Ross Douthat lauds Bill Kristol for keeping the hope of a dark-horse candidacy alive. Last week, Kristol floated another trial balloon for Mitch Daniels by writing a parody of Daniels’s response to the State of the Union address, in which the governor announces his surprise candidacy.
“Kristol deserves credit for demanding better, long after the rest of us have given up,” Ross writes, though “the scenario he’s seeking almost certainly won’t happen.”
He’s right; it won’t. Unless . . .
Unless a last-minute candidate enters the race and wins enough delegates to prevent a winner on the first ballot. Remember, a candidate needs 1,144 delegates to win the nomination, and the three contests so far have determined the fates of only 65 delegates. (Even those 65 are iffy: Iowa’s delegates, for instance, aren’t bound, and South Carolina’s are bound for only one ballot.)
The rub is that ballot-filing deadlines have passed in 19 other states and territories. Others, meanwhile, have finalized their ballots already. Still, the chronic optimist might note that filing deadlines in 16 states haven’t passed, and they control 882 delegates. (Added to this pile is Texas, which by court order cannot close its filing period until February 1.)
Only five of the remaining deadlines (Texas, West Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) occur before March 1, while eight of them occur that month. That leaves time, though not much, for a candidate to mobilize forces. If conservatives are calling Mitch Daniels — or any other candidate — they better hope he (or she) picks up soon.
But don’t bet on it.
A new entry would be great, but, good grief, not Mitch Daniels. We keep hearing that South Carolina went for Gingrich not because they really want him but because they want to stir things up, put some red meat into the pot. Daniels is more like Welsh rarebit. And yet I have heard Daniels's name over and over today. Couldn't we come up with *someone* who provides contrast to Romney? I mean, that is the point, is it not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, South Carolina also proved Mitch Daniels' theory: Family Values don't mean squat. Now that we know the most rabid, Bible-thumping voters among us would vote overwhelmingly for a thrice-married serial adulterer, Daniels' "truce" on social issues doesn't seem nearly as jarring. Not only is it palatable to the SoCons, it's downright mandatory, or so it would seem.
This is the one possible positive outcome of a Gingrich nomination - we can FINALLY get rid of this absurd and wholly hypocritical meme about the sanctity of marriage.
"Couldn't we come up with *someone* who provides contrast to Romney? I mean, that is the point, is it not?"
Apparently it is. Do you know someone who is even more lecherous than Gingrich? If you do, he'd probably take the nomination in a walk - assuming of course he can stroke the right conservative erogenous zones: Media is evil, Barack Obama is a Kenyan, Wall St Fat Cats, fundamental national dialogue etc., etc., etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott - I'm not sure of your point? You seem to hate social conservatives. I get that. You REALLY hate Gingrich. Check. Dripping with sarcasm Yep.
Regarding Daniels, he seems to be Romney minus all the energy, ideas and charisma?
What constituency exactly does he appeal to?
What I like about Daniels is he surrenders early and often. Why argue a point if you're going to lose eventually anyway, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott,
I'm not sure that the "Bible-thumping" South Carolina voters were rejecting family values even as they picked Newt. I think they were embracing someone who can defend and promote conservatism, as, strangely, the very family value-oriented Mitt Romney seems unable to articulate. In addition, I'm guessing many of these voters believe their country is in DANGER, not just "trouble". In a different time with a different opponent, Newt Gingrich might not get beyond a mention.
Right now, he is much more than palatable. One such as he may be required right now, seriously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSouth Carolina may indeed have brought back a positive result for the Family Values Don't Mean Squat theory, but it's proximity to Georgia could also mean it's a false positive. I don't know. Just want to see more states.
If the theory is true, it is true with one important caveat: It can't be just that family values don't matter, it's gotta be that family values have been totally overtaken by something much bigger with voters at this point in America's history, which is that our backs are against the leftist wall, and it's time to do something about it. We are too close to the point of no return, and I'm not gonna say no candidate understands this, but Newt has been the only one who's been able to connect to voters about it. If someone were to come in the race late, it would have to be someone who can match or surpass the good angel side of Newt, and that is gonna be really tough. I can see Christie being able to do that, no way with Daniels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on, Scott, that's pretty disingenuous. One could actually more easily argue the inverse - that the spectacular failure of Huntsman's candidacy obliterated Mitch Daniels' specious theory that, as you put it, "family values don't mean squat." To the contrary, if a candidate is not perceived as right or reliable on social issues, the electorate has shown it will in effect veto that candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe endless fixation with Mitch Daniels among Beltway pundits is incomprehensible. The man has far less charisma than even Romney, next-to-no name recognition among the rank-and-file, and generally adheres to the oh-so-unsuccessful Huntsman approach to social issues. Part of me almost wants Daniels to make a late entry into the race so it will shut up all his delusional boosters in the media when he struggles to break out of single digits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The man has far less charisma than even Romney"
He does. And, he has an even higher dislike for confrontation. He was on the Jon Stewart shoe last year, or late in 2010, and he was dreadful. The video is still available at Stewart's website. If people are looking for an in-your-face, both barrels blazin' conservative, Daniels is not their man; not even close.
I will say that his CPAC speach last spring was unbelievably good. I loved it. But, it's exactly not the kind of speech that Newt Gingrich would give.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am amazed at how different Mitch Daniels' reputation is outside Indiana from inside the state. He's not as fiery as a Newt Gingrich or Chris Christie, but he comes across as very smart and sincere, and he has been an extremely successful governor. He'd be a terrific Presidential candidate and an even better President.
