Posted on 08/19/2011 9:59:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s now three on a match atop the 2012 Republican presidential race, an inherently unstable dynamic that could singe each of the party’s leading contenders.
After a rapid-fire sequence of events, the race’s geometry has snapped into place, leaving a top tier of three major contenders: Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the somewhat flickering front-runner. As long as that three-way alignment holds, it probably benefits Romney. But if it shifts -- most likely by Perry eclipsing Bachmann -- Romney’s path quickly could become more treacherous.
The GOP race has been clarified by a succession of closely bunched developments last weekend: Bachmann’s victory in the Iowa straw poll, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s subsequent decision to quit the race, and Perry’s entry from a position firmly on stage right. Taken together, these developments present the three main candidates with a new calculus of risks and opportunities.
For Romney, the new alignment offers one clear advantage: the possibility that the voters least likely to support him will be splintered between two opponents rather than consolidating behind one. Both in his 2008 bid, and in early 2012 polling, Romney has run best with voters holding at least a four-year college degree and those who do not identify as evangelical Christians -- what might be called the party’s managerial wing. Romney has always struggled with the party’s populist wing, composed mostly of evangelical Christians and Republicans without a college degree.
The Republican coalition now divides virtually evenly between the economically-focused managers and the culturally-conservative, viscerally anti-Washington populists. In 2008, according to an ABC news cumulative analysis of exit polls, the GOP primary electorate split almost exactly in half between voters with and without a four-year college degree; likewise just under half of Republican voters (44 percent) identified as evangelical Christians.
Bachmann is an ideal opponent for Romney because she electrifies the populist voters most resistant to him, but remains a hard sell for most managers. Perry is a vastly bigger threat to Romney because Texas’ strong job-creation numbers gives him a much better chance than Bachmann of bridging the party’s two camps by attracting managerial Republicans. Yet Perry’s hard-right rhetoric and record (especially on social issues) makes it likely that he will still draw most of his support from the populist wing.
That dynamic creates the possibility that the populist voters most resistant to Romney will divide between Perry and Bachmann rather than uniting behind either. In theory, Romney could face a similar splintering of the managerial class if moderate former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman develops into a serious competitor. But Huntsman fizzled at the Iowa debate and hasn’t yet proven he will be a major factor.
If the current dynamics hold, the number of populist votes Perry loses to Bachmann will vastly exceed the number of managerial votes Romney loses to Huntsman. That could allow Romney to squeeze past his rivals with plurality victories not only in states like Florida and Georgia closely divided between the two camps, but even in contests such as South Carolina or Iowa that tilt toward the party’s populist side.
That threat creates two instant imperatives for Perry. One is to maximize his reach into the managerial class. The other is to minimize Bachmann’s populist support. The two goals are somewhat inimical. The former requires Perry to reassure; the latter to rage. Of the two, probably the higher priority for Perry is preempting Bachmann. If she solidifies her credibility by winning Iowa, she will likely siphon away a substantial number of populist votes from Perry almost everywhere else. That could derail the Texas governor, which means he has more at stake in beating Bachmann in Iowa than conventional wisdom now assumes.
The best news for Bachmann this week is that Pawlenty’s departure removes the candidate most committed to a traditional strategy of winning Iowa through dogged grassroots organizing. But Perry’s entrance risks defining her ever more firmly as only an identity candidate, like Jesse Jackson or Mike Huckabee, mostly dependent on voters who feel a personal cultural connection to her. Those candidates can linger and sting -- but they don’t win.
At last week’s debate, Bachmann attacked Pawlenty’s record and then Romney’s health-care plan in language that showed she’s comfortable functioning as an ideological enforcer for the overlapping tea party and evangelical vanguard. Perry seems equally determined to channel the unfiltered conservative id on issues from climate change to the Federal Reserve Board. That double-barreled attack from the right could help Romney position himself as a moderate, benefiting him against President Obama if he wins the nomination. But Romney has already signaled that he will respond at least partly by moving right himself, as he did in the Iowa debate, by declaring that he would reject tax increases matched even 10-1 with spending cuts.
