Newt-ron Bomb
Who could have ever imagined back in June that Newt Gingrich would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination three weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses? Amazing now to think back to 2000 when the Presidential nomination process was more or less a formality....a coronation of the establishment choices with only minor speed bumps (i.e. John McCain in New Hampshire) along the way. In the internet and cable news era we live in today, political partisans are far too engaged in Presidential politics to allow a 2000-style process to play out again in the foreseeable future, meaning the volatility of the last three primary cycles is probably the new normal. But even with that said, Newt Gingrich??? Has it really come to this, Republicans?
A lot of Democrats are giddy about the prospect of facing off against the erratic and undisciplined Gingrich, knowing he's likely to melt down countless towns over the next 11 months. They're probably right, but it's worth noting that politicians with a reputation for being erratic are all too often given tremendous latitude by voters for doing so. Joe Biden is a classic example for Democrats, and the fact that Herman Cain was able to keep his soldiers in line for several weeks even after an endless drumbeat of amateur hour gaffes suggests Gingrich will really have to step in it for voters to respond. That is a huge advantage up against either Romney or Obama, both of whom are expected to be perfect and for whom any minor misstep is exaggerated over several news cycles.
Whatever current poll numbers show, my feeling is that both Romney and Gingrich are poor general election candidates who will lose decisively in a political climate similar to the one we have now. Romney's profile as a smart and steady-handed Rockefeller Republican only holds up when nobody is scrutinizing him personally or politically. His policy agenda is boilerplate Tea Partyism and would have been seen as way out of the mainstream in any previous election cycle, but he passes as a faux "moderate" amongst this stage full of jesters. Once voters in suburban Philadelphia; Lakewood, Colorado; and Canton, Ohio, are made aware of this, Romney's would-be general election viability declines. And if he pivots to Rockefeller Republicanism in the general election, he risks losing his wingnut base who already dislikes him. As for his alleged personal inflappability, it's a myth that has been disproven three in the last two months, twice at the hands of the lightweight Texas Governor in the debates and again in an interview by Bret Baier of Fox News. Rattle Willard in the least and he becomes as brittle as an icicle in 32-degree weather.
Combine all of that with his baggage as a jobs assassin for Bain Capital and his overall robotic demeanor and this guy doesn't scare me....and I'm not entirely sure Gingrich brings more negatives to a general election than does Romney. The wild card is if Gingrich's erratic tendencies can be successfully sold as a form of mental illness. If the media and the Obama campaign make that narrative stick, Gingrich will become "Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket" and we could be looking at a 1988-style Electoral College landslide. Anything's possible with Gingrich, and he could well aid and abet that perception, but I don't think Democrats should count on that. Romney brings complete predictability to the table in a general election, and the Obama campaign will have the advantage of knowing every move he makes in advance. With Gingrich, they're gonna get a daily onslaught of curveballs (and spitballs), and while it's certainly possible these curveballs and spitballs will make Newt look bad, if Obama is caught flat-footed by any of them, it becomes Obama's problem.
And therein lies the gamble of cheering on a Gingrich candidacy for the blue team. While I think the current political environment favors Obama's re-election, the political environment could change. If Europe crashes, as I still think is a serious possibility, it takes America down with them. A Dow Jones average of $8,000 and an unemployment rate of 13% next November is not a climate Obama can get re-elected in....against anybody. So then the question becomes, do Democrats want somebody who is sane or somebody who is insane as the President? Most seem willing to take the gamble and are crossing their fingers that Professor Gingrich to remain popular with wingnut GOP primary voters. I'm still undecided.
And one last thing worth mentioning that scares me most is that a lot of National Review-type pseudo-intellectual conservatives are so spooked by their terrible choices that they're starting to suggest Jon Huntsman might be acceptable. This is Obama's worst-case scenario as, unlike Romney, Huntsman can probably get away with faking he's a Rockefeller Republican through next November. It still seems unlikely that there's enough time for Huntsman to catch on, but it was about this time in 2007 that John McCain first started getting some momentum in New Hampshire, and we know how that ended.
