Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Winning the general election is not going to be easy for the GOP candidate, whoever he or (increasingly unlikely) she is. The opponent is the incumbent President (putting Rob's Hillary conspiracy to one side for the moment). He will have the biggest war chest for any candidate for anything, ever. He will have the media on his side. He will have a reasonable tale to tell on foreign policy, because the challenger can't possibly have a better one (not having actually been President). The economy and jobs will mysteriously fail to be the key issue for the campaign, which will be all about how many babies the GOP candidate eats before breakfast.
This is not to say a GOP win is impossible. The economy is, in fact, in a mess. The President's foreign policy, insofar as he has one, has been pretty disastrous. But - the President can count on 40% of the electorate to vote for him no matter what he does and no matter who his opponent is. Winning the GOP nomination is an invitation to a world of hurt with an uncertain payoff.
So what if the GOP candidate loses?
Does the defeat of a 'run to the safe middle' Romney campaign fire up principled conservatives to take control of the Republican Party at last? (The "Jennifer Rubin Nightmare" scenario.)
Does the defeat of a 'it's a million to one shot but it might work' Gingrich campaign convince the tea party crazies to wise up to the realities of politics? (The "Mike Murphy Told-You-So" scenario.)
Or does all this become academic as the economy crashes, the constitution is suspended, the balloon goes up and we all retreat to a well-armed laager around Hillsdale College, proclaiming 'The Free Republic of Ricostan' (EJHill Minister of Propaganda...)?
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Gee, thanks for the job upgrade. That will double the nothing I get now.
Seriously, I'm not sure what the real mood of the country is. I don't think the pollsters are asking the right questions. They are stuck asking the same questions in the same style for the last 50 years so that they can compare one presidency to the other.
As I said in a post last night comparing the last two guests on the podcasts, I think Pat Caddell and his partner Douglas Schoen are asking fundamentally different questions of the electorate and are quite alarmed at some of the answers they're getting.
Oct '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
And yet voters still only get to pull the lever...
I liked your post. It links up with something I've been wondering about - the stultification by professionalization of politics. Want to run a campaign? There's a staff for that - full of folks who'll tell you how to do it like they did last time. Want to be a political pundit? There's a template for that, too - why, even the Young Guns can do it.
So the establishment drifts on, doing the same old thing (with a few cosmetic twists - email! twitter!) while the electorate shifts... where?
Attaching the lever to one of these?
Oct '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Of course, the above image immediately calls to mind the following:
May '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
I've always said that success in politics is merely a snapshot of that place in time.
Mar '11
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
genferei Does the defeat of a 'run to the safe middle' Romney campaign fire up principled conservatives to take control of the Republican Party at last? (The "Jennifer Rubin Nightmare" scenario.)
Does the defeat of a 'it's a million to one shot but it might work' Gingrich campaign convince the tea party crazies to wise up to the realities of politics? (The "Mike Murphy Told-You-So" scenario.)
The difficulty with either scenario is that both candidates have so many flaws that neither is a true representative of their respective "wing" of the party. If the race were between, say, Chris Christie (the moderate) vs. Paul Ryan (the true believer), the question might be more salient. With the current cadre, any Republican loss probably be due more to personal failings than ideological ones.
Bonus question: who will conservatives blame if Republicans take both the presidency and the Senate in 2012, and yet there is still no significant decrease in the size of government after 4 years?
Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 10:41amMay '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
If it's Newt, he's old guard Washington. If it's Mitt, the insiders that pushed his nomination.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the country than I am conservatism. So I think the premise is deeply flawed.
Dec '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Mitt comes with a bag of ready made excuses. Simply record what we say about him now then hit the play button right after his concession speech. If Newt loses it will either be because he did something stupid (like rejoin his chum Nancy on the couch of climate cuddles), or because Murphy and Co. are right and he really does scare the squishy middle. If he loses we can only hope to blame the messenger rather than the message.
Apr '11
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Milton Friedman ... politically profitable ... wrong people do the right things .... something something ... *sigh*
We _know_ its all just brass on the Titanic until the incentives are reworked. No matter how great a leader you put in the WH and how solid a Tea Party foundation you have in your Congress, the forces at work will warp your laws, capture your regulators and ride the Commerce Clause to more Federal power.