The GOP race’s emerging three-way dynamic virtually assures that the party’s nominee in 2012 will run on an agenda to the right of any nominee since (at least) Ronald Reagan in 1980 -- a prospect that may excite conservatives, and hearten nervous Democrats, in equal measure.
Actually, once Perry’s problems with Illegal Immigration, Guardisil, TTC, Hate-Crime laws, etc are more well-known as the campaign goes on, he and Romney will be battling for more of the independents and moderate Republicans.
Better yet, if Chris Christy gets in the race then there will be a three way division of the Independents and moderate Republicans letting one of the true conservatives Palin, Bachmann, or Cain run away with the nomination.
Bachmann is almost finished. Any day now.
Gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. The Soviet Union one was quite hilarious. I think she has a subversive on her staff.
She may remain competitive in Iowa (because the Iowa caucus is the stupidest idea since Henry Ford decided to name his car Edsel), but she is toast nationally.
Blah Blah Blah Blah!
Solution: if Sara runs then it will be a no-brainer who to vote for.
“Romney’s Advantage: Will Perry, Bachmann Divide the Voters Most Resistant to Him”
It is a concern. Look at 2008. The ideaologies were not exactly the same, but the end result could be. A nominee that we really do not want. Question is, will we sit home again and allow Obama 4 more years? I sat home last time ‘round.
I’ve learned my lesson.
RE: if Sara runs then it will be a no-brainer who to vote for.
If she still does not declare by this November, I am going to stay tuned for the next TLC reality show about Alaska.
Actually looking at the polling data Perry seems to be fracturing Romney’s hold on the GOP Establishment voters.
Romney can’t grovel low enough or beg hard enough to get my vote, he is guilty of too many stupid liberal mistakes, and too dumb to even feel guilt.
I think Perry pulls from Romney himself as well. A lot of lukewarm Romney supporters would prefer a more conservative alternative, but felt Romney was “mainstream” enough to win.
Enter Rick Perry. Look at the last poll where Perry jumped way ahead of Romney. He didn’t do that by only peeling off Bachmann supporters!
Absolutely not. If Romney wants to be the candidate, he must collect more delegates than Palin, Perry, and Bachmann combined. None of them will give their delegates over to Romney at the convention. Three conservatives against one RINO is a good thing. As long as the Tea Party stays the course, Romney will not get enough delegates to win on a first vote.
perry will tone down his social rhetoric,
and win.
IMHO...
Romney and Perry are in bed with big business to such an extent that they would very much resist dramatic downsizing of the government, even if it was pushed by a theoretical Tea Party-controlled Senate and House. Back room pressuring would cause the draconian cuts that are needed to be too watered down to be effective.
Therefore, there would be little decline in the U.S. regulatory nightmare that shackles business, and correspondingly the only benefits to the economy that would be attributable to their hypothetical Presidencies would be a boost in the Dow and consumer confidence. After two or three years, reality would have long set in that the underlying problem of massive Federal debt was not going away any time soon. Government borrowing necessitated by continuing deficits, along with the unceasing regulatory burdens and individual rights usurpation by the Feral government would wind up producing an economy that basically treaded water.
As events around the world unfold in a very negative way, proceeding “business-as-usual” is a very unwise path for American government to take over the next few years, which will be fraught with dangerous pitfalls politically, economically and militarily. Significantly paying down the Feral debt, that is, running annual Feral government surpluses on the order of $1 trillion, is of paramount importance and can not be stressed enough.
Perry and Bachmann (and Palin, if she enters) would all likely give their delegates to one another.
GO PERRY GO!!!
Since that already happened as soon as Perry got in the race, this is a really stupid article.
If Bachmann & Perry divide 100% of Romney’s otherwise votes, I won’t lose any sleep over it.
They’re not perfect.
He stinks!
I like your analysis. Does this put you in the Palin column?
I agree. That is my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.