Today at lunch I was discussing with the lovely and talented Donna the state of the Republican Presidential primary (I do a lot of my best thinking and talking over meals). Here’s my summary of where we stand as of the date of this writing (in alphabetical order):
Bachmann: While a serious contender when she first announced, she was eclipsed by the entry of Perry into the race, and never seemed to regain much momentum afterwards. She was an attractive candidate (not physically—well, yes, she’s pretty too, but what I mean is . . . well, you know what I mean), and knows enough about the various issues to keep the other candidates honest and on their toes, so I am glad she’s still in the herd. But her poll numbers are around the 5% range, and have been for some time. While I like Ms. Bachmann, and agree with most of her views, she will not be the Republican candidate for president.
Cain: As I wrote in this post, Cain is finished. His star, while blinding for a short while, has fizzled like a July 4th sparkler. (Couldn’t resist a corny metaphor.) His involvement in the campaign has been useful to remind voters and the other candidates that you don’t have to be a professional politician to be attractive to voters, and that a successful businessman might just be what the doctor ordered to fix our economic mess. Now, however, his poll numbers are hovering around the 7% range, and don’t look like they will go anywhere but down. The reasons are numerous, but when you can’t even give an opinion on Libya, you can’t be president. I’m sure that’s somewhere in the Constitution. Somebody ask Ron Paul.
Gingrich: I believe that Newt is one of the two candidates likely to win the primary. In fact, if I was forced to bet (and I’m very, very glad that I’m not), I would probably bet on Newt. He has a lot of baggage, and many of the evangelical right will not want to vote for him (preferring Santorum or Bachmann) because of his martial history. Nevertheless, he has a way of capturing the attention of most of the right with his vast academic historical knowledge, his experiential knowledge, and his highly polished rhetorical skills. As I put it to my lunch partner, if a debate moderator were to ask the candidates their shoe size, the audience would ho-hum through the other seven candidates, but would sit enraptured to find out Newt’s answer. “What’s his shoe size?” “What’s the history of shoe sizes?” “What is the average shoe size of Congress?” “What’s Obama’s shoe size, and why is that obviously not what this country needs?” Because of this magic power, his poll numbers currently are around 25-27%, and, unlike any other candidate in the race, are rising. At this late date (5 weeks before the first primary), that’s significant.
Huntsman: Huntsman was never a serious contender. I don’t even know what his poll numbers are, but they are somewhere south of Aruba. He’s been interesting to listen to, though, and has made the other candidates defend their foreign policy and foreign trade views, but that’s about it.
Paul: Another candidate that was never a serious option. Don’t get me wrong, Paul has some great principles which I wholeheartedly agree with. Let’s stick to the Constitution. But the way he wants to implement those principles and apply them to specific policy issues can be somewhat frightening at times. Abolish the Department of Education: good. Abolish the Patriot Act: bad. In any case, his poll numbers have always been, and continue to be, around 10%. That number will not change (his followers are somewhat fanatical, which fits him quite well), and he will therefore not win the nomination. He has served a valuable role, however, in forcing the other candidates to measure their policy positions against the Constitution, which should be the first thing a President does when he undertakes anything more significant than brushing his teeth.
Perry: Like Bachmann, Perry came in with a bang, and has whimpered his way out. His poll numbers are also hovering around the 7% range, and as far as I know are still dropping. It’s not just the Department of Energy gaffe, or the voting age stumble, or the fact that he looked like he was going to fall asleep halfway through a couple of the debates (who could blame him?). It was all of that and more. He just couldn’t stand toe-to-toe with anyone else on the debate platform. His participation has been valuable primarily as a foil for Romney. He’s done.
Romney: Romney is the other of the two candidates, along with Gingrich, whom (who?) I think is a possibility to win the nomination. He is smart, doesn’t make many campaigning or debating mistakes, and knows his stuff. The problem with that is so much of his stuff comes with a lot of baggage—flip-flopping baggage. And because of that, his poll numbers started out at about a healthy 25%, and haven’t moved much over the last 5 months. To the extent that they have moved, they have moved down a teensy bit (about, say, 23%). That’s not the way he wants to go. There are some evangelicals who simply will not vote for a Mormon (more on that in a future post, perhaps), so Romney will not get those votes regardless, except perhaps in the general election, but I don’t see that demographic as all that significant.
Santorum: I like Santorum. I really do. Would love to share a beer with him (if he drinks alcohol—does anybody know?). Heck, I’ll buy! But he’s not going to be president. He’s the male version of Bachmann. His poll numbers are somewhere around the 2% range, and are not likely to move much. He can generate good will, but not votes. Again, though, like Bachmann, his congressional experience has forced the other candidates to examine and refine their own positions—he has kept them honest. No mean feat.
As far as the general election goes, as I indicated, I believe it will be either Romney or Gingrich versus Obama. I believe that this is a Republican election to lose. We should win, unless we screw up and give it away. I don’t see either Romney or Gingrich screwing up too much in the way of October surprises or the like. They’ve both been in the public eye long enough for every piece of dirty underwear to be discovered, displayed to the world, dissected, and examined. Also, neither one are prone to the types of verbal gaffes that can really sink a campaign. Policy issues, of course, can be debated, but they will be carefully thought out and defended (such as Gingrich’s stance on illegal immigration, and Romney’s stance on Obamacare).
One caveat: If Obama wises up and chooses Hillary Clinton as his v.p. running mate, it could be a very, very tight race. Otherwise, though, I think the Republicans can win it. If we don’t do anything stupid.
Wait . . .