Political Prognostications (it's fun when I can spectate and not have a horse in the race)

[drwex]

I've been doing most of my politicking over on G+ in part because it started with me self-congratulation on predictions. This is a bit longer so it goes here. Everyone is treating Mitt as if he had it all locked up, which I think is premature. He's certainly odds-on favorite but I don't see any of his opponents folding their hands just yet, though most will, sooner rather than later. Here's how I see the Repub primary next-stage and maybe end-game:

South Carolina is Santorum's best chance. He's more or less breathing down Romney's neck at this point and S.C. is as close to his natural consistency as we'll see for a while. If he manages to beat Mitt he's in it for the long haul, but I don't think he will. The problem is that the Grinch is playing in the same space and the two of them are splitting what could be a more unified voting bloc. I think Santorum will demolish Grinch in S.C. but Grinch will pull away enough support to deny Santorum a victory over Mitt.

Santorum has managed to unify the born-again and religious types in a way that surprised me. Remember when Kennedy had problems because he was Catholic? Man those days are gone. Santorum may not be a Baptist but at least he's not Mormon.

The funniest thing since Herman Caine folded up his tent and went away has to be Rush Limbaugh upbraiding Santorum and Gingrich for making what I would call 99% arguments. The problem for Gingrich is that his own background is going to undercut his anti-Bain Capital stance and he won't win any favors with anyone that isn't already supporting Santorum. If he thinks the Tea Party is suddenly going to come to his banner he is on even worse drugs than usual. Santorum will appear on Limbaugh's show and probably a couple of other talk radio shows in the next couple of weeks and do his mea culpas and explanations, and come out looking good to that audience.

Neither Huntsman nor Paul are going to be able to keep any of their traction in S.C. Their constituency is a tiny part of the state mostly along the coast which Mitt is heavily invested in and they don't have the money or machinery to run counter to that. It's possible that the wave of attack ads that Grinch has funded will shake loose a few points of support but both men are likely to finish in low single digits. Both have to be looking on to Florida.


Florida is a real wildcard. Gingrich, Paul, and Huntsman all could potentially do well here but the odds are against all of them. I believe that a bad showing in S.C. will hurt Gingrich most. Paul's best hope is some kind of hung or near-hung convention that lets him play at kingmaker so he's probably going to be in it to the end no matter what. If Gingrich does as badly as I expect in S.C. and/or blows his own foot off - always a possibility when the Newtron bomb gets angry - then he'll plummet in FL and Paul will pick up points, maybe into the 12-15% range.

Santorum will have to play defense in FL. His constituency is up in the panhandle, which is largely conservative and much more rural but has highly unpredictable voter turn-out. Romney's going to be focusing on the big cities and may just bet that he can leave the rural areas to Santorum and still roll up another win. The only way this fails is if Santorum scores an upset in S.C. and/or Gingrich does something spectacularly self-destructive. I believe that Romney's negatives are baked in already for FL voters but if I'm wrong about that Huntsman stands to benefit the most. I don't think Huntsman can really beat Mitt in FL but if Gingrich and Santorum keep hair-pulling each other then it's conceivable Huntsman could come a reasonable second.


Normally NV wouldn't be interesting but I expect it to be Huntsman's swan song. NV has a very large Mormon constituency and even though the LDS Church is officially and strictly neutral it's going to come down to most people voting for one of the two Mormons. I would love to see Huntsman upset Romney here and continue, but one of the places I agree with the pundits is that Romney is the most seasoned campaigner. He'll be able to out-spend and out-organize Huntsman in NV, probably by two orders of magnitude, particularly since Huntsman has said he's not going to violate his self-imposed limits on how much of his personal and family fortune he puts into the campaign. Nevada is a caucus, not a formal primary, and Huntsman skipped Iowa's caucuses while Romney's team is experienced and ready to rock.

Of the rest of the pack I would expect Ron Paul to put in a strong 3rd place show here as he usually does in places where individualist voices sing loud, unless Santorum has pulled major upsets or great showings in SC and FL, in which case the Anyone But Romney vote is going to swing to him and drop Paul into 4th.


I also believe that one of Santorum or Gingrich will be out after Nevada. My money is on Gingrich being out because if he bombs in these three he's got nowhere to go. Santorum can look forward to Missouri as a possible place to revive a flagging campaign before Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday it's going to be down to Mitt and... or just Mitt depending on how the others play their cards.