A lot of Democrats are giddy about the prospect of facing off against the erratic and undisciplined Gingrich, knowing he's likely to melt down countless towns over the next 11 months. They're probably right, but it's worth noting that politicians with a reputation for being erratic are all too often given tremendous latitude by voters for doing so. Joe Biden is a classic example for Democrats, and the fact that Herman Cain was able to keep his soldiers in line for several weeks even after an endless drumbeat of amateur hour gaffes suggests Gingrich will really have to step in it for voters to respond. That is a huge advantage up against either Romney or Obama, both of whom are expected to be perfect and for whom any minor misstep is exaggerated over several news cycles.
Whatever current poll numbers show, my feeling is that both Romney and Gingrich are poor general election candidates who will lose decisively in a political climate similar to the one we have now. Romney's profile as a smart and steady-handed Rockefeller Republican only holds up when nobody is scrutinizing him personally or politically. His policy agenda is boilerplate Tea Partyism and would have been seen as way out of the mainstream in any previous election cycle, but he passes as a faux "moderate" amongst this stage full of jesters. Once voters in suburban Philadelphia; Lakewood, Colorado; and Canton, Ohio, are made aware of this, Romney's would-be general election viability declines. And if he pivots to Rockefeller Republicanism in the general election, he risks losing his wingnut base who already dislikes him. As for his alleged personal inflappability, it's a myth that has been disproven three in the last two months, twice at the hands of the lightweight Texas Governor in the debates and again in an interview by Bret Baier of Fox News. Rattle Willard in the least and he becomes as brittle as an icicle in 32-degree weather.
Combine all of that with his baggage as a jobs assassin for Bain Capital and his overall robotic demeanor and this guy doesn't scare me....and I'm not entirely sure Gingrich brings more negatives to a general election than does Romney. The wild card is if Gingrich's erratic tendencies can be successfully sold as a form of mental illness. If the media and the Obama campaign make that narrative stick, Gingrich will become "Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket" and we could be looking at a 1988-style Electoral College landslide. Anything's possible with Gingrich, and he could well aid and abet that perception, but I don't think Democrats should count on that. Romney brings complete predictability to the table in a general election, and the Obama campaign will have the advantage of knowing every move he makes in advance. With Gingrich, they're gonna get a daily onslaught of curveballs (and spitballs), and while it's certainly possible these curveballs and spitballs will make Newt look bad, if Obama is caught flat-footed by any of them, it becomes Obama's problem.
And therein lies the gamble of cheering on a Gingrich candidacy for the blue team. While I think the current political environment favors Obama's re-election, the political environment could change. If Europe crashes, as I still think is a serious possibility, it takes America down with them. A Dow Jones average of $8,000 and an unemployment rate of 13% next November is not a climate Obama can get re-elected in....against anybody. So then the question becomes, do Democrats want somebody who is sane or somebody who is insane as the President? Most seem willing to take the gamble and are crossing their fingers that Professor Gingrich to remain popular with wingnut GOP primary voters. I'm still undecided.
And one last thing worth mentioning that scares me most is that a lot of National Review-type pseudo-intellectual conservatives are so spooked by their terrible choices that they're starting to suggest Jon Huntsman might be acceptable. This is Obama's worst-case scenario as, unlike Romney, Huntsman can probably get away with faking he's a Rockefeller Republican through next November. It still seems unlikely that there's enough time for Huntsman to catch on, but it was about this time in 2007 that John McCain first started getting some momentum in New Hampshire, and we know how that ended.
posted by Mark at 7:55 AM
1 Comments:
Democrats better hope Obama loses in 2012, because if not, it will be 60 years before Democrats sniff control of the House again. What will happen is that Republicans will entrench themselves through the power of redistricting and incumbency. Democrats will become the same powerless minority that Republicans were from 1932 to 1994. The last time a party had a wave against them in a redistricting election was 1930 and it took until 1994 to repair the damage.
Democrats should have torpedoed Obama's campaign on him in October 2008 to spare Democrats from this major poison pill. There was no benefit for Democrats to have Obama win in 2008. Even his one liberal accomplishment, healthcare reform, is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Instead of trying to advance liberal legislation(which is impossible in a country as conservative as the US), Democrats should instead be focusing on stopping conservative advances.
Now because of Obama's election, Republicans will probably get veto-proof majorities in both Houses by the end of the decade, allowing them to pass Social Security and Medicare phaseouts, make any abortion illegal and to force people to buy health insurance out of their own pockets. And the gerrymandered House lines will make sure that they pay no price for it.
Obama is what will finally put the Democratic party in its grave.
Post a Comment
<< Home