Might as well post this now. I've been rewriting this month after month after month due to the race changing. But what's the point if I don't actually POST it before the presidential contest?
Part 1: Introduction.
I made my first draft of this post back in May. My original plan for this diary was to list in ascending order the Republicans most likely to get the nomination rather than having the potential to"contend"; to have the capacity to make it to the top of the pack but not necessarily go all the way. Jon Huntsman for example has (or should I say at this point HAD) a far better chance of making it to the top two or three than he does going all the way. He has a profile built for second place. Even if so far he has run a campaign geared towards last. But I am not going to venture into actually guessing who is most likely. The landscape has shifted and continues to change so much that it would be foolhardy at this point.
So instead I am going to rank candidates yet again based on their capacity to “contend” and built around the premise that money ultimately wins elections. I wrote up what I thought was a wonderful analysis of past elections categorizing the most recent Republican contests into a number of templates. I then tried to predict what the most likely template was and what template each candidate was hoping for and which one was the most likely path for each one actually succeeding. That is also out the window.
These scenarios are not necessarily out the window but the field has been far too multi-polar to pigeonhole thus far. Initial signs pointed to what I termed the Establishment Role Play Scenario where two establishment candidates would do a pretend re-enactment of 1964. Later it seemed like there could be an actual play out of 1964.
Right now the situation is the Republican Party does not seem to want Mitt Romney but none of his adversaries seems to have what it takes as far as money, organization, or just raw popular support to beat him. Does this mean we'll have a redux of 1968 where Richard Nixon easily won despite an initially tepid reception from all portions of the Republican Party? Or even a repeat of 2008 where the different wings of the Conservative movement so fractured that the moderate McCain became their second choice? Or is a true revolution in the Republican Party truly at hand?
I'll include some of what I wrote up at the end. But we may be in new territory with new rules to be written. Especially given the death of campaign finance laws and the potential for big money to be pumped into virtually anyone fast and at a moments notice.
Part 2: What has changed?
In some ways nothing. Romney is still the very vulnerable frontrunner who seems in danger of falling if someone – anyone – could just consolidate their support. But the following would be a summation.
1) The “establishment” Republican alternatives to Mitt Romney have either evaporated or dropped out. Rick Perry was supposed to to be the establishment figure who could reach out to the activist wing of the party. So far he's sputtered and turned off the establishment with his anti-federal reserve talk and has not even impressed the tea partiers and social conservatives who were supposed to be his bread and butter. Of the true establishment figures besides Romney in the race Jon Huntsman has little chance of winning. And Buddy Roemer has absolutely no chance whatsoever.
2) None of the Romney alternatives listed in April have raised the necessary funds or built the required organization to compete nationally. Jon Huntsman initially did attract some money bundlers but his inept campaign has meant he has essentially been self-funding his campaign. Bachmann's money has dried up as her polling position has fallen. It is unclear how much of the organization she built up in Iowa is still active. Herman Cain has for the most of the campaign been Newt Gingrich. More in the race for vanity and to boost his business outside the Presidential race than someone who was doing what was needed to win. His fundraising has picked up but he is not even close to Romney. And with him re-evaluating his campaign it will probably dry up shortly. Ron Paul remains a niche player though one who could shock people in either Iowa or New Hampshire given how fervent his support is and how small turnout may just be. The only candidate who can seriously compete with Romney long term is Rick Perry who entered the race over the summer. It is possible one of the others could win Iowa and catch fire and blow the race wide open. But the most likely scenario is they will only get in the way of Rick Perry who has the actual resources to compete. That is assuming Rick Perry can stop his free fall in the polls. And that is easier said than done.
3) The race remains wide open. Despite there only being about two months until Iowa the field remains in flux and not exactly well known. Large financial expenditures are the best way to solidify things quickly. Thus even at this late date. And even despite Rick Perry's fumbles and terrible polling numbers the clear advantage is still in Rick Perry's and Mitt Romney's hands since they have the money and organization to survive and compete until the April winner take all primaries and caucuses that will most likely ultimately determine the race.
