The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Last October in The Transom, I wrote a short observation on why I thought President Obama would be reelected. My essential thesis was that none of the candidates were strong enough (at the time, the national polls had Romney/Cain/Perry in the lead); that Obama's standing in swing states was strengthening; that the economy, while not mounting a huge comeback, would avoid another major downturn despite Europe's travails; and that Independents who had soured on Obama would slowly come back to the fold. I later added one more point: that a rebuke within the Supreme Court decision this Spring against the individual mandate would actually help Obama in November by deflating some of the opposition to one of the worst aspects of his signature domestic policy. I gave him 60-40 odds of victory.
At the time, this was a more pessimistic view to take - I had many subscribers write me in disagreement, and several other responses online for why I was wrong. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is a possible, even likely, result in November. It raises a question, which I'd ask you all to consider today: if Republicans are going to mount a losing effort for the presidency in 2012, who would be the best person to do it with?
How you answer may depend a lot on what you want the party to look like after November. Will it be one that is more conservative? More pragmatic? What lessons do you want it to take from this experience? But the more prominent one in my mind is: who, in a losing effort, would do the most to ensure the advance of the election of those who favor fiscal sanity and human liberty in the Senate and the House?
This is hard question to answer. On the one hand, I'm mindful of what David Frum outlined around the same time - his four scenarios for the election's outcome were, in order of his preference:
- Mitt Romney is nominated, Romney is elected (his favored outcome)
- A tea party Republican is nominated and loses (a "tragic waste")
- A tea party Republican is nominated and wins (a "formula for crisis")
- Romney is nominated, Romney loses ("ugly, ominous possibilities")
I rarely agree with David Frum, but his analysis here strikes me as correct - though I would use conservative, rather than tea party, to describe the backing for the alternative not Romney candidate (tea party support is a smaller group with a loud voice). The most likely outcome of the primary now appears to be a mortally wounded Romney stumbling into the jaws of the Obama machine having been rendered, by his own hand for the most part, an unacceptable candidate to many Independents and with sinking support in key states. A rebound is not impossible but seems unlikely.
Yet that's not the only option for Republicans. They could also choose to nominate Rick Santorum - who certainly is surprising me for his ability to catch hold in the Midwest in particular with an organization made up of duct tape and bits of twine; or, less likely, Newt Gingrich; or even less likely, a brokered convention candidate (which is still more likely than the winless Ron Paul).
The argument for losing with Romney is a simple one: he'll spend his own money more than any other candidate, letting donor support migrate down to the states (which it may be doing already), and he'll build an organization on a national scale and compete everywhere. For Santorum, the argument is less strong - it probably comes down to the idea that he'd perform the best in Midwestern states, which include key Senate elections in Wisconsin, Missouri, and Michigan. Throughout his career and even during this race, Gingrich has stressed the importance of team-building and getting the right Senators elected - the argument for him would be that even with a divisive individual at the top of the ticket, this emphasis on presenting a team to the people united around a few popular ideas would benefit legislative elections as it did with the Contract with America.
I'm honestly not sure who would be better to lose with when it comes to the Senate. But I do have a stronger opinion about what would happen in the intra-Republican blame game after a loss. A loss by Gingrich would be blamed on foolish tea partiers and conservatives who fell in love with the idea of him bringing the oratorical sledgehammer down on Barack Obama during a debate. A loss by Santorum would be blamed on crazed bans of puritanical Bible-thumpers, evangelicals and Catholics who still run things on the right from the left's perspective. And a loss by Romney - following as it does a loss by the last "electable" candidate, John McCain - would be blamed on the Republican establishment and moderates in the party, resulting in a backlash against the leadership hierarchy to a degree unfamiliar to the modern era of politics.
This begs another question: if conservatives would be blamed for losing with Gingrich, social conservatives particularly for losing with Santorum, and moderates for losing with Romney... which would be best for the conservative movement? Is it better to go into 2012 with a flawed candidate who nonetheless argues for conservative ideology? Or is it better to put forward someone whose loss will not be seen as a repudiation of conservatism?
One last point: Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard and a few others have argued that if Romney again loses the nomination battle this year, he will return in 2016 to run again. I can't see that happening, but if it was a likely outcome, maybe this is the real question conservatives need to answer: would it be better to get this Mitt Romney problem out of our system once and for all?
