Two Sets of GOP Voters: Rationals and Notionals (non-Romneys aren't stupid or irrational...per se)

There is a way to think about the up-and-down GOP nomination fight that at least partially explains its volatility and the seemingly endless array of short-lived challengers to front-runner Mitt Romney as well as Romney's surprisingly resilience against any and all challengers.

Rational voters have been with Romney from the beginning and remain with him now. For them, he has always looked and acted the most presidential, carried the relevant business experience into the race and appeared to be the best positioned to challenge President Obama in the swing states and, possibly, have coattails long enough to carry the GOP to a majority in the U.S. Senate while protecting its current majority in the U.S. House. Whether all of this is true or not is beside the point. For the rationals, Romney looks most capable of all the GOP candidates to check these boxes and fill these party needs. Romney is by no means perfect in the eyes of the rationals, but he's more acceptable than anyone else and, as such, his support has been the most solid.

Notional voters have never been with Romney. They have a notion there's someone better out there. Someone who is more conservative, who is a better debater, who is more of a culture warrior, who has better ideas, who has a better record on job creation, who is more inspiring or more dedicated to tea party princples or who has more guts and business guile. Notional voters have had a long-running romance with the "notion" that there's some GOP candidate who is intrinsically better than Romney and ought to win their support. It's been a busy year for the notionals. Their affections have run pell mell in so many directions. There have been infatuations with Donald Trump (guts and guile), Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (tea party tinsel strength), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (better job record), Herman Cain (better ideas, aka 9-9-9), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (better debater), and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (culture warrior).

First, it's important to say that in descriptions of "rational" voters and "notional" voters, no one is saying one group is more or less rational than another. The distinction is not one of intellect or necessarily even temperament. A Romney voter is no more or less intelligent, sophisticated or strategic in their voting behavior than, say, a voter who once backed Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain or any of the other GOP rivals still battling Romney for the nomination (Gingrich, Santorum and Texas Rep. Ron Paul).

A quick word about Paul. His voters fall into neither category because Paul's campaign is about a conversation largely outside the current confines of the GOP. It is, as Paul likes to say, a movement that seeks a less aggressive foreign policy, the gold standard and a rapid end to deficit-financed government. Paul's voters do not fit into the rational or notional categories. They are Paul's true believers and act accordingly. They've never been lured into Romney's camp or infatuated, as the notional have been, with any of the various Romney alternatives.

Interviews with nearly a dozen GOP operatives reinforce this general division among GOP voters and their voting patterns throughout the primary and caucus process.

The crucial test from Romney on Super Tuesday is can he do something he's shown little ability to do so far -- move notionals entranced with the idea of a non-Romney dream candidate away from that notion and into his camp. Can he move those with a notion of a better, non-Romney candidate into his ranks of rational Romney backers?

If Romney does, he may win Ohio and could score a surprising victory in Tennessee.

Throughout this process, Romney voters have, even with some reservations, told pollsters they like their choice, believe him to be the best candidate and see him as the best available opponent to Obama. On this, the exit poll data is clear:

In New Hampshire, 33 percent said the most important candidate quality was the ability to defeat Obama and of those voters, 60 percent backed Romney. In Florida, 53 percent of all primary voters said Romney was the most like to beat Obama and more than three-quarters of Romney voters (76 percent) believed that was true.

Among Florida Republicans, 65 percent said they would be satisfied if Romney won. In Arizona, 57 percent of all GOP voters and 78 percent of Romney voters said he was most likely to beat Obama and 59 percent of Romney voters said they "strongly favor" him. It's true that 45 percent of Romney voters inArizona said they "have reservations" but that reinforces the sense that, even with doubts, Romney voters there saw him as the rational choice (no other GOP candidate had above 23 percent "strongly favor").

In Michigan, 53 percent of Romney voters said they "strongly favor" him (37 percent said they had reservations). Only 39 percent of Michigan voters said they "strongly favor" Santorum and 41 percent said they had reservations. Even in South Carolina, where Romney lost to Gingrich in a landslide, 37 percent thought he could beat Obama (to 51 percent for Gingrich) and, among Gingrich voters, 40 percent said they would "enthusiastically support" Romney if he became the nominee and 45 percent said they would back him with reservations.

