Posted on 04/20/2011 7:39:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has gained considerable momentum over the past few weeks.
She raised more money than any of her presidential rivals in 2011’s first quarter, her presence at political events regularly swells crowds, and she’s running surprisingly strongly in early 2012 polling, despite relatively low name recognition.
Yet, for all that, leading pundits still dismiss her chances to become the eventual nominee. Their argument is that her appeal is restricted to a limited constituency — the Tea Party faithful and social conservatives — and that while those groups might boost her to a strong showing in Iowa and South Carolina, they’re too limited to carry her to a national nomination.
While that might be true, let’s play a game of What If, since that’s the game Bachmann and her strategists are likely playing during all those visits to early primary states.
What if Bachmann were to develop a message to which mainstream and establishment Republicans responded? Is that possible? Would it make a presidential nomination possible, too?
It depends on whom you ask.
GOP consultant Mike Murphy, who worked for Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2000 campaign, says it’s a moot point and that Bachmann is unable to transition from a Tea Party persona to a more inclusive political mindset.
“Much like Ringo giving up the drums for the concert piano, it would not work. She is what she is, politically. One audience. One appeal.”
Larry Sabato, director for the University of Virginia Center for Politics, takes a similar point of view, suggesting it’s a zero-sum game.
“If you’re going to fire up the Tea Partiers, then almost certainly you are going to alienate the part of the party base that prefers more genteel candidates who can actually win in November.”
That line of thinking suggests that even if Bachmann were to try to branch out, she’d be unsuccessful, because it would render her inauthentic and diminish her appeal with every camp.
Tom Jensen of the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling agrees, though he lays blame not at Bachmann’s feet but at the doorstep of the Tea Party movement that he claims is unable to integrate disparate points of view.
“If she made any sort of overtures toward the center, she would probably lose that niche, and it would scuttle her chances,” he said.
But is Bachmann’s “niche” strong enough to carry her to a win?
Based on his polling, in a best-case scenario Jensen thinks unified Tea Party support for Bachmann could yield her 20-25 percent of the vote in an individual primary. But only a large, fragmented field could turn that 20-25 percent into a winning number.
In that sort of fragmentation, she has a legitimate shot, Sabato concurs, claiming Bachmann could “overwhelm the mainstream candidates.”
And there’s reason to believe those sorts of stars could align for her.
The conventional wisdom is that the GOP establishment will quickly settle on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman or former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
But this cycle’s establishment seems neither unified behind one candidate nor particularly excited about one. Big-name donors who gravitate toward establishment candidates have been wary about choosing a winner, because no one’s easily identified as one.
So imagine, for a second, a scenario where mainstream Republicans are squabbling over their standard-bearer as Tea Party and grassroots conservatives coalesce around their favorite.
In a contest where the Tea Party unites behind a candidate amid mainstream Republican rankling, it’s quite possible that the 20-25 percent Bachmann could score in a primary might be enough to win and send shock waves through the party.
Former George W. Bush strategist and No Labels co-founder Mark McKinnon has confessed to his disagreements with Bachmann before, but says she’s not to be underestimated.
“I think she has huge potential in Iowa and South Carolina. And if you win those two states in the Republican primaries, you are off to the races.”
Further, once she starts winning, McKinnon claims, she can “refine her message to make it more appealing to a wider community.”
“The establishment may scoff now,” he said, “but if Bachmann starts winning, they will crawl over broken glass to kiss her ring.”
That would bring us full circle: Bachmann might not win by bringing the establishment on board, but the establishment could be brought on board very quickly if she starts winning.
-- Heinze, the founder of GOP12.com, is a member of staff at The Hill. Find his column, GOP Presidential Primary, on thehill.com
I think we can consider losing a foregone conclusion if by the time the campaigning starts if that question about our President still exists somebody in Congress is not doing their job and it just happens to be our party in control.
RE: nah...she blew it with the george steph interview...
So, being a birther is ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT for a candidate to the total exclusion of her SOLID RECORD on ISSUE?
This is hardball and mistakes are often fatal. If she were to come back and show ANY knowledge of the nature of the media and the nature of this birth certificate she might resurrect whatever tiny chance she had.
Trump has ONE attractive feature to me and that is he will not be buffaloed or controlled by the media because he knows exactly what it is. Where did I excuse anything he has done. In fact, I have often stated that I can’t really see him running because he could not withstand the scrutiny his past deals will be given. He has had to contribute to scummy RATs in NYC and Chicago in order to do business and I am sure there are underhanded deals with the underworld and its unions in both places as well.
All Michelle had to do was not get ambushed by Georgie Porgie, Sarah would not have. Few of us here who have familiarized ourselves with the BC issues would have shoved that fraudulent paper down the little twirps throat.
The flub about Lexington was pretty bad but this very bad.
She had little to no chance of getting the nomination for many reasons. Which is not to say she would not be infinitely better than Urkel or any other RAT.
So for Bachmann this is a “fatal” mistake; for Trump, years of supporting Leftists has many in this forum cheering “The Donald for President.” And all because he talks about Obama’s Birth Certificate.
Just wow.
