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
Exactly. Any presidential candidate worth their salt would give that answer without even pausing for breath.
It's completely guileless, and puts the onus back on Obama where it belongs.
It was her “Mondale” moment, and she will not recover from it, no matter how much any of us admires her.
_______________________________________________________
But Trump can give money to hard-core Leftists like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and others, an he gets: “Trump for President!!”
Wow...I must be living in a parallel universe.
We definitely deserve what we get.
The very fact that Michele Bachmann was naive enough to walk into Stephy's ambush tells me that she has been utterly oblivious to what the media's been up to over the last few years.
How could she have not seen the unprecedented media onslaught against Sarah, and not put two and two together? Surely, she didn't think that they'd spare her, did she?
I'm sorry, but she's proven herself to be too dim about some of the most critical undercurrents in American politics, for my taste. She's made me drop my jaw one too many times.
DITTO
Trump hater alert
Not from me, he doesn't.
Trump may not have a record as a politician, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a political record.
He's got one, alright, and it doesn't pass the smell test.
Trump hater alert
__________________
Not at all. I’m delighted that he’s throwing Barry’s BC issue in his face.
I’m just questioning the latitude we’re giving him considering his Left-leaning past, while at the same time throwing Michelle Bachmann to the wolves...that’s all.
I understand the desire many of us have to ralley behind a leader...really I do. But this unquestioning acceptance of the Donald is very unsettling to me.
I just don’t understand how many on this forum are completely ignoring this guys past and yelling “Trump for President” but have written off Bachmann after saying one thing they didn’t agree with.
So we’re reaching out to a man who has a history of supporting leftists, while disowning a lady who has worked tirelessly for our cause. It just isn’t right.
Bachmann has flip flopped on this issue twice. The other day within a few minutes. On Fox she was supporting Trump looking into Obama BC issue and a few minutes later she accepts the COLB as proof and says it is settled. WHICH IS IT MICHELE? She was crafting her answer to fit the network she was on and their listeners.
If she would have just stayed away from the issue, I could understand that. To have polar opposite positions in the matter of a few minutes is inexcusable. Sorry.
I hear what you’re saying.
Right NOW Trump is saying the right things. That may change.
In any case, I will gladly vote for and donate money to whoever the major candidate is that is running against Obama.
ANYONE! ABO.
After her comment about the BC today, Michelle Bachman is over.
Agreed. If she did not know how to fight thru little steffy’s crap, how in the hell is she gonna do when things are really hot? I was 100% for her, (great interview in Rush’s 24/7 newsletter on MB a few months back btw), before this. I still support her but she has got to fire back from this mistake hard.
I don't know how much time you spend reading at FR every day, but I spend nearly all of my internet time on this website.
I can tell you that support for Trump among the conservative base is falling like a stone, as more and more revelations about his political past come out.
Take close note of the Yeas vs Nays on FR, and I think you'll see that the Trump for President crowd is already in the minority here.
As far as Bachmann is concerned, I think she's a fine congresswoman, and that she's done a great job standing up for true American ideals. Unfortunately, she over-reached with her bid for the Republican nomination. She really needs to stay in the House, and continue doing what she's good at.
If Palin doesn’t run, and with the currrent crop of other wannabe’s, I would certainly consider her.
You mixed up the parties in 96 and 76.
Should be an Ex-Justice for CEH in 1916. And he was a Governor too.
Doesn’t bode well for Bachmanm or especially for Donald Chump and for Businessman/Failed Senate Candidate Herman Cain whom I’m starting to like by process of elimination. Cain’s not that different from Lincoln who only had one house term (and a stint in the state house).
Few out of left field nominations (Alton Parker, Wilkie, rats cross-endorsing the strange Mr. Greeley in 1872 has got to be the oddest thing)
We got potentially
Ex-Governors Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Huntsman (had to resist being creative with his name), Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer (still can’t believe that) and Barbour (still in now but will be out of office by then)
Current Governor Mitch Daniels
Ex-Senator Santorum
Current Rep Bachmann, Ron Paul (or his son Senator Rand)
Ex-Rep Gingrich
Ex-Ambassador Bolton
Businessmen Cain and Chump.
We need someone to have a chance who
A)Won’t RINO it up in office at least not as bad as Bush
B)Can win the general election
Last time Freeperdom was squarely behind Fred Thompson (who was the best choice imo) followed by 1%er Duncan Hunter. We all know how that went.
My fantasy is have several highly electable solid small government conservatives running and no RINOs. As opposed to sifting through garbage like in ‘08 and maybe ‘12. (my other fantasy is to win the lottery)
Trump’s hopefully temporary appeal illustrates the vast hunger for a fresh face as opposed to to the current “frontrunners”. Can Cain take advantage of that? Bolton?
Or in the end will it boil down to Palin or Bachmann versus the unacceptable Romney?
If that’s all you’re voting on, we’ve already lost anyway.
Whoops, you’re right. I’m feeling a bit ill today, so that accounts for my copy and paste errors. Horace Greeley was probably the single oddest nominee of the bunch. He had been a Conscience Whig Congressman 25 years earlier having served for just three months, tried on a few other occasions for office. He tried to run as a Republican for Congress just two years earlier in 1870. His behavior had been quite erratic in that period (personally, I think he may have been ill) jumping from one extreme to another. His candidacy was an epic disaster and he only won 6 states (3 by unimpressive narrow margins, TN & KY and MD). The Democrats essentially annointed what were simply anti-Grant Republicans in rubber-stamping the Liberal Republican Party rump. As it was, Greeley and his wife didn’t survive the stress of the campaign (she herself was something else, a possibly even more deranged version of Jane Pierce, helped in no small part by her husband, all very sad). Horace himself went over the edge and died just a few weeks after he lost the election. The Dem/Lib R’s probably would’ve done better nominating someone like Charles Francis Adams (who placed 2nd) and kept B. Gratz Brown of MO as the VP nominee.
As for our current cast of characters, I’m just waiting to see how it all pans out. I haven’t jumped on the Trump bandwagon, nor am I criticizing him as of yet. If he wants to take on the mantle of doing the lifting our party refuses to do in aggressively demanding the Emperor show his documents (and not just the birth records, either — I want to see everything he’s kept hidden, which is considerable — keep in mind Kerry never let us see his military records, which was also very telling), let him do it. Trump may be a modern-day counterpart to Wendell Willkie.
As for Bachmann, I don’t take her candidacy seriously. She needs more seasoning from an executive experience standpoint. Too many rookie errors. She’s a fine lady, though, but she’s not ready, and the House is no place to run for President from (ditto for Pence, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter). The only person I could support in the House right now for President is Col. West, and that only because he has the military leadership and that “it” factor that you see in very rare instances in people, and especially all too rare in our elected officials. He’d quite probably be the most intelligent individual to hold the office of President of anyone in the past century, if not longer.
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.