The Contenders and the Clowns
Nate Silver published a piece on Friday in The New York Times that deserves attention. “In their book The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform,” he observes, “the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller find that endorsements — not polls, fund-raising numbers or media hits — are the best early indicators of success in the presidential primaries.” Then, he points out that, by this standard, Mitt Romney is the front-runner, with Rick Perry a close second, with the other candidates “having little chance.”
This is, of course, the truth, but we really did not need to know who endorsed whom in order to know it, and my guess is that, in this stage of the contest, this would be the situation every time. There are contenders every cycle, and there are clowns – and there is rarely any doubt as to which is which.
The data Silver has collected is nonetheless interesting – for it shows that Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann have thus far garnered no endorsements at all from any Senators, Congressmen, or Governors.
In the case of Herman Cain, this may not mean much. He is an unknown who has never himself served as a Senator, Congressman, or Governor. The rest, however, have done so – and in their years of service they have not earned the unabashed admiration of any of their colleagues. Put simply, there is no one in the Senate who thinks well enough of Santorum to endorse him; no one in the House who thinks well enough of either Bachmann, Paul, or Gingrich to endorse any of them; and no one in a gubernatorial chair who thinks well enough of Huntsman to endorse him. This is, I think, sobering. What it suggests is that not one of these individuals deserved to be up on the stage in the debate on Thursday night.
It is not hard to see why lack support. Gingrich is smart, but he blotted his copybook long ago, he remains erratic, and no one really wants him back. He might be useful in the cabinet; he is not presidential timber. Santorum is a joke. He has never held any executive office, and he lost his Senate seat by a margin of 18%. He is a might-have-been who became a has-been some time ago. He is utterly unqualified for consideration, and on Thursday night he made a fool of himself when he rose up in righteous anger to object to their being bi-national private health insurance for people who live along the Texas-Mexico border and do business on both sides. Ron Paul is a crank with a history of supporting third-party candidates. Jon Huntsman is distinguished only by his money and looks. And Michele Bachmann, who has also never held any executive position, is a loose cannon and a nasty piece of work with no friends in the Republican house delegation, who is best known for the speed with which she runs through and alienates staff. About the only thing that this crowd stars in is self-regard.
Of course, none of this would matter much were they not wasting our time at a crucial moment. The country is undergoing a crisis, and the 2012 election offers the possibility of a resolution. The Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee is bent on destroying this country as we know it and on refounding it on principles opposed to our own. The Republicans have not found a plausible candidate capable of restating the principles on which this country was founded and flourished, and the Republican National Committee makes us sit through debates dominated by figures for whom no elected official of any stature feels any enthusiasm at all.
I have no desire for the nominating process to be closed to those who are marginal. There may come a day when we really do need to turn to an outsider. But, at some point, it might make sense to exclude from the debates those who have not by that stage attracted an endorsement or two from Republicans in high office. Otherwise, the process of deliberation by which we choose our nominee will be short-circuited.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
This post may not be the proper place to reference this, but the Ricochet Community might be interested in the matchup between Mr. Cain and then-President Clinton. Following their exchange about HillaryCare, Mr. Cain wrote a piece for the WSJ that many said was the beginning of the end for that fiasco – something for which Mr. Cain is very proud.
It is the sincere respect he showed for the Office of the Presidency and his clear thinking that stands out in this exchange. Very presidential on his part, in fact. Am very glad to hear he won the FL straw poll.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU
Apr '11
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Gary Johnson? Thoughts?
Mar '11
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
I think your description of the lesser candidates is a bit harsh on all counts. But putting that aside, the media or sponsors of the debates decide the rules for inclusion and they must think it makes a better show from an entertainment aspect to include everyone but it does the country no good. If you can't drum up at least 10% in a national poll I would not have you on the stage. Of course, the counter-argument is that no one will rise above the somnambulant national consciousness if they aren't at least given the chance so perhaps that rule should be waived for the first two or three debates. I thought the best forum so far was the one sponsored by Jim Demint. All the candidates got to answer the same questions so there was a real chance to contrast and compare.
Apr '11
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
If two money bombs and other rumblings are any indication there will be another entrant, a woman. Controversial would be an understatement. Disliked, feared, hated and despised by some she is also trusted and beloved by many. Consider almost any conventional wisdom meme about her and very likely the opposite is true. We all may imagine we are going to sit and watch the spectacle of someone who has been the subject of a great three year propaganda campaign of personal destruction attempt to prevail during her existential moment. I expect the existential moment will really be ours, each of us individually and as a nation.
