An Early Overview of the Republican Presidential Field for 2012

This is part 2 of a three part series on the Republican contest for President.. See https://infinitefunction.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/a-look-back-at-past-republican-primary-contests/

Part 1: The Money Game

The early stages of a presidential race is about one thing. Money. The media in the past has aptly named this period the “money primary.” In 1992 Bill Clinton cleaned up during the “money primary” as did George W Bush for the Republicans in 2000. Of course the top fundraising candidates don’t always win. Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani had far better early fundraising operations than John McCain. But John McCain at least placed in the “money primary” in sharp contrast to Mike Huckabee who didn’t.

In the end if you look at the top fundraisers going into the nominating season you’ll more often than not find your nominee. Look at the top three and you’d be hard pressed to argue the nominee won’t be one of them. That is not to say an exception such as say Jimmy Carter in 1976 can’t occasionally break through. But fortune favors the rich.

The question this year is how much the fundraising game has changed. First you have the increasing prominence of internet fund raising that helped drive the Obama campaign four years ago and the Howard Dean campaign eight years ago. On the Republican side four years ago Ron Paul was adept at raising funds this way.

Second you have the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court. The conventional wisdom is that the big boys who splashed a lot of water in the 2010 election such as Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party Express will keep their powder dry and just be content with having all the candidates grovel before them in the primary. If this isn’t the case then all bets are off.

A theoretical battle between say a Tea Party Express backed Michele Bachmann, a Crossroads GPS backed Mitt Romney, a Chamber of Commerce backed Mitch Daniels, and a Focus on the Family backed Mike Huckabee would make personal candidate fundraising of far less importance as corporations, millionaires, and billionaires take the drivers seat. However such a scenario is highly unlikely as most of those groups do coordinate at some level and have their eyes on the ultimate prize especially with all the candidates when all is said and done mouthing the same language and taking similar positions. That is not to say the people behind these groups will sit out. But that it just makes more sense for them to make conventional donations for mere tens of thousands rather than pouring multiple millions into what is just the opening act of the ultimate contest.

Third you have the increased ability to fundraise perhaps undermining the restraint built into the current public financing system of matching funds. In order to receive generous matching funds from the government candidates agree to certain spending limits. Candidates then often spend heavily in the early states such as New Hampshire and Iowa and are broke and often facing spending limits as they enter the later states. This provides a boost to the frontrunner and an incentive to the major candidates who are not just in it for the attention (such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) to get out early. In 2008 Democrats Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton bypassed matching funds allowing Hillary Clinton to be competitive across the primary calendar long after the outcome was certain. That was not the case on the Republican side. Sure the winner take all system gave McCain a large delegate lead. But the other candidates really did not have the resources to compete even if they wanted to.

That said money versus momentum can sometimes be a chicken and egg argument. For example did Barack Obama raise money in 2008 because he excited the electorate or was he able to excite the electorate because he effectively spent the tremendous amount of money he raised? The goal of any candidate is of course to jump start this process. Howard Dean in 2004 generated some excitement with his opposition to the Gulf War and managed to raise the funds to become a contender before his campaign collapsed. More dramatically Jimmy Carter was unknown and underfunded in 1976 before winning the Iowa primary.

Past Republican nominations do present a cautionary note to the Herman Cains and Michele Bachmanns who hope to come out of nowhere and raise the necessary funds with a win in Iowa. Mike Huckabee in 2008 won Iowa and won considerable notice and momentum. Ultimately his inability to raise funds kneecapped him. Pat Robertson’s second place showing in Iowa gave him momentum that he couldn’t translate in part because he didn’t have the resources of the other candidates. Failure to compete in the pre-election “money primary” and the corresponding building of organizational strength can handicap you even if you do pull of a victory in one of the early states.

Traditionally the way Republicans (and even Democrats) “jump start” this process is in courting wealthy fundraisers who not only donate money to the campaign but can raise large amounts of money from wealthy friends and associated. You may be familiar with the term “Bush Pioneer.” Those were fundraisers who were able to solicit $100,000 in donations to the Bush Campaign with different titles for those gathering even more “bundled” campaign dollars.