I guess fatal mistakes don’t count for wishy-washy elites like Trump. Interesting.
No that isn’t the point. She should only ask that the BC be released. Every question about her belief wrt to qualification should be asked with another question “Why doesn’t he just settle this and release the document?”
It is really simple. So when the simplest of issues are flubbed - hasta la vista.
Bachmann makes an extremely good Congresswoman. She doesn’t have IT to be President, at least not now.
You don’t set yourself up to be a national figure and then make dumb remarks. Especially if you’re a Republican. Especially if you are a Republican woman. And, most especially if you are a pretty Republican woman. (the only kind, of course)
And you sure as hell don’t make comments to turn off a good segment of your base to please a member of the MSM in his gotcha game.
Trump is not the issue here and I am not a big fan of his except for his fearlessness with and ability to handle the Treason Media. He understands that it intends to destroy him over this issue and treats it accordingly.
Michelle apparently does not understand the chronic mendacity of the media THAT is what is fatal.
Trusting Stephanopolos? Come on.
Ms Bachmann thought she had it bad when it was just Matthews and Press riding her. Apparently she has no real idea of the level of hell that will be unleashed on her if her campaign ever really gets traction.
Think that’s bad, I saw some moron earlier ranking Trump up there with Allen West.
RATs can lie to their hearts’ content and the media just acts like it never happened but if a Republican makes the slightest mistake they all become outraged Sherlock Holmes pursuing the truth like the Furies pursued Orestes.
Very true.
That is why I am a huge admired of Sarah. NEVER have I seen the level of hatred leveled against her. Not even Nixon or Reagan had this degree of destructiveness unleashed on them. It is not only incredible but her ability to survive it has the media scared witless.
Flip-floping at this stage of the game does not instill confidence.
Did I see earlier today, someone said Karl Rove is now working with Bachmann.
That in itself, disqualifies her as having poor judgement, if true.
It’s mind boggling anyone in the GOP still has Rove anywhere near their campaign. After watching his mean-spirited hatchet job on Christine O’Donnell, it would seem to this poster than hiring Rove for a campaign is like a struggling swimmer grabbing an anchor.
Can anyone substantiate whether Bachmann actually was that foolish?
Palin once again demonstrated her magnetism and ability to inspire conservatives in Madison. If Palin decides to run the best thing Bachmann can do is stay out of the way.
I’m talking about nominations. The last GOP House member to win a nomination was Garfield in 1880, and even he was a Senator-elect at the time. It’s basically an office for whom whose nominees are either sitting or former Vice-Presidents, Governors or Senators and rarely anything else. Here’s a rundown since 1856:
2008: Senator (D) vs. Senator (R)
2004: President (R) vs. Senator (D)
2000: Governor (R) vs. Vice-President (D)
1996: President (R) vs. Senator (D)
1992: Governor (D) vs. President (R)
1988: Vice-President (R) vs. Governor (D)
1984: President (R) vs. Ex-Vice President (D)
1980: Ex-Governor (R) vs. President (D)
1976: Ex-Governor (R) vs. President (D)
1972: President (R) vs. Senator (D)
1968: Ex-Vice-President (R) vs. Vice-President (D)
1964: President (D) vs. Senator (R)
1960: Senator (D) vs. Vice-President (R)
1956: President (R) vs. Ex-Governor (D)
1952: Ex-General (R) vs. Governor (D)
1948: President (D) vs. Governor (R)
1944: President (D) vs. Governor (R)
1940: President (D) vs. Businessman (R)
1936: President (D) vs. Governor (R)
1932: Governor (D) vs. President (R)
1928: Ex-Cabinet (R) vs. Governor (D)
1924: President (R) vs. Ex-Ambassador/Ex-Congressman (D)
1920: Senator (R) vs. Governor (D)
1916: President (D) vs. U.S. Supreme Court Justice (R)
1912: Governor (D) vs. President (R) vs. ex-President (Prog)
1908: War Secretary (R) vs. ex-Congressman (D)
1904: President (R) vs. State Judge (D)
1900: President (R) vs. ex-Congressman (D)
1896: ex-Governor (R) vs. ex-Congressman (D)
1892: ex-President (D) vs. President (R)
1888: ex-Senator (R) vs. President (D)
1884: Governor (D) vs. ex-Cabinet (R)
1880: Congressman/Senator-elect (R) vs. Ex-General (D)
1876: Governor (R) vs. Governor (D)
1872: President (R) vs. Newspaperman/Ex-Congressman (D/Lib.R)
1868: Ex-General (R) vs. ex-Governor (D)
1864: President (R) vs. ex-General (D)
1860: ex-Congressman (R) vs. Senator (North Dem) vs. Vice-President (South Dem) vs. ex-Senator (Const. Union)
1856: ex-Ambassador (D) vs. ex-Senator (R) vs. ex-President (Know-Nothing)
Art, the sheer magnitude of Michele's failure in the George Stephanopolous interview is too mind blowing for most grounded conservatives and center-right voters to ignore.
It was her "Mondale" moment, and she will not recover from it, no matter how much any of us admires her.
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.