Unfortunately, I don't see a path to the nomination for him. Anyone jumping in now would need to be able to very quickly build a strong national following that allows him to compete for a few months without being on the ballot. It really needs to be someone who is already well known with a strong reputation. I'd be surprised if Mitch's national name recognition is over 30%, and even among those who do know who he is, he has a pretty mixed reputation. Maybe a "home run" in the state of the union response can remedy some of that, but I'd be very surprised if he ran.
Only people I can think of who'd be able to jump in this late are Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin. I don't think the "anyone but Newt" crowd would see Palin as much of an improvement, but I do think many of us "anyone but Romney" types would see Jeb as a major upgrade.
A more likely scenario would be a move to Santorum as the guy who makes the fewest Republicans cringe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAm I missing something? Mitch Daniels won't enter the race "unless a last-minute candidate enters the race and wins enough delegates..." Is that last-minute candidate Mitch Daniels? Or does Mitch Daniels enter only if some other last-minute candidate comes in and does all that stuff? Either way doesn't make sense. If it's the latter, why would Mitch Daniels wait for someone to water down the field so he can water it down even more? That wouldn't even be his main problem - because if it's the former, where is the real clamor for another candidate, a la Mitch Daniels? I know people like Kristol would slobber over it, plus morons at, say, The Washington Post, until they start ripping him, which would be immediately. Other than that segment, I sure as hell don't see anyone throwing their panties onstage at Mitch Daniels. How is he gonna take over the Newt people? Or the Paul people? Or the Santorum people? He's got serious problems with all of them.
Good grief...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo scenarios:
Paul Ryan announces his candidacy, flanked by Sarah Palin and Jeb Bush, and pronounces an end to the infighting. Time to coalesce around a reform candidate!
OR, Rand Paul, fresh off his detention by the TSA, announces with his dad sending all his delegates his way. That would shake thing up, no? Desperate times and all that...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe one fatal flaw in that idea is that no one but the original Republican field entered the contest. "You can't win if you don't play" as they say of the lottery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't you get it? As you can see by the two comments above, the conservative electorate prefers someone who panders to voters by ripping the media, throwing verbal bombs and using grandiose language to someone who actually is qualified to be President.
Calvin Coolidge would be jettisoned in favor of William Jennings Bryan, no problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't like your candidates...Blame yourself.
Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for this year's Republican base voter. That's why all the serious candidates took a pass. They're waiting for 2016.
Can you blame them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs it becomes ever clearer that Romney can't close this deal, and doesn't hold up to the kind of long-look scrutiny he'll get if he's the nominee, the less picky I get about who the anybody-but-Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum candidate is. Mitch Daniels? Fine. Paul Ryan? Fine. Jeb Bush? The surname has a lot of baggage now, even among Republicans, but yeah, fine.
Tim Pawlenty dropped out way, way too soon. Does anyone even remember why he did? In hindsight, was being beaten by Bachmann in the Iowa Straw Poll really such a big thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis fantasy of the dream candidate who will come in at the last minute and immediately assemble a juggernaut conservative coalition is getting kind of old. Four years ago it was Fred Thompson, six months ago it was Rick Perry. In early 2011 some people thought it would be Palin or Trump. Now depending on who you read it's Daniels, or Christie, or Rubio, or Jeb Bush or whomever.
It's January of election year and conservatives need to face the facts. Ronald Reagan is not walking through that door, and neither is whoever your personal fantasy Reagan surrogate might be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseat this point, the only guy who could pull it off is Jeb*. but he won't or we would have heard from him yesterday. he could have said, "i'm running because so many Florida voters have told me they want another option. if I get enough write-in votes to win here in Florida, I will go all out for the nomination." it could work, even if he had to rely on write-in votes in many states. it's not hard to write-in a candidate, we only don't because it seems like a pointless exercise. if it seemed like it could actually elect someone, the lack of having his name pre-printed on the ballots wouldn't be a real obstacle to the vast majority of voters.
* Christie has gone all in for Mitt, Daniels isn't exciting enough and Rubio knows better than to run now- his day is coming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI completely understand this mood of Scott's. I have always fancied myself a social conservative although I only strongly agree with about half of their concerns. I renounce them completely now. I guess I am just going to have to be an ideological freak, a RINO who just happens to be hostile to illegal immigration, hostile to gay marriage (although supportive of gay unions that provide legal equality), hostile to the pathetic remnants of the civil rights movement which has become a civil rights racket, etc. But the moronic base of religious bigots, the righteous zealots who know all about when and under what circumstances somebody's life support can be unplugged, those who are the zealous fans of Newt and of Sarah Palin, who are always suckers for all the red-meat...all these righteous hypocrites can go hell, which I conceive of as a place where you will never find anyone intelligent to talk to and must be populated by our base.
(And btw, John King made a reasonable judgment call in putting the Marianne interview on the table from the get-go. Other people might have made a different call, but it was not unreasonable by any standard except the standard of Newt and his mob of zealots.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(This was intended to land as a reply to Scott Wilson's post)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet real.
Anyway, Mitch Daniels may be one of the most boring people in America -- sort of Tim Pawlenty without the hair.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse