Posted on 12/31/2007 12:05:51 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
With five Republican and three Democratic presidential hopefuls in double digits in the national polls of their respective parties and with dozens of issues ranging from gay marriage to the war in Iraq, the decisions that voters will be asked to make in the next several weeks might appear quite complicated. But it shouldn’t be. Voters should take only one consideration into account in deciding who to support in their party’s upcoming caucus or primary. That consideration is which of the party’s set of possible candidates is most electable next November.
Electability.
Electability is always a consideration in a nomination contest, but it ought to knock out any other consideration this year. There are three reasons why electability should trump everything else. First, the parties are quite polarized. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be far to more liberal than whoever the Republicans nominate. Big fights over who is the slightly more conservative Republican or the slightly more liberal Democrat look like splitting hairs from the broader perspective of the differences between the parties. Though cynics and extremists like to think of the parties as the Republicrats, the ideological differences between the parties have grown in the last couple of decades and ideological differences within each party have declined.
The second reason that electability ought to rule decisions this year is that the parties are quite competitively balanced. The 2000 and 2004 elections were quite close, party identifications of voters have been quite evenly divided in recent years, and divisions in the House and Senate are quite close as well. Neither party has a lock on the White House. Each needs every edge it can get.
The third reason is that uncertainty is especially great in an open seat election. While Democrats appear to have an edge at this point, they don’t know how strong a race the Republican candidate is likely to run next fall and Republicans have less of an idea than usual about the strength of their likely Democratic opponent. While either party might win the election without running its most electable candidate, taking less than their best shot is running a huge risk.
Two things should be made clear about electability. First, it does not mean that each party should necessarily nominate its most centrist candidate. To win the election, a candidate needs both to build enthusiasm and turnout from his or her base AND reach out to the centrist swing voters. You can’t win without doing both better than the other party’s candidate. Second, preference polls with head-to-head match-ups of the candidates in the two parties do not mean anything at this point in the election year. Even by June, when both nominations have been sewn-up, the frontrunner in the polls is about as likely to lose as win the November election.
If electability should be the key to each primary or caucus vote, who should each party’s voters support? Let’s size up the Republicans here and hold off on the Democrats until the next blog entry.
Who the Republicans Should Nominate.
First, I cannot imagine Mitt Romney being anything but a disaster for the Republicans. The debate with Ted Kennedy video alone in which Romney took outright liberal positions on a number of social issues would smother support in the base and paint him as untrustworthy for centrists. Any Republican wanting to win in November should jump off the Romney ship now.
That leaves four. Rudy Giuliani has a number of strengths, but will have problems with the base on social issues and these are only reinforced by having too many ex-wives hanging around. In family values, the values are plural, but family is singular. He also is very unlikely to even carry his home state of New York.
That leaves three. Mike Huckabee has developed a good deal of momentum in recent weeks. He is conservative on social issues and has a very pleasant communication style. He exudes optimism. On the down-side, he is too closely tied to the Christian Right to effectively reach out to centrists. He has made several intemperate statements, regarding the role of women and also about the Bush administration’s foreign policy, that will haunt a general election campaign. He has even had a run in with Rush Limbaugh. In short, there are a number of signs that he is not a “big tent” conservative.
And then there were two—John McCain and Fred Thompson. McCain certainly has an appeal to centrists and a good deal of respect among Republicans. The record suggests, however, that the Republican base does not trust McCain. Where he has done well in the past is largely in primaries that have allowed non-Republicans to participate. His stands on illegal immigration and on the so-called “nuclear option” on Senate voting on judicial appointments have done nothing to mend these fences.
This leaves Fred Thompson as the Republican presidential candidate who may be most electable. He entered the race late and is fifth in the national polls, but my sense is that he would be more acceptable to the base than either Giuliani or McCain and better among centrist swing voters than Huckabee. He also has a more consistently conservative record than Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani and is far more acceptable to conservatives on the immigration issue than McCain. Though some have written Thompson off at this point, if he can hold on and the field thins a bit, Republicans should give him a second look and move in his direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Campbell is a professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. He is a former Congressional Fellow, a former program director at the National Science Foundation, and the president-elect of Pi Sigma Alpha, the national political science honor society. He has published four books, fifteen book chapters, and nearly fifty articles in scholarly journals. His books include The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections, Cheap Seats: The Democratic Party's Advantage in U.S. House Elections, and Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. His most recent book is the second edition of The American Campaign, to be published in January 2008 by Texas A&M University Press.
Executive experience. Mitt has the edge over Fred on that. Running any big enterprise: profit, non-profit, government. Romney has done it all. And with extreme success. Mitt is the one, in my opinion, with the best such experience on the Republican side.
I don't think we can discount such experience...that doesn't make Mitt my choice automatically, but it counts for a lot.
“Executive experience. Mitt has the edge over Fred on that. Running any big enterprise: profit, non-profit, government. Romney has done it all.”
So has George Soros. You gonna vote for him?
I’ll take foreign policy experience over executive experience any day.
