Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Polling Data Probed
A number of those who have commented on various posts have mentioned the OBOPE Zogby Poll released on Thursday, which showed Herman Cain surging to 38%. I found it interesting for other reasons as well.
As you will see if you click on the link, the sampling took place on 30 June, 11 and 25 July, 29 August, 12 and 26 September, and 5 October. Mitt Romney started out with the support of 14% of the prospective Republican primary voters polled, rose to 17%, dropped to 12% when Rick Perry entered the race, and rose again to 18% when Perry proved to be tongue-tied. Ron Paul has been steady throughout with support varying from 11 to 13%. Newt Gingrich has ranged from 2 to 6%. Rick Santorum started out with 7%, dropped to 3%, rose to 5%, has fallen steadily in recent weeks, and now commands the support of 1% of the prospective primary voters. Jon Huntsman’s support is steady. He has support from about 4% of those polled. And Gary Johnson has run the gamut from 1% to 1%.
There are three dramatic stories evident in the data.
Back in June Michele Bachmann had the support of 34% of those polled. Since then, she has lost ground steadily, and she now commands the support of 3% of the prospective primary voters. Her support dropped like a stone when Rick Perry entered the race, but it did not recover when she savaged him in the debates. She, in fact, appears to have done herself as much damage as she did the frontrunner at that time, and the same may be true for Santorum.
When Rick Perry entered the race, his support surged to 41% almost immediately. At the same time, support Romney fell 5%; for Cain, 10%; for Bachmann, 16%; for Santorum, 2%; and for Not Sure, 7%. Briefly, until he stumbled in the debates, Perry took the wind out of nearly everone’s sails (Ron Paul being the exception).
Then, Perry committed hari kari on national television three times in a row, and Herman Cain jumped from 12% to 28% to 38%.
To make sense of this data, we have to ask what Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain have in common. The answer is, I think, twofold.
First, they are not libertarian utopians – like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – persuaded that, if we were to cut our defense appropriations in half, adopt a posture of isolationism, legalize marijuana, and puff many a magic drag in, all would be well, everyone would be mellow, peace would break out, and we would henceforth be unmolested.
And, second, not one of the three is the proud father of the individual mandate that lies at the heart of Romneycare (and, of course, Obamacare). Moreover, none of them is a Republican Al Gore intent on proceeding down the well-worn path towards Reinventing Government on the presumption that, if the fat is eliminated and government is made more efficient, all will be well.
All three are, in fact, constitutional conservatives – dedicated to restoring limited government in this country.
Here is the upshot. There is within the Republican Party a very large floating constituency of constitutional conservatives – some 34 to 41% of the prospective primary voters – and they are desperately looking for a plausible conservative candidate. And to this number, one can, I suspect, add the remaining support of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum: another 16% of the prospective primary voters.
I would like to think that Herman Cain can prosper where Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have foundered. But, of course, if wishes were horses, beggars like me would ride. I suspect that Bachmann and Santorum – the Republican ankle-biters – will take him down in the next debate. Watch them. I guarantee that they will try. Neither of them can stomach the possibility that someone else might emerge as the champion of the constitutional conservative cause.
I am left with a question. Is it not odd that, in a time when the country is increasingly open to the suggestion that the administrative entitlements state is on its last legs and that the moment has come for rolling back its encroachment on the prerogatives of the states and the rights of individuals, there is not one seasoned Republican officeholder capable of articulating the argument for limited government who is willing to step forward, shoulder the burden, seize the opportunity, and take the bull by the horns. What has this country become? Greatness beckons, and no one genuinely qualified rises to the occasion!
Paul Ryan! Mitch Daniels! Your phones are still ringing. If you do not answer, I am virtually certain that we will be left with the last man standing – and given the intensity of Republican dissatisfaction with that option, I would not be surprised were he to lose in November, 2012.
Is there anyone apart, from his co-religionists, thrilled at the prospect that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee? When members of Ricochet say that they would vote for a syphilitic camel over Barack Obama, do they not have Romney in mind? Come November, 2012, how many of our fellow Americans will be willing to swallow a syphilitic camel in a good cause?
I, for one, will be willing – but I shudder to contemplate the consequences.
Published in General
In some ways, that makes it worse. One can excuse a stoner for thinking that cutting the defense budget in half will make us safer. Those who are sober have no excuse.