These large fundraisers such as Bob Perry are currently falling heavily into three camps. Mitt Romney who did better at courting this group than any other candidate in 2008. But more surprisingly Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Which is why while in the end all three of them may end up losing, perhaps even outfundraised, these three will at this early stage be assumed to be three of the four top contenders.

Part 2: Candidate Roundup.

The Frontrunner

Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney is without a doubt a weak frontrunner. His position built on name recognition and a perception of electability rather than any sense of inevitability that Ronald Reagan had in 1980 or Richard Nixon had in 1968. But his fundraising remains strong and he has learned important lessons from running four years ago on how to conserve that money and make it last.

His main problem at least on the surface is currently health care reform. After months of haggling the Democratic plan became watered down enough to resemble a number of Republican plans that were floating around pre-2009 including the one Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. And that changed the entire ballgame as Republicans vilified it. Romney wants to split the difference and say his plan is fine on the state level but makes no sense on the federal level. But conservatives want sharper battle lines against a proposal that they have branded “socialism” or worse.

But it extends further than that. In 2008 the main line of attack against him was over his authenticity as many both in and out of the Republican Party attacked his startling transformation from moderate Massachusetts Governor to a down the line conservative. 2012 was supposed to be better for him as his positioning would seem a little less suspect with four extra years between the present and his last run for Governor of the Bay State. It is too early to know whether health care will end up being a pivotal issue in the Republican primary. But it is becoming clear that questions over whether Mitt Romney as a political opportunist will not be going away. And if Romney completely disavows his own plan in Massachusetts that problem may become worse rather than better.

The Top Contenders

Sarah Palin – While the United States has had as good a cast of colorful figures ranging from Huey Long to Estes Kefauver to Douglas MacArthur as potential Presidential nominees as any other nation we have a tradition of nominating and electing candidates who can be best described as temperate and boring. While “red hot” excitable candidates may get early attention they often fade before the slick, the genial, and the comforting.

Sarah Palin does not fit this mold. She is a reality tv star with a daughter on Dancing with the Stars and an almost-son-in-law a regular on the tv interview circuit and prepping a “tell all” book about her and her family. Sarah Palin’s words are always calculated to be provocative and controversial rather than smooth, measured, and reassuring. She is in short the type of candidate you more often see in Latin America where it is more common for say a soap television star to run for office. And even there they almost always fall short.

While Mitt Romney can trumpet his perceived electability Sarah Palin’s numbers are truly ugly with weakness in even stalwart Republican states such as Texas. That will hurt her among many Republican voters. While her weaknesses in the general election are quite visible and obvious it is still too early to know anything for certain. She would certainly run a harsh hard hitting campaign and at the very least that should be enough to bring soft Republican voters home.

I originally was going to place Sarah Palin as a co-frontrunner. By every right she should be. Few figures in the Republican Party have the fundraising potential, ability to draw free media, as well as the large public following that she has particularly among conservative activists who identified with the “Tea Party Movement.”. If she had mounted a discipline campaign gathering the top talent and courting the top fundraisers from the moment the 2008 campaign or at the very least the 2010 congressional campaigns ended she could have found herself in a position approaching that of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

But she didn’t and other candidates are quickly eating into her position. There is still a window of opportunity for her to build a campaign since she still has a tremendous opportunity to fundraise among small donors but that window is fast closing on her. The longer she waits the harder it will be for to put her campaign together.

The big question with her is whether she even wants to run. While she has certainly never been poor just being in the national spotlight has allowed her to earn more money than she has ever seen in her life. Running for President of the United States is grueling and unpleasant. There is some speculation that she is enjoying her current circumstances far too much to pull the trigger on a presidential run.

However if she does want to be President this is the year she has to run. Her position in the Republican field is linked to her position as a media star and there is no guarantee that her fifteen minutes won’t be over in the next media cycle. Former Minnesota Governor and wrestling star Jesse Ventura could have been a credible candidate for President in 2000 or even 2004. That certainly is not the case today.

Tim Pawlenty – Few other candidates have worked harder or longer to gain the Republican nomination than Tim Pawlenty. A former governor of Minnesota who while seen as being perhaps too conservative for his state (originally winning in a three way race with former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny running a strong third party bid and barely winning re-election with only 47% of the vote) he was seen as a moderate by Republican Party standards. Thus far he has been a well liked cypher acceptable to conservatives nervous about Romney and moderates concerned about the stridency and electability of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. As he gains credibility there will be increased scrutiny over his record as governor and past positions. He already is taking heat over his past support for “cap & trade.”

The biggest surprise so far has been his ability to attract the support of many former Bush fundraisers. Though given Romney’s weakness and his status as Romney’s earliest and most mainstream challenger perhaps it should not be.

Jon Huntsman – With his appointment as ambassador to China few thought Governor Huntsman of Utah would run. In some ways Huntsman is a better Mitt Romney. A wealthy attractive Mormon businessman with an attractive family and a smooth presentation. A former governor who has shown an ability to work with Democrats. Like Romney he even passed his own health care reform bill in Utah which is bound to draw some fire from the right. But his most important similarity is he has been able to impressively put together an able fund raising team.

What most differentiates the two is that while Romney’s health care plan is now almost universally derided by top conservatives as being too close to “ObamaCare” Huntsman’s Utah plan is held up by many including the Heritage Foundation as being a viable conservative alternative. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/consumer-power-5-lessons-from-utah-s-heath-care-reform Not that he is immune from criticism from the right. Since appearing in a television commercial with fellow Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brian Schweitzer in support of “cap & trade” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E30ml3QvvJ0 ) Huntsman, like Tim Pawlenty, has backpedaled away from past support.

He also has faced criticism from social conservatives for supporting, like George W Bush in 2000, “civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage.

Helping steer the Huntsman campaign is John Weaver who advised John McCain in both the 2000 and 2008 race. Both campaigns show the potential and the danger for Huntsman in the 2012 campaign. Assuming he continues to wear the mantle as the most “moderate” and “electable” Republican in the race will he be fatally tarred as too soft and liberal like John McCain was in 2000 or will he successfully navigate a divided and dispirited conservative electorate like John McCain did in 2008? On a side note did Weaver really do Huntsman any favors by telling Time magazine, “This is the weakest Republican field since Wendell Willkie won the nomination on the sixth ballot in 1940”?

The Major Candidates

Mitch Daniels – On paper Mitch Daniel seems perfectly suited for 2012. He has taken a position on all the hot button issues as Governor of Indiana such as defunding Planned Parenthood and removing collective bargaining rights from unions while continuing to appear moderate and like a serious adult. Some of that is the pure luck of being in Indiana as opposed to the bluer states of Michigan or Wisconsin. But you also have to credit Mitch Daniels for his demeanor which is far less inflammatory than that of Scott Walker.

As the former OMB director to George W Bush he is not the best advocate for Republican policies on the deficit and this will probably be an area of attack by other candidates.

Once (or perhaps better put if) Mitch Daniels announces he might merit an upgrade upwards. But we’ll need to see what type of team he puts together and how well he fundraises first.

Michele Bachmann – A Republican firebrand most notable for her ability to excite partisan conservatives and outrage liberals Bachmann is hoping to tap into some of the enthusiasm that powered Sarah Palin’s popularity on the right. She has the money to be heard even if it comes from expensive direct mail firms with high burn rates. While that is enough to move her to the “major candidate category” unless she can tighten up her fundraising operation she’ll have a hard time getting the funds she’ll need to get traction. She also in general needs to prove she can be something besides a gadfly.

Her only shot at the nomination is a surprise win in Iowa or convincing the Koch brothers to be her sugar daddy.

Newt Gingrich – In 1996 and 2000 Newt Gingrich was about as electable nationwide as Nancy Pelosi is now. It remains to be seen how much time has healed old wounds and how strong he would be as a general election candidate. Thus far the numbers are far from promising. As a primary candidate he has strengths. Good ability to generate free media, being well known and regarded by conservative activists, and a past proven ability to generate money for different foundations and causes.