Jul '10
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Cain at least is saying what he believes. Mitt is telling you what he thinks you want to hear. Perry is telling how they do things in Texas when that tight collar lets him. Newt's a Gatling Gun of words. Bachmann acts and looks mad at times and like an opportunist at others. Santorum endorsed Snarlin' Arlen Specter and lost his next run for office by 18 points, Huntsman looks like the credit manager at a dodgy car lot. And so on. People are waiting for a savior, but who is left in the cupboard? Ryan and Rubio don't seem interested, Christie's girth and health problems give one pause. Palin? There is something about her that rubs too many people the wrong way. What a historical irony it would be if the Republicans were unable to come up with a legitimate contender at a time when the incumbent was the weakest ever.
Sep '10
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Paul A. Rahe
On that last point, you are surely wrong. The electoral college was designed to put the President above partisanship. · Sep 24 at 6:24pm
The debates and whether a form of ordination is required to compete in them has nothing to do with the electoral college. Today's cable TV and internet is comparable to the printing press of our founders day. I don't recall anything requiring party ordination prior to access to the press.
Sep '10
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Paul A. Rahe
It is not my precious time. It is the country's precious time. We need to vet the real contenders and not waste our attention on clowns with no chance of getting the nomination. A Congressman who commands no respect in Congress has no business running. · Sep 24 at 6:27pm
You are not serious. Your contenders are either people with money or people who have access to people with money. Giving a stage to people who would not be able to buy the access is a good thing. The contenders poor poll performance against what you term "clowns" tells more about them and their appeal to voters than any controlled debate show. What you see operating is a semi-free market of ideas. You are proposing wage and price controls.
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Terrell David: I could not care less about endorsements from Congressional knuckleheads. It is a very different culture now. Past indicators are relics of the past.
However, I am disappointed that someone like Ryan or Rubio isn't running.
Having said that, I think the Republican field is good.
The heart of the issue is that the electorate is watching much more than at any time in my lifetime.
Nobody cares what politician endorses another politician. It's a new model. · Sep 24 at 8:33pm
No one ever much cared which politician endorsed another politician. But it is telling, nonetheless, when none -- not one of the colleagues of a woman or man -- thinks well enough of that woman or man to make an endorsement.. We do not know these people at all well. Their colleagues know them much better than we do. Their silence is deafening.
Edited on September 25, 2011 at 3:31pmRe: The Contenders and the Clowns
I agree. It seems to be that, in the beginning, it should be pretty open -- to give the unknowns a chance to show their stuff. After a time, it needs to narrow down -- so that the contenders are properly put on trial.
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
He called for cutting the defense budget by 43%. That would put China where Japan was in December, 1941.
Feb '11
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
I don't understand why you still consider Perry a serious contender. He's been a John Connally, Fred Thompson or one of the other GOP balloon candidates who have simply gone pop. It's also not all that unsurprising. He would not debate his opponent last time around and it is only too clear why he wouldn't. At what point will Perry make your list for not be worthy of wasting our time considering? Of course, the problem is, the GOP is left with only Romney. 2012 is becoming 2008 redux. I'm also totally unconvinced that Daniels or Ryan or even Rubio or Christie would also not be simply balloon candidates. Only the bright lights and the pressure cooker show whether they would or would not be.
Edited on September 25, 2011 at 4:33pmRe: The Contenders and the Clowns
Professor, color me flummoxed because I'm not sure how much real weight conventional endorsements now carry in a time when conventional wisdom argued against Scott Brown and a host of newcomers in 2010, not to mention nearly 90 years of history in New York's 9th District.
As much admiration and respect as I have for you and your judgement, I would respectfully submit that we ought to at least wait until the people themselves have had a chance to cast a few actual votes before we start bidding candidates to exit stage right (or left).
As to endorsements, I consider the source. As conservatives we bemoan the tendency of politicians to stand on compromise rather than principle. But compromise is the bread and butter of politicians. So I wonder if the reluctance of these politicians to endorse some candidates is a reflection of their own displeasure with candidates who, for example, rejected the latest budget compromises on the principle that a reduction in the rate of a growth isn't really a "budget cut?"
I would respectfully caution that "endorsements" bequeathed us John McCain. The most important endorsement ought to be that of the people themselves.
Edited on September 25, 2011 at 6:03pmMay '10
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
A little perspective, please.
If we do our jobs in the congressional and Senate races, we'll be fine with Mitt, especially with Rubio at his side and in his ear.
There's obviously no savior running. But we're conservatives; we deal with such hard truths by making the best of it. We don't grasp for a savior that isn't there.