Part 3: The money game.
A big question coming into this race was what role the Citizens' United Supreme Court ruling would make on the race. So far the large groups have stayed out and the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney via their “SuperPACS” have an even larger financial advantage than their already impressive regular campaign fundraising suggests.
The big question is whether if Rick Perry continues to stumble whether an outside group will be able to prop up someone such as say Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich with large cash donations and political organizing. But the financial Gods usually help those who help themselves. And so far the candidates outside of Perry and Romney have done little to help themselves.
Part 4: Candidate round-up based on potential to Contend.
Contention is defined as probability they will have the resources to contest the nomination beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. As opposed to the probability of them actually obtaining the Republican nomination.
Frontrunners
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is exactly in the same place he was 8 months ago. His polling numbers are in the anemic low to mid 20s. And the flavor of the month is nipping at his heels and even surpassing him. He may be an unloved frontrunner but his money operation is top notch and only Rick Perry threatens to compete with it. With the implosion of his rivals, their lack of organization, and lack of a clear rival he may be able to prove what a formidable force the establishment of the Republican Party actually is.
The key for him is he must win New Hampshire to establish his momentum early and start winning pluralities in the states afterward to establish a sense of inevitability before the big April 1st winner take all states hold their contests.
The main dilemma his campaign faces is how to deal with the rest of the Republican field. Ideally he wants the most conservative wing of the Republican Party hopelessly divided. And he risks consolidating the support of anyone he attacks. He hopes his rivals will do his dirty work for him. But at some point like he did with Rick Perry earlier he will have to engage.
Rick Perry
Rick Perry has gone from Republican savior to at times a national joke. Why is he still a frontrunner then? Because there is still time left, early polling is unreliable, and he is the only one with the money and organization to truly go toe to toe against Mitt Romney. He is also the only candidate that can lose Iowa AND New Hampshire and still compete for the nomination.
The danger for him is that the recent spate of polling numbers may cripple his impressive fundraising organization. But Rick Perry is used to tough races. Ones where he falls behind and through grunt work, good organization, heavy spending, and most importantly savage merciless negative campaigning making a come back. Just as people overestimated his chances when he first got in they are now also underestimating his chances.
Iowa will produce a winner. Perhaps Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich or even Ron Paul. New Hampshire will produce another winner. Probably Mitt Romney though the winner in Iowa will see a spike there. After that the race starts moving south where Rick Perry has more appeal. More importantly it is unclear whether the winner in Iowa will actually have the financial resources to actually make a legitimate multi-state stand against Mitt Romney. That is where Rick Perry will get his second look and his chance yet again to become the Republican Party's anti-Romney.
The Contenders
I am no longer using the term “top contenders” because all of them have been so unimpressive that the term “top” is laughable. Though Cain deserves credit for even making it to this category.
Herman Cain
Herman Cain was until recently the Republican flavor of the month. Yet it is still the same old Herman Cain. He has no organization in New Hampshire. He has no organization in Iowa. He has no organization anywhere else. Like Newt Gingrich he had been running just as much for the attention he could get and how it could help the other facets of his career than any desire to actually be President. The recent attention he has been getting has jump-started his fundraising. Which if he was smart he'd invest in Iowa.
But the question is if somehow he wins Iowa. Then what? And if he doesn't win Iowa does he have a future?
The whole controversy over the racist name of the Perry family hunting ground also shows part of his strength and vulnerability. Progressives often accuse Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Party members of racism. This stings them badly and is something they view as unfair and libelous. Just as there were some white liberals who not only liked what Barack Obama stood for but what their support for him said about themselves there are Republicans who view Herman Cain as a source of pride they want to get behind if he is at all viable.