The real question with Newt however is how much he really wants to be President and how much he just enjoys the attention that comes from running. His fundraising has been underwelming and he has done little to build his organization. He styles himself the next Ronald Reagan and enjoys the poetry of his own words. But unless he puts in more of an effort he’ll instead be the next Fred Thompson.

Ron Paul – Nobody questions Ron Paul’s ability to generate money. Just his ability to gain votes. Initially denied even a seat at the Republican debates Ron Paul through a loyal coterie of fans and a shoe string budget was able to mount a fairly respectable campaign operation. But only enough to earn him 35 delegates.

The Tea Party during the 2010 election has helped move the debate at least on economic issues within the Republican Party more in his direction. The Republican Party however is still far from libertarian and his positions on social policy and defense are markedly different from that of the majority of Republican primary voters.

Rick Santorum – The affable Rick Santorum despite being too conservative for his purplish state through both political skill and serendipity managed to get elected to two terms as a US Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum has made opposition to homosexuality one of the focuses of his political career including blaming Massachusetts’ “support” for “alternative lifestyles” for the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests in the Boston area.

While Santorum has a large potential base within the religious right like any other group he’ll need to convince them of his viability before they’ll commit in large numbers. He may also have some problems connecting with some leaders in the movement due to his Catholicism. It also remains to be seen how well he can fundraise and organize with the big boys.

The Minor Candidates

Herman Cain – Herman Cain is the only one in this category who could conceivably be upgraded to major candidate status given the warm reception he has been getting in Republican circles. He was also probably the most solid performer at the first Fox presidential debate. His entire strategy revolves around one thing. Pulling an upset in Iowa and hoping the momentum brings in the money and support he needs. But even for that he’ll need funding. Iowa is all about organization and organization is not necessarily all that cheap.

John Bolton – If Newt Gingrich is the Fred Thompson of 2012 than John Bolton is the Al Haig. He’ll appear at the debates and make a few quips that prove to be memorable. He may even open a campaign office in New Hampshire. One or two volunteers may even man it.. But that will be it.

Gary Johnson – Gary Johnson’s performance at the Republican debate was reminiscent of James Stockdale during the vice-presidential debate in 1992. Johnson was inept, amateurish, and out of place. Given his inability to raise money or gain any traction whatsoever it would be of no surprise if this is the last debate he is even invited to. Which comes as a surprise since you’d expect a better showing by a former governor.

Buddy Roemer – Another former governor and far more in the Republican mainstream than Gary Johnson. But his best years were twenty years ago and he isn’t even getting an invite to debates. There is no indication that much money is being raised or much groundwork being put into his presidential run. A good bet to drop out before the start of the year.

Roy Moore – A former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and cult hero to the far right Moore has failed in his two most recent runs for office in Alabama is now forming a Presidential exploratory committee. Without an invitation to any presidential debates his ability to make noise is limited. His Presidential ambitions however may well continue into a symbolic run on the Constitution Party.

Jimmy McMillan – If only they’d invite him to the Republican debates. Ratings would skyrocket!

The Supercilious

Donald Trump – Donald Trump has toyed with running for President since he threatened to challenge Ronald Reagan back in 1984. Every time whether it was as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent it has been greeted with bemusement and viewed as nothing more than yet another attempt at self promotion by a man who has built his entire career on self-promotion. This time around however Trump has been greeted by far more media attention and rather than just making statements in the media has actually reached out to Republican and conservative figures in private. While the best bet is that it is yet another attempt at self-promotion his money and willingness to dive happily into the mud makes him a factor if he chooses to get in.

The big question surrounding him is money. The billion dollar real estate development business he inherited from his father has been up and mostly down. His enterprises have filed for bankruptcy multiple times and his holdings in the gambling industry have declined since Merv Griffin took him to the cleaners. After the latest bankruptcy filing in 2009 Donald Trump’s stake in troubled Trump Entertainment Resorts was reduced to a mere 10%.

His business is not real estate anymore. At least in the traditional sense. Notice how nobody has asked him how much he lost in the recent real estate crash. He instead sells his name to other developers who are savvier than himself in making money in real estate. He also of course is a reality tv star and is paid extravagantly by NBC.

