GOP Primary Voters, Can We Please Not Do This?
Next-in-line syndrome. It takes its toll roughly every four years. Despite plenty of prep time, GOP primary voters panic every fourth spring and immediately vote what they know and what's familiar.
It's a pretty old syndrome. It's given us:
Thomas Dewey
Richard Nixon
George H. W. Bush
Bob Dole
John McCain
Mitt Romney
It's this idea that maybe a previous election loser will win this time. While it might make a great Disney movie, it doesn't work for politics. Some will argue that this syndrome gave us Ronald Reagan. After all, he was the runner up to Gerald Ford in the 1976 primary. Assuming that's true, one out of seven doesn't really sound like a good plan.
Yet here we are looking ahead to 2016 and some of the names on the top of lists consist of Mike Huckabee (runner up in 2008 primary), Rick Perry (one time front runner in 2012 primary), Rick Santorum (runner up in 2012 primary), Jeb Bush (never ran for president, but we'll get into that in a second), and now even Mitt Romney (runner up in 2008 primary, "runner up" in 2012 general election).
Let's start with Huckabee, Perry, and Santorum since I at one time supported each of these candidates. You see, in 2008, our field was pretty terrible. The likes of McCain, Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani all fought it out. Of those four, I preferred Romney, but was never really thrilled with any of these options. Then, out of nowhere, came Huckabee. At the time (before I started going in a more Libertarian direction), I thought Huckabee was perfect. He was kind, gentle, and a bit of a redneck. I figured, sure, why not! He became a thorn in Romney's side while Thompson and Guiliani never made much of themselves. As we all know, McCain (the runner up in 2000) wound up with the nomination.
Perry and Santorum both came (kinda) close in 2012. Santorum appeared as an also-ran for five or six month until the Iowa caucus, while Perry was the front-runner the second he jumped into the race. Of course, Perry's campaign was awful and he turned in the worst debate performance in memory, and his other debates just weren't good enough to pull him back up in the polls. As he laid an egg in Iowa, Santorum began building momentum. It would wane for a little while in early 2012, but would eventually pick up again. If not for Newt Gingrich (himself a name from the past, though not from presidential elections) Santorum just might have upset Romney.
So are these three running in 2016? Huckabee for some unknown reason is polling ahead of about 3,000 other candidates. This completely baffles me. He was a runner up in 2008 and has not done much other than host a TV show, host a radio show in direct competition against Rush Limbaugh, and made a pretty dumb (albeit misunderstood and completely misinterpreted) comment about women. What has he done since 2008 that has made him a better candidate? A candidate that was runner up to...John McCain?
It certainly sounds like Santorum is interested. He put together an incredible campaign considering how little name recognition he had and how little money too. But isn't it possible that 2012 was everything he had? We're talking about someone who hasn't held political office since January 2007. I hold a very special place in my heart for Senator Santorum as a life-long Pennsylvanian and a life-long Republican. But let's not kid ourselves. The primaries in 2012 consisted of another pretty weak field. For crying out loud, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann were both at one time considered to be leading the pack! I think very highly of the both of them, but neither had the resume to be the Republican nomination to be president. Santorum put in an incredible performance, but it won't happen again (not to mention the GOP base continues to creep towards Libertarianism, something Santorum has been quick to dismiss).
As for Perry, he had his chance. And yes, American is a land of "second chances", but his performance in the primaries were abysmal. And as much as I like him, the 2012 cycle is just such a liability. Part of me truly wants to see him give it another go, as he bring unparalleled executive experience and a strong personal narrative of "rags to riches." However, he blew a wide open chance in late 2011 and only dug the hole deeper. The field will be more competitive this time around.
So what about Jeb Bush? There was a time many considered him to be a better candidate then his brother. He is kind of moderate, but not quite as moderate as McCain or even Romney. But, let's be honest, we cannot nominate a Bush. Yes, that just plain sucks for Jeb, but it's the truth. The best arsenal we have against a potential Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 is the fact that she's too much of an insider. That the name "Clinton" has been carried around Washington for far too long. How will we counter that if we nominate someone whose father carried his name in Washington for four years as a president (plus more as a Vice President and director of the CIA) and whose brother carried it around for another eight years as a president. I'm not a huge fan of Jeb's politics, but I support having qualified, diverse candidates in a primary. But we cannot do this to ourselves. We absolutely cannot go to the "next-in-line" whether it be someone who came close in a primary or a relative of a Washington dynasty. My hope it that Jeb already knows this.
Our potential candidates for 2016 are already diverse in both policy and experiences. Topping the list of current governors that may run include Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, John Kasich, and Mike Pence (with dark horses like Rick Snyder and Brian Sandoval). From congress we may see Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan. Currently politically-unemployed, but well-experienced candidates include Mitch Daniels, Condoleeza Rice, and John Bolton. I am not saying I support each of these candidates, but the bench is both broad and wide in terms of ideas and experience. There is no need for GOP primary voters to panic and go back to someone just because they are familiar.