But another reason conservatives love minority candidates is that those candidates can say things that might be seen as racially insensitive that they themselves are scared to or at least give them cover to say. They like that Herman Cain can attack accusations of white racism as being whining and cheap attempts at claiming victimhood. He can say this far more strongly and with far more authority than they can.
Which is why when Herman Cain attacked Rick Perry over the name of his family ranch he inadvertently placed himself in a box. Republicans do not want to hear accusations of racism or Black candidates playing “the race card.” Not only that a lot of Americans regardless of their party are turned off by anyone making such accusations. That is what killed Harold Ford Jr in Tennessee. Not the borderline racist ad against him. But his reaction to it where his cries of “racism” dominated the news cycle and turned him from a right leaning Democrat who just happened to be black to a black Democrat complaining that he was being denied equal opportunity because of race. Herman Cain wisely backtracked and said the name of the ranch didn't really matter to him. And he'll need to be careful not be provoked even if faced with a similar situation to that which Harold Ford Jr faced.
And that is why the current controversy over him engaging in sexual harassment is dangerous. He is trying to play the racism card. And perhaps if it is only directed at the media it may work. Especially if he plays up the Clarence Thomas parallel. But if someone chooses to engage him on this issue and he calls any of his Republican opponents racist he is toast.
Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann's weakness has always been her lack of discipline. In the past she has gone quickly through staff and shot from the hip with careless abandon and has survived and even thrives based in part on her relentless tenaciousness. But running for the presidency is a completely different game with higher expectations and a higher degree of scrutiny. The problem with her campaign is the problem that has plagued her past campaigns. Discipline and lack of structure. A classic example is when she talked about being from the same town as "John Wayne" when the "John Wayne" from that town was serial killer John Wayne Gacy. That faux paux did not come about because she is an idiot or a psychopath. It came about because probably some campaign aid did a quick google while writing a speech and no one bothered to properly proofread the speech.
But this lack of discipline is not about the staff but the candidate. Campaigns are grueling with candidates getting little sleep and to a certain extent going on autopilot. It can backfire when even the most centrist temperate candidates try to ad lib. But someone like Michele Bachmann especially needs to stay on message. Particularly given her reputation. A classic example is her attacks on Rick Perry over the vaccination of girls against the HPV virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer. She had a well rehearsed effective attack on Rick Perry saying that he had pushed for something opposed by social conservatives because of money from the pharmaceutical industry. Going off script to talk about vaccination on the other hand backfired.
If she had stayed steady she could have survived the Perry onslaught and been prepared to take advantage as he inevitably fell to earth. Unfortunately for her money was not necessarily well managed and massive staff turnover and even outright defections have hurt her campaign.
The main question is how strong her campaign in Iowa is. She was building up a good operation and so far we've only heard about the disintegration of her New Hampshire operation. But given her money problems some damage must have happened there as well. And her weak poll numbers which are hurting her fundraising is going to make her a tougher sell to Iowa caucus goers who are not going to waste their vote on a “loser.”
But the Iowa caucuses remain a low turnout race dominated by activists who her issues connect with. And given how much of a beating her rivals on the right have been taking a good organized get out the vote effort sparking a come behind victory in Iowa could give her campaign a second wind. That said you would be silly to place any money on it in Vegas.
Jon Huntsman
When I last wrote about Huntsman he was scoring a number of big Republican money bundlers and had a conservative record in Utah that looked like a good contrast to Mitt Romney's squishy campaign positions. In fact for all the talk of Huntsman's supposed moderation his positions place him well to the right of the top candidates who have competed in any of the recent Republican presidential contests. Certainly to the right of George W Bush in 2000 or John McCain in 2008.
Huntsman has simply run a horrible campaign. From a staff standpoint the campaign dramas of the McCain campaign centered around guru John Weaver have followed him to the Huntsman campaign. From a candidate standpoint Huntsman has simply failed to stand out from the rest of the field. He is in a sense a more tepid and boring version of the rest. And to the extent he isn't that has also hurt him as well.
