Newt the spoiler
I’m in agreement with Sean Trende about Newt Gingrich’s goal at this point. Even Gingrich probably doesn’t really think he’s got a chance to win. He just wants to try to keep Romney from getting enough votes to go to the convention with the nomination in the bag.
Whether he will succeed in this endeavor (Newt, that is) is hard to say. If you read Trende’s article, he does an analysis of the trends (can’t resist the puns; sorry) and answers “maybe.”
If so, this would lead to the much-ballyhooed “brokered convention.” I haven’t a clue why anyone would want this—except Newt Gingrich, whom I assume would have the personal satisfaction of both screwing Mitt Romney up and perhaps extracting some promise or other from him in exchange for some delegates. Santorum and Paul might want it to happen for the latter reason, as well. But a brokered convention would (a) throw the decision back into the hands of that hated group, the “Republican elites” (b) further weaken the party in the eyes of voters; and (c) probably end up with Romney as nominee anyway. Which alternative “new” person do you think those “elites” would choose? Sarah Palin? Marc Rubio? Don’t think so.
Ah, you say, but Gingrich and Santorum would form an alliance and one of them would be the choice. That presupposes that their total would be enough to reach the nominating threshold, and right now that doesn’t seem any more likely (and is possibly less likely?) than Romney having it sewn up going in. Which brings us to Ron Paul, who’s not likely to drop out of the race, and whose delegates might just be enough to put Romney over the top. Paul appears eager to deny the nomination to Santorum, whom he perceives as especially un-libertarian.
If you go to RealClearPolitics elections, and look on the upper right, you’ll find the current GOP delegate count. Romney’s number right now (496) is greater than the total of the other three candidates combined (Santorum 236, Gingrich 141, Paul 67, which totals 444). Whether or not that continues, Romney will almost undoubtedly remain the leader in delegates, even if he doesn’t win it outright.
Does anyone really think it would help Republican chances if Santorum or Gingrich, the less popular candidates, were to somehow combine forces and one of them became the Republican nominee? I certainly don’t, for a host of reasons, perhaps the most important boiling down to the fact that I don’t think either has a chance of beating Obama, and I think Romney has just that—a chance of beating Obama.
“. . . Gingrich and Santorum would form an alliance and one of them would be the choice.”
Sorry but I can’t see either Gingrich’s or Santorum’s ego allowing either candidate to support the other. Neither one can support Romney and Romney’s much more benign than either of them.
Newt knows a brokered convention will never give him the nod. I think he’s looking for a place at the table in a Romney administration. Santorum must also realize he can’t win the nomination at a brokered convention. I’m not sure what he seeks to gain but he must want something. RP has never thought he could win the nomination. This is his last campaign and he means to stay in the game until the final buzzer because he wants to have a voice in setting the platform.
Its going to be Romney. The mystery is who will he pick for VP?
It makes no sense for Gingrich to stay in if winning the nomination is his only goal. He can’t possibly win it, even if Romney implodes and even if there’s a brokered convention. I suspect he wants to stay in because (a) it serves his ego to get the attention of being a candidate and pretending to play spoiler, and (b) he wants to build a following somewhat along the lines of the folks who would march off a cliff for Sarah Palin if she asked them to.
Santorum has only a slim chance of defeating Romney, and it probably depends on some kind of implosion on Mitt’s part. I can’t see how Santorum can overtake Romney if Mitt just keeps doing what he’s doing. Some factor other than Santorum’s political skill — Today I saw he promised to destroy internet porn; Smart! — would be needed in order to deprive Mitt of the nomination. However, at this point, if Mitt were to get hit by a bus or were brought down by some kind of personal scandal, Santorum would be the presumptive nominee. That alone is reason for him not to cash in his chips just yet.
OTOH, I suspect what’s really keeping Rick in the race is that he and his family are enjoying it. After you’ve lost your Senate seat by 20 points, it probably feels pretty good to enjoy a taste of political success, especially on a big stage like this. From all appearances, the whole Santorum brood is pretty deeply invested in this crusade, and as long as the opportunity exists to keep it going, there’s not much reason to stop. Not only this, but if the past is any indication of the future, Santorum is establishing himself as a strong potential nominee in ’16 or ’20, when it will be HIS turn.
Romney’s not the guy. He just isn’t.
I will vote for whoever runs against BHO, but McCain won over Romney, and McCain got stomped by the “won”.
Does anyone smell something fishy in the air, or do I need couch time?
Rather than assigning motives base on the assumed emotions of the candidates, lets consider if their tactics and strategies might be based in principle.
First I acknowledge that this has been a very nasty primary, full of personal attacks often based on lying about the record, statements, and history of the candidates. Also this has clearly raised bad blood between all of them. However, all three of these men are politicians of long experience. They have been in nasty battles before, and have not let it prevent them from successfully doing their jobs including working productively with some of their past attackers.
Why would Gingirch and Santorum stay in the race when it seem certain (Gingirch) or highly likely (Santorum) that there is no path for them to secure the needed delegates to decide the nomination before the convention?
