I've made this argument to a couple of different people in person, but here it goes:
Term limits in this country are backward.
What do I mean?
- The presidency should not be term-limited.
- The Congress (specifically the House) should be term-limited.
I'm making two separate arguments here. I'll take them on individually:
The 22nd amendment was the product of spiteful Republicans of what Harry Truman deemed the "do-nothing 80th Congress." Those Republicans were angered by FDR's successes and the fact that FDR served as president for four terms. They sought to enshrine the precedent established by George Washington in the constitution.
This is all well and good, but I think there are a few points that make this irrelevant. First of all, non-term limited executives (on all political sides) across the world run into a degree of voter fatigue. Tony Blair (UK) and John Howard (Australia) faced this challenge: both were enormously competent, effective leaders of their countries. Both ran into voter fatigue after about 10-12 years at the helm of their nation. In essence, they are organically term-limited by an alert public opinion. The executive is at the very center of government in modern democratic states. Public opinion functions as a check on lifelong terms for executives. There is simply no way George Bush could have won a third term in 2008.
Second, precedent is powerful, and it generally was upheld, pre-FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was the only president to seek the presidency for a third term, and he did this only after stepping down. One could easily argue that TR ran in 1912 out of spite; he thought that Taft betrayed him. (Taft, for his part, was greatly offended by this.) Throughout history, presidents have tended to respect Gen. Washington's judgment.
Moreover, does anyone think the US would have been better off if FDR hadn't sought a third term in 1940? Would Wendell Wilkie, Henry Wallace, or John Nance Gardner have done a better job as president? I doubt it. The public opinion of the US knew that FDR had the right policies and the right experience to deal with the coming international turmoil. And they were certainly right.
Third, being president is tiring, hard work. The modern presidency is a difficult, draining job. I struggle to imagine very many candidates who will be vigorous enough to pursue a fourth term, and popular enough to build the support required for one. If there is such a person out there, I'm not certain that it's a good idea to prevent him from running for a fourth term.
Finally, the "lame-duck issue" is serious. President Bush became a lame duck by late 2005. This was caused, I think, by the comical reaction of Bush and his Congressional allies to the Terri Schiavo situation, and, more critically, by the federal government's stunning display of ineptitude in the face of Hurricane Katrina. If that had been John Kerry's administration with a similar pair of disasters, would he have been marginalized into irrelevancy by the media and voting public. Of course not. Mr. Kerry would only be irrelevant if he had decided not to seek a second term.
Though the powers of the presidency are too extensive, in my opinion, "lame ducks" aren't good for anyone. Undoubtedly, the never-ending campaign of 2008 had something to do with Bush's lame duck status. Presidential candidates were acting the part of president for a full year, even in the incumbent party.
I think that term limiting the president shows a hearty lack of faith in voters, one that I think is not welcome in the case of the presidency.
A lack of faith in voters when it comes to the Congress, however, is quite reasonable, considering their abysmal track record. Since the 1970s, Congressional approval ratings have topped 40% only between 1998 and 2004. Omitting the post-9/11 spike and a less dramatic pre-Iraq War spike, the US Congress never manages to top 50% approval rating.
I strongly believe that these perennially-low approval ratings are more a product of the general public's poor understanding of Congress than anything else--namely, Congress is programmed to fail at most things, most of the time; a desire for slow change was built into the structure, leading to consistent disappointment from voters who do not understand that the system was designed for slow change. Fueled by an under-informed and irresponsible media, this classic misunderstanding leads to consistent disappointment.
But disappointment would be addressed by, you know, voting for new members, you think? At least a little bit?
No. Incumbency protection is as strong as ever, and it has gotten stronger over the past century. Here's a graph to demonstrate this, courtesy of Thirty-Thousand.org:
In 2008, the Congress' approval ratings hovered in the teens. The incumbent protection rate: 95.9%. Undoubtedly, part of this is the product of gerrymandering. But Congress' track record is abysmal, and the Founders never wanted career legislators. I think that states should follow the Iowan model of redistricting (I hate Iowa for its ethanol subsidies, but its sadly idealistic, mushy-middle approach actually makes sense, in this case). I also think that the House should be term-limited.