Romney has not flopped, he flipped on every issue that is important to the Republican base. I will need you standing with me as we keep him honest and on track for the next eight years. We have had to take GWB to the woodshed more than once. Kerry had more problems than vacillation. He was just not where Americans are on too many issues.
I can’t remember which President it was - I think Eisenhower - who came to the Presidency with all kinds of “executive” experience and complained publically how totally inappropriate the experience it turned out to be.
It seems that contrary to popular belief, the Presidency is nothing like a company management or evena military command and control structure.
Other than the White House staff, the President doesn’t get to boss folks around, and the public’s penchant for wanting to see folks with that kind of experience in the White House mystifies me. That kind of experience ought to be a real good qualification for Postmaster General.
For President, I want someone with Leadership qualities.
Fred would be a very fine Republican candidate. I’m planning to vote for him in the primaries.
“No, Fred cannot win without the Christians, and I doubt he will be able to forge a relationship with them.”
I agree with the first part and disagree with the second part. Two questions: 1) What does it mean to “have a relationship with Christians”? and 2) Why can’t Fred forge one?
I suppose you mean some kind of endorsement or support from the Christian base of the Republican party. Fred already has the support of the Right to Life group and that enough should be sufficient. The support of Christian leaders is not very important—American Christians are very independent, both Protestant and Catholic, and really don’t pay attention to recommendations from religious leaders.
“If you just dismiss “electability” and go with whatever yo-yo you happen to ‘feel’ good about, you are going to end up with Hillary
“What will win is that which conforms to Conservative principles. Without support from the entire Conservative base, there is no success in the general. The guy with the best Conservative credentials, and the record to prove it, is the candidate of consensus and is the best chance of a win in the general.”
And this is Fred.
Whom do you recommend?
“Executive experience. Mitt has the edge over Fred on that. Running any big enterprise: profit, non-profit, government. Romney has done it all. And with extreme success. Mitt is the one, in my opinion, with the best such experience on the Republican side.
“I don’t think we can discount such experience...that doesn’t make Mitt my choice automatically, but it counts for a lot.”
Correct. This is my major beef with Fred—he’s not a former governor, which is the best preparation for the Presidency.
However, character trumps experience, IMO. I don’t trust Mitt’s character, because he seems to have adopted liberal positions to get elected governor in MA.
Even with that doubt, he’s by far better than any Demo. He’s just not as good as Fred in the consistency department. I don’t feel I can trust him.
But I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee.
I strongly disagree with this statement. While Thompson may not be an evangelical Christian himself, he isn't objectionable to any evangelical that I know.
Of all the Republican candidates, Thompson is probably the only one who doesn't offend any major group in the coalition. Every other candidate offends at least one major group. Fred is the best hope of keeping our base together for the general election.
The Christians look for certain things in a candidate and expect him to back their issues.
2) Why can’t Fred forge one?
I think he has made himself unpalatable to them. He was going in with one strike anyway, in the form of a divorce. While not a deal breaker in itself, it is certainly frowned upon.
He was also pro-choice early in his career. Again, not a deal breaker because his position changed, and his record makes up for earlier statements, but also likely to leave a bad taste.
But upon entering the race Fred dissed the Value Voters, got into a brawl with Dobson (not his fault, but he could have handled it better), came out against the marriage amendment and abortion amendment, and declared he didn't go to church much.
These things are probably unpardonable, moving him far from their grace.
Fred already has the support of the Right to Life group and that enough should be sufficient.
No. Abortion is "the big one", but there are many other issues as well. He has nullified any endorsement WRT Right to Life by coming out against a Right to Life amendment.
*note*: To be clear, I understand his reasoning, and probably agree, because moving the murder of children into the federal jurisdiction necessarily moves all murder into the federal jurisdiction. For that reason, I must regrettably concur.
Those intricacies, however, will be lost in the cacophony. He would have done better to come out for the amendment and move the Christians in his direction after he had the bully pulpit, their attention as the leader, and the time to fully vet his position.
I do disagree with Fred regarding the marriage amendment, however.
And this is Fred.
No, It is Hunter.
Huckabee's rise began while Fred was quite viable. The Christians chose to raise up Huckabee instead of boosting the more visible Thompson. With Huck loosing ground, very little of that support has moved to Fred. Why do you suppose that is the case?
Of all the Republican candidates, Thompson is probably the only one who doesn't offend any major group in the coalition.
Not true. Eve Fred has said (through his manager) that he needs to shore up his support in the Christian Right. He knows that is the problem.
Every other candidate offends at least one major group. Fred is the best hope of keeping our base together for the general election.
No, Hunter is the consensus candidate. If not Hunter, the Christians will stay with Huck, turn to McCain or become diffused between several candidates.
See my #51
Then put your money where your mouth is and buy Fred’s Iowa contracts, they’re cheap. If you’re right, you could make a bunch of money.