It is tempting to compare Jon Huntsman's presidential campaign to Arlen Specter's given how both were widely regarded as the most moderate candidate in the race and both went nowhere. But Arlen Specter barely tried and position by position he was far more out of step from the Republican party than Huntsman ever was. A far better comparison would be Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman, particularly when he ran in 2004, held pretty liberal positions on a whole host of issues. He however spoke often using Republican code words and talking points. His problem was not so much a perception he was too conservative than that he was a turncoat out for himself. Since proven correct over and over again.
Jon Huntsman does the same. Let's take the issue of cap and trade. Just like virtually every other Republican he has changed his previously held position and is now against it. Unlike every other candidate in explaining his previously held position he attacked the Republican Party as being “anti-science.” Now to Democratic ears those words are magic. Those are our talking points and something we have at least a good hunch is true. To Republican ears, even those who agree global warming is real and should be dealt with (even if not by the specific policy position known as cap and trade) he is just using Democratic buzzwords to smear the Republican Party.
Huntsman's strategy has been to present himself as an alternative if Mitt Romney stumbles in New Hampshire. But given Huntsman's failure to gain much publicity he cannot claim to be more electable than Romney. Romney's attacks from the right have cemented Romney's position as the candidate of the center even as Romney adopts all the positions of the far right. There is not much room to go to Mitt's left. And no polling showing Huntsman doing any better than Romney.
Huntsman should have instead gone to the right and tried to fill the void Tim Pawlenty left when he withdrew. He still might have a shot taking that route. A few conservatives disgusted with the current field and seeing his record in Utah is far more conservative than Huntsman's moderate reputation have said that might be willing to take a second look.
But right now the best Huntsman can hope for is a cabinet post based on his foreign credentials. Bloomberg if he did a vanity run for President might consider him for Vice President. But would any of the other Republican candidates? Maybe Rick Perry who considers him a friend.
But Huntsman does have one thing that keeps him in the race and gives him hope. He is ridiculously wealthy and not afraid to spend it on himself. And that is what separates him from say Buddy Roemer. There is always a chance Mitt Romney could stumble or he could manage to find a message to excite independents in New Hampshire and if he does he'll have the money to take advantage of it. But time is running out.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul could conceivably win both Iowa and New Hampshire given his small but fanatical following. But still he'd have little chance of being the Republican nominee. There is just too much apostasy in his positions (particularly foreign policy) and too much of a nutty professor vibe. The best shot he would've had in influencing public policy would have been to step aside and allow his son who has a far better relationship with Republican activists to run instead.
Ron Paul unlike last time around has appeared in all Republican debates and has performed well. He's also done very well in a number of meaningless straw polls. While not the best barometer of who will or not win (just ask President Phil Gramm) it does show a strong organization that may surprise people in Iowa.
Strong internet fundraising and a well oiled but barebones campaign organization should keep him in the rest no matter what the primary election results are right to the end. And perhaps even beyond.
Newt Gingrich
The stumbles of others and his smooth debate performances have given him a bounce in the polls. Still a month left to see whether it is a dead cat bounce given he has no campaign organization whatsoever to take advantage of his rise in the polls. If Cain can be taken seriously while doing likewise, why not Newt?
Newt does have some organizational ability and we'll see what he can build up in this very short time.
Rick Santorum
On paper Rick Santorum should be doing better. A former Senator from a Democratic leaning purple state who won two terms in office despite a hard right record with strong ties to the religious right he should have been able to take better advantage of the stumbles of his rivals on the right fringe of the party. But so far he has not been able to raise enough funds to rub two nickels together.
His mistake may have been in misjudging the race. He toned down his hard right rhetoric on gays and other social issues and has presented himself as temperate, mainstream, and affable. If he had gone the opposite way perhaps he might have been able to grab some of the support that is now going Herman Cain's way.
Part 5. Historical Republican Templates for 2012.