So, my nascent, idealistic plan: I'd write a constitutional amendment to limit members of Congress to four consecutive terms, with a waiver given to members of the House leadership: the Speaker, the Majority and Minority leaders, and the Majority and Minority Whips. Indeed, the waiver would make those positions both more desirable and more competitive--if someone lost an intra-Congressional election for the leadership position and had passed their term limit, they would have to resign their seat.
I would also run a strong, grassroots, state-by-state campaign to demand a less partisan process for redistricting. I would not pursue this legally; I would pursue this politically.
Simultaneously, I would announce the immediate repeal of the 22nd amendment: a bad idea whose time never was.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
B-Sides: Long Live the Superdelegates
On Edit: I call this a "B-side" b/c it's just a leftover thing I started writing but never got around to solidifying or smoothing out. I have a bunch of these things lying around on my hard drive.
I was digging around my hard drive and noticed a piece I wrote for the campus newspaper that I never actually submitted. It was a response to some claptrap about the Democratic primary campaign.
----------
I often write for the Gettysburgian under the heading “Going Global.” There, I try to take a measured approach to an international issue of some import. Oftentimes, I read my pieces in the paper and wonder if anyone will actually know which side I’m on.
Here though, I was driven to write by a piece in the 2/28 issue of the Gettysburgian. “For Democracy.” The author invited people to write in who know more about it than he does or disagree with him. I do not know more about democracy and the nominating process than he does, but I do disagree with him.
I respect Serfass’ reservations about the delegate selection process and the use of demographic parameters therein. The core of his argument is, as he states it, a candidate should not “be picked in a smoke-filled room by people” who were not elected.
My question is: why not?
I think that there are three essential components to a fair election:
1. A free press: the press should be allowed to report or cover any issues, within the confines of libel law;
2. Electoral safeguards: the government’s sole responsibility in an election is to ensure a fair process where anyone who wants to vote can vote once;
3. Options.
The options in most democracies come from political parties. The primary function of political parties is to win elections.
So, what gives us the right to pick the standard-bearer of a party?
The parties should have the right to determine their nominee in any way they deem suitable. They are better able to determine the direction they want to go than we are. They are also far better able to assess the skills of given candidates than we are. The ability to tolerate the modern campaign process has little relationship to how well suited a candidate is to be president, other than to prove that a candidate has an enormous desire to be president and an enormous ability to tolerate the mundane.
Moreover, the system is designed to create political dishonesty. Campaigns usually consist of running to the wins during the nominating process, and then tacking towards the center in the general election. Is this really an ideal, democratic system?
Think that such a system would lead to ideologues constantly being nominated? Abraham Lincoln was a moderate among the candidates for the Republican nomination in 1860. Wendell Wilkie and Thomas Dewey, Republican nominees in the 1940s, were both to the left of Robert Taft, who, even as “Mr. Republican,” never managed to get on a national ticket.
More empowered, the parties would factor electability into their selection process. Figures like Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich would never win a party nomination, because of their perceived inelectability.
My overall point is, if the Democrats think that balancing their delegates demographically helps them towards their goal of electing candidates, I have no problem with it. The superdelegates, to me, are an excellent safeguard: the party can pick for itself. My problem is that they do not have enough power, and the power they do have is under assault by moralists demanding that the party obey “the will of the people.”
But really, who are the people? It depends on each state. In some states, it’s the number of people who were able to caucus after work, and didn’t have to work the night shift or watch their kids after work. In other states, it’s anyone who wants to vote, Republicans, Democrats, whoever. In other states, it’s a combination of one party and “independent” voters who are allowed to vote on one side. In other states, it’s just the members of the party. Is that really a good measure of “the people” or “the party?” Without a uniform standard to measure "the people", arguing about the "will of the people" lacks force.
I would like to see two things: the parties reassert control over the process, and more people presenting the case against binding primaries and caucuses. Imposing a nominee on a party is a false right, and it is certainly not undemocratic if that “right” were taken away.