Y'all can feel free to tell me I'm wrong now or come back here and say "tolja so" in the next couple weeks. This is fun sport.

Comments

[bluegargantua]

I thought that Paul was skipping the Florida contest because it was winner-take-all. I did read that the GOP is making their primary process a bit more like the Democratic process which can lead to a more drawn-out primary. I don't know if that keeps things lively or just makes Mitt seem more unstoppable. But it does mean that Paul is almost certainly playing the long game and trying to pick up enough delegates all over the country to give some leverage at the convention (for whatever that's worth).

later
Tom

[drwex]

If he's skipping Florida then he's an idiot. Having Florida be WTA really hurts Santorum and Gingrich which means one or the other of them pretty much HAS to knock off Mitt in SC. As a pair they're about as effective as if you'd put one Hatfield with one McCoy in a three-legged race.

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to hear that someone I know is finding it all fun. I'm so heartsick that half of my fellow Americans can imagine voting for ANY of these clowns that I've been deliberately paying as little attention to the whole thing as possible, so as not to spiral down into total despair.

[c1.livejournal.com]

Consider voting for one of the clowns. No, really.

If Romney wins the primary, Obama is a four-and-out president. On the stump, Romney will ask (as Reagan did in '79) "are you better off now than you were four years ago" and the answer will be pretty straightforward at that point. Regardless of the logic, people will want change and hope, and that's not been Obama's strong point these past three years; we're still mired in a struggling economy.

If any of the other clowns takes the nomination, Obama wins, possibly in a landslide. None of the other candidates looks remotely presidential when compared to Obama or Romney (and we're seeing that being played out in the primaries right now). America saw a religious nutcase on the ballot last go 'round, and we know how well that worked out for McCain.

The smart vote is for one of the GOP candidates that isn't Romney, won't win in a million years, and yet can do well enough in the polls to continue onto the next election, and possibly make Romney have to work for his vote in the process (read: spend down more of his war chest than he'd prefer.) Take a shower after voting if you need.

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

I'm a registered Democrat; I thought one had to be registered Republican or Independent to vote in a Republican primary?

[c1.livejournal.com]

I've always been an unenrolled voter, so this hasn't ever been a problem for me. I'd recommend inquiring at your local town hall about what you'd need to do to vote. Here in NH, the primary was for both the GOP and the Democratic candidates (though obviously, it's a fait accompli as to who'll take the Democratic nomination).

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

If Romney wins the nomination (and he probably will), he still has the option of picking one of the other wingnut candidates as VP. That scenario gives me nightmares -- can you imagine Santorum with 4 years of VP-hood under his belt, and all his wingnuttery intact? I'd really rather not have a religious nut as the theoretically-secular leader of the US. *shudder*

[c1.livejournal.com]

If Romney wins the nomination (and he probably will), he still has the option of picking one of the other wingnut candidates as VP.
Yep, he does. If he wins the nomination, he can pick anyone he wants, regardless of who was running in the primaries. Remember that Palin was an unknown before McCain's team found her, and Cheney didn't run in the primaries, underscoring the fact that a president isn't required to pick a losing primary candidate as his or her running mate.
I don't see how casting a strategic ballot helps or hinders the selection of a running mate.
In a few months, the GOP will have a candidate. A strategically cast ballot gives you the chance to choose who that GOP candidate will be. Simply pulling the handle for Obama will just add one more ballot to the bulletproof majority he's already got. (Notice he's not really been campaigning yet this election cycle.)

And yes, I can indeed imagine Santorum (the person, not the... err... muck) with 4 years of VP-hood under his belt. I can also imagine what life after a thermonuclear explosion in downtown Boston might be like. I also would prefer not to see either scenario play out.

[drwex]

I think it's a low probability. Historically, party unity is won at the convention by consolidating delegates, not by allying with close rivals. You didn't see Obama-Clinton either - both parties do this.

I expect Romney to go outside the running field for someone who will bring ideological and geographic balance. There's a good chance he'd pick someone like Christie, who was a favorite of the not-Romney crowd. However, Christie is another easterner. He'll probably look to the south or west instead, which I think leans against Santorum. Newt brings nothing but liabilities and I doubt he'd take Perry just because Perry managed to look so awful on national TV.

I don't know the Republican bench well enough to have a prediction yet on who'll be in the #2 spot on the ticket but I'm confident it won't be any of the people who lose to Mitt in the primaries.