But I'm not bitter.
Oct '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
CWisdom says Yes, because the establishment, not the tea party purists, gets the blame for choosing the wrong candidate to go up against obama.
Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 7:24pmBut is it really better? Not really, unless Obamacare is overturned by the SC.
Oct '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
genferei
So what if the GOP candidate loses?
Does the defeat of a 'run to the safe middle' Romney campaign fire up principled conservatives to take control of the Republican Party at last? (The "Jennifer Rubin Nightmare" scenario.)
Take control of the GOP? How about a third party for the far right?
Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 10:14pmOct '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
John Marzan
Well, that's another question. I was wondering whether, in the case where the GOP candidate loses the general, it would have been better for the conservative cause for that candidate to have been Romney or to have been Gingrich. For sure, it's not the most important consideration when choosing a candidate, but it's a consideration I haven't seen much discussion of.
Dec '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
genferei
Or does all this become academic as the economy crashes, the constitution is suspended, the balloon goes up and we all retreat to a well-armed laager around Hillsdale College, proclaiming 'The Free Republic of Ricostan' (EJHill Minister of Propaganda...)? ·
This. The economy will crash and the debt whole will become so large it can never be filled. This is an all or nothing election.
Dec '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Nyadnar17
This is an all or nothing election. · Nov 29 at 9:25am
That's why we're selecting between all and nothing in the primary, right?
Nov '11
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Anyone can win if the election is about Obama, Obamacare and the deficit. Whoever our candidate is, he or she will be hit by a billion dollar spitball. Our candidate needs to be articulate and turn every attack back on Obama. Newt could be the best person to do just that.
May '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
genferei
John Marzan
Well, that's another question. I was wondering whether, in the case where the GOP candidate loses the general, it would have been better for the conservative cause for that candidate to have been Romney or to have been Gingrich. For sure, it's not the most important consideration when choosing a candidate, but it's a consideration I haven't seen much discussion of. · Nov 29 at 6:46am
I am more like most Americans. I don't give a whit for the GOP or the "conservative cause"- I care a lot about the USA.
And the GOP- including its "establishment" members- does more right now for the USA than the "conservative cause", as a "cause" does. Promoting some apocalyptic vision of perfect conservatism isn't any different from Ralph Nader's senseless and quixotic quests to make the already lefty Dems turn into perfect Fabain-economics moral relativists.
I don't think that real conservatism (e.g., Russell Kirk, Chambers) contemplates tearing down the greatest country so it can be rebuilt from the ashes in Ron Paul's image.
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
The question you pose is an excellent one. The truth, however, is that we do not and cannot know the answer. It could mean the election of a genuine conservative in 2016 and the election of a genuinely conservative Congress in that year. It could mean the final consolidation of the administrative state.
The odds are good, however, that it would be better if either Romney or Gingrich won in 2012. I do think the odds of victory much greater than you do. But let's face it. Either of the remaining contenders could blow it -- Romney out of timidity and a lack of quick-wittedness, Gingrich out of indiscipline of any sort that you could name.
Mar '11
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
It is better if Republicans lose in 2012.
Reason #1: The Republican that comes out of this field will not be a true conservative. His victory will further distort the conservative brand.
Reason #2: The next wave of Republicans (2016) is quite conservative and will likely restore and advance the conservative brand. A Republican victory in 2012 could theoretically push that wave permanently off the map. At the very least it would delay the wave significantly.
Reason #3: The 2012 winner will find himself holding a thick stack of IOUs and a dud of a global economy that may not improve during the term. Let President Obama own every last bit of it and let our conservative hero ride the rescue in 2016.
I would prefer Newt do the losing. I believe Newt can most effectively expose and neuter Obama during the campaign - effectively delivering a lame duck President from Day 1, Term 2.
Oct '10
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Casey: It is better if Republicans lose in 2012.
I would prefer Newt do the losing.
I prefer victory.
Mar '11
Re: Is It Better For Conservatism That Mitt Or Newt Loses The General?
Publius
Casey: It is better if Republicans lose in 2012.
I would prefer Newt do the losing.
I prefer victory. · Nov 29 at 10:32am
Republican or Conservative?