And a “syphilitic camel”? Must we always be in the presence of either Christ or Satan? ·Oct 8 at 6:15pm
Edited on Oct 08 at 11:26 pm
You are right to take me to task for the phrase. It was over the top. But I do not regard any would-be statesman as a Messiah, and I do not think Romney a Satan. I would be satisfied if our nominee was a constitutional conservative and not a managerial progressive. Why must we always choose someone who is, in fact, an enemy to limited government and a friend to social engineering. There is no difference in principle between Romneycare and Obamacare. Does that not bother you?
Paul A. Rahe: Is there anyone apart, from his co-religionists, thrilled at the prospect that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee? When members of Ricochet say that they would vote for a syphilitic camel over Barack Obama, do they not have Romney in mind? Come November, 2012, how many of our fellow Americans will be willing to swallow a syphilitic camel in a good cause?
I, for one, will be willing – but I shudder to contemplate the consequences. ·
Fair enough. But I do shudder to contemplate the consequences of our choosing as our standard bearer yet another managerial progressive intent on engineering our good by curtailing our liberties. What do you make of the individual mandate in Romneycare?
managerial progressive intent on engineering our good by curtailing our liberties. What do you make of the individual mandate in Romneycare?
Why is it that you think this, but I don’t? I get an outsider, almost subversive vibe from Romney. Yes, on the surface he is the opposite, but the substance of his life of one of outsider who has eschewed comfort, and who has taken a relatively unconventional career path–or paths. One of us isn’t seeing Romney clearly. I’m going to bet it’s not me.
This was a great post all the way around. Thank you Dr. Rahe. And this is where we need a ‘like’ button for posts.
My guess is that Cain is going to continue to say foolish things (blaming the unemployed for not finding jobs? really?) and his candidacy will fizzle out. I also agree that with those who point out that establishing a national sales tax is a terrible position for a conservative because there is no possibility that the tax rates would remain at 9%. What is he thinking?
I finally got around to switching from D to R a couple of years ago. It turns out that everything I heard about the Republicans being stupid was true. Our genius thought-leaders spent months pursuing candidates who did not want to run, and we are stuck with an awful field. Maybe Perry will improve, but I wouldn’t count on it.
I for one find that remark quite offensive. As if the support he receives (remember he is leading the polls) is only from Mormons. It makes me wonder, despite your calls for religious tolerance, if your opposition to Romney isn’t itself primarily based on his religion.
Fair enough. But I do shudder to contemplate the consequences of our choosing as our standard bearer yet another managerial progressive intent on engineering our good by curtailing our liberties. What do you make of the individual mandate in Romneycare? ·Oct 9 at 10:14am
You’re altogether correct, any mandate is abhorrent. It was not my intent to throw the baby out with the bath water.
If Romney gets the nomination — which, I suspect, he will — Obama will certainly find a way to play the anti-Mormon card, and I fear that a great many evangelical Christians will fall prey to this stratagem. Alas.
You may well be right. The Mormons I know — really admirable human beings, let me add — admire him as a man. I trust their instincts in this particular.
The only President in my lifetime who let Congress take the lead was . . . Barack Obama.
Yes, you are right. For a short while, Clinton let Newt take the lead. Then, he crushed him. Maybe a passing acquaintance with what happened in the end would be in order. You know — when you get the time.
Edited on Oct 08 at 08:48 pm
There are, indeed, no utopias. But it would be nice if there were some articulate conservative candidates who have executive experience or who have demonstrated executive temperament. The field is — you will have to admit — pathetic.
We seem to have elevated the act of beating the stuffing out of our candidates to the level of intramural sport. I understand that we (unlike the left with Obama) wish to thoroughly vet our candidates. The problem is that we’re doing a significant portion of the leg work for the opposition who will know how best to flog our nominee because we’ve already presented a plethora of point papers on it. The candidates are Charlie Brown, we are Lucy projecting their faults on slide.
It is one thing for the Republican Party to win an election. It is another thing for us to win an election. The election of a managerial progressive to the Presidency, who will clean up some of the mess that Obama has made, while leaving the American republic on the trajectory on which he found it may be better than having Obama for four more years. But it is not a victory for us.
Why is it that you think this, but I don’t? I get an outsider, almost subversive vibe from Romney. Yes, on the surface he is the opposite, but the substance of his life of one of outsider who has eschewed comfort, and who has taken a relatively unconventional career path–or paths. One of us isn’t seeing Romney clearly. I’m going to bet it’s not me. ·Oct 9 at 10:20am
Bet as you will. But you might want to keep this in mind. The best guide to what a man will do in a new executive position is what he did in his previous executive post. Nothing that Romney has said — in his recent book or on stage — is inconsistent with the view that he is a managerial progressive intent on showing that he can make the administrative entitlements state work. That is what he claims to have done with Romneycare in Massachusetts.
