I have hesitated to comment on the Republican Primary race because of the volatility of the contest, and the difficulty in making any reasonable predictions. The trepidation I have in writing this blog post seems to be shared by most republican voters in casting their ballots.
Traditionally, republicans tend in the end to nominate the establishment candidate who has strong party affiliations and a history in the republican party; in short, the candidate whose “turn” it is. In this cycle that candidate would be Romney. Candidates like Dole, Ford, the Bushes, McCain, even Nixon are far more palatable to the Republican establishment as predictable politicians, than a firebrand like Reagan, or God forbid, a Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, or even Newt Gingrich. Generally in the past that kind of support from the establishment and the reliable primary voters has translated to victory in the primary for the most reliably “republican” candidate, and perhaps not coincidentally usually also the dullest.
Tradition, however, may prove to be less dependable in this election cycle than it has in the past, even for the republicans. There is an increasing sentiment of discontent with the status quo and the established parties. It is hard to imagine how the republicans can hope to take advantage of people’s discontent with the same old democratic party, by offering them an alternative from the same old republican party; like having a choice between spoiled fish or spoiled beef. The difficulty Romney has had in moving his popularity ratings at all is indicative of the longing the republican voter has for “something else”… anything else! The voters have moved like a wave from one alternative to another, first rejecting Pawlenty as another establishment type republican in favor of Bachman, who proved a little too flakey and not ready for prime-time; to Rick Perry who might have fared better had he borrowed Obama’s teleprompter; to Herman Cain, who even without the allegations of impropriety was the only candidate in recent memory with even less experience than the sitting President; to Newt Gingrich, whose recent success has been attributed to strong debate performances, but more importantly he seems to be the only guy left besides Ron Paul who can get more than his family and close friends to support him. Unfortunately for all these candidates a major portion of their support seems to be coming from the “not Romney” contingent. The problem with that kind of support is that it is far from passionate, and tends to be fickle. It doesn’t take much to lose that support, one little faux pas, and a viable alternative and you become yesterday’s fad. It’s difficult to imagine, but with the volatility of the process and the re-familiarizing of the electorate with Newt’s problems, it’s possible that Newt peaked just a bit too early. The advantage Gingrich may have is that there may be no other viable alternative. On the other hand, if the bursting of the Gingrich bubble is severe enough, Romney may benefit from a “not Gingrich” vote, who hold their nose and vote for Mitt.
Honestly, I think it would take a miracle for any of the candidates that have lost or never gained support to salvage any real chance of offering a challenge to Newt or Mitt. Huntsman and Santorum have no traction at all. Santorum may have some success in Iowa, but it will be short-lived. Huntsman is hoping for New Hampshire to be kind to him, but that’s a prayer, and one I expect to be unanswered. Bachman, I think for lack of gravitas, doesn’t even seem to have support of Tea Party types; which should be a lesson the Tea Party would have learned from Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle: it’s not just the “what”, but also the “who”.
That leaves the candidate that doesn’t fit the mold, or any other mold of which I am aware, Ron Paul. Paul is possibly the one candidate from either party whose constituency is voting FOR him, and not AGAINST someone else. Even the President’s support comes as much from the “not a republican” vote, as from the dwindling number of voters who find him competent. Almost all the republican vote is negative; “not Mitt”, “not Newt”, not Obama. Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s greatest strength, the uniqueness of his positions, also may be his greatest weakness, and one of the things that has kept him from becoming the “alternative” candidate. Arguably though, another factor in Paul’s hovering just below the top tier of candidates is the perception in the media and the public at large, that he is an interesting sideshow, but has no chance of winning anything. People don’t like to waste their vote, and only the most passionate supporters will vote for a candidate that can’t win when there is another “acceptable”, and more viable choice available. If the recent polls are accurate, and Paul’s organization in Iowa can pull out a victory there (2nd place won’t do), it would go a long way toward changing the perception of Paul as a cult figure to a candidate who has a chance at the nomination. A victory of passion over pragmatism in Iowa (dubious at best) would still not be enough to bring Paul into the upper tier of viable candidates, he would also need a solid showing in New Hampshire; second place, or at least a very strong third… and that’s a long shot. At the point Paul might achieve being taken seriously, he would then have to endure the increased scrutiny of some of his policy positions. The only reason I even mention it is that the level of discontent in the electorate is hard to gauge, and strange things could happen.
As dissatisfied as the voters are with the choices we are given, and as much as they talk about wanting change; we have ever tended toward pragmatism and the “safe” candidate that speaks from focus groups and teleprompters, in sound bites that are geared to reveal nothing. In the end I expect it will be the same-old, same-old. Obama against Romney, establishment democrat against establishment republican, and right now I’d have to give the edge to Obama despite his dismal performance as it would seem the massive “Not that guy” vote is slightly in his favor.
