Posted on 02/19/2015 1:47:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
No Republican presidential hopeful since George W. Bush in 2000 has generated widespread support across the party's class and cultural divides. The next GOP nominee may be the candidate who most closely matches his success.
The Republican presidential primary electorate now divides about evenly between two factions. The GOP's "managerial" wing consists of voters who are generally more affluent, better educated, more secular, and somewhat less ideological. The party's "populist" wing draws on the overlapping circles of evangelical Christians, blue-collar voters, and the most committed conservative believers.
As a Harvard MBA who memorably identified "Jesus" as his favorite philosopher, Bush largely transcended those divides. In the decisive 2000 primaries, Bush consistently beat John McCain, his principal rival, among both college and non-college voters. Bush dominated among voters who identified as religious conservatives and essentially matched McCain with those who did not.
By contrast, the nominees in 2008 and 2012, McCain and Mitt Romney, relied predominantly on managers to compensate for substantial resistance from the populists. Both men made major primary-season concessions to conservative activists (particularly on immigration) that damaged their general election appeal. Yet both still struggled among hard-core conservatives. Ultimately, McCain and Romney each followed a winning formula of 50/30: both attracted almost exactly 50 percent of non-evangelical voters and around 30 percent of evangelicals in Republican primaries, according to a cumulative analysis of exit polls by ABC News' Gary Langer.
One reason McCain and Romney overcame their limitations is they faced rivals with even narrower appeal. Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012 emerged as the principal alternative to the front-runner through the same route: winning the Iowa caucus by consolidating support from evangelical Christians (who cast most votes there each time.) But neither could advance enough beyond that beachhead. Through all the primaries, Santorum cumulatively won fewer than one-in-five non-evangelicals, and Huckabee only one-in-ten, Langer found. "They allowed themselves to be labeled as 'the candidate of the social conservatives,'" says Jamie Johnson, an Iowa GOP central committee member who served as Santorum's state coalitions director. So while McCain and Romney did not display as much breadth as Bush in 2000, they won partly by showing better balance than their rivals.
Can any of the 2016 candidates truly span the party—especially without taking positions that hurt their general election prospects? Although Chris Christie also could compete, Jeb Bush seems most likely to fill the McCain/Romney "managerial" slot. NBC/Marist polls released this week showed Bush already leading or tied with moderates in Iowa and South Carolina and running a close second (to Christie) among them in New Hampshire. Bush's strong social conservative record as Florida governor should open doors with evangelical Christians. But his support for immigration reform and especially the Common Core educational standards antagonizes many of their leaders. While the NBC/Marist surveys did not find lockstep rank-and-file evangelical opposition to common core or immigration reform, that resistance could harden in a campaign. Replicating the 50/30 formula that worked for McCain and Romney might be this Bush's best chance.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has an eclectic appeal that could transcend some divides. But he faces a different barrier. With his "libertarian-ish" agenda and informal manner, Paul should run well with younger Republicans. His problem is that voters over 50 cast more than 60 percent of the 2012 primary votes. And many older Republicans may view Paul more as a provocative college professor than a potential commander-in-chief. In each of the NBC/Marist polls, Paul ran at least twice as well among Republicans under 45 than those who are older.
Huckabee, Santorum, surgeon Ben Carson, and Sen. Ted Cruz will duel for evangelical support in Iowa. Johnson thinks Cruz could assemble a broad coalition of conservatives, but other analysts are skeptical he (or the other three) can grow much past the party's ideological vanguard.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio might appeal widely but is struggling in Bush's shadow. That leaves Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker as the contender with potentially the broadest audience. The son of a Baptist minister who has dueled with public employee unions as governor, Walker "has an ability to bridge a couple of the lanes," says Scott Reed, Bob Dole's 1996 campaign manager. In all three NBC/Marist polls, Walker's support was virtually equal among evangelical and non-evangelical Republicans. Well positioned for breadth, his challenge will be depth—pulling deeply enough from either managers or populists to actually win the key contests. "When you are drawing from multiple camps … you have to be strong enough that it's not a formula for second place," says former Iowa GOP chairman Brian Kennedy.
Historically, Iowa favors populists and New Hampshire prefers managers. If a manager like Bush wins Iowa because conservatives splinter, he would become very hard to beat. Alternately, if Iowa again elevates a populist winner who struggles to expand beyond evangelicals (such as Cruz), it would benefit the managers' favorite. But if Iowa gives its boost to Walker, his potential to cross the party's central divides could make him much more formidable than the past two caucus winners.
How’s this for “unifying”:
Big government GOPe types? Back of the bus. Shut up and sit down.
But from what I see, the populists (conservatives), while receiving lip service early in campaigns, are the only ones ever asked to compromise when it counts these.
I'm sick and tired of it and will not abide anymore.
The vast majority of the rank and file of the Republican party are *already* unified. It is the leadership that are in dissent, trying to force their ideas on everyone else.
The rank and file want to fight the Democrats and everything they stand for. The leadership are comfortable with what the Democrats want, and do not want to “rock the boat” of a bloated, inefficient, failure of the federal government spending our nation into poverty for *nothing*.
The candidate that can unite the Republican party is Hillary Clinton.
The GOPe denial is just stunning.
Not to be trusted the way they reversed themselves in the mid-term’s ....
In the Senate race we were told to get in line and vote for their amnesty candidate. He lost. It's not working anymore.
Conservatives are waking up to the fact that the GOP is working against them and are no longer supporting just any R.
Regrettably, for the Republic to survive, the GOP must die.
Not going to work this time, just like it didn’t work against Obama.
Just being “not the democrat” doesn’t win.
Go with Cruz, and you won’t lose.
Being Hillary Clinton is many steps beyond just being a Democrat. Or should be to anyone who knows more than a little about who/what she really is.
That divide was peripheral or irrelevant in most of the political debates I've ever heard or read.
Comments?
They won’t. The GOPe loving FReepers have been quiet lately but they’ll be back pushing Jeb or Christie or Rubio with their “only one’s that can win” and “if you don’t vote for them you want Hillary to win” memes.
This time around I hope Jim bans them.
I think there is a lot of truth to that. Most people I talk to are Tea Party even if they don’t know it or deny it because the label has been tainted by The Ministry of Propaganda.
They want spending to be reduced.
They want the debt managed responsibly, which means reducing that as well.
They want the borders secured and the laws enforced.
The GOP/RNC don’t want any of that and have done whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.
I forget which Communist Goal from 1963 it was but one of them was capture one or both political parties. I think they’ve done it.
Middle America has NO representation.
She’s an Alinskite like the current _resident.
How did trying to scare people into voting for candidates they disliked work out?
There is no comparison between the unknown charismatic 0bama and the shopworn unlikeable Hillary.
I still won’t vote for Jebster
Well hello, Newbie. Welcome, I think.
Thank you, I think.
Conservative, not necessarily Republican.
I vote for them when they deserve it. Helped throw Eric Cantor out and elect Dave Brat. Would like to see Ted Cruz elected President.
Will not vote for any amnesty candidate no matter how much castigation and beration is dished out.
I have always thought that was a very ineffective way to win elections.
I’m prepared for the attempts at threats and intimidation because Jebbie will be the nominee and I will not vote for him even against Hildabeest.
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.