Summary: How political processes could lead to President Palin in 2012.
Now that her new book is coming out, a lot of pundits are talking about a possible Sarah Palin comeback and an eventual 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
David Brooks - the conservative columnist who has spoken less than highly of Palin in the past - had this to say on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday:
“She’s a joke. I mean, I just can't take her seriously. We have got serious problems in the country. Barack Obama is trying to handle war. We just had a guy elected Virginia governor who is probably the model for future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonnell: Pretty serious guy, pragmatic, calm, kind of boring. The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are just not going to elect a talk show host.”
Meanwhile, Walter Shaprio wrote this in an interesting column today for Politics Daily, explaining how she could win a 2012 nomination:
More than two years before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, presidential speculation should come with a soothsayer's money-back guarantee. But what all the discussions of Palin's future miss is the way that Republican Party rules are made-to-order for a well-funded insurgent named Sarah to sweep the primaries before anyone figures out how to stop her. If Palin can maintain, say, 35-percent support in a multi-candidate presidential field, then she is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination.
The secret of Palin's presidential potential is the Republican Party's affection for winner-take-all primaries. According to my friend Elaine Kamarck's invaluable new book, Primary Politics, 43 percent of the 2008 Republican delegates were selected in primaries where the winner corralled all the delegates by winning a state or congressional district. As a result of the Republicans' to-the-victor-go-the-spoils method of picking convention delegates, Mike Huckabee finished second in 16 states and won a paltry 74 delegates for his trouble.
In the name of fairness, the Democrats have banned such winner-take-all primaries, which is why the nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dragged into June. The Democratic Party's method of proportional representation meant that neither candidate could score a game-ending victory until all the primaries ended.
In contrast, the Republican have long been more concerned with avoiding a lengthy and divisive nomination fight than in designing a philosophically pure system of allocating delegates.
Here is why this kind of arcane detail may well smooth Palin's path to the 2012 nomination. While nothing is certain this far out, Palin seems perfectly positioned to appeal to the conservative party activists who turn out for the opening-gun Iowa caucuses. Moderate New Hampshire, of course, is apt to be a daunting challenge for Palin.
Next stop on the traditional GOP calendar is the firewall South Carolina primary where, as Kamarck writes, "candidates such as Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson (who were seen as too radical to win a general election)...could be stopped early on."
But Palin would not be a lucky fringe candidate who won a caucus or two; she would be a universally known charismatic figure who could beat the party establishment in this conservative state.
In 2008, after South Carolina came a series of winner-take-all primaries in which John McCain rolled up a lopsided delegate lead. McCain won all of Florida's delegates even though he received just 36 percent of the primary vote. In California, where delegates were allocated by congressional districts, McCain won 158 delegates with 42 percent of the popular vote. Mitt Romney received 34 percent of the California vote but was awarded just 12 delegates. In Illinois, Romney won exactly 3 delegates despite his 29-percent share of the primary vote. Because of similar primary rules, McCain won every single delegate in the early February contests in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri and Virginia.
If Palin launches a 2012 race – and survives the South Carolina primary with her aura intact – she could theoretically sweep the winner-take-all states without ever winning a majority anywhere. The Republican establishment (the congressional leadership, the governors, the major donors and national consultants) could all agree that Palin would be an electoral disaster against Obama in November and still be powerless to halt her juggernaut.
The best way to stop Sarah would be for GOP insiders to rally quickly around a single anti-Palin candidate. But such cabals rarely work in politics because there are too many egos involved. Would, say, Romney be so panicked about Palin that he would prematurely abandon his presidential ambitions to support a potentially more winnable candidate like maybe Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty? Not bloody likely. For that matter, would populist Huckabee drop out in favor of a big-business Republican like Romney to prevent Palin mania? Yeah, sure.
Although the party rules are entirely different than in 1964 when Goldwater permanently decimated the Eastern liberal Republican Party, the guiding principle is the same. A well-known candidate with a passionate following who organizes early can win the nomination even if a large swath of the party believes that he or she is ill-equipped to be entrusted with the nation's nuclear codes.