Next-in-Line Syndrome must be an actual disease, to be honest. Some sort of combination between schadenfreude and amnesia. So let's acknowledge our failure of selecting nominees and be willing to stick our necks out for someone who hasn't run for president yet.
 |
| Not so much. |
Thomas Dewey
Richard Nixon
George H. W. Bush
Bob Dole
John McCain
Mitt Romney
It's this idea that maybe a previous election loser will win this time. While it might make a great Disney movie, it doesn't work for politics. Some will argue that this syndrome gave us Ronald Reagan. After all, he was the runner up to Gerald Ford in the 1976 primary. Assuming that's true, one out of seven doesn't really sound like a good plan.
Yet here we are looking ahead to 2016 and some of the names on the top of lists consist of Mike Huckabee (runner up in 2008 primary), Rick Perry (one time front runner in 2012 primary), Rick Santorum (runner up in 2012 primary), Jeb Bush (never ran for president, but we'll get into that in a second), and now even Mitt Romney (runner up in 2008 primary, "runner up" in 2012 general election).
Let's start with Huckabee, Perry, and Santorum since I at one time supported each of these candidates. You see, in 2008, our field was pretty terrible. The likes of McCain, Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani all fought it out. Of those four, I preferred Romney, but was never really thrilled with any of these options. Then, out of nowhere, came Huckabee. At the time (before I started going in a more Libertarian direction), I thought Huckabee was perfect. He was kind, gentle, and a bit of a redneck. I figured, sure, why not! He became a thorn in Romney's side while Thompson and Guiliani never made much of themselves. As we all know, McCain (the runner up in 2000) wound up with the nomination.
Perry and Santorum both came (kinda) close in 2012. Santorum appeared as an also-ran for five or six month until the Iowa caucus, while Perry was the front-runner the second he jumped into the race. Of course, Perry's campaign was awful and he turned in the worst debate performance in memory, and his other debates just weren't good enough to pull him back up in the polls. As he laid an egg in Iowa, Santorum began building momentum. It would wane for a little while in early 2012, but would eventually pick up again. If not for Newt Gingrich (himself a name from the past, though not from presidential elections) Santorum just might have upset Romney.
So are these three running in 2016? Huckabee for some unknown reason is polling ahead of about 3,000 other candidates. This completely baffles me. He was a runner up in 2008 and has not done much other than host a TV show, host a radio show in direct competition against Rush Limbaugh, and made a pretty dumb (albeit misunderstood and completely misinterpreted) comment about women. What has he done since 2008 that has made him a better candidate? A candidate that was runner up to...John McCain?
It certainly sounds like Santorum is interested. He put together an incredible campaign considering how little name recognition he had and how little money too. But isn't it possible that 2012 was everything he had? We're talking about someone who hasn't held political office since January 2007. I hold a very special place in my heart for Senator Santorum as a life-long Pennsylvanian and a life-long Republican. But let's not kid ourselves. The primaries in 2012 consisted of another pretty weak field. For crying out loud, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann were both at one time considered to be leading the pack! I think very highly of the both of them, but neither had the resume to be the Republican nomination to be president. Santorum put in an incredible performance, but it won't happen again (not to mention the GOP base continues to creep towards Libertarianism, something Santorum has been quick to dismiss).
As for Perry, he had his chance. And yes, American is a land of "second chances", but his performance in the primaries were abysmal. And as much as I like him, the 2012 cycle is just such a liability. Part of me truly wants to see him give it another go, as he bring unparalleled executive experience and a strong personal narrative of "rags to riches." However, he blew a wide open chance in late 2011 and only dug the hole deeper. The field will be more competitive this time around.
So what about Jeb Bush? There was a time many considered him to be a better candidate then his brother. He is kind of moderate, but not quite as moderate as McCain or even Romney. But, let's be honest, we cannot nominate a Bush. Yes, that just plain sucks for Jeb, but it's the truth. The best arsenal we have against a potential Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 is the fact that she's too much of an insider. That the name "Clinton" has been carried around Washington for far too long. How will we counter that if we nominate someone whose father carried his name in Washington for four years as a president (plus more as a Vice President and director of the CIA) and whose brother carried it around for another eight years as a president. I'm not a huge fan of Jeb's politics, but I support having qualified, diverse candidates in a primary. But we cannot do this to ourselves. We absolutely cannot go to the "next-in-line" whether it be someone who came close in a primary or a relative of a Washington dynasty. My hope it that Jeb already knows this.
Our potential candidates for 2016 are already diverse in both policy and experiences. Topping the list of current governors that may run include Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, John Kasich, and Mike Pence (with dark horses like Rick Snyder and Brian Sandoval). From congress we may see Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan. Currently politically-unemployed, but well-experienced candidates include Mitch Daniels, Condoleeza Rice, and John Bolton. I am not saying I support each of these candidates, but the bench is both broad and wide in terms of ideas and experience. There is no need for GOP primary voters to panic and go back to someone just because they are familiar.
Next-in-Line Syndrome must be an actual disease, to be honest. Some sort of combination between schadenfreude and amnesia. So let's acknowledge our failure of selecting nominees and be willing to stick our necks out for someone who hasn't run for president yet.
Comments
Post a Comment