But it is an open question how large his debts are and how much his monetary holdings actually are. The prospect of definitively answering those questions may in fact be enough to keep him out of the presidential race. Particularly if he has been exaggerating his true wealth since he’ll have to self fund given his constant boasting about his finances has made it all but impossible for him to ever get any campaign contributions.

Assuming he does have the billions he claims he will be a contender. But one probably far too flawed to ever get the nomination. The most important flaw being the simple fact that he is not conservative enough. Donald Trump as a social conservative does not pass the smell test no matter how you sell it. Even Donald Trump as a fiscal conservative is a hard sell. He talks about how crummy United States airports are compared to those in China and promises that as President he’ll be a builder who will make sure our infrastructure will be as good as theirs. In past years that could be a Republican message. In the here and now the Glenn Becks mock such proposals as building “choo-choo trains.”

While Donald Trump supports tax cuts and deregulation he is not necessarily in favor of the draconian austerity conservatives such as Paul Ryan are now pushing. And Trump’s awful polling numbers and over the top attacks on Obama over his birth certificate and acceptance into law school make Trump a tough sell to moderates.

Potential candidates

Rudy Guiliani – In 2008 conservative evangelical ministers lined up to support Rudy Guiliani. So did top Republican operatives and fundraisers. After spending fifty million dollars for one single delegate few are lining up to back Rudy a second time. But Guiliani is seriously considering yet another race.

Rudy Guiliani, like Mitt Romney, has shifted his positions to become more in line with Republican orthodoxy not just on economics but also on social issues. Unlike Romney’s his transformation is not complete. And unlike Romney few Republicans are all that keen to give him a second chance.

That said name identification alone could make him a serious, even if not first tier, candidate.

Chris Christie – Chris Christie has said repeatedly he has no interest in running. In fact so repeatedly that it recalls Michael Bloomberg’s infamous tactic in 2008 of getting friendly reporters to constantly ask him whether he is running for President so he could deny it and get his name out there as a potential candidate. Chris Christie’s public policy speeches and his recent push for allowing the teaching of “creationism” in New Jersey shows he is focused more on a national rather than a statewide audience. But given the time for entering the presidential field is drawing short it seems more like positioning for the vice presidential nomination. That said few would be shocked if he did run.

Bobby Jindal – The release of his birth certificate was aimed at a national rather than statewide audience. But given a complete lack of any moves at anything approaching a Presidential run it is probably safe to assume it was aimed at making his position more secure to be considered for Vice President.

Marco Rubio – Barack Obama and more importantly Tommy Thompson showed in 2008 why it is always better to run when your star is rising rather than waiting your turn. But Rubio has made no moves whatsoever to get in.

Part 3: Brief Overview

The Democratic Party wants 2012 to be a repeat of 1996 where Bill Clinton came back to a roaring victory after being humiliated in the off year congressional elections two years earlier. Republicans want the 2012 election to be 1980 where an unpopular president and his party get tossed from office: building on previous gains from two years earlier. The most likely scenario lies somewhere in between: the1972 Presidential race. You may ask why an election featuring a 49 state landslide lies somewhere in between. The answer is that Nixon’s overwhelming victory was no guarantee.

Like Obama Richard Nixon faced high unemployment, high oil prices, and uncertainty over the economy. Richard Nixon was not necessarily a popular president and many particularly on the center were willing to look at alternatives. The Democratic Party like today’s Republican Party after disappointment in the primary contest four years earlier went through a period where activists demanded ideological purity from candidates. In 1972 the left wing of the Democratic Party got their candidate in George McGovern and he passed every demand they made of him with flying colors.

The question for conservatives within the Republican Party of today with few candidates making any pretenses of appealing to the center with at the very least calls for “compassionate” conservationism is whether they will have the same Pyrrhic victory liberals in the Democratic party had in 1972. Like in 1972 and unlike in 1996 they have a real chance to beat the president even if Obama has at the very least a nominal advantage going in. The question remains to be seen whether they are willing to take advantage of it.

The next post will focus on the most likely scenarios for the Republican nominating contest.