Over at Alarming News, Karol has posted some thoughts on 2008. She repeats a prediction she's made many times before: Rudy Giuliani has no prayer of being the Republican nominee.
I think she's wrong, and I see a few problems with her analysis on this one. Karol begins by making the point that the blogosphere is not representative of the real world. She cites the victories of Wesley Clark in recent Daily Kos and MyDD straw polls. So far, so good. But then she writes that the right side of the blogosphere is similarly detached for favoring Rudy or Condi or both. There is an important difference, however. Public opinion polls show Clark as a non-entity on the Democratic side. Public opinion polls consistently show Rudy and Condi (and McCain) as prohibitive favorites on the Republican side. Those bloggers favoring Rudy and Condi are plugged into the pulse of the party. Indeed, the bloggers who are in their own little world right now appear to be those lined up behind George Allen.
History is also at odds with Karol's analysis. She predicts: "a popular governor of a medium sized state. It'll be someone we're not thinking of right now and he (yes, he, people) will be happily married, likely to his first wife. He will have had plenty of experience campaigning, will be pro-life and unequivocally against gay marriage. Most of his secrets have already come out during his previous campaign. He will not have a New York accent." There aren't many Republicans who fit that criterion. I haven't figured out who she's talking about. Huckabee is from a small state, I'd say. Jeb Bush is from a big state. Mitt Romney has only run two races, and one of them (against Kennedy) was terrible. Ditto Haley Barbour. Jim Talent fits the bill, I suppose, but I've never heard anyone even suggest that. Mark Sanford? I know some people say that, but look: Show me a Republican presidential race in which an obscure candidate has won. Show me a race in which the person who won would have been a surprise three years out. In 1968, the former vice president (who had almost won eight years earlier) was nominated. In 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992, and 2004 the incumbent president was nominated. In 1980, the guy who came in last time, who had been governor of California, was nominated. In 1988, the incumbent vice president, who had come in second eight years earlier, was nominated. In 1996, the nominee was the leader of the Senate, who had come in second for the nomination in the last open race eight years before, and who also ran in 1980, and who was the vice presidential nominee in 1976. In 2000, it was the son of the former president, who also happened to be governor of the third largest state.
Each time since 1972, if the early front runner ran, he won. The early front runner was always the guy whose turn it was next. This time, that's McCain -- the guy who came in second last time. Giuliani, however, has an opening because he is transcendant in that Colin Powell like way because of 9/11. This same transcendancy could allow him to get by even though he's pro-choice and pro-gay. It wouldn't work for anyone else, but his personality and heroism might enable him to do it. McCain doesn't have that obstacle, but he does have a lot of people who hate him. The advantage both of them have is that there's no one to beat them.
Is it true that the social issues have primacy in a Republican primary? There's no example in a presidential race to prove that it's true. Abortion politics have never decided a presidential primary race. The last major pro-choice candidate was George Bush in 1980. He managed to beat Ronald Reagan in Iowa (and a host of other states) -- and he did it without any compelling personal story, and his major credential was former CIA director.
It is true that Republican primary voters are conservative. On the presidential level, however, it isn't ideological conversatism. It's tempermental conservatism. They vote for the guy they've voted for before, or wanted to vote for for years. The guy whose turn it is. They voted for George W. Bush because they thought his parents were good people. They voted for Bob Dole, for heaven's sake! They are not going to go off on an ideological crusade in a presidential election.
I haven't written much about Condi, because I agree with Karol that she's not going to run, so I think it's irrelevant. And the entry of Jeb Bush or Dick Cheney would obviously change everything. Barring that, though, we are left with Giuliani, McCain, Allen, and Romney, all of whom are running, and random obscure governors. I'd bet on the frontrunner.
(Disclosure: Rudy's my candidate. And I'm no RINO.)
What about Newt Gingrich running? How likely is he to do well in the various matchups?
Posted by: Neera Goitein | August 30, 2005 at 01:36 PM