What I wrote a few months ago that now seems outdated but I'll put a redacted version in anyway with a few updates since I spent so much time writing it.
In evaluating possible scenarios each of the top Republicans could be elected to office it is useful to look at past Republican templates. Each race of course is it's own creature with it's own personalities and idiosyncrasies but certain patterns do emerge. But first I'm going to give some comments on the most likely historical scenarios.
These are of course just a few possible scenarios and there are some I am not including because the nature of the candidates in the race make them highly unlikely. For example a 1968 model where one candidate is so strong that they squelch relatively weak challenges from the left and right each during different time frames or a 1948/1952 model where a highly popular avowedly centrist candidate beats all comers.
Establishment Role Play Scenario – 1988 and 2000.
The "Establishment Role Play Scenario is one where the top candidates are from the Establishment wing of the party and takes on the roles of "moderate" and "conservative" with the candidate positioning themselves as the "conservative" coming out on top in a psuedo replay of past real left-right battles such as 1964.
In 1988 and 2000 the two future Bush Presidents successful made themselves the "conservative" alternative to the rival they castigated as being too "liberal." This serves to sideline the harsher purer conservative candidates and causes conservatives to rally around the establishment figure who then prevails as both Bush's went on to do.
Within the context of the 2012 race this would in it's purest form be one where one out of the group of Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman despite their weaknesses and past "apostacies" crowns themselves as the conservative pick while painting their nearest rival as too "liberal." Each one of these three candidates has the potential to play either role. Or in the case of the late candidacy of Tim Pawlenty. Had.
There are two problems with this template. First is who to include within the "establishment." For example do Newt Gringrich and Rick Santorum get honorary membership for being a former Speaker of the House and a former United States Senator? Or do their past statements make such a designation dubious? And where does Rick Perry fit in?
With Mitch Daniels long gone, Tim Pawlenty's implosion and Jon Huntsman's campaign stalling this scenario unlike in past years may not even be a possibility. Especially since Rick Perry's trajectory may more closely mirror the 1964/1980 model. Chris Christie was probably the last chance to breath any life into this template.
One model that may come into being is what happened in 2008 when this strategy in fact backfired.
The 2008 Corollary – 2008
In 2008 Mitt Romney was able to imperfectly establish himself as the more conservative alternative to Rudy Guiliani and the two of them ran a highly negative campaign against each other in New Hampshire. And to both their horror and surprise John McCain after seeing his support atrophy came back. The momentum then shifted McCain's way and the rest is history.
And while it is often a great strategy for two candidates to pick fights with each other so they can separate themselves this can be dangerous. Particularly in a year like 2008 and perhaps 2012 where there were no real strong contenders and the strength and money of John McCain was not all that less than that of Guiliani and Romney.
Not that the third wheel always prospers. Especially if they are themselves fatally flawed. This calls into mind the 1992 Democratic contest. Bill Clinton after dispatching Paul Tsongas and being beset by scandal saw a third challenger arise. Former California Governor Jerry Brown. But Brown's weaknesses despite his popularity among many in the liberal base (which in some ways is a historical curiousity given he made the flat tax one of his main issues) were far too large for him to seriously contest the nomination. You could also use John Edwards in 2008 as an example though his exit from the race may well have been less from the public weaknesses in his candidacy than the then unknown but emerging scandal that would tar him months after his withdrawl.
Thus the question for 2012 is if you had a theoretical contest where Mitt Romney and Rick Perry went nuclear against each other after establishing themselves as the top two nominees would the emerging third wheel be? Would that third wheel be viable? You could argue this in fact happened and that third wheel is the already sputtering Herman Cain. And Newt Gingrich is the donut you had stored in the trunk after that one went flat.