As to your point ensampled by Eisenhower's comments: I understand the structure of our government doesn't permit the Prez to be the "boss" of everyone. :)
I agree nothing can totally prepare one for the massive job of being President, but the executive experience one gets by heading up a government, corporation or large charity is invaluable. Certainly that kind of experience is better than being a creature of the legislative process...which is why we rarely elect nominees from that branch anymore.
So, you'll concede Mitt has more executive experience than Fred? ;-)
No. And anyone who reads my posts in context knows I wouldn’t.
I’ll vote for common sense and conservative judgment with a proved record. Fred Thompson!
I partially agree and partially disagree with you. Let’s discuss Fred, Hunter and the Christian value voters further, since I think they will be the “king makers” in this primary.
Me: 2) Why can’t Fred forge one?
“I think he has made himself unpalatable to them. He was going in with one strike anyway, in the form of a divorce. While not a deal breaker in itself, it is certainly frowned upon. “
I think the majority of Christians, both primary voters and general election, don’t know this nor care. It’ll certainly come out if Fred is the Pubbie candidate.
“He was also pro-choice early in his career. Again, not a deal breaker because his position changed, and his record makes up for earlier statements, but also likely to leave a bad taste. “
I didn’t know this and I’m a news junkie. I assume he changed over twenty years ago, so this is not a factor.
“But upon entering the race Fred dissed the Value Voters, “
What specifically did he say? I’m surprised the news media isn’t trumpeting it. Again, I am not aware of a statement from him like this. Certainly McCain did so in 2000, and he is DOA in this election because of it.
“got into a brawl with Dobson (not his fault, but he could have handled it better), “
Agreed. Dobson has some weight with his specific devotees, but that isn’t all Christian voters, nor do his followers necessarily pay attention to Dobson’s political comments.
“came out against the marriage amendment and abortion amendment, “
Federalism, with which I agree, although certainly both amendments are justified. 1) marriage amendment because the MA Supreme Court unilaterally changed the meaning of marriage to include homosexuals. This puts all the other states’ marriage laws in jeopardy. The only legal solution to this is a constitution amendment, or MA legislators to overturn this ruling.
“and declared he didn’t go to church much. “
Just a factual statement. I’m glad he’s not pandering for votes. This bothered me, until I remembered Lincoln didn’t go to church much either. After he was President, he became a fervent Christian.
“These things are probably unpardonable, moving him far from their grace. “
Nah. The majority of Christians are unaware of any of these things, even the majority of primary voters.
Me: Fred already has the support of the Right to Life group and that enough should be sufficient.
“No. Abortion is “the big one”, but there are many other issues as well. He has nullified any endorsement WRT Right to Life by coming out against a Right to Life amendment. “
This is a return to the status quo before Roe v. Wade. He did not oppose a right to life amendment, merely pointed out it isn’t likely, and he’d prefer to pursue overturning Roe v. Wade.
While I support a right to life amendment, I think we missed our chance—in the late 70’s we were distracted by the ERA amendment, when we should have pursued the right to life amendment. Now I think there isn’t enough support for it.
“*note*: To be clear, I understand his reasoning, and probably agree, because moving the murder of children into the federal jurisdiction necessarily moves all murder into the federal jurisdiction. For that reason, I must regrettably concur. “
Actually, it merely state unborn children have a right to life and are human beings. The murder prosecution should be left to the states. Or at least, that’s what I think it should say. If it’s worded as a “crime amendment” or could be interpreted that way, then I have to agree with you.
“Those intricacies, however, will be lost in the cacophony. He would have done better to come out for the amendment and move the Christians in his direction after he had the bully pulpit, their attention as the leader, and the time to fully vet his position. “
Yes, as a political judgment, for the Republican nomination, I agree with you. But the impression I got was that Fred felt the amendment was not realistic and he would not support something impractical.
“I do disagree with Fred regarding the marriage amendment, however. “
I haven’t heard any statement from Fred on that.
Regarding Hunter, I agree he is nearly ideal on the issues. But he must get votes in the primary. He must get contributions to advertise. And he must sell himself to the the Republicans first, and then the general electorate. Without these things, he cannot be elected.
Also against Duncan and Fred is that they are legislators not governors. I feel executive experience is important. But it is less important than the right stance on the issues.
Duncan is the best on issues—but IMO Fred is “good enough”. I think you overestimate his negatives with Christians. The proof will be Iowa. If he can get at least 20% there (3rd place, or better), that’ll show he has sold himself to them. Once Huckabee’s liberal positions and international inexperience is fully exposed, Fred will be the best man left standing—unless they go to Duncan.
We’ll know January 4th.
Then why did you ask?
Thats why the Exec experience doesn’t really mean poop as far as who who would make a good POTUS.
Balderdash. The collective judgement of the American people says otherwise. They have elected, repeatedly, men with such experience. The ranks of the legislature have rarely been tapped for direct ascension to the highest office in the land.
“Then why did you ask?”
Just to show how silly it was to use that as a yardstick.
Jimmy Carter had as much Exec experience as Romney.
I’ll pass on voting based on that.
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.