First of all, to win the nomination one must be selected by the delegates, and a win on the nth ballot in a contested (not brokered) convention is just as valid as a win on the 1st ballot. So a strategy of forcing your opponent to win on the convention floor is perfectly reasonable.
I do not think that Gingrich’s effort to deny Romney the win is payback. I believe that Gingrich is convinced that Romney will not, and perhaps cannot, accomplish what will be required to right the mess Obama and his friends have made in time. Gingrich comes in for a lot of criticism, but he did almost single handedly build the first Republican majority in both houses since Harding was in office. He also held together a coalition that balanced the budget the only time in my life. I am convinced that Gingrich believes that he is the guy to fix this mess and that if he can secure the nomination he can beat Obama.
In Gingrich’s mind, if the primary season ends and no one has enough delegates to win on the first ballot, it is a reset. Sort of the beginning of sudden death overtime. Gingrich has two months to force a national dialog within the Republican party and among the delegates, who are the ONLY people he has to convince, to examine who should be the nominee. He believes he can emerge from that process as the winner.
Is this rational? Simply put yes, it is perfectly rational. The delegates are, for the most part, not “establishment Republicans”. The grass roots of the party is well represented, and would be willing to listen to all the candidates. For the most part they are not beholding to party bosses and would, once free to vote their minds, so do. There would be no “smoke filled room”, rather it would be more of a massive caucus. Literally any candidate, has a shot, and of course even a dark horse might be selected.
Despite all of that, even with a heavily contested convention, Romney would still be the likely nominee. But Romney would benefit from the experience. To win he would get a lesson about what matters to the grass roots, and he would have to convince them that he heard what they had to tell him. He might have to agree to certain specific reforms, spending cuts, and tax policies. In short he’d get a very pointed lesson about conservatism. Most importantly, he’d get a lesson about ignoring the base, and IMHO would be a lot less likely to “forget” his promises.
I’m sure that Santorum has similar views, although, rather than engendering a national discussion, I suspect he’s shooting to trade a VP slot for his delegates if he can’t get in the lead.
There would also be what many would consider an unlikely result of a contested convention, which required compromise and negotiation to produce Romney as the nominee. It would unify the party. As strange as the notion that a floor fight would be a unifying force, assuming it took several ballots that is exactly what would happen.
All factions would be heard, all would be considered, all would participate. Various groups would get concessions and would have a reason to elect the nominee. No significant subgroup would get “stepped on”. Delegates would return to their states having “bought in”, fired up and would work to build enthusiasm among the regular voters. The “establishment” would have made peace with the irregulars for at least this cycle.
So if you are Gingirch or Santorum staying in and working for a floor fight is a no brainer. Best case you find a path to the nomination, but even if you don’t you get platform concessions, policy promises, maybe some agreements on judicial picks, you move the party more in the direction that you feel will lead the country best. This has been Paul’s goal all along to influence the direction of the next administration and push the dialog in a particular direction.
It’s easy to accuse these guys of egomaniacal destruction, but I think that each of them knows there’s much more at stake.
Outstanding comment uncleFred!
Yesterday on Hannity’s show, Karl Rove explained the mathematics for the rest of the primaries. To win, Romney needs to get 47% of the remaing delegates. Santorum needs to get 67% and Gingrich needs to get 75%. A pretty steep hill for Santorum and Gingrich to climb. It may well be that they are staying in for the reasons uncleFred posits. We’ll see.
I find it ironic that by staying in, Gingrich is making it easier for Romney to get enough delegates to win the nomination.
Good post, unclefred, but I doubt Newt thinks that a brokered convention amounts to a “reset.” Here’s why:
Delegates aren’t just random Republicans who will be open to a reasoned debate over which candidate should be the nominee. They are selected by the candidates themselves primarily on the basis of perceived loyalty and dedication. Newt is crazy if he thinks he’ll have an EASIER time convincing a Romney-selected delegate that he should vote for Newt than convincing a random GOP primary voter in Florida, for example, of the same thing.
So, it’s not a “reset” at all, at least not in the sense that, after the first ballot, everyone will be completely open to discussion and debate as to who the nominee should be.
Moreover, even if Mitt is shy of a majority, he still may have well over 1000 delegates, and thus need only a small fraction of converts that Newt would need. Thus, even if Newt is somewhat more “persuasive” in converting Romney delegates to his camp than Romney is in winning over Newt delegates, Newt may need literally hundreds and hundreds of Romney delegates to convert in order to beat Mitt. By comparison, Mitt might only need to get 25 each from Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich.
Another thing: Keep in mind that, Paul excluded, all of the candidates want to do approximately the same things (cut spending, repeal Obamacare, etc.). The race really isn’t about one candidate’s program vs. another’s. This is important: Santorum’s and Gingrich’s argument for why THEY should be the nominee and not Mitt is basically that THEY aren’t phony liars, while Mitt is. I bring this up because I don’t see how disagreements over a candidate’s personal integrity (or at least sincerity) lend themselves well to compromises over platform planks and the like. I don’t even think it’s reasonable to think that delegates WHO ARE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR LOYALTY TO A CANDIDATE are going to “debate” whether Mitt Romney is sufficiently honest to be the nominee.
