If Not These Guys, Then Who? Glad You Asked / 01-21-12

Three states have voted. Three men have won.

And still, not one of them will be the Republican nominee. Spoiler: The nominee will come from the list three paragraphs ahead.

Quick summary of my rationale: There's too much flip and way too much flop in Mitt Romney, and a quarter of his base thinks he's in a cult. There's too much baggage in Newt Gingrich; really, there's too much Newt in Newt Gingrich. Or not enough room in Newt for all the Newt in Newt's head. Something. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's in for the long haul, but he's not going to get more than 20 percent of the delegates -- which is enough to make him a serious player, but not nearly enough to win the prize. And Santorum, as will have been discussed in a future post sometime in the future, is distasteful to anyone whose political ideology falls left of Jerry Falwell. He can't win the general, and thus can't win the nomination. Republican primary voters and party bigwigs are far, far, far too pragmatic to allow an unelectable standard-bearer, especially when the incumbent president is less than popular and the economy is less than vibrant.

Well, those are the only four guys officially running. And yet, the nominee has to be someone else, someone who hasn't won a primary or a caucus, someone who has not been mortally wounded in the campaign thus far. So, also out are Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Jon Hunstman and Herman Cain.

A moment of silence seems appropriate. But screw that. The spoiler alert is expiring. Ready? Potential nominees include, in mostly alphabetical order: Chris Christie. Mitch Daniels. Elizabeth Dole. Mike Huckabee. Tim Pawlenty. Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush, too. (Yes, Jeb. I know. I know. I KNOW. You know I know. Everyone knows. Still.) And, uh, yeah, Sarah Palin.

If I had to rank them, from most to least likely to leave the 2012 Republican Convention (Official Motto: "Made You Look!") as the nominee, I'd have to go with:

1. Pawlenty

2. Huckabee

3. Dole

4. Rubio

5. Christie

6. Daniels

7. Bush

8. Palin

9. Someone Else

I reserve the right to alter these percentages after a few more primaries and caucuses. With every passing day, Someone Else rises in the polls anyway. But let's start from the bottom of the barrel.

Palin: Unelectable, yet also immortal. No human device can slay her. So should you ever cross her off the list? No matter the list? Yeah no. Learn your lesson already. Verdict: LESS THAN 1 PERCENT.

Bush: From Florida and still immensely popular there. That's all I have to say on that topic. The other things I would say have already been thought by you. Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Daniels: Moderate from Indiana. Appealing to all wings of the party. Probably saving himself for 2016, but lust can broadside even the best intentions. Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Christie: Same boat as Daniels. Well, no, different boat. A sturdier boat, I'd say. (Yes, that's a fat joke. I am not a proud man.) Verdict: 5 PERCENT.

Rubio: Here's where things start to get interesting. The Rubio Resume: two years in the Senate, young rising star, fresh face, likeable, great backstory, especially appealing to an important demographic group, chance to make some electoral history. Sound familiar? He'd have to overcome all the experience-based criticisms lobbed at that Obama dude four years ago, only from the other side. Entertainment value sizeably increased by watching his defenders turn into actual pretzels, fending off the same attacks they used in '08. Verdict: 10 PERCENT.

Dole: Just a gut feeling here. Total hunch. Don't have much to base it on, except having seen her name in the news from time to time in the last few weeks. She ran briefly in 2000, dropped out before the primaries, and her wikipedia page is a fascinating read. Problem is, she'd be 76 at the convention. Patriotic age, but advanced age, and that plays poorly. Verdict: 20 PERCENT.

Huckabee: Basically tied Romney in the '08 Contest To Earn The Right To Get Destroyed By The Democrat. Populist social conservative. Why is he not running again? Oh yeah, Fox "News" money. That only goes so far. Verdict: 25 PERCENT.

And, finally, Pawlenty: Undamaged goods. Dropped out before Iowa, so has not been numerically rejected by the voters. Yes, he had trouble in polling throughout 2011, and yes, he had trouble fund-raising, but at a hung convention where the party elites are just trying to avoid disaster, he's an ex-governor of a blue state, a man with few skeletons, if any, in the closet, an electable guy, not unattractive to independents, a guy whose worst fault is blandness. In short, Pawlenty's the exact opposite of disaster. Verdict: 30 PERCENT.

Pressed for an answer right now, I'd say the nominee will be either Pawlenty or Huckabee. But this election season has been quite instructive in that it's taught me to expect the unexpected... sigh. Swell. Just swell. Now what can I find to put in the "unexpected" box?

Oops, Mitigated / 1-3-12

Earlier today, when I could still claim youth and inexperience, I forecast a photo finish between Paul, Santorum and Romney -- in that order -- at the Iowa Caucuses.