A far better way to empower people would be to support measures like instant runoff voting, and proportional representation in Congress, in order to jumpstart third parties. But dictating to the parties is a bad idea, and I support anything the parties do to attempt to regain some control over the process.
So, long live the superdelegates. May they be granted more authority with time.
I was digging around my hard drive and noticed a piece I wrote for the campus newspaper that I never actually submitted. It was a response to some claptrap about the Democratic primary campaign.
----------
I often write for the Gettysburgian under the heading “Going Global.” There, I try to take a measured approach to an international issue of some import. Oftentimes, I read my pieces in the paper and wonder if anyone will actually know which side I’m on.
Here though, I was driven to write by a piece in the 2/28 issue of the Gettysburgian. “For Democracy.” The author invited people to write in who know more about it than he does or disagree with him. I do not know more about democracy and the nominating process than he does, but I do disagree with him.
I respect Serfass’ reservations about the delegate selection process and the use of demographic parameters therein. The core of his argument is, as he states it, a candidate should not “be picked in a smoke-filled room by people” who were not elected.
My question is: why not?
I think that there are three essential components to a fair election:
1. A free press: the press should be allowed to report or cover any issues, within the confines of libel law;
2. Electoral safeguards: the government’s sole responsibility in an election is to ensure a fair process where anyone who wants to vote can vote once;
3. Options.
The options in most democracies come from political parties. The primary function of political parties is to win elections.
So, what gives us the right to pick the standard-bearer of a party?
The parties should have the right to determine their nominee in any way they deem suitable. They are better able to determine the direction they want to go than we are. They are also far better able to assess the skills of given candidates than we are. The ability to tolerate the modern campaign process has little relationship to how well suited a candidate is to be president, other than to prove that a candidate has an enormous desire to be president and an enormous ability to tolerate the mundane.
Moreover, the system is designed to create political dishonesty. Campaigns usually consist of running to the wins during the nominating process, and then tacking towards the center in the general election. Is this really an ideal, democratic system?
Think that such a system would lead to ideologues constantly being nominated? Abraham Lincoln was a moderate among the candidates for the Republican nomination in 1860. Wendell Wilkie and Thomas Dewey, Republican nominees in the 1940s, were both to the left of Robert Taft, who, even as “Mr. Republican,” never managed to get on a national ticket.
More empowered, the parties would factor electability into their selection process. Figures like Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich would never win a party nomination, because of their perceived inelectability.
My overall point is, if the Democrats think that balancing their delegates demographically helps them towards their goal of electing candidates, I have no problem with it. The superdelegates, to me, are an excellent safeguard: the party can pick for itself. My problem is that they do not have enough power, and the power they do have is under assault by moralists demanding that the party obey “the will of the people.”
But really, who are the people? It depends on each state. In some states, it’s the number of people who were able to caucus after work, and didn’t have to work the night shift or watch their kids after work. In other states, it’s anyone who wants to vote, Republicans, Democrats, whoever. In other states, it’s a combination of one party and “independent” voters who are allowed to vote on one side. In other states, it’s just the members of the party. Is that really a good measure of “the people” or “the party?” Without a uniform standard to measure "the people", arguing about the "will of the people" lacks force.
I would like to see two things: the parties reassert control over the process, and more people presenting the case against binding primaries and caucuses. Imposing a nominee on a party is a false right, and it is certainly not undemocratic if that “right” were taken away.
A far better way to empower people would be to support measures like instant runoff voting, and proportional representation in Congress, in order to jumpstart third parties. But dictating to the parties is a bad idea, and I support anything the parties do to attempt to regain some control over the process.
So, long live the superdelegates. May they be granted more authority with time.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Tipping Points
Nate Silver's old definition of the "Tipping Point" state would be: "the state that, when states are ranked by margin of victory, officially tipped the election to the victorious candidate."
Here's the margin of victory ranked list, along with the available electoral votes and the running total...