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Franco: The American people are not going to learn these things, or understand the basic abstractions, by Fox News, reading National Review or the Weekly Standard. The American people get their news and their cues from the Broadcast Networks and pop stars, Oprah, Ellen , the View, Matt Damon ad infinitum. Until we have someone who will go toe-to-toe with them and debunk their arguments or at least offer a credible comprehensive alternative, the GOP will fail, and the blame will be completely misplaced. The GOP is sending out candidates who are armed with rifles when the other side has machine guns and land mines. Retreat is actually the only reasonable tactic for our candidates.
Gingrich as a loser per your hypothetical, could at least set the table and plant the seeds, and then Obamas second term will reveal to many more Americans what the true nature of the Democrat Party has become and why it is precisely the wrong direction. · 2 hours ago
I don't think nominating the most unpopular politician in the country is ever a good thing, no matter how much you think the people will learn.
Apr '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Ben Domenech: ...
This begs another question:
Aarrgh! You aren't begging the question. Quite the opposite. You are raising it.
beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked
Usage The use of beg the question to mean that a question needs to be asked is considered by some people to be incorrect. (Collins English Dictionary)
Aug '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Alvin Mullins
Obama get's his best grades in most polls on foreign policy. I think a war with Iran given his propaganda machine will score well for him.
I think the nation is too war-weary. We've been at this for a decade straight. Soldiers are still being sent off to Afghanistan. And let's not discount the anti-war left.
A war with Iran and he'll lose a big part of his built-in constituency.
Feb '12
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Yawn. Ben doesn't like Mitt. But he's craven enough to cede defeat 8.5 months before the election and push a cynical gambit to encourage a purge of the squishes. This is what now passes for thoughtful discussion here?
Jan '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
If Obama wins this election, it's likely that there is no future for the Republican Party, so the question, as it relates to future opportunities, is irrelevant.
For numerous reasons already cited here on Ricochet, Ronmey cannot win against Obama.
For numerous reasons, many cited here on Ricochet, along with his strong support of unions, Santorum cannot garner enough conservative support to win against Romney.
Gingrich, as with all of us, is a human being, with warts, certainly, but he's the only one of the three most likely Republican candidates to articulate the core principles which the great majority of Americans believe are necessary for the governance of our country. And, the only one able to do it with conviction.
So, if the question is who is the best bet against Obama this November, the answer, unequivocally, is Newt Gingrich.
Edited on February 16, 2012 at 5:41pmFeb '12
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
The GOP Establishment, which my friends who live and work inside the Beltway swear doesn't exist, will forever lust after the fickle moderate and nonexistent independent vote. Conservatives are always the embarrassing cousins who prevent this blessed union in the middle from happening. So, as has been mentioned already, we're going to be blamed anyway. Even if Romney is the nominee, the cover will be "Conservatives tore him down and weakened him during the primaries!"
That leaves me thinking that our best hope is the "stick a fork in it" scenario for Romney's career if he adds yet another loss to his "Electable" résumé.
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Grendel
Ben Domenech: ...
This begs another question:
Aarrgh! You aren't begging the question. Quite the opposite. You are raising it.
beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked
Usage The use of beg the question to mean that a question needs to be asked is considered by some people to be incorrect. (Collins English Dictionary) · 51 minutes ago
My apologies. A slip in a 6 AM essay.
Apr '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Anon
So, if the question is who is the best bet against Obama this November, the answer, unequivocally, is Newt Gingrich.
Acoording to the Time/Cnn poll, 63% of Americans view Newt unfavorably; he is the most unpopular politician in the country, as he was the last time the American people were exposed to him .
John Hinderaker on how divorced from reality conservative activists are:
There is, I think, a cautionary tale here, although it probably comes too late. It was obvious to everyone who remembered the history of the 1990s that Gingrich would be a disaster as a presidential candidate, however much we may enjoy his repartee and respect him as a thinker whose ideas are often good. Yet millions of Republican activists, heedless of the past and ignoring Newt’s obvious weaknesses, enthused over him as a candidate and made him the man of the hour... The same pattern has been repeated more than once during the current, discouraging presidential nominating process. If the GOP loses this year’s presidential contest, the party will have no one to blame but its own activists.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/newt-in-the-polls-its-deja-vu.php
Sep '10
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
wmartin,
You are going outside of the hypothetical. I know, according to polls which are generally un reliable, that Newt doesn't win the popularity contests. That is not the point. The point is who, given we are going to lose anyway, would be best. Now I'm only accepting the premise, and I think any one of the four R candidates could beat Obama, however I think Santorum and Romney are least able. Paul is least able to win the primaries, so that leaves Gingrich, despite his current popularity numbers. This could be the kind of year that people will vote for a guy like Gingrich vs. Obama.