Since the Republicans allow winner-take-all primaries but do not mandate them, it will be intriguing if major states decide to change their rules about how they will award convention delegates in 2012. Jiggering with the primaries might be the first manifestation of a top-down Stop Palin movement. Otherwise, winner-take-all Republican primaries may speed the nomination of the most polarizing presidential nominee since the Democrats picked George McGovern in 1972.
So will Palin be the next Goldwater, or will she just become an obscure almost-was in Republican politics? Politico is asking readers their thoughts in a new video.
Summary: Dave at WAYLA explains why he thinks Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) will be the man to face President Obama in 2012.
If you ask the average American if they think Tim Pawlenty will run for president in 2012, chances are they’ll ask you “who’s Tim Pawlenty?” So my guess is most Americans wouldn’t think he could be the Republican nominee in three years. How’s he going to win if no one’s ever heard of him?
Ask any political junkie or insider, however, if they think Pawlenty plans on running and they’ll probably answer “uh, he already is.”
That’s why I was surprised when only a handful of the people surveyed for our “Who Are You Looking at for 2012” poll - which was composed of mostly political junkies and insiders - said they expect Pawlenty to win the GOP nomination.
So why do I think he’ll pull off the nomination?
Simply put, he’s doing everything right. From his 2010 efforts and the team he’s assembling to the media presence he’s been getting and the speeches he’s been able to deliver, Pawlenty is on-track for the 2012 GOP nomination with a winning strategy.
Focusing on 2010
He recently launched his new political action committee - Freedom First PAC - which will give money to Republican candidates for 2010, and he was all too happy to take up the Vice Chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association when Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) moved up to replace Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) following the revelations of his extramarital affair.
He says he focused on getting a few wins with those two ventures in 2010 since he’s not running for re-election in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Is it a selfless act of dedication to his party? Not when you consider the donor lists and activist networks he’s going to get out of it for a 2012 run.
The Team He’s Assembling
Pawlenty is also quietly piecing together a team of strategists that will do wonders for him in the Republican primaries.
[Pawlenty] will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.
Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.
…Pawlenty, who previously has had little political infrastructure, is now being advised by a trio of GOP consultants with presidential experience: Terry Nelson, Sara Taylor and Phil Musser.
And in formally opening his political action committee, Freedom First, Thursday, Pawlenty will also announce two co-chairmen, William Strong, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman, and former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), both of whom are heavyweight GOP figures, along with a list of prominent Minnesota donors.
In addition to a high-dollar gala launch for the PAC in Minneapolis in November, Pawlenty is planning a Washington fundraiser for late October designed to acquaint the governor with the Beltway’s most influential Republicans. Helping to coordinate the governor’s GOP outreach in the nation’s capital is Sam Geduldig, a well-connected lobbyist and former senior aide to Reps.
Serving as the PAC’s counsel is Michael Toner, a veteran campaign lawyer in Washington. Alex Conant, a native Minnesotan and former Republican National Committee spokesman, will serve as communications director.
The governor has also inked political technology consultants Patrick Ruffini, Mindy Finn, Patrick Hynes and Liz Mair to develop what Pawlenty advisers hope will be the most sophisticated new-media presence of any Republican in the nation.
Sure, the average American might not know who Tim Pawlenty is yet, but that’s exactly why he’s putting a team like this together to raise money and create a greater national presence. He’s making sure that Republicans all across America know who he is come the Iowa Caucus in 2012.
And they’re not kidding about that New Media presence strategy. Just take a look at the slick new Freedom First PAC’s website (the domain of which is - “coincidently” - TimPawlenty.com) and you’ll see all sorts of New Media tools available for supporters. It even identifies him as “TPaw”, the shorthand name given to him by the blogosphere! They also ask supporters to “RT #tpaw” on Twitter.
