It’s the Base, Stupid
I’ve been saying for a while to people I know that Romney has a weakness which has not been widely discussed so far: he will fail to bring out the hardcore base, in particular the Religious Right.
In many recent elections, this has been a vital component for Republicans. They depend on the churchgoers, the people who are motivated by the kind of God-related stuff Newt has been peddling. Much of this is church-centered–their local churches are almost organizing centers, the church leaders tell them, directly or indirectly, who to go out and vote for, and they do. They are to the GOP what the African-American vote was for Obama in 2008.
For all of Romney’s other strengths, this is a key weakness: these people will see a Mormon who, despite his recent protestations, is on tape saying he believes strongly in a woman’s right to choose abortion.
These people will not head towards the polls with the same enthusiasm they have in the past few decades.
When I have said this, I kind of get lukewarm responses, like what I’m talking about won’t really be as much of an issue as I make it out to be. However, I just got an initial confirmation that it is, in fact, the case–this from a HuffPo contributor and professor from George Mason University:
In the graph I’ve plotted by county the percent vote for Gingrich against the percent change in turnout from 2008 to 2012. The graph tells a clear story. In counties where Gingrich did better, Republican turnout was up over 2008. In counties where Romney dominated, turnout was lower.
This is also reflected by the fact that GOP turnout was high in South Carolina, which Newt won, but low in Florida, which Romney won.
If, as people now believe, Romney will be the candidate (I draw no such conclusions myself, things being as volatile as they are), then the signs are excellent for the Democrats. Not just for Obama, mind you. If Romney depresses GOP turnout, this could give Obama significant coattails and could effect key Congressional races–and might guarantee Democrats control over the House in 2013. Newt will almost certainly lose the presidency if nominated, but he could at least bring out the core vote enough to generate victories for the GOP at the congressional level.
Much more than that!
25% of the electorate is evangelical!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html
for an analysis of evangelicals and the problem they have with Mormons.
Mormons, while culturally conservative, are a competing cult for evangelicals, one step above actual Satanists really.
The problem is, all Christian religions, Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox all basically follow or believe in the Nicene creed – the concept and nature of the the trinity. To fundamentalist Mormonism is a heresy, an abomination, created by a huckster and a womenizer of the most slimy kind.
We see now how Bush Jr. was the most perfect incarnation for the Republicans, half fundy, half silver spoon, all contempt, hatred and anger rolled up in an ignorance that was politely described as ‘incurious.’
But we can see now how Bush was destroying the Republican brand, just as he does all things he touches, just as he was embodying it. The oddity is about the only serious character out there that stands a chance is Bush’s brother Jeb, who stands no chance because the nation will not suffer another Bush as President – though that won’t stop the Republicans from nominating him.
This looks like a Political Party in its death throws. It cannot produce a serious candidate, its reliant on ideology that solves no problems but creates plenty of them. The scramble of the cast of characters for the nomination looks hardly any different then the same for the nomination of the moribund rump of the Reform party in 1999. Its more carnival than it is serious.
The problem with Ggrinch is that he can’t get elected, he would scare some fundies, but most importantly he would destroy the down ticket contests, giving the House back to Nancy Pelosi. Now your are saying that Romney does the same thing. These guys can’t win.
To me, the Republicans make a big mistake putting Romney at the top of the ticket. He puts American style capitalism on trial, because he embodies it. This could result in a make over of it: Canadian regulation, German style union representation on boards of directors, and Japanese style life time tenure – all of which would wipe out the executive class and its power as we now have it. This would be a good thing for America, but bad for the Repugs and the CEO class. I don’t know why they are supporting Romeney, unless…
…Unless they see 2012 as the last chance to stop Obama care, and see Obama care as a stepping stone to single payer not for profit health insurance and they see Romney, as the most electable, the only chance to stop all of that.
The fallout from 2012 could be: Obama care survives, and a new Dem majority goes to work on making it single payer, regulation is brought back into financial markets, a constitutional amendment over throws Citizens United AND Arizona Free Enterprise Club, publically held corporations have to provide board representation for Unions/workers-and/or lifetime employment to a majority of workers or risk losing their limited liability, banks broken up, maybe some of the Fascist Five on the Supreme Court get impeached.
If I’m the Republican elite, I put G’grinch on the ticket, Santorum as his side kick, and chalk it up to hard times brought on by mountain of past successes, and offer Obama, and more importantly, his daughters, chairmanship of J.P. Morgan if he doesn’t fuss up American Style capitalism too much after he gets re-elected. That way you feed the base, while holding down the corporate franchise with a rear guard right ward leaning milk toast Democratic presidency.
and a new Dem majority
not gonna happen, unless the Dems set aside the traditional filibuster rules.
Dems will still be lucky to hold onto the Senate regardless, even with Gingrich as the candidate.