In short, I just don’t think, given the dynamics of this race, that the resolution of any impasse at the convention is going to involve individual delegates engaging in a free and uninhibited dialogue over the candidates’ relative merits.
What WOULD happen, IMO is that the candidates themselves would work something out, with Romney winding up as the nominee. He could cut a deal with Paul or with Santorum or possibly Newt, that would result in the other candidates’ arranging for his slate of delegates to support Mitt. So it WOULD, in fact, be a behind-the-scenese, smoky-room deal, not an open process of debate and arggument. M ore likely, however, any such dealmaking will have already taken place BEFORE the convention starts. Newt therefore wouldn’t have the luxury of trying to hold Mitt over the barrel at the convention, while trying to start the “reset caucus” you describe. Romney will have already offered to make Rand Paul or Rick Santorum VP before that ever unfolds.
Anyway, just my opinion.
I like uncleFred’s picture. Much more optimistic. I’m hoping that Santorum and Gingrich will put the country first. I’m reminded of when Nixon lost to Kennedy and for the good of the country did not contest the election. Snobbish Kennedy repaid Nixon by stating Nixon had no class.
It is week four of the Hillsdale series on the Constitution. Interesting point from Professor of Politics, Kevin Portteus on the Q & A session that the Founders were not libertarians in the sense alot of us perhaps think they were: that government should just leave us alone as long as were not harming anybody. Or in his words “One of the things that the Founding Fathers understood was that in the absence of government, injustice and the violation of people’s rights runs rampant and the idea that if you just somehow leave people alone they will spontaneously come together and solve all their problems, that’s simply beyond human nature.”
If this idea was accepted, Santorum’s religiosity would be viewed quite differently.
Get a spine! I want the vetting of Republican candidates to continue! I am not afraid.
Obama and Hilary went at it for months. Then Hilary folded and knelt before Obama. She took as payment secretary of something.
Get some cohonas!
>>> McCain won over Romney, and McCain got stomped by the “won”.
That was when The Great Big 0 was a blank slate with every little idiot’s aspiration printed on his forehead.
Now President Downgrade is no longer a blank slate —
1) He’s “President Downgrade”
2) He’s the Ephteen Trillion Dollar Man
3) He’s Mr. “ObamaCare At Any Cost”
4) He’s Mr. “Four-a-Gallon gas, No Pipeline For YOU!”
5) He’s Mr. Union Bailout
6) He’s Mr. Solyndra
7) He’s Mr. Libya
…as well as all the other crap very rightfully hung on him.
So the volume of “Anyone but a Republican” (remember when the Dems were crowing about how it would be decades before the PotUS was again in the hands of a Republican? Tens of weeks, maybe.) has shrunk massively in comparison to the growth of “Anyone but The One”.
No, what Gingrich wants is both some prominent say in the admin directly, and possibly some concessions as to what the admin will aim for. Moreover, he may wish to add “Veep” to his professional chops. And that’s why Gingrich is in this, and, like it or not, it’s not an irrational position to aim for.
Curtis, I’d like to argue that statement, but you’d have to identify the justifications for it before I’d bother. In general, the FFs were certainly believers in SMALL government, in minimal intrusion, and in government being as localized as possible — decisions should largely be made at the lowest level of government capable of making them.
There’s no question they were pretty strongly against the sort of thing that Santorum appears to be strong on, which is interference in peoples’ private morality.
I’m not totally against Santorum, but he’s probably got the most unappealing downchecks of the three major candidates (Paul is a joke) in contrast to his
fairly decent upchecks… and as to which check is up or down, that’s another problem. A lot of what he stands for is abhorrent to a wide array of people… and which things those are varies with the group.
I’m sorry, IGB, just read your statement and just haven’t had the time to respond. My first thought, however, would be whether or not the FF agreed with Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade, and the many myriad gun laws of local governments. And again, the focus on the statement is on negative rights, not the government supplying benefits but offering protection from things like, say, campus speech codes.
Delegates are not selected by the candidates, nor by the campaigns. They’re selected by fellow party-members. A loyal party member may be elected to vote as pledged on the first ballot while preferring someone else. On ensuing ballots the delegate can vote their first choice.
If it goes past the first ballot, little is assured. If the candidate makes a deal the delegates don’t accept, they don’t have to follow. If a campaign is shrewd at getting their people elected as delegates, even if pledged to someone else, that campaign will show sudden surprising strength on subsequent ballots.
He who knows the rules and best exploits them, wins.
IGB: I’m in Week 4 of Con101, too. Your characterization of the Founders may be influenced by libertarian mythology. Jefferson is the most quoted, but he was merely one voice at a large table.
Since they contemplated a Federal gov’t that would extend across a continent, that gov’t was never going to be small. What was more important than the size of gov’t was that its power be limited. The primary means of limiting power was dividing that power between many factions, many offices and many persons. All of whom were presumed to embody all the failings of human nature.
Santorum’s moral universe would be well understood by the Founders. They would agree that family was the “atomic unit” of society, and thus deserved some favoritism.
Thanks for good thoughts, UncleFred.