[mrf-arch.livejournal.com]

Maybe Huckabee's still interested. :-)

[c1.livejournal.com]

Agreed on pretty much all your points. Picking a running mate from the cast of also-rans gives the other side a slew of ammunition: slinging the very mud the primary candidates were slinging at each other. But also, it sets up an uneasy relationship on that ticket. Remember JFK/LBJ?
I can't remember who, but someone recently (possibly Romney) was mentioning that all the negative campaigning was serving up the Democrats with all the ammunition they could possibly want for after the convention. We'll see how long that lasts.

[davidfcooper.livejournal.com]

Romney's first choice for VP will be Rubio, since FL is a must-win state.

[drwex]

Maybe. I don't think Rubio's position on immigration is going to sit any better than Romney's though. I think Obama is vulnerable on this one and the Repubs won't pass it up easily. I don't know if they'd go so far as to pick Jan Brewer but I'd rate her as a more likely choice than Rubio.

I think that the Republicans believe that having a woman in the #2 spot on the ticket gives them some leverage. Polling for Palin showed a swing purely based on her sex especially when she was largely unknown nationally. Picking a woman who is (a) smarter, (b) more able to keep her mouth shut when necessary and (c) not so ladled with family baggage is probably high on the strategic agenda.

[davidfcooper.livejournal.com]

I agree that voting for a clown hurts Romney & thus helps Obama, but Romney is not a certain winner vs. Obama. Romney's tin ear & clueless insensitive remarks, plus his controversial record at Baine Capital, are greater liabilities in a general election than in a GOP nominating contest. If the economy is perceived to be improving President Obama will be hard to beat.

[c1.livejournal.com]

The odd thing about the GOP shaming him about his time at Bain Capital is that they're caught in the weird place of shaming a businessman for being successful. Voters are noticing the logical dissonance, and the GOP seems to be taking note that they've got an exceptionally fine line to tread.
You're right that an improving economy will be a game changer, but at this point, I don't see that happening to a significant enough degree before the elections. Obama has less than eleven months (and realistically, less than about ten) to turn the ship around; something no president can realistically do. (If it was at all possible, every first-term president in a bad economy would have written the play book on how it's done by now.)

[c1.livejournal.com]

One of the interesting things I was listening to on NHPR this morning was an observation that Romney has his work cut out for him in FL. His anti-immigrant stance will make the south Florida vote a bit problematic, to say the least. He can make it swing in north Florida if he's careful, but he's got to watch his message for at least the next couple weeks.
Also, don't forget that Paul remains a force even if he doesn't do well in the GOP primaries: if he loses, it's entirely likely that he'll bolt for the Libertarian party (in NH, he did extremely well amongst voters in the northern half of the state -- that part that has a strong libertarian ethos) and do to Mitt what Nader did to Gore.

[drwex]

I think Paul is a non-entity. He hasn't ruled out a 3rd party run but even if he does get shut down at the Republican convention and decides to bolt he's a no-op. 1% in the general election, maybe. The core fanatic group works awesomely well in caucus-type situations but he has nowhere near the resources to run in a general election without major party backing.

[c1.livejournal.com]

He did far better (as I recall, by a factor of two) this time around than last. He's the only one suggesting that using the military as an instrument of foreign policy is a Bad Idea. America is going through some pretty hefty war fatigue, and polls in both NH and IA showed he's got a lot of appeal with the younger conservative voter who prefers a candidate who doesn't compromise on the ideal of small government (remember what Clinton did with young, motivated voters back in '92). I think that's enough to help him take a large enough chunk of GOP voters (if he runs as a Libertarian) to make the party sit up and pay attention to what he's doing. At the very least, he could be the distraction that the GOP doesn't need right now.
The biggest problem facing the Republicans (and this is the Democrats biggest advantage at the moment) is that the party doesn't have a candidate who's speaking to a very large electorate. Move them around the country, and each candidate has places where they'll put in a good showing. But on the flip side, each is vulnerable enough in enough places that a truly energizing, electable candidate who can unite the party behind him is eluding the GOP. They need every vote they can get, and Paul stands to toss a wrench in the works. Romney looks pretty good now, but he's yet to visit the South, and the news today reported on a group of 150 evangelicals who are organizing in Texas, planning on how they can knee-cap the "godless" Mormon.
As Dr. Horrible sang, "It's gonna get bloody, head up Billy buddy, there's no time for mercy..."

[slfisher.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Paul take Idaho and Nevada.