Looking Ahead
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Revising my earlier remarks on Sanford’s chances in a future presidential primary contest, I think that Ross is onto something when he imagines the possibility of a 2012 Sanford-Huntsman competition as a fruitful clash of rival visions. The 2008 primary race was not all that interesting as a contest of alternative conservative views, but what was interesting about it was that the cardboard-cutout, politically correct candidate in Romney won fewer votes than either of the two leading candidates most actively opposed and hated by conservative activists. Indeed, if you put together the votes won by McCain, Huckabee and Paul, who drew from all across the GOP and independent spectrum, they would constitute around 70% of all Republican primary votes, which means that the vast majority of participants in primary voting selected candidates known to be unacceptable to mainstream activists.
Romney with his three-legged stool won approximately 22%, which might have been higher had he not dropped out so early, but then had he won more support he would not have needed to drop out. This candidate who could tell activists what they wanted to hear had remarkably poor showings with state electorates. The results of the 2008 primaries suggest that candidates that do not meet an artificial movement standard of “purity,” however labored and phony that “purity” was in Romney’s case, are not necessarily unsuccessful with actual voters. It seems that it is the most conventional sort of conservative candidate with all of the built-in advantages who may have the greatest difficulty winning primaries rather than caucuses, which in turn suggests a weakness of such candidates with broader electorates.
Ideally, this would mean that candidates with heterodox or unconventional views on any number of policies will have more room to maneuver in the next election. Unfortunately, in practice GOP primary debates seem to be exercises in futile box-checking as the main rivals do their best to suppress everything about themselves that is remotely interesing, leaving it to the protest and marginal candidates to make all of the noteworthy statements. For the most part, Huckabee’s candidacy took off thanks to the freedom that his relative obscurity and marginal status at the beginning provided and his natural ability in the debates. It remains to be seen whether Huckabee can retain the same appeal should he run again with an eye to satisfying activists and donors.
Filed under: politics
For Huckabee to “run again with an eye to satisfying activists and donors,” he’d have to do an about-face on so many of his long-standing positions that he’d make himself the 2012 version of Multiple Choice Mitt.
I do think (and hope) that 2012 will open the door to someone other than yet another establishment hack who can recite the liturgy, but if either side learned anything from 2008 it should be that the electorate still can detect a lack of integrity fairly well.
He wouldn’t have to change that many positions. He already flipped on immigration pretty dramatically and opportunistically last year, and this worked to his advantage. Now he can just stick with the position he took then. His “economic populism” was pretty much a myth, and his fiscal record was a mixed bag but hardly an automatic disqualifier.
In retrospect, it is surprising how weak the 2008 field was in both parties. Looking forward, I have trouble seeing who pops the field. Of course, most people have that same problem. Going around the country, the strongest Republicans are in the South. I would imagine the GOP is going to have a similar problem that the dems had through much of the 80s and 90s. The Dems needed to nominate people outside the Northeast, and the GOP is going to have to stay out of the South. The talent for the GOP just isn’t present outside the South.
“The talent for the GOP just isn’t present outside the South.”
How strong is it *inside* the South? Not just somebody who can fire up the core of the GOP, but who has a legitimate shot at the national election?
@M.Z. Forrest -
By my count there have been exactly two Northeastern Democrats nominated in the last forty years (though I think you could make a good argument that Gore was a genuine faux Northeasterner in the same sense that GWB is a genuine faux Texan). Humphrey, McGovern and Mondale may have been DFH (or DFL :} ) America-hating libruls, but they had none of the old money/technocrat cultural markers that Dukakis and Kerry did. Just try to imagine any of them speaking French or knowing what wine goes with which dish.
But you’re right that the next couple of GOP nominees are going to have to carefully straddle the Southern cultural line. I think Jeb does a good job of that, as does Mark Sanford.