The notional voters, however, have treated the non-Romney sweepstakes almost like a book-of-the-month club rotation of candidates. Many have risen and fallen, while Romney has plodded along with his hearty band of rationals. At some point, Romney will have to prove, as he began to do in Michigan, that the number of rational voters will out-number the notional voters. Romney's victory in Michigan, while significant, was partially discounted by his home-state roots.

Tonight's 10-state primary and caucus process could begin to give Romney what he's most needed and most conspicuously lacked during this nomination fight - a voting pattern among Republicans that says he's the rational choice and the notion of a perfect non-Romney alternative doesn't is a waste of time and waste of political energy. The battle between rational and notionals is not new. Some Republicans say it has existed for at least a generation.

"Since 1964, there has been a strain of Republicanism subject to the notion that we'll win only if present a 'clear' vision of a conservative alternative," said Vin Weber, a former member of Congress and early conservative ally of Jack Kemp and Gingrich who is now an informal adviser to Romney.

Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater won the GOP nomination in 1964 when grassroots conservatives toppled the establishment power structure long-dominated by eastern and midwestern moderate Republicans. Goldwater lost to President Lyndon Johnson in a landslide, but the concept of a pure and principled conservative alternative to Democrats and liberalism, Weber said, has persisted ever since.

"Every two to four years, some conservatives and occasionally most conservatives argue that a clearer conservative message would win," Weber said. "In 1980, they believed their world view was validated by Ronald Reagan's victory )(over President Jimmy Carter). We do need a clear differentiation from liberals. But at times, such as now, that isn't the whole equation. You also need a good candidate, a solid campaign and a rationale for independents and moderates to support you."

GOP pollster Whit Ayers compares the roving eye of the GOP notional voters to a dating game.

"You've got Romney sitting there and the father says to his daughter, 'Hey, he's good looking, has a great job, will be a good father and a great provider,'" Ayers said. "And his daughter says, 'But dad, I don't love him.' And the father says, 'You'll learn to love him.' And the daughter says, 'But i don't want to learn to love him.' Meanwhile, Gingrich pulls up outside on Harley Davidson motorcycle and says 'Wanna go for a ride?' And then Santorum walks over front he seminary wearing a sweater vest and says 'You wanna go for a walk?'"

Ayers said the notional GOP voters remain torn over this choice. The rational ones have already made it.

If Romney can win Ohio and Tennessee, Ayers said, he can prove that the ranks of notional voters can and has been thinned and that Romney, over time has proven skeptical GOP voters can support him - even if they may not love him.

Ayers compares this current phenomenon with two previous GOP nominees, former Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992 and Richard Nixon in 1968.

"Neither were loved," Ayers said. "Bush was admired and most Republicans and conservatives thought he was a good man, but they didn't love him like Reagan. And Nixon? I don't think anyone loved him."

Bush and Nixon knitted the party together, exhausted their rivals and won the presidency.

Ayers said if Romney wins big tonight, he can credibly speak of taking "effective control" of the nomination. But if he loses Ohio and Tennessee, he'll still be dogged by the rational versus notional divide and that will slow him down the rest of the month as the primary parade moves next to Alabama and Mississippi, states where this schism will likely deal Romney two more defeats and the notion of non-Romney perfection will continue to dance in the minds of hard-core conservatives.

Kevin Madden, a Romney adviser, said tonight's vote in Ohio could be the best test yet of Romney's ability to woo notionals into his rational camp. Madden worked Ohio for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in 2004 and sees voting patterns there as ripe for Romney's message of delectability and steadiness.

"Ohio voters and Ohio Republicans take this very seriously," Madden said. "Ohio is the mother of all swing states and Republican voters want to look at the winner of their primary as someone who can win the general election."

If that's true, then Ohio could be the acid test of Romney's unrelenting appeal to the rational instincts of GOP voters. But if he fails, the notion of a Romney alternative will persist and he will be dogged again by the sense that every wave of momentum is short-lived and that the notion of the non-Romney remains at least as powerful in the minds of GOP voters as the rationality of ending the nomination battler sooner rather later.

Funny thing... every time this comes up, republican activists always say that it was the Conservative's fault that “X” lost election to “Y” because they stayed home. Ronald Reagan went into detail on this situation in his 1975 CPAC speech... and he NEVER blamed the Conservatives for shunning the progressive republican party in the previous election... he blamed the progressive republican leadership that screwed over conservatives.

“Let Them Go Their Way
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC

March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

snip

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”

LLS

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.