And the winner is... Colorado! McCain could have won all of Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina, and Obama still would have won the election. Obama had a comfortable margin of victory, indeed. He won Colorado by 7 points, and he won the general by 6.5 points.
On Edit: Nate Silver just ran this same post with more updated numbers. He technically beat me to the punch.
Here's the margin of victory ranked list, along with the available electoral votes and the running total...
State | McCain Margin | Electoral Votes | Running Total |
DC | -86 | 3 | 3 |
Hawaii | -45 | 4 | 7 |
Vermont | -35 | 3 | 10 |
Rhode Island | -29 | 4 | 14 |
Massachusetts | -26 | 12 | 26 |
Illinois | -25 | 21 | 47 |
New York | -25 | 31 | 78 |
California | -24 | 55 | 133 |
Delaware | -23 | 3 | 136 |
Maryland | -23 | 10 | 146 |
Connecticut | -21 | 7 | 153 |
Maine | -18 | 4 | 157 |
Washington | -17 | 11 | 168 |
Michigan | -16 | 17 | 185 |
New Jersey | -15 | 15 | 200 |
New Mexico | -15 | 5 | 205 |
Wisconsin | -13 | 10 | 215 |
Nevada | -12 | 5 | 220 |
Oregon | -12 | 7 | 227 |
New Hampshire | -11 | 4 | 231 |
Pennsylvania | -11 | 21 | 252 |
Minnesota | -10 | 10 | 262 |
Iowa | -9 | 7 | 269 |
Colorado | -7 | 9 | 278 |
Ohio | -5 | 20 | 298 |
Virginia | -5 | 13 | 311 |
Florida | -2 | 27 | 338 |
Indiana | -1 | 11 | 349 |
North Carolina | -1 | 15 | 364 |
Missouri | 1 | 11 | 375 |
Montana | 3 | 3 | 378 |
Georgia | 5 | 15 | 393 |
North Dakota | 8 | 3 | 396 |
Arizona | 9 | 10 | 406 |
South Carolina | 9 | 8 | 414 |
Texas | 11 | 34 | 448 |
South Dakota | 12 | 3 | 451 |
West Virginia | 13 | 5 | 456 |
Mississippi | 14 | 6 | 462 |
Tennessee | 15 | 11 | 473 |
Kansas | 16 | 6 | 479 |
Nebraska | 16 | 5 | 484 |
Kentucky | 17 | 8 | 492 |
Louisiana | 19 | 9 | 501 |
Arkansas | 20 | 6 | 507 |
Alabama | 22 | 9 | 516 |
Alaska | 26 | 3 | 519 |
Idaho | 26 | 4 | 523 |
Utah | 29 | 5 | 528 |
Oklahoma | 32 | 7 | 535 |
Wyoming | 32 | 3 | 538 |
And the winner is... Colorado! McCain could have won all of Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina, and Obama still would have won the election. Obama had a comfortable margin of victory, indeed. He won Colorado by 7 points, and he won the general by 6.5 points.
On Edit: Nate Silver just ran this same post with more updated numbers. He technically beat me to the punch.
House Elections
Here's an interesting chart:
GOP Dem
1990 43.9% 52.0%
1992 44.8% 49.9%
1994 49.9% 44.0%
1996 47.8% 48.1%
1998 48.0% 47.1%
2000 47.3% 47.0%
2002 49.6% 45.0%
2004 49.2% 46.6%
2006 44.0% 52.1%
2008 44.6% 52.6%
These are the percentages of the national popular vote won by the two major parties in elections for the House of Representatives. Just some observations:
- The 1994 "Republican Revolution" did not really signify that great a swing in votes. I have heard theories that redistricting did in the Democratic majority (Democratic minority voters were packed into districts because of a liberal insistence on "majority-minority" districts).
- 2006 and 2008 look awfully similar--except that third parties drew a full percent less in 2008 than they did in 2006. I will attribute that to what was clearly a very polarizing presidential election.