But anyway the point isn't who is the best candidate. You want to argue on that level, start your own post. Suggested Title: Romney is our only hope. Good luck!
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
jhimmi: No matter what happens from this point forward, if Obama is re-elected, the narrative will be that conservatives are to blame - either for not nominating Romney, or for crippling him so badly during the primaries.
Edited 4 hours ago
You've raised an important point. I will address it tomorrow here at Ricochet.
Dec '10
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
It may be an interesting thought exercise to imagine which candidate "loses best" for the GOP, but it is not the right way to pick a nominee for the actual election. What if our nominee wins? With a President as weak as Obama, that's a risk we have to face. In my opinion, the benefits of losing with Romney are outweighed by the risks of winning with him.
Dec '10
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Ben, did you really title on of the segments in today's The Transom "Romney's Bracingly Stupid China Policy"? Do we really want to nominate the standard-bearer for that policy -- and run the risk that he might actually win? Could a President Romney set off a protectionist cycle that could drive the world into outright economic depression?
Oct '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Ben Domenech
Grendel
Ben Domenech: ...
This begs another question:
Aarrgh! You aren't begging the question. Quite the opposite. You are raising it.
beg the question
a. to evade the issue
b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked
Usage The use of beg the question to mean that a question needs to be asked is considered by some people to be incorrect. (Collins English Dictionary) · 51 minutes ago
My apologies. A slip in a 6 AM essay. · 28 minutes ago
Actually, I think Ben is using it correctly. He's assuming the Republican nominee will lose in November, then basing his entire argument on that assumption. He's begging the question. It is not a forgone conclusion that the Republican nominee will lose. However, Ben, Peter Robinson, Jonah Goldberg, and many other are acting like it is already decided. This was the point of my arguments in Peter's post about Romney's stance on abortion. I think it's not helpful for people like Ben, Peter, Jonah, and others, who have influence in Conservative circles, to be constantly talking down the field.
Sep '10
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Amen to that and even Santorum and his big government is unpalatable to me. The fact is the GOP has wasted 2010 and offered up a bunch of candidates that don't seem to fully grasp we're going over a cliff.
Sep '10
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
I agree with Ben. I'm still dubious the American people are a conservative as we on the Right think or wish. Which is why I'd like a clear election with a small government conservative and a big government liberal starkly battling it out. Unfortunately, we're stuck with both parties tripping over themselves trying to bargain with the middle, who wants its middle class welfare benefits without paying the taxes needed to pay for them.
Sep '10
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Hinderaker should know something about being divorced from reality. He was a big Pawlenty supporter. How'd that go for ya, John?
Edited on February 16, 2012 at 8:57pmRe: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
MJMack, Ben does not much like Mitt, and he may be wrong about the likelihood of our defeat. But he is not "craven" and his argument is not "a cynical gambit." If you disagree with him, why don't you attack his argument and not the man? The former would be honorable and perhaps helpful to the rest of us. The latter is . . . well, I am sure that you could find an appropriate word . . . and it helps no one.
Oct '11
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Paul, to state that Ben is giving up in defeat 8.5 months ahead of the election is not to attack Ben personally. It's to point out that he just wrote a post about how Republicans are going to lose.
Feb '12
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
The notion that moderates are a problem to be gotten out of the system of conservative politics, meaning lets purge the squishes now so we don't have to deal with them again later, is simply a foolish and immature perspective. Moderates are an essential and vital key to a winning coalition and that Mr. Domenech doesn't grasp that and would hope to preemptively argue that they are the reason for Republican failure eight and a half months from now is simply defeatist, myopic and unworthy of someone who would have themselves seen as a serious political analyst and thinker. Small tents don't win, and losers don't control anything. The conservatives need to embrace the concept of a coalition and be willing to accept and promote politicians who can win in blue states and force democrats to play defense.
Edited on February 16, 2012 at 10:28pmFeb '12
Re: The Best Candidate in a Losing Effort
Yes, although in some years it does work to run conservatives in blue states (e.g., Toomey in PA), and we shouldn't be doctrinaire - as many in the party have been - about only moderates being able to win elections. We shouldn't simply forfeit the West Coast and the Northeast, but my experience is that the trend has been rather the other way: the party has more often refused to back real conservatives in places where they could win.
Also, the corollary to your conclusion is that the GOP should support conservatives in red/pink states, which the party has not done so well (Exhibit 1: Lindsay Graham; Exhibit 2: Sen. Kyl's early endorsement of Crist; Exhibit 3: Richard Lugar; etc.).