Watching the GOP primaries, I've been continually stumped by the speed and fluidity of the massive game of "Tea Party speed-dating" the whole thing has devolved into, as that rabid 75% of the GOP base battle to settle their differences and rally against Romney. At one point, I was sure it would be Pawlenty that would emerge as the ultimate nominee- good thing I never put money on it. I didn't see Perry's collapse, or Cain's surge. I didn't understand the mercilessness of the GOP base towards the fairly bad Perry, compared to their tolerance of intolerable Cain. And Bachmann's brief surge- there were no words.
At this point, like many I'd say that it looks more likely than ever that it'll be Romney. I won't make that a prediction, given all of the above that I couldn't predict, but just right now it probably makes the most sense. Like most, my instinct is to fear that result, hoping that Obama will have one of the more beatable opponents. But I keep realising, there's no need to fear it.
Gingrich may be having his moment in the sun, but on personal grounds, and more importantly due to his lack of the ground-game and funding needed for Florida and Super Tuesday, he can't win. Ditto for Cain. If Perry can recover, then his superior campaign organisation and establishment backing might yet give him the "forewithall" to challenge Romney and rally the 75%. But despite his less-terrible debate performance, that's not on the cards yet, if I had to guess. And no one else has a chance, least of all Huntsman, the only Republican Democrats should genuinely respect and fear. In short, Romney's Napoleonic strategy of "never interrupt the enemy when he's in the middle of making a mistake" looks like a winner.
And so it'll be Romney, most likely. The GOP establishment will have their way, and Dems will be robbed of their chance to party like it's 1964. Instead, I'm expecting the election to be a like-for-like repeat of 2004, so much so that a may ignore the whole thing to avoid the deja vu. The challenging party, unsure of their field and focused above all on beating an incumbent president they despise, nominate a compromise candidate they perceive to be electable, despite him being exciting to few of them and him being seen by some a a "Massachusetts elitist". They will hope that they can him under the banner of "I'm better than the embattled incumbent". One aspect of his past experience is seen as particularly relevant, as it ties with the most pressing issue of the election, and this was another reason he was nominated. Of course, I admire John Kerry as a statesman and can't stand Mitt Romney, so the comparison is unfair to Kerry in a a sense, but it's hard not to see the parralels.
It'll be harder not to see them when Obama responds with essentially the same strategy Bush did, only with a bit more honesty. "He's a flip-flopper, you can't trust him"- truer of Romney than it ever was of Kerry, mind. And second, just as Dems bet on and Bush feared Kerry's military experience with the War on Terror as the top issue, Romney's business cred will be a card the Republicans will play with the economy and jobs the main issue. And Obama will pound Mitt for his record of firing workers as a consultant at Bain, using Romney's perceived strength against him. Combine that with mistrust of Republicans in general, an honest highlighting of some of the Dem acheivements of the past four years and Obama's still-present personal appeal, and Obama's in with a chance.
And even before all that, while the polls undoubtably show Romney as a better bet for the GOP than anyone else, he's far from a silver bullet. Obama's numbers have improved of late, including against Romney. So while it'll undoubtably a tougher fight, it's still more than winnable. And due to the greater risk, the rewards of victory will be greater too.
If we're honest, in 2010 the Tea Party were a saviour for the Democrats. Many pundits still believe, likely correctly, that the four vote margin Democrats kept in the Senate was down to the 3-5 races where the Tea Party chose sub-optimal candidates in key races. Something similar happened in the Illinois governorship, I remember writing at the time, in contrast to IL-Sen, where the GOP got their optimal choice in Mark Kirk. If the GOP chooses to go with Perry or another non-Romney, then it'd be far be it from any Obama supporter to complain about the easier task Democrats had been given. However, I wonder if the media, the GOP and even some Democrats would speculate about what would have been. Just as many feel that Harry Reid owes both his Senate seat and his leadership of the majority in part to the poor decisions of Republicans, there'd be a sense that Obama's second term wasn't entirely of his own merit, a feeling that the Republicans would no doubt ruthlessly exploit. Moreover, this would have implications for 2016. It'd be hard for the Tea Party to protest that they hadn't gotten their own way, though I'm sure they'd come with some revisionist excuse ("well Perry still wasn't conservative enough, remember his stance on immigration? That's why we lost"). Neverthless, the establishment would be in much better position to install a credible Republican candidate in 2016. And after eight years of Obama, the task for the Dem nominee in 2016 to hold the White House will be tough- three terms is an occurence only seen once in the last 60 years.
Whereas, if Dems go up against Romney and win, though the victory may be narrower, it's power will be undeniable. The GOP's self-professed greatest hope would have failed, Obama will have won on his own terms alone. And moreover, the GOP civil war will intensify, all the way to 2016. We must understand that the Tea Party's anti-Romney conviction is due to their belief that they already tried the establishment's "electability" formula with McCain. Their read on that is wrong of course, but if Romney loses too, the Tea Party will take it as further vindication, and will rebel yet again and pull the Republican Party even further off the reservation.
It'll be tough, but a believe Obama can still beat Romney. And when he does, Democrats can celebrate with twice as much pride, right as the Republicans begin to turn on each other yet again. Bring it on, Mitt.