But it doesn’t stop there. He’s also - evidently - calling Mitt Romney operatives who are mid-level on the former candidate’s hierarchy, seeing if they’ll come over to his side should the two face up in 2012 (which they probably will) and Romney hangs on to his top-level workers.
Bulking Up the Media Presence
TPaw knows that being well known in the political community is not enough. That’s why he’s getting more stories about him in the blogosphere (and, yes, he’s doing it rather successfully) and appearing more often on cable news.
Just search “Pawlenty” on YouTube and you’ll find a good number of videos of him on cable news - especially Fox News, the network of the conservative base he needs to appeal to - such as this one:
Speaking Across the Country
A well-known tactic for building a national base of support going into an election year is doing the “speaking tour” - speaking at as many conservative or Republican events as possible (if you’re seeking the GOP nomination, of course) to build up a network of smaller donors and volunteers.
Before the recent Family Research Council’s Value Voters Summit, for example, he held a conference call with a team of advisers, including pollster Tony Fabrizio and longtime conservative strategist Greg Mueller, to help shape his speech and general approach at an event where he got rave reviews and finished a surprising third in the straw poll.
So far, Pawlenty appears to be outdoing the other Republicans on the tour, making something along the lines of 50 to 100 speeches throughout the country this year.
Sarah Palin, the darling of the GOP base - conversely - is having trouble getting booked for such speeches according to a recent article in the New York Post. Romney - the other prominent Republican name being thrown out there for 2012 - has actually been a victim of how TPaw “has used public appearances and op-eds to criticize the health care plan Romney put in place in Massachusetts.”
Speaking of his Opponents…
Pawlenty’s primary opponents will have their own difficulties. Romney’s record in Massachusetts will continue to hurt his image with the conservative base - especially on the issue of healthcare. Palin, while still popular among the Republican hard-liners, is nonetheless becoming viewed as “unelectable” within her own party.
Others are facing their own problems. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) for example seems to have lost a bit of popularity at home this year because of his presidential ambitions, something we said was sure to hurt him if he ran nationally. As a relatively moderate politician (and yes, he’s simply playing to the base right now) Pawlenty is still fairly popular in Minnesota (albeit, Minnesotans apparently aren’t crazy about his national ambitions either).
Other possible candidates mentioned in our June survey included former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson (R-WI), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and even Gen. David Patraeus. But none of these potential candidates have shown much indication that they’re running.
Now, of course, I may be wrong. Politics is a difficult spectator sport because you simply never know what’s coming next. But barring anything unexpected (like Pawlenty having an affair or killing someone) at this point I just can’t imagine anyone else securing that nomination.
Politico reports that there is an emerging belief among many established Republicans that TPaw is becoming the only viable option left for the GOP’s 2012 White House prospects. Not only do I agree with that sentiment (if I take the Republican perspective) but I think he’s becoming the candidate with the best chance of winning the Republican primaries and taking on President Obama in the first place.
Two weeks ago today we did a post on how the Democrats may be falling short in Colorado. One topic of the post was how the Democratically-controlled state Senate approved a bill to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
Here’s what we said:
“Other issues mentioned above are going to be equally unpopular. The Electoral College issue, for example, is one that probably doesn’t sit well with voters. The state Senate approved a bill to join the [NPVIC], in which a state’s electoral votes would go to the overall national winner of a presidential race. Once enough states join the compact to reach 270 votes, the compact would go into effect. Because Colorado is a smaller state, they would effectively get less say in a presidential contest. Besides, a good communications director can easily argue that the bill is taking the vote away from Coloradans, and make a GOP political gain.”
To our surprise, that paragraph drew a bit of criticism from two comments. One commenter complained that “the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.”
Actually, it’s more like once every 18 presidential elections. From the time George Washington was elected in 1789 there have been 56 presidential elections and the Electoral College winner has lost the popular vote 3 times. These presidents who lost the popular vote were Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and - most famously - George W. Bush in 2000.