So, yeah, oops. That prediction was meant for entertainment purposes only, and I hope you took it that way. Turns out Romney and Santorum tied at 24.6 percent, with Paul behind at 21.5 percent. (The men at the top each scored six delegates in the nomination race; Paul nabbed four as a consolation prize.)

Now let me mitigate my giant oops a little. In the second half of the early post, I explained why a Paul-Santorum-Romney-everyone else finish creates problems for Republicans who want to win in November. It divides the party into about one fifth libertarian, two fifths TP/Evangelical, and one fifth moderate/establishment.

Well, although the top three didn't finish in the order I anticipated, look at these aggregated results:

Paul: 21.5 percent. About one fifth.

Santorum/Perry/Bachmann: 40.0 percent. About exactly precisely two fifths.

Romney/Gingrich/Hunstman: 38.5 percent. Yeah, you found the last two fifths.

The first group doesn't want to vote for the other two in the fall. The second and third groups are equal in representation but their agendas don't match. Whoever the nominee is will have some decrepit bridges to mend, because the other wing of the party will make its reservations known. And these won't be Obama-Clinton-2008-style reservations -- those two Democrats showed little to no policy differences throughout the primary season. No, the chasm is huge in the GOP. Santorum and Romney might easily belong to altogether different parties, from the stark difference in their political records.

At this point, final Iowa numbers are pretty to look at, but also pretty insignificant. The Republicans still have a faction problem even if Romney pulls out a 20-vote win (out of more than 120,000 votes) or Santorum edges the Massachusetts Silver Spooner by an fetus's fingernail.

And Paul's 21 percent aren't closing shop anytime soon.

The voting also confirmed a fun trend that polling suggested throughout 2011: Romney has a 25 percent glass ceiling outside of the Northeast. Interesting to see if that changes after a couple decorative candidates drop out. (Yes, Rick, yes, Michele, I'm talking directly to you, and thanks for reading.)

All in all, good entertainment tonight. Which reminds me, I still owe you guys an answer to "If not Romney, then who?" and "If not Gingrich, then who?" and "If not Paul, then who?" That's coming soon too. Spoiler (I love spoilers): It ends with "If not Santorum, then who?"

[UPDATE, 11:58 p.m. PDT: Romney 30,015, Santorum 30,007 is tonight's "final score." Wow. The top three finishers all get seven delegates apiece. Which is splendid.]

144 Or Less / 12-17-11

If you mean to sign a pledge defending marriage, but instead you end up offending it, you might be Newt Gingrich.

First of all, I'm sorry -- really sorry. Secondly, you should rethink your decision to sign this.

This is, in short, the latest Republican-sponsored quixotic battle against same-sex marriage.

Given that you cheated on your first two wives, once while you were impeaching Clinton for lying about sexual indiscretions, then also while another was fighting off cancer (successfully!), you're better off signing an overt declaration of war on marriage rather than a laughable oath to "protect" it from committed people who would like their children to grow up in a stable home where two loving parents don't have to explain to their children why the government disallows their union.

Long sentence there. Shorter ones now.

Now go win the nomination, you double-talking sleazebag. Please.

(Word count: 144)

The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas / 12-14-11

My last post ended with "If not Romney, who?"

Glad you asked. Turns out Newt Gingrich enjoys a double-digit lead in national polling for the 2012 Republican nomination. He leads in Iowa, where they'll be voting in three weeks. He leads nationally. He leads in Florida and South Carolina, states which hold the other January primaries, by an average of 19 points. Real Clear Politics does a poll of polls every day, and here's their latest one, showing Gingrich with a 12-point cushion. The predictive model at Fivethirtyeight.com, which rose to prominence in 2008 with its statistically rigorous look at the election, predicts he'll win the first caucus.

Newt Gingrich has stolen Christmas from Mitt Romney and is now the undisputed front-runner.

Yes, that Newt Gingrich. Yes, him. It's almost too easy to write the post about how the man will not be the Republican nominee.

Oh, I'm going to write the post anyway. Not doing so would be a wasted opportunity. It would be borderline irresponsible. Besides, I have to write this tonight, so I can give the same treatment to Ron Paul tomorrow. After that, eh, who knows. Because if it's not going to be one of the three front-runners... wow. If it's not one of those three guys, and I really don't think it'll be, then we're in for a doozy of a primary season, and a Republican convention actually worth paying attention to.

Seriously, my political lobe is all tingly. *shivers*

So. Newt will not win the nomination for a variety of reasons. Let's give these reasons some sequential numbers.

1. He says stuff. So much stuff. Even for a Republican, it's seriously crazy stuff. For example, last week, he warmed up by stating in a debate that our child labor laws are "truly stupid," then stood by his remarks. Just read the first few quotes here, remembering that this is Newt defending his stance that children should in part replace adult janitors who, according to him, make too much money. Oh, and calling Palestinians an "invented" people is just the sort of thing a president ought to do, too. (And that was just last week! Both statemenst! Days apart!)

