romney and his super PACs. The limited time leaves little room for errors (as many candidates learned with Virginia’s ballot-qualification requirements).
But perhaps the never-quite-past-the-drawing-board write-in effort is a warning sign to the front runner of just how much more work he needs to do to quell fears among Republicans that he is the best choice to lead America beginning on Jan. 20, 2013.
There is a lady in red lurking in the background, popping up in all the opportune moments to draw contrast between herself and the current field of near misses. As she is about to take the stage front and center at CPAC on February 11, I wonder what she is up to?
Romney Super Pac will morph into Denver Broncos' defense and will not be able to tar and feather Palin because it's all been done before and the lady wears her battle scars with pride.
red, please think through your scenario. Do you genuinely believe that Sarah Palin would be able to dismantle Barak Obama and his machine in even one, let alone three presidential debates ?
Think back, very clearly, to the aftermath of her debate with Joe Biden. Do you remember how she was universally proclaimed victorious ? Neither do I. And that was against Joe Dumb As A Box Of Hammers Biden, whom the press was not particularly worshipping.
The first rule of politics is to WIN, not to die on principle. This November's election is existential, and there will be no "tomorrow" to fight another day.
Unfortunately, she's also shrill and doesn't come across as serious. The fact that she wears her battle scars with pride matters not. Romney has a head for economics, and if we pass him by for her, we will have made a huge blunder.
We haven't heard from her since she said she was not running for the Republican nomination.
I'm one ticked off TEA Partier with Mrs. Palin, and will want answers as to why she went underground after the Arizona bleep.
Never the less, I'd still vote for her in the MI primary. As it stands I'll vote for Newt over the rest, including the write-ins suggested in the article.
Ryan? All sizzle and no steak! Didn't his masterpiece of a budget still increase spending? Where was his leadership in the fiscal fiasco we just endured this past year?
My hope for this morning, as long as we are still dreaming? Scott Walker - he fixed Wisconsin, he can fix Washington too! Heck if he needs to campaign again anyhow to beat the recall and defend his policies, just take the plunge and go National!
This is the most significant Presidential election in generations, perhaps the final opportunity to turn the nation away from its march to liberal fascism. And the so-called Republican "A" team chooses to sit on the bench. Great men read the moment and rise to it; the moment doesn't happen when you are good and ready for it, but when history demands it, and that moment is now. I'll take Romney, Gingrich or Santorum over any of the benchwarmers because they have at least proven they have the stomach for the contest.
Isn't it a conservative maxim that liberal fascism is (if you will excuse the term) unsustainable? Would it even be possible for a candidate to turn the nation from an ill-considered path unless and until they see the need? Perhaps there is no better way for such an epiphany to be excited than for (good heavens, man) Obama to win a second term ̶ messy but cathartic.
Problem: If that happens and SCOTUS does not strike down Obamacare, then the US is headed into uncharted waters for us, and from which we can never return to what we are now. The British parties argue over who can run their nationalized services best, not whether they should exist. We will be there in another 4 years of Obama.
So yet another article admitting that the Right really, really, really...doesn't like Romney and knows Newt and the Rest are totally unelectable.
Well, I'm sorry, you're stuck with them...or more likely "him", Mitt. The only energy and excitement you will generate this year in the election is hatred of the President.
It's probably "enough"...to get the Base to turn out to "save America" and imagine that Pres. Obama's election was a "fluke" and it's still "their country". But you're not going to be that much better off than you were with McCain and you're going to have to swallow Romney selling you out on a lot of stuff to try to win Moderates and Independents.
Even if Romney wins, the fact that party politics trumped ideology...is an optimistic sign. And watching Romney do his "kinder, gentler" or "compassionate conservatism" speech at the Tampa Convention to distance himself from the people he was pandering to the past year...will be a joy to watch.
well, it's not just "hatred" of Obama, but that he ran the first time on a vague "hope and change" agenda that masked his true intentions, viz. bailouts, trillion-dollar stimuli and Obamacare. If Obama had been honest about his program he would never have been elected - and not because it turns off conservatives but because it turns off the majority of Americans. That's why even as flawed a conservative as Romney can still beat him.
A "flawed conservative"....is a moderate, sane Republican.
Yes...that kind of GOPer could beat the President. A "true blue rightwinger" can't or else Republicans would consider Rick Santorum "electable"....they don't.
My money is on Obama winning re-election because we didn't get a top flight conservative to run this year.
Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan--all of these could have beaten Romney or Gingrich for the GOP nomination and they all would be stronger general election candidates too.
The circular firing squad has done us in. Four more years of Obama. Frankly, I prefer Romney to all of the other candidates - including your additions, but Gingrich prefers Obama to Romney and I think he will get his wish.
Daniels or Jindal, or even Jeb, would have been stronger candidates than Romney or anyone else that remained in the field. It's a shame that we're stuck with this gaffe-prone robot of a candidate in Romney. The guy makes J.P. Morgan look like a rousing populist.
Conservatives always fail to understand that they are a small minority of the electorate. While conservatives are very influential in policy matters, they will never be able to muster a candidate that can win in the general election.
Follow