(We should also point out that it is popularly believed that the same happened with John F. Kennedy in 1960. In fact, Kennedy won the popular vote by a mere 115,000 votes nationally. We’re not going to get into the allegations of vote theft here.)
We should make it clear that in our post we were not discussing the merits of the Electoral College or the NPVIC, but rather discussing the political side effects of trying to change the system - i.e., what it would do to the public opinion of Democrats in Colorado.
Nonetheless, the merits of the Electoral College and NPVIC is an interesting topic, so we figured we’d devote a post to the subject.
It is easy for liberals - like ourselves - to criticize the Electoral College (all three presidents that lost the popular vote were Republicans) but we think we should look at it from a more neutral position and give both sides of the argument.
Reasons to Oppose the Electoral College
Let’s see what else our commenters said...
“The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.”
We’re not going to fact check this, but from what we would expect this is probably true (or at least reasonably close to being accurate). The fact that many big states like California, Texas, New York, etc. are almost completely ignored during a presidential race is troubling to the average democratically-minded American (note the small “d” in democratic).
This is certainly a reason to draw concern. It seems almost morally wrong for such states to be ignored. In principle, they should receive their due attention from the presidential campaigns.
What else?
“[A] recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%...”
This is true. The poll the commenter refers to finds that a whopping majority of Americans would support a direct popular vote. And although there was a noticeable partisan divide, even 60% of Republicans support this theoretical election system.
Furthermore, the 68% support for a national direct popular vote in Colorado seems to hinder our argument from the previous post. We’ll return to that point later.
Finally…
“The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.”
Absolutely true. Just take the 2008 campaign in Nebraska, for example. For most of the state, very little effort was put in to winning it from either side because McCain was pretty certain to win there. Yet in the 2nd Congressional District - which is pretty much just Omaha - the Obama campaign was determined to win. After putting money and operatives into the city they picked up one electoral vote from Nebraska.
Nebraska is one of the only two states in the union that currently divides its electoral votes - the other being New Hampshire. Of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, two go to the overall state winner, and the other three go to the winner by congressional district. If they did not do this, the Obama campaign would have never put any serious resources or effort into the state because they knew they wouldn’t be able to win outside Omaha. So why would they bother?
Reasons to Support the Electoral College
In response to the argument that candidates don’t focus on enough states under the present system, the first thing an Electoral College advocate would say in rebuttal is that states should simply use their freedom to divide their electoral votes. In fact, many states have done this at different times in American history but have chosen not to today.
The Electoral College advocate might also argue that this method of choosing a president is grounded in the Constitution, thus cannot legally be ignored. Of course, if the NPVIC is adopted by enough states for it to go into effect, approved by Congress, and signed into law, it would be completely legitimate constitutionally.
His or her best argument would probably be that a national election is just too big for a direct popular vote. There actually may be something to this.
Presidential campaigns are divided on a state-by-state basis structurally. You are essentially running a unique campaign in every state, all held together by a relatively small national team. Frankly, nobody in campaign politics knows how to run a campaign bigger than a statewide race in California because no one has ever had to run a race bigger than that - and the Golden State only makes up about 12% of the U.S. population.
A nationally-run race would be a campaign manager’s worst nightmare. The Electoral College helps them keep it at a truly state-by-state basis because winner-take-all would be far too much for a campaign to organize on a national level.
More on that point is the money issue. It is true that presidential campaigns spend virtually all of their money in just 16 (or so) states - but in 2008 the two major presidential campaigns spent approximately a combined billion dollars. That’s not including what was spent by the DNC, RNC, and countless number of issue advocacy groups that spent their own money in support of Obama and McCain. So, theoretically (if the campaigns have to focus resources on all 50 states and not 16) under a popular vote system, the two major campaigns would be spending about $1.5 billion each - if not more - while the parties and advocacy groups would spend an uncountable number of dollars.
It might actually be a big boost to our GDP, but Americans are already concerned that this country spends too much on political campaigns as it is.