The Barbarian at the Gate Scenario - 1992/1996
In 1996 Patrick Buchanan shocked most observers when he won the New Hampshire four years after a surprisingly strong showing against George HW Bush. Patrick Buchanan was arguably the conservative choice. Certainly the choice of many Christian Conservatives due to his focus on the "culture wars." Under normal circumstances this would have made him a strong contender for the Republican nomination. The problem was he held too many beliefs particularly on trade and foreign policy that deviated from the strongly held convictions of most Republican primary voters. He also of course wasn't helped by the perception of him being a surefire loser in the general election.
Hence despite many conservatives finding Bob Dole to be too moderate (as they did in 1988) they rallied behind him. 2008 also shows hints of something similar where many conservatives after Mike Huckabee began to surged fled to establishment figures such as Romney and McCain out of fear of Huckabee's perceived moderation on fiscal issues.
The big question about this scenario in terms of 2012 is whether it only applies to those who hold heterodoxical beliefs such as Ron Paul or debatably New Gingrich? Or would it apply to someone such as Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin who are seen as "extreme" but are down the line on the issues that conservatives care about? If it does then there is a fine line between this and the next scenario.
The Conservative Revolution Scenario – 1964/1980
There are few contests that have more resonance in conservative mythology than the 1964 race of Barry Goldwater against Nelson Rockefeller. To some extent the effectiveness of the "Establishment Role Play Scenario" is the thirst of conservatives to see this contest if not in reality then at least in kabuki re-enacted.
The main feature of both races besides a moderate arch-villain who is slain is a larger than life figure who is able through years of outreach and painstaking planning able to unite the conservative wing under their leadership.
That is far from the case in 2012. Sarah Palin had the best shot of achieving such a feat but rather than putting in the necessary work literally went on an artic safari for "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Rick Perry during his honeymoon period showed potential. It remains to be seen whether anyone can consolidate support.
This however remains the dream and fantasy not just for the Herman Cains and Michele Bachmanns but for Mitt Romney and the entire Republican field.
Iowa will be the state that weeds out the right flank of the Republican field besides Rick Perry who will have a second crack at establishing himself in South Carolina.
Deadlocked Apocalypse – Pre-1952
After the 2008 election I figured the Democrats would move more towards emulating the Republican winner take all system. The Democratic Party dodged a large bullet three years ago. With proportional representation and two candidates strong enough to compete right through the primaries if John Edwards had stayed in even as a weaker though still potent third wheel he would've gained enough delegates to prevent either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton from becoming the nominee on a first ballot. That John Edwards would have been mortally wounded before the convention in scandal might have even made the matter worse since it would've removed the possibility of him trying to negotiate away his delegates. Not that he would've been guaranteed to control them anyway. While some delegates are citizens who truly believe in the candidate and all they stand for many are just perks and giveaways given to local political machines, unions, political groups, and activist groups who supported the candidate in a given state for multitudes of reasons.
Instead the opposite occurred. The Republicans are now instituting proportionality
With the Republican Party it could be worse. The groups who are being appeased with convention delegate allocation can be even more extreme. We saw in Utah in 2010 what a nominating convention dominated by conservative activists could look like.
With proportional representation a worry for any Republican is what if three candidates make it to the convention without a majority? This of course is still unlikely since just like in the Democratic Party there will be strong institutional and public pressure for candidates to get out early and two of the three candidates are more likely than not form a ticket together rather than risk an open convention.
At an open convention all bets are off. If you are lucky you get Marco Rubio as your nominee. If you aren't you get Joe Arpaio.
But before you get too giddy at the prospect of a deadlocked Republican Convention not only is such a scenario unlikely but states having primary contests in April or later still have the option of retaining a winner take all system. And a number of states who opted for early primaries in the past are looking at pushing them back. In fact even at this late date states are still considering when exactly they want to vote.
If not deadlocking the convention these changes may push back the real start of the Republican campaign from January in Iowa to April with New Hampshire and Iowa only sifting out the deadwood. It may also diminish any bounce as the distance between New Hampshire and Iowa and the large winner take all primaries and caucuses increases.