Posted on 06/03/2015 2:23:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the past week, several more Republicans, with varying degrees of gravitas, have joined an already crowded field of contenders. Lindsey Graham became the fourth sitting senator to enter the race. Former New York Gov. George Pataki is in, too — despite not having been in office in nearly a decade. Rick Santorum recently announced as well, looking to springboard off of a 2012 runner-up finish. Mike Huckabee is going even farther back, hoping to springboard off of his 2008 runner-up status.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich has made it clear he intends on entering. His counterpart in Michigan, Rick Snyder, has a national speaking tour planned to showcase his so-far-successful rescue of Detroit, just coincidentally as the presidential sweepstakes heats up. Other sitting governors, like Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley, younger and perhaps better positioned to inspire voters, have stayed quiet but could jump into the race. And of course, there's Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry — and on and on and on.
The unprecedented level of talent produced from Republican gains over the last decade has given voters a wide range of options. That has created worry over party schisms and paralysis, perhaps leading to the unicorn of political reporting, the brokered convention. Time wondered this weekend whether anyone could accurately poll the race with this many legitimate contenders in it.
Democrats see an advantage in this arrangement. Jill Lawrence argues that the large GOP field means "endless coverage of positions that could hurt the eventual nominee," with splits from the polling consensus on a number of issues, especially immigration. Republican strategist Ford O'Connell told The Fiscal Times' Rob Garver last month that the large field would make 2012's "clown car" primary fight pale in comparison. "You have the potential for it to become a circus up on the debate stage," O'Connell predicted. "It's going to be difficult to avoid that."
That concern misses a critical distinction between 2012 and 2016, plus another about the optics of the contrast between the two parties. After the dramatic events in George W. Bush's second term and the economic plans of Barack Obama, the grassroots of the party organized to redefine the conservative agenda. The Tea Party movement succeeded not just in winning Republican control of the House, but also in a tidal wave that transformed state legislatures and the ranks of governors across the country. Despite the loss in the presidential race of 2012, the GOP has moved to its best position at the state level since before the Great Depression.
In 2011-12, though, the movement didn't have the time to produce a viable presidential candidates. The "clown car" dynamic of 2012 was driven primarily by a lack of credible alternatives to the GOP's traditional, recycled, "next in line" candidate, Mitt Romney. The alternatives ranged from '90s throwbacks like Newt Gingrich to long shots more in touch with the grassroots like Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, none of whom could sustain a viable challenge.
This time, the field has a plethora of credible candidates — sitting senators and two-term governors who won election in the post-Bush GOP environment. It's no longer a clown car, but an open market of fresh and viable players who will give the GOP what it has needed since the end of the Bush administration: a legitimate market test for the direction of the party.
Contrast that with the situation in the competing primary. Democrats will have come to the end of eight years of governance under Barack Obama, and face a crossroads of their own. Obama's progressive economic policies have largely produced a stalled economy. Foreign policy has resulted in large setbacks in the Middle East and with Russia. Incompetence erupted at HHS and the Veterans Administration despite high-profile promises of progressive expertise. Democrats are in the same position, ideologically speaking, as Republicans in 2008 — stuck with the agenda of an expired presidency and lacking any clear vision on how to proceed.
A party in this position needs a healthy debate on what works, what doesn't, and what engages both the party and the general electorate. Instead, Democrats appear ready to do what Republicans have done for a generation — go with the runner-up in the last open cycle. Hillary Clinton not only will carry the weight of Obama's failures into the election, especially on foreign policy, but she has all but shut out any other contenders for serious consideration. Clinton spent most of the time since her first failed bid wooing big-ticket political donors on the left, denying resources to the few potentially viable challengers she might have.
That's not illegitimate — in fact, it's good establishment politics — but it's what helped drive the GOP in a ditch in the 2012 cycle. Even more, it underscores a fundamental difference between the two parties. Republicans will have a forum for real grassroots input and buy-in for the eventual direction of the party. Democrats will end up with a top-down mandate for a coronation, unless Clinton stumbles badly again. If she does, it might be too late to recover.
Without a doubt, free and competitive markets can be unwieldy, inconsistent, and difficult at times to fathom, but they are also dynamic, responsive, and usually produce the best outcomes. Republicans may have a few headaches in the months ahead, but they have the best possible environment to inspire a new generation of voters.
IMO it is stupid.
If the Republicans unify early around one candidate, the MSM will say the GOP is “monolithic.”
If the Republicans have a wide-open primary with a wide range of opinions, the GOP will say “it’s a free-for-all.”
As long as we win. But wait, we won the last time and look where it got us?
The interesting thing is that, like most Republicans, I could enthusiastically support almost all the candidates, all but Jeb, Crities and Pataki.
I disagree with all the candidates on some issue. But the agreement is much broader and deeper than with either Romney or McCain. Some are less viable than others. But they are all better than what we had in ‘08 and ‘12.
The article has a very good point. Instead of having one big anointed, entrenched, statist candidate and a few others who can’t find a microphone, our side finally does have a chance to decide what the Republican Party will become.
Will it stand for nothing different but the letter R, a la Jeb? Will we decide a constitutional conservatism will rule the day? Will we choke ourselves by clinging to some single issue? Will we find a way to show low info Americans that following the constitution will help them better, with more freedom to live life their way, than a strings attached government handout?
As long as we win is a BAD attitude. It took me years to come around, but now I see that if we are to have constitutional representation in the White House, we cannot just vote for someone with “our color jersey.” We have to be willing to DIE for liberty — die in this case meaning elect Hillary Clinton, a felony machine with cankles and bulging eyes.
Oh please. Talk about trying to put lipstick on a pig.
This is nothing short of a disaster.
A wide field draws down GOP donor money.
There is just so much people can give in this economy and they won’t have cash left for the general election.
I can’t help but hearing Benny Hill music when I think about the GOP field at this point.
I think the only good thing it does is establish a “bench”. Of course I’ve never been convinced a “bench” matters, so never mind.
The RINO’s want to water down the base. If the GOP rigs the primaries again to force another RINO on us I’m staying home.
And anyone here that says “then you want Hillary to win” to me can kiss my ass and drop dead.
No it’s not!
It merely divides the primary vote at a crucial time in our nation. We need to vet them and come up with one candidate before the primary, or Jeb Bush will win the nomination.
The Cheap Labor Express is paying for all these candidates flooding the field. The more they can scatter the vote the better.
It’s the only way the RNC can achieve its goal of an amnesty candidate.
Interesting perspective put forward in this article. I’m still digesting it.
I think you are correct and it is the GOPe to hopelessly split the vote, but that could backfire on them. I think there are a lot of voters determined not to let them pick the candidate this time around.
Conservative need to unite!
Having too many candidates makes it look like the GOP cannot even manage a reasonable selection process.
Most of them have no chance, expect to enhance their financial futures, by virtue of being “former GOP Presidential candidate.”
That’s the thing, there is no “selection process” here. I could declare myself a Republican candidate tomorrow and so could you.
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.