- It's pretty apparent that the Democrats have a stronger national brand than the Republicans--but I don't think that's a particularly new development. Unlike at the presidential level, it has been damn near impossible for the Republicans to break through at 50% of the House vote. What do I mean when I argue that? The Democrats still have a presence in the South--a Southern Democrat like Heath Shuler has little resemblance to a Northern Democrat like Barney Frank, but they caucus in the same party.
- The Democrats managed to pick up 20 seats without significantly upgrading their popular vote total. This is not normal, I think, and signifies to me that the Rahmbo/Dean Democratic approach is strategically more sound than Republican tactics. Why? The more seats you have, the larger a percentage of votes you will need, in the aggregate, to defend them. If the Dems win a 52/44 margin in the House for the next 8 years, the overall seat balance in the House (255/174) will not change much. Hell, there would be years on a 52/44 margin that the Republicans would manage to pick up a few seats. To me, the addition of 20 more seats is a signal that the Dems managed to find strong candidates to run in competitive races. They actually lost a fraction in the overall margin (though I think the decline of third party voters may have helped them a bit as well).
- I don't think that the Dems are fated to lose a handful of House seats in 2010. The economy may show signs of recovery by late 2010, giving Obama a strong case to make in defense of those House seats. The timing of this financial crisis was utterly tragic for Republicans.
- On the Senate: the Dems still have an outside chance at a 60/40 win. Norm Coleman is looking at a recount in Minnesota. There are some abnormalities in Alaska with Mr. Stevens, who may lose anyway. And the Georgia race is going to a run-off, and the Dems will bring their newfound organizational apparatus to the fold.
In either case, the filibuster won't be THAT significant. As a Republican, you can only hope that enough Republicans (and moderate Democrats) can hold up some of Obama's more offensive judicial nominations.
The notion of America as a "center-right" country is about to be tested. We certainly live in interesting times.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Potential GOP 2012
Note: I wrote this back in October.
I'll even handicap them this year. These are arbitrary.
The Front-Runners: these are the candidates that I think have the clearest chance to win the Republican nomination, assuming they throw their hat in the ring.
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
Gen. David Petraeus (NY)
Gov. Sarah Palin (AK)
Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
Worth Watching: these are the "second-tier front runners," of sorts; they are worthy of greater notice than being in the general pool, because of national exposure, reputation, perceived political skill, and/or popularity.
Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN)
Gov. Charlie Crist (FL)
Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (FL)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (CA)
Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)
The Eligible Pool: This is the pool where I try to cover everyone I can possibly think of. (I doubt I would have put Obama in a pool like this in '04, but I'll try to learn empirically.) Analytically, my hope is that SOMEWHERE in this blog entry lies the GOP's nominee for president in 2012. There's not much to say about these candidates, other than that they are plausible picks for the 2012 nomination.
Gov. Bob Riley (AL)
Gov. Rick Perry (TX)
Gov. Haley Barbour (LA)
Gov. John Huntsman, Jr. (UT)
Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN)
Sen. John Thune (SD)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY)
Fmr. Sen. John Sununu (NH)
Fmr. Sen. Wayne Allard (CO)
Fmr. Sen. Bill Frist (TN)
Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum (PA)
Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (GA)
(MORE TO COME)
Congressional Dark Horses: It's VERY rare for a president to come directly from the House (I think only James Garfield did it), but these two are interesting enough that they might be worth watching. Put them on the back-burner.
Rep. Eric Cantor (VA)
Rep. Paul Ryan (WI)
Although his convention speech was an embarrassment, Mitt Romney built up a sizeable base of support during the 2008 nominating cycle, and he has served as a good party soldier for John McCain in this election. Also, assuming that economic growth is stagnant, Romney may be able to win with the "I know how to create jobs" angle. Still, he comes across as a bit of a used car salesman at times, and, for the love of God, no one knows what he really stands for. He also may be passed by the younger generation of conservative Republicans. I find him to be perhaps the least plausible of the Big 4.