That's what liberals do.
Edited on September 25, 2011 at 5:49pmRe: The Contenders and the Clowns
"Put simply, there is no one in the Senate who thinks well enough of Santorum to endorse him; no one in the House who thinks well enough of either Bachmann, Paul, or Gingrich to endorse any of them; and no one in a gubernatorial chair who thinks well enough of Huntsman to endorse him. ... What it suggests is that not one of these individuals deserved to be up on the stage in the debate on Thursday night."
This comes dangerously close to requiring a permission slip from the party establishment before one is allowed in the debates, doesn't it? Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. As for me, I'm starting to have a higher regard for people who willingly subject themselves to the slings and arrows from all sides and are nonetheless entering the fray than I have for people like Paul Ryan who have such enormous talent and see the dire situation the country faces, yet remain on the sidelines. As you've noted, Professor Rahe, our troops endure much more hardship for a lot less pay.
Edited on September 25, 2011 at 7:15pmRe: The Contenders and the Clowns
liberal jim
Paul A. Rahe
It is not my precious time. It is the country's precious time. We need to vet the real contenders and not waste our attention on clowns with no chance of getting the nomination. A Congressman who commands no respect in Congress has no business running. · Sep 24 at 6:27pm
You are not serious. Your contenders are either people with money or people who have access to people with money. Giving a stage to people who would not be able to buy the access is a good thing. The contenders poor poll performance against what you term "clowns" tells more about them and their appeal to voters than any controlled debate show. What you see operating is a semi-free market of ideas. You are proposing wage and price controls. · Sep 25 at 6:12am
Nonsense. I am merely suggesting that, at some point along the way, the debates should be held between individuals with demonstrated support. There are 300 million of us; we cannot all get up on that stage. We really do need to vet the ones who are serious, and that cannot be done in current circumstances.
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Hang On: I don't understand why you still consider Perry a serious contender. He's been a John Connally, Fred Thompson or one of the other GOP balloon candidates who have simply gone pop. It's also not all that unsurprising. He would not debate his opponent last time around and it is only too clear why he wouldn't. At what point will Perry make your list for not be worthy of wasting our time considering? · Sep 25 at 7:30am
Edited on Sep 25 at 07:33 am
Perry is approaching the point of no return, and the deadline for further entrants is approaching fast. That leaves us with Romney.
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Dave Carter: Professor, color me flummoxed because I'm not sure how much real weight conventional endorsements now carry in a time when conventional wisdom argued against Scott Brown and a host of newcomers in 2010, not to mention nearly 90 years of history in New York's 9th District. . · Sep 25 at 8:40am
Edited on Sep 25 at 09:03 am
Dave, you miss my point. I am not saying conventional endorsements should carry great weight or ever have. In fact, I explicitly denied that they do or should carry much weight.
What I am saying is that a complete absence of such endorsements is telling. It means that there is not a single man or woman among the colleagues of these folks who genuinely thinks any of them worthy. That is worthy of note. It means that they do not command much respect from those among our fellow citizens who are the most familiar with what they do day to day.
Do you not find that worrisome?
Edited on September 25, 2011 at 8:47pmRe: The Contenders and the Clowns
Well, yes, to be honest, I do find it worrisome. But I don't find it sufficient reason to insist that they leave the stage before the people have had a chance to give their endorsement during the primaries. It seems to me that to insist otherwise is to have someone other than the people select our candidate, and I find that very worrisome as well.
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Dave Carter:
This comes dangerously close to requiring a permission slip from the party establishment before one is allowed in the debates, doesn't it? Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. · Sep 25 at 10:09am
Edited on Sep 25 at 10:15 am
Yes, you have it wrong. I did not suggest that the candidates be vetted by the party establishment. I am merely struck by the fact that, out of the hundreds of Governors, Senators, and Congressmen, not one is willing to endorse any of these candidates. We are not talking about a Congressional seat or a Senate seat. We are talking about the Presidency of the United States. The damage done if we elect a fool to the House or Senate is minimal. If we elect another fool to the Presidency . . . well, think about the consequences.
Re: The Contenders and the Clowns
Here is the problem. As of 31 October, the way the thing is structured, it may well be over. At the moment, Romney is the only one on the stage who is certain to be alive politically on that date. If, on that date, he is the only serious candidate in the race, it is over -- and it will be over without Romney even being vetted. We will know more about Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman,Paul, Gingrich, and the like than we need to know (in truth, we already know more about them than we need to know), and we will know next to nothing about the presumptive nominee.