Richard, you really ought to know better! And, frankly, I suspect that you do know better — which makes your comment all the more disgraceful.
Did you read the first comment on this post? I am a Catholic. I watched while my Republican co-religionists rallied to JFK. They had long been treated as outsiders in American life, and they regarded his victory — even though they disagreed with his policies — as their victory. My sense is that many Mormons see Romney as many Catholics once saw JFK (and as many African-Americans see Obama), and I do not blame them for being excited about his candidacy.
I stand by what I said. I doubt that anyone else is thrilled.
Larry Koler
People really should read about Newt’s life, don’t you think? Maybe a passing acquaintance would be in order. You know — when you get the time. · Oct 9 at 12:40pm
I took the time actually — all during those years I paid attention. Clinton did not go after Newt — the Republican elites did. This is probably due to Newt’s marriage problems and how it would look if Newt’s infidelity came to notice what with the MSM’s portrayal of the impeachment of Clinton’s suborning perjury and abuse of power as a sex scandal.
There’s a lot more to say on all this but this is the wrong post for this — some other time.
Paul A. Rahe
Larry Koler
People really should read about Newt’s life, don’t you think? Maybe a passing acquaintance would be in order. You know — when you get the time. · Oct 9 at 12:40pm
There’s a lot more to say on all this but this is the wrong post for this — some other time. ·Oct 9 at 3:03pm
I think that you are wrong on the crucial point — but never mind. You should make your argument at the proper length as a post so we can properly judge.
Larry, the Republican elites did not follow Gingrich through north Florida, recording his cellphone calls, “by accident” on their “police scanner”. Be realistic.
Prof. Rahe and others, I want to be explicitly clear, as this will be an issue going forward on Ricochet (apparently) and in the media: I genuinely love Mormons. It is one of my favorite denominations. I have never met a Mormon that I didn’t think ranked amongst the highest of my acquaintances. I am not sure I can say the same thing about my acquantances from my own denomination.
What I can say, from personal observation, is that there are Mormons uncomfortable with Romney. The same can be said, to a greater extent, about Harry Reid.
My only point is to attempt to eliminate the coreligionist aspect from this discussion.
From my personal observation of this aspect, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, even though conservatives will be driven to argue over this aspect by media.
Why bother, ever, allowing this aspect to become a part of our discussion, when it may be the least significant?
My observation, Professor Rahe: I don’t know a single Mormon that supports Romney. Anecdotal.
Richard, you really ought to know better! And, frankly, I suspect that you do know better — which makes your comment all the more disgraceful.
Did you read the first comment on this post? I am a Catholic. I watched while my Republican co-religionists rallied to JFK. They had long been treated as outsiders in American life, and they regarded his victory — even though they disagreed with his policies — as their victory. My sense is that many Mormons see Romney as many Catholics once saw JFK (and as many African-Americans see Obama), and I do not blame them for being excited about his candidacy.
I stand by what I said. I doubt that anyone else is thrilled. ·Oct 9 at 2:08pm
Edited on Oct 09 at 03:26 pm
I hadn’t read your first post. Perhaps you should have revised the original. But it would be the same as if I suggested that only blacks could be excited about Herman Cain or only southerners could like Rick Perry or only evangelicals could be attracted to Michelle Bachmann. It simply makes no sense and is uncalled for. Identity politics can be left to the left.
Paul A. Rahe
Did you read the first comment on this post? I am a Catholic. I watched while my Republican co-religionists rallied to JFK. They had long been treated as outsiders in American life, and they regarded his victory — even though they disagreed with his policies — as their victory. My sense is that many Mormons see Romney as many Catholics once saw JFK (and as many African-Americans see Obama), and I do not blame them for being excited about his candidacy.
I stand by what I said. I doubt that anyone else is thrilled. ·Oct 9 at 2:08pm
Edited on Oct 09 at 03:26 pm
That is pretty lame, Richard. You disgrace yourself, and you blame me.
One reason that constitutional conservatives are inclined to be critical is that they have been repeatedly betrayed by Republican Presidents. Who brought us the EPA, OSHA, affirmative action? Not the Democrats. Is it not high time that we lay down the law to prospective Republican nominees?
Assume McCain won in 2008: Bailouts just as large, at best, if not larger; Compassionate continuing to smoother Conservatism, i.e. zero reforms.
The difference between what would have and what did actually happen is this: Instead of the GOP steadily turning up the pot’s heat on the unsuspecting frog, our elected crypto-communist flashed it so red-hot, he provoked the tea party movement into its frog-saving existence.