2. He has more enemies than friends in the GOP power corridors. More on why this matters this two reasons later.

3. He's not going to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and that will take the sails out of his campaign. According to multiple reports, he's massively disorganized compared to Paul, Perry and Bachmann -- even compared to Romney. One of those four is winning the Hawkeye State. (My money's on Paul.) Meanwhile, Romney will at least eke out a win in New Hampshire. Fundraising will dry up and supporters will voice their doubts more openly after the perceived front-runner fails to take either of the first two contests.

4. His personal life is too much of a liability. And because of 2., 4. is amplified. Any campaign manager who wants to destroy Newt can make it happen. It's not hard. You just remind people that the guy led the drive to impeach Clinton... while he was having an affair of his own. You remind them that at the height of the mortgage crisis, he took $1.6 million in pay from Freddie Mac... then claimed, straight-faced, he was being paid for his services as a historian. You remind them he cheated on his first wife, then divorced his second one while she was dying of cancer so he could marry his current spouse... before Wife Number Two had the decency to die. Those are the broad strokes, but after that who cares about the details: There's three women, lots of cheating, and massive douchebaggery, all rolled into one guy.

And I haven't even yet mentioned the time Newt admitted that he shut down the government in part so he could exact revenge on the President for making him sit in the back of Air Force One.

I'm all for politicians making mistakes and learning from them, you know, like regular people, but the baggage above is too much for Newt to overcome. And we're just talking, so far, about the luggage he checked at the counter. There's plenty more: carry-ons, backpacks, rolling suitcases, laptops, and fanny packs full of additional icky Newtrivia, just waiting to be unpacked on the national scene.

5. My favorite. He made a well-intentioned video to help raise awareness of climate change. In the video, he sits on the couch with fellow former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she's known to Republican voters, Harpy McLucifer (D-San Frangaysco). Newt might as well have shot a commercial for an abortion clinic and solicited funds for Planned Parenthood, standing in front of a juicy Robert Mapplethorpe painting. That would have gone over way better.

Newt will win some delegates along the way. Just not the nomination.

But if not Newt, who?

[Respoiler: Ron Paul's up next. Guess how the post ends!]

Mitt Romney, The LDS Question, and Flipfloppery / 12-13-11

Going to tread lightly here, because this is a sensitive topic. Don't expect a lot of biting wit.

Mitt Romney has two problems.

First, he's a Mormon.

Important clarification: He doesn't have a problem with me. I would vote for a Democrat who's a Mormon. If Harry Reid (you know, the Senate Majority Leader) were running for office in my state, I would choose him over the right-wing alternative. His policy squares with mine. He could be an atheist, a Baptist, a Buddhist, whatever, I really couldn't possibly care less. I want left-wingers in office enacting left-wing policies, thwarting right-wing initiatives.

Yeah, well, as luck would have it, Mitt Romney isn't running for my vote, for the Senate in a reliably blue state, or for governor again, as a moderate Republican.

He's running for the chance to represent the Republicans in an election for President of the United States. And to get there, he needs to win over the people who vote in primaries.

And yeah. Between 40 and 60 percent of the R primary electorate, depending on the state, is made up of evangelical Christians. About half of those of those believe Mormonism is a cult. Trust my numbers, or just do the math: roughly, a quarter of R primary voters gladly place Romney in the Cult Box.

Important fact: Christians classify their Mormon brethren in that uncomplimentary way for multiple reasons. But chief among those is that in LDS circles, the Book of Mormon is viewed as equal to the Bible.

Understatement: fair or unfair, when the LDS church went that route, it was practically asking for the "cult" label. Denying the divinity of Christ is the biggest massive breach of orthodoxy I can imagine, and right behind that, in second place, lies messing with the ultimate authority of the Word of God.

Like I said, that's neither here nor there for me. I have my own tenuous relationship with so-called orthodox dogma. (Really? A virgin birth? Are you serious?)

But again, I'm not voting in the Republican primaries. It's most definitely here and there for a large swath of the people Romney needs to reach.

When combined with his propensity to, um, how to say this -- his propensity to let his views on certain issues "evolve," and his extremely moderate past during his governorship of Massachusetts, Romney has a big problem. He's not appealing to the people who decide if he's appealing.

So he keeps polling between 20 and 30 percent, time and again, week after week, state after state. Forgive me, but duh.

I'll be shocked if Romney garners more than a third of the Republican vote in any primary outside of New England and the Mountain West. And that's no path to the nomination.

But if not Mitt, who?

Tomorrow, I'll give newt Gingrich the same treatment. (Spoiler: The post ends with "But if not Newt, who?")