Republicans practically begged Dwight Eisenhower to run for office in 1952; they had been out of power for 20 years and thought that they were dying as a party. General David Petraeus may fill that same void. He is well-respected and may be to Obama what Colin Powell could have been to Bill Clinton: the general-turned-politician who ran circles around the sitting president. No one could question his seriousness, his talent, his knowledge, etc. And I get the feeling that some of the younger Republicans might defer to Petraeus' wisdom and simply bow out of the process early (trying to get on that ticket and position themselves for the future). But we don't know his opinions on social issues, and whether or not those views would be palatable to the base. If Petraeus starts angling, believe in it. It's VERY hard to control this process, and randomness plays a large role. But out of all the candidates I will discuss, Petraeus has the highest level of control over his chances.
Since exploding onto the scene a few months ago, Sarah Palin has been a lightning rod. The Left has demonized her. The Right has adored her. The media has scrutinized her as strongly as anyone I've ever seen. A full term as governor of Alaska (and, of course, reelection) would help blunt the experience charges. Palin would also have the benefit of being able to piggyback on any Obama success as proof that she has worthy experience. Palin needs to be a bit more cerebral, and she needs to be more comfortable in a one-on-one interview session. But she can repaint herself in a bunch of ways. Palin's not going away anytime soon, though I could see her skipping 2012. She may be the main reason why Romney's stock is far lower than it was in April. Palin already has name recoginition, and the Rush Limbaugh "Babies, guns, Jesus" endorsement. It's tough to imagine the conservative base picking Romney when Palin is an option.
Mike Huckabee started with absolutely no name recognition at all in 2007. One year later, he won big in Iowa and, with a bit of luck, may have battled for the nomination far more strongly than he did (try to counterfactually picture things if McCain hadn't won New Hampshire). The key for Huckabee is to expand past his Evangelical base. Huckabee can spend time consorting with the Club for Growth Republicans, saying he's found religion on low taxes, and he can preach the virtues of small government (which he did to great effect in his convention speech). Sheer "force of personality," as someone put it, would make him competitive in an election. And he's got a head-start this time. He could win Iowa much more solidly in 2012. He's strongly positioned.
If Palin does flame out, Bobby Jindal will be well-positioned to take the baton. He's proven himself to be a strong governor, attacking corruption in Louisiana's government, while doing an excellent job with hurricane preparedness. He's as conservative as can be, and he's smart as anyone--he's a Rhodes scholar. He'll be 41 in 2012... with a full term as a state governor under his belt. He's also an Indian-American Catholic, which I think actually helps him against Obama. He wouldn't lose the minority of racist Republicans to a white Democrat; he leaves them no other option. Jindal seems like the PERFECT VP for just about any Republican in 2012. But if you asked me about Obama at this time in 2004, I would have said that exact same sentence. Jindal may run to get on the ticket, or he may run to win the nomination. And he may win.
A commenter on a website said that "Tim Pawlenty's only chance to be president is if he gets to be VP first," and I sympathize with that. His "Sam's Club Republican" brand isn't particularly contagious or strong. He's an effective governor, but he comes across as bland or boring whenever I see him on TV. We're in an age of political rock stars, it seems, and the GOP has a slew to choose from: Crist, Jindal, Palin, among others. Pawlenty makes sense on a ticket if the Inland North keeps trending right, but it's just hard to imagine Pawlenty winning in a field with Jindal or Palin or Petraeus. He may be in 2012 what he was in 2008--a very safe VP choice. Safe might make more sense in 2012.
The "gay" rumors aside, Charlie Crist is an effective governor from an important state. I'm having trouble picturing his personality winning in Iowa, but he may be able to take New Hampshire and build momentum from there. Or hell, the whole nominating system might be different by then. He also looks presidential.
Jeb Bush and Condoleezza Rice face the same problem: Bush. Both are quite competent in their own fields; Jeb was one of the country's best governors is his time, and Condi is a brilliant foreign policy thinker and very capable leader in her own right. But the Democrats campaigned against Herbert Hoover for decades, and if GWB is remembered that way, the GOP will have to work to distance themselves from Bush as much as they can.