If McCain had won:
In the second case, any political movement opposing “Republicans” would have had the tribal media’s support only to the extent of weakening the GOP and making itself ultimately their object of demonization.
Accordingly, for saving America, a McCain loss was best; provided that, we elect his antithesis, a Leviathan slayer. Is Cain able?
Bet as you will. But you might want to keep this in mind. The best guide to what a man will do in a new executive position is what he did in his previous executive post. Nothing that Romney has said — in his recent book or on stage — is inconsistent with the view that he is a managerial progressive intent on showing that he can make the administrative entitlements state work. That is what he claims to have done with Romneycare in Massachusetts
Two questions. First, how does proposing a balanced budget amendment, and stating again and again that capping spending at 18% or 20% or GDP is not conservative (Romney has mentioned other things that are clearly fiscally conservative, too). Is 18% or 20% too high? What?
Second, please tell me what a “real conservative” Governorship in MA would have looked like: the override of vetos of the vast majority of bills? What? Are you saying no “real conservative” should run for office in MA?
I’m not saying Romney is necessarily the most conservative guy in the world, but that we have someone whos resume is mostly private sector, and mostly, if not entrepreneurial stricto senso, than than “large-scale entrepreneurial”: fixing failing companies by minimizing weaknesses and emphasizing strengths; and doing it in multiple industries. This is a very good analogy, or at least, very good training for doing to DC what we both want done to DC.
Do you think Romney will/would simply improve efficiencies without reducing the size of government? Maybe if the federal government wasn’t already HUGE HUGE, such fears would be well founded. But there’s so much bloat, so much to cut (and so little time), that there’s plenty to cut before Romney’s supposed non-small government outlook should be of concern.
In any case, let a conservative Congress backstop Romney’s supposed wobbly/non-existent conservatism. . In the mean time, you get someone several levels of competency above any one else who is running.
Focus on forcing Romney to be as fiscally conservative as possible (since that’s your concern)
Paul, I concur with your analysis — it’s your tactics that bother some of us. We have to fight the war on the ground we have and with the army we have. We are not in the majority. We need to prevent ourselves from damaging the eventual nominee. That’s all Prawn is saying. It’s hard to do this, I know, but we have to find a way. Too much is at stake.
That is pretty lame, Richard. You disgrace yourself, and you blame me. ·Oct 9 at 5:01pm
I disgrace myself? Uh, nice attempt at misdirection. I guess we’ll have to settle with mutual disdain.
I don’t think you’re right that Bachmann will try to take Cain down. I don’t know about the others. I’m expecting Bachmann, in fact, to cash in soon and throw her weight behind Cain since they espouse such similar values. Her best option right now is to put her considerable weight back into her congressional work where her organizational powers have made a difference. This is not her time, but four years on she might have the profile and record to make a run.
In the current situation, Gingerich should also cash in soon. Notice he doesn’t attack the other candidates — he’s keeping doors open. He is a deeply undervalued property. Count him out for the presidency, but he’s too valuable to just fade away; he just needs recycling. Cain would be stupid not to court Gingerich for Veep. I am absolutely certain that Gingerich wields more votes than he actually shows in polls. Like Palin, he has kingmaker capabilities, and he is at least fully qualified for VP. In this case the whole would be greater than the sum of the parts.
Can we optimistically hope that Paul Ryan, from his budget leadership position within a Congress of increased power…will fill this role from his current position? We need legislators who can do that– without legislators who can “articulate the argument for limited government”, the Presidency wouldn’t mean squat.
What we need to know…is if Romney is willing to allow Congress to take the lead in designing national policy on entitlements going forward. This is acrucial question. I am wary of conservatives who buy into the cult of the Presidency, looking for the one person who will single-handedly seize the wheel and direct the country in the right direction. I would much rather find a competent administrator to lead the Executive branch, and allow the Legislature to rise to its Constitutional role.
The only President in my lifetime who let Congress take the lead was . . . Barack Obama. ·Oct 9 at 10:04am
And in 2010 the people decided that Obama’s choice in leadership in Congress had to go. That’s how this is supposed to work.
Obama has “delegated” to Congress because he is an empty, incompetent sham. Romney will delegate, both to Congress and his appointees because he is a talented, low-ego leader who knows he can’t do it alone. Look for him, if he wins the nomination, to name a very smart, proactive VP choice: Cane or DeMint if not Rubio. This is, by the way, the approach and psyche Reagan had.