Of the 33 seats up, 23 are Dems. 7 of these will be open seats. Only 2 of 10 Rs are retiring.
Also, 10 of the 16 running Dems are first-termers.
None of this is any promising.
Wouldn’t surprise me for the Dems to lose the Senate and get the House again.
Gonna be a weird election.
Wish I was somewhere on the Shonan coast, doing my thing.
Tim:
In classic Republican form, they are trying to have it both ways: run against Bush but give all of his policies their full-throated support.
I am truly sick of hearing every Republican that comes along make the patently dishonest claim that they did not approve of Bush, nor did they support or vote for his policies; some even claim to have spoken out against him. Every time I hear that I want the people around him or her to pin the liar down and demand they cite one credible source documenting that they did this. Funny how Republicans were almost lock-step behind Bush and his policies, and yet almost all of them now claim they were loudly protesting him… and then claim that their current policies, mostly identical to Bush’s, are somehow completely different, usually in some superficial way.
Eh? Who said he’d scare the fundies? Far as I can tell, they love him. He found God and repented, so all is forgiven. Did I miss something?
No, Gingrich would bring out the fundie vote, but his negatives amongst everyone else would sink him, if he didn’t self-destruct first by saying stupid crap like he commonly does.
They don’t mind that, what they mind is how terrible a job he does at acting it out. If he owned his image, said, “Yeah, I’m rich and what a great country this is that anybody can become rich. I am a businessman and a capitalist and I do not apologize for any of that–if anything, I will boast it. I want everyone to have the chances that my family had, to have the success I now enjoy, and I will work to make that more possible than ever,” blah blah blah, all of it BS but he would sound attractive to a lot of people and he could defend it.
Instead, he does idiotic stuff like trying to hide his taxes, makes jokes about being unemployed, makes unbelievable claims about understanding what it is to be poor and fearing a pink slip, and saying stuff like “corporations are people” and “I’m not concerned with poor people.” He could, potentially, spin all that in a completely different way so as to avoid 90% of the criticism and dislike people have for his wealth. The “liberal” media would ignore the rest.
Instead, he’s just saying whatever pops into his head and being way too honest and/or tone-deaf.
Nope, even that would be toxic. If I were them, I would put up Huntsman with a fundie-friendly VP (maybe Santorum), making it crystal clear to him that I owned him and then load his staff with people far more right-wing than he. That’s how the neocons carried so much power during Bush 43 as well as during Reagan: put up an everyman face and stack the deck behind him with radicals.
not gonna happen, unless the Dems set aside the traditional filibuster rules.
That’s the problem. The Dems could win back the House, but even in the best of cases they will have fewer Senate seats than they did in ’08. Even if they keep a majority in the Senate, it won’t be enough–and it is an excellent bet that Republicans will, if anything, abuse the filibuster even more.
As hard as it will be to see Dems lose that tool when they fall back into the minority, it really MUST be killed, and as soon as possible. Republicans did a scorched-earth number on that procedure and have turned the Senate into a joke.
“I’m not concerned with poor people.” is an unfair quote.
Not that I’m complaining, since if the Republicans ever walk their talk the safety net would in fact be defunded.
Troy:
It probably is an unfair quote, but the point is that, politically, it’s a dumb-ass thing to say–particularly for this candidate and at this point in time.
Your second point is also valid–like often is the case with current GOP pols, they defend their claims by touting other things that they wish to dismantle.
Really? Romney has it in the bag. Nationally, he’s already re-claimed the lead, and up next are a bunch of states that are totally in his favor, not to mention Super Tuesday. How exactly could Gingrich win? I don’t see any way he can.
Also, Romney’s campaign is much better organized, and – most importantly – has far more money than Gingrich’s.
Finally, the Establishment Republicans don’t want Gingrich anyway. Not unless they want to lose both houses of Congress altogether.
That’s what everybody said before South Carolina too. I’m not saying Romney’s chances aren’t good, I’m just saying that the race has been so volatile, anything could happen. We could see a repeat of the South Carolina debate. After Nevada, let’s say Newt tromps Romney somehow, maybe Romney makes a huge gaffe or some scandal emerges, or important evangelicals come out huge for Gingrich in a panic over Romney, or even Santorum throws Gingrich his support, then Gingrich flips Nevada and holds on to Minnesota; if that were enough to Put him ahead in Michigan–where Gingrich is trailing Romney less than many other states–Gingrich winning three of four states including Romney’s home state could be enough to reverse ideas, especially if national polling flips once again to Gingrich.
Like I said, I don’t really expect it–I was simply commenting on the fact that people have called this race too many times for it to be completely certain it can’t change.
I know, but the SC primary was supposed to be Gingrich’s opportunity to shift momentum, and he didn’t do it. Hence, my point.
Ahem.