A Mark Sanford makes sense because of geography--Sanford would be well-positioned to win in Iowa, and South Carolina. He's also a very capable governor and a strong conservative on things like government spending. This may be a big issue in 2012.
We really won't have to pay too much attention to this until 2011, but I wanted to get a preliminary list out there.
I'll even handicap them this year. These are arbitrary.
The Front-Runners: these are the candidates that I think have the clearest chance to win the Republican nomination, assuming they throw their hat in the ring.
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
Gen. David Petraeus (NY)
Gov. Sarah Palin (AK)
Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
Worth Watching: these are the "second-tier front runners," of sorts; they are worthy of greater notice than being in the general pool, because of national exposure, reputation, perceived political skill, and/or popularity.
Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN)
Gov. Charlie Crist (FL)
Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (FL)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (CA)
Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)
The Eligible Pool: This is the pool where I try to cover everyone I can possibly think of. (I doubt I would have put Obama in a pool like this in '04, but I'll try to learn empirically.) Analytically, my hope is that SOMEWHERE in this blog entry lies the GOP's nominee for president in 2012. There's not much to say about these candidates, other than that they are plausible picks for the 2012 nomination.
Gov. Bob Riley (AL)
Gov. Rick Perry (TX)
Gov. Haley Barbour (LA)
Gov. John Huntsman, Jr. (UT)
Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN)
Sen. John Thune (SD)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY)
Fmr. Sen. John Sununu (NH)
Fmr. Sen. Wayne Allard (CO)
Fmr. Sen. Bill Frist (TN)
Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum (PA)
Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (GA)
(MORE TO COME)
Congressional Dark Horses: It's VERY rare for a president to come directly from the House (I think only James Garfield did it), but these two are interesting enough that they might be worth watching. Put them on the back-burner.
Rep. Eric Cantor (VA)
Rep. Paul Ryan (WI)
Although his convention speech was an embarrassment, Mitt Romney built up a sizeable base of support during the 2008 nominating cycle, and he has served as a good party soldier for John McCain in this election. Also, assuming that economic growth is stagnant, Romney may be able to win with the "I know how to create jobs" angle. Still, he comes across as a bit of a used car salesman at times, and, for the love of God, no one knows what he really stands for. He also may be passed by the younger generation of conservative Republicans. I find him to be perhaps the least plausible of the Big 4.
Republicans practically begged Dwight Eisenhower to run for office in 1952; they had been out of power for 20 years and thought that they were dying as a party. General David Petraeus may fill that same void. He is well-respected and may be to Obama what Colin Powell could have been to Bill Clinton: the general-turned-politician who ran circles around the sitting president. No one could question his seriousness, his talent, his knowledge, etc. And I get the feeling that some of the younger Republicans might defer to Petraeus' wisdom and simply bow out of the process early (trying to get on that ticket and position themselves for the future). But we don't know his opinions on social issues, and whether or not those views would be palatable to the base. If Petraeus starts angling, believe in it. It's VERY hard to control this process, and randomness plays a large role. But out of all the candidates I will discuss, Petraeus has the highest level of control over his chances.
Since exploding onto the scene a few months ago, Sarah Palin has been a lightning rod. The Left has demonized her. The Right has adored her. The media has scrutinized her as strongly as anyone I've ever seen. A full term as governor of Alaska (and, of course, reelection) would help blunt the experience charges. Palin would also have the benefit of being able to piggyback on any Obama success as proof that she has worthy experience. Palin needs to be a bit more cerebral, and she needs to be more comfortable in a one-on-one interview session. But she can repaint herself in a bunch of ways. Palin's not going away anytime soon, though I could see her skipping 2012. She may be the main reason why Romney's stock is far lower than it was in April. Palin already has name recoginition, and the Rush Limbaugh "Babies, guns, Jesus" endorsement. It's tough to imagine the conservative base picking Romney when Palin is an option.