Are these the reasons why so many states have not passed the NPVIC?
There are actually more practical political reasons why the NPVIC has only passed in 5 of the 50 states.
First of all, let’s look back to Colorado. If they were to pass the NPVIC they would effectively get less say because they’re a smaller state. The reason is because the number of electoral votes a state gets is equal to the number of U.S. Senators and Representatives in their Congressional delegation. A state like Colorado - with 10 electoral votes - effectively gets more say (proportionally) in a presidential race than California - with 55 electoral votes - because the two votes each get automatically for their Senators has a bigger impact in Colorado per resident. It is likely that the 68% of Coloradans that support the NPVIC don’t realize this, or haven’t really thought about it enough.
The bigger states, conversely, are often dominated by one party in their State Legislatures (Democrats in California and Illinois, Republicans in Texas). These politicians know that more votes are basically guaranteed to go to their own party’s nominee with a winner-take-all Electoral College system than with a popular vote system.
Finally, the battleground states have no real incentive to change the system because they like the special attention they get. This is the same reason why Iowa and New Hampshire are determined to remain the first two states during the presidential primary season.
We hope we’ve given you a good overview of the arguments for and against the Electoral College - especially the arguments defending it, since so few seem to be willing to make them. Ultimately it’s for you to decide whether you agree with the system or not. There are certainly good reasons to support the NPVIC, but as is the case with any debate, there are reasons not to support it too hastily.
Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Louisiana.
Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) has gained considerable attention in his state’s blogosphere lately concerning trips he has made across the country. The trips are often for fundraisers on behalf of other Republican politicians and conservative organizations.
Yet many are aware of his potential - and his ambitions - to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012.
From a recent editorial in the Daily Advertiser:
Jindal, who has been identified as "the rising star" in U.S. politics, seems to be rising higher as he travels around the country speaking at Republican gatherings. While the exposure will benefit him in whatever political path he takes, it will surely keep alive rumors of a run for the presidency.
He has also developed a mantra about the GOP: Republicans need to stop worrying about themselves and start worrying about the country by working with Democrats. He even went so far as to call the GOP the “party of corruption, big spending and earmarks”. Nonetheless, he has been strong to his ideology.
This all being said, the people of Louisiana have not been too enthusiastic about their governor starting a campaign for an election four years away.
Most people don't mind that we have a governor who is going places. But in these uncertain times, more are asking where, or if, he is leading us.
Fear is running through state government and universities among employees who don't know if they will have jobs when projected budget cuts are made. Hospital administrators and college presidents have been directed to prepare worst-to-best-case scenarios, though none of them are good…
…Jindal knows how to delegate and he needn't be holding his administrators' hands with every controversy. Yet there are moments when they should know that he has their back, because he says so publicly, even if some other people don't like it.
It doesn't matter how many weekends he spends out of state, or even that he's back at his desk first thing Monday morning. When it comes to leadership, it's not his perfect attendance that we need, but, rather, his presence.
Stephanie Grace, another columnist, writes “in political circles around here, ‘Where's Bobby’ is becoming a punchline.”
Some news services have introduced polls about the subject. Fifty-five percent of respondents to a Business Report survey say Gov. Bobby Jindal is spending too much time out of state at fundraising events. A similar poll at LANewslink.com showed over 73% feel he is gone too frequently.
While these internet polls are completely unscientific, it should be embarrassing to Jindal that these news services are asking the question at all.
We have reiterated the words of Tip O’Neill before: “all politics is local”. How many Americans do you think notice Jindal’s trips? Probably not too many. But one group of Americans certainly does - residents of Louisiana.
Many politicians unpopular in their own state find it difficult to win on the national level - just ask John Edwards. While Bobby Jindal may have ambitions to reach the peak of American government, he will find himself suffering backlash from his own constituency if he is not careful - and that would be the surest way to lose the prospect of Presidency.
Now that her new book is coming out, a lot of pundits are talking about a possible Sarah Palin comeback and an eventual 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