Mike Huckabee started with absolutely no name recognition at all in 2007. One year later, he won big in Iowa and, with a bit of luck, may have battled for the nomination far more strongly than he did (try to counterfactually picture things if McCain hadn't won New Hampshire). The key for Huckabee is to expand past his Evangelical base. Huckabee can spend time consorting with the Club for Growth Republicans, saying he's found religion on low taxes, and he can preach the virtues of small government (which he did to great effect in his convention speech). Sheer "force of personality," as someone put it, would make him competitive in an election. And he's got a head-start this time. He could win Iowa much more solidly in 2012. He's strongly positioned.
If Palin does flame out, Bobby Jindal will be well-positioned to take the baton. He's proven himself to be a strong governor, attacking corruption in Louisiana's government, while doing an excellent job with hurricane preparedness. He's as conservative as can be, and he's smart as anyone--he's a Rhodes scholar. He'll be 41 in 2012... with a full term as a state governor under his belt. He's also an Indian-American Catholic, which I think actually helps him against Obama. He wouldn't lose the minority of racist Republicans to a white Democrat; he leaves them no other option. Jindal seems like the PERFECT VP for just about any Republican in 2012. But if you asked me about Obama at this time in 2004, I would have said that exact same sentence. Jindal may run to get on the ticket, or he may run to win the nomination. And he may win.
A commenter on a website said that "Tim Pawlenty's only chance to be president is if he gets to be VP first," and I sympathize with that. His "Sam's Club Republican" brand isn't particularly contagious or strong. He's an effective governor, but he comes across as bland or boring whenever I see him on TV. We're in an age of political rock stars, it seems, and the GOP has a slew to choose from: Crist, Jindal, Palin, among others. Pawlenty makes sense on a ticket if the Inland North keeps trending right, but it's just hard to imagine Pawlenty winning in a field with Jindal or Palin or Petraeus. He may be in 2012 what he was in 2008--a very safe VP choice. Safe might make more sense in 2012.
The "gay" rumors aside, Charlie Crist is an effective governor from an important state. I'm having trouble picturing his personality winning in Iowa, but he may be able to take New Hampshire and build momentum from there. Or hell, the whole nominating system might be different by then. He also looks presidential.
Jeb Bush and Condoleezza Rice face the same problem: Bush. Both are quite competent in their own fields; Jeb was one of the country's best governors is his time, and Condi is a brilliant foreign policy thinker and very capable leader in her own right. But the Democrats campaigned against Herbert Hoover for decades, and if GWB is remembered that way, the GOP will have to work to distance themselves from Bush as much as they can.
A Mark Sanford makes sense because of geography--Sanford would be well-positioned to win in Iowa, and South Carolina. He's also a very capable governor and a strong conservative on things like government spending. This may be a big issue in 2012.
We really won't have to pay too much attention to this until 2011, but I wanted to get a preliminary list out there.
Election Day Stories
There are lots of angles to analyze this election, but my first reaction is, "While this was not a catastrophe for Republicans, it was a very good night for the Dems" angle.
More on this later.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
A couple of quick hits...
1. Just to avoid charges of plagiarism, I wrote my post yesterday before reading the following in this week's Economist, from page 40:
This is a better description than my sprawling post.
2. The best campaign, or the worst campaign? Depends who you ask:
Best - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7701877.stm
Worst - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24582660-7583,00.html
For many conservatives, the most alarming consequence of a Democratic supermajority in the Senate is that it would allow a President Obama to appoint any judges he likes. With five of the nine Supreme Court justices over 70 and many seats on lower courts deliberately left vacant by the Democratic Senate in anticipation of a Democratic president, that could have far-reaching consequences.
Mr Obama might make good choices—his choice of advisers has usually been sound. But he has promised to pick judges for their “empathy” and “understanding” of “what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” That could just be campaign blather, but conservatives fear he means it: that he really does want judges to favour the underdog rather than uphold the law dispassionately as their oath of office requires. Stephen Calabresi, a conservative jurist, says an Obama court could usher in ruinous shareholder lawsuits, huge punitive damages and even a constitutional right to welfare.
This is a better description than my sprawling post.
2. The best campaign, or the worst campaign? Depends who you ask:
Best - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7701877.stm
Worst - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24582660-7583,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)