Political Animal
Blog
Sometimes a perfectly valid observation about a political phenomenon will be repeated so often and then internalized that people forget exactly how true, and how significant, it actually is. That may be the case with the “unusually volatile race” label for the 2012 GOP presidential contest.
National Journal’s Alex Roarty supplies some historical context:
I wrote in October, when Cain’s campaign was at its peak and before Gingrich’s and Santorum’s rise, how the contest had already seen the most upheaval since 1964. That year, four different people - Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge and Barry Goldwater — were leading the race in at least one poll. A fifth man, William Scranton, surged to within a point of the lead two weeks before the party’s convention.
But now, after the volatility of the last four months, even the ‘64 race seems tame in comparison. The fact of seven front-runners doesn’t quite capture all of the movement in the polls: It doesn’t include Michele Bachmann’s temporary status as the Iowa front-runner or that Gingrich and Santorum both fluctuated between contender and also-ran twice. Or that Romney has oscillated between front-runner and underdog nearly every month for the last six months.
Polling data supplied by Gallup dating back to 1930 shows that no other race since that time has even come close to the same level of volatility. The 1940 GOP primary produced perhaps the most shocking result, when the GOP nominated businessman Wendell Willkie when he had polled at only 3 percent nationally in April of that year. But that was the product of a late surge, not a year’s worth of rises and collapses from potential candidates.
Now it may be rightly objected that we didn’t used to have so many public offering so many chances for someone to play front-runner-for-a-day. But still, the gap between 2012 and every other contest is so wide that it can’t really be explained away. And the fact that so many fringe characters like Trump, Cain and Bachmann at some point led the polls has to be taken into account as well. Indeed, it’s perhaps significant that one of the very few candidates or potential candidates who never enjoyed a surge—Tim Pawlenty—began the contest as the smart-money favorite. Yes, TPaw turned out to be as boring as he looked, but it’s not as though he imploded via personal scandals like Cain or got taken down by a combination of key missteps and multi-million dollar attack ads like Perry or (three separate times!) Gingrich.
True, the odds are still high that Mitt Romney will eventually win this thing. But sorry, no one will ever convince me that this outcome was “inevitable.” If the craziness of the last year has been just one long hallucination, then it’s time for us all to change our meds.
Facebook
Twitter
T2 on February 24, 2012 2:34 PM:
Rockefeller, Nixon, Henry Cabot Lodge and Goldwater, Scranton. For those old enough, stop for a minute and compare those GOP candidates to todays group. Rockefeller & Scranton..old line money and power...possible comparison to Romney. Lodge-respected statesman. Nixon...a crook yes, but a pragmatic politician as well. Goldwater-a Conservative that wouldn't get one vote from today's TeaParty.
Now the GOP gives us a Spineless Rich Kid and three crazy people.
Matt on February 24, 2012 2:47 PM:
You're not wrong that Romney's win will have been "inevitable."
On the other hand, Romney's win has always been "inevitable," and it will be unless and until they start printing up giant "SANTORUM" banners a few days before the convention.
What I mean is, Santorum has been leading in almost every national poll for a couple weeks now. And yet somehow--for reasons I can't really quantify--he is NOT, NOT, NOT the frontrunner. Some pollster on a news talk show the other day called him that, and then there was this awkward pause, and then he realized how strange it was to say that simply because Santorum is leading in all the polls. Mitt Romney has already won the "inevitability primary," and it seems to be worth about 49% of the delegates.
I wish I knew how Romney pulled it off, but I'm not sure he or his campaign staff could tell me.
seriously on February 24, 2012 2:51 PM:
T2 beat me by a few minutes...my thoughts were the same. Any one of those five was at least a reasonable candidate to actually preside over the nation as its leader. All had qualifications and accomplishments to attract a following. Not my choices, but at least I didn't fear for the health of the Republic when I imagined any of them in charge. Now, the Republicans offer us a wealthy weathervane, a cramped theocrat who even during his Senate term was regarded as a back-bencher, an egotistical gasbag, and a crank--having elevated this "all star lineup" over the wacky pizza executive, the flat-out unintelligent governor, the loony Congresswoman, and whatever other flotsam and jetsam I've mercifully forgotten about.
MattF on February 24, 2012 3:07 PM:
It's not volatility, it's a back-and-forth battle between Romney and not-Romney. The sort-of interesting question here is why not-Romney in all his/her/its manifestations has been so weird and incompetent. Sort of like Romney, in a way, now that I think of it...
Anon on February 24, 2012 3:12 PM:
This point really hasn't been brought up enough. The media probably loves it, because it's the horserace they crave in an election year, but it's just unprecedented the number of "frontrunners" have emerged for the Republican nomination only to spectacularly flame out in a matter of weeks. Next time you go to a doctor's office, browse through their back issues of Time or Newsweek and count the number of cover stories on the new GOP Star: Cain, Perry, Gingrich. And then they burn out and no one mentions them again. And this is to say nothing of how extreme all of them are, or that they flame out in most cases because they aren't right wing enough. Imagine if Dems had even half as many frontrunners in the past year, and the number of "DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY" stories we'd be getting.
T2 on February 24, 2012 3:24 PM:
1964...interesting race. As we've pointed out, the GOP had a crop of would-be's (including an eventual President). However, the race in 1964 was to pit the GOP nominee against LBJ, who had just replaced the assassinated JFK. It was clear that, as a sitting president, LBJ had a huge advantage. It was also clear that none of the GOP candidates could beat him. So the GOP ended up nominating Goldwater - a fellow who had little mainstream GOP support and espoused ideas quite the opposite of LBJ.
In other words, the GOP knew Goldwater would lose, and really didn't care if he did. After all, we were right in the middle of Viet Nam and the GOP was primed by LBJ's policies to soon take over the South. Sure enough, LBJ was drummed out of office by Viet Nam and in 1968 by the GOP had their boy Richard Nixon... thanks to the Deep South "Southern Strategy".
Think about the above for a minute.....sound familiar?
Midland on February 24, 2012 3:28 PM:
The obvious difference between then and now is television, and the fictionalization of the news, as Anon describes so well. The race has become a reality TV show, and Tim Pawlenty was bad television, both for the reporters, who treat politics as a sporting event to hype, and Republican voters, who want a TV star as dynamic as Rush Limbaugh appearing on their screens every day snarling at the evil liberal-socialist-feminists ruining America. TV stars can come and go in weeks on the reality shows. The Republicans have spent a good twenty years deliberately corrupting the political process to create this mess. They are reaping what they sow.
RollaMo on February 24, 2012 3:29 PM:
TPaw dropped out way too soon, but he had no way of knowing how screwy things would get and that even someone as boring as himself could lead the pack. I think he started losing mojo way before jumping in when he dropped the mullet.
Robert on February 24, 2012 3:34 PM:
"Polling data supplied by Gallup dating back to 1930 shows that no other race since that time has even come close to the same level of volatility."
Who ran for president in 1930?
Rick B on February 24, 2012 3:36 PM:
How much of the volatility is the result of the fact that every front-runner is being propped up by his or her own $billionaire?
Ordinarily for someone to become a frontrunner has meant they were able to hog the sources of funds and starve out their competitors. If that were still the rule, neither Gingrich nor Santorum would have come back from their first decline, and neither might have surged at all.
In 2016 and later the Republican $billionaires fighting it out for control of the Republican Party will have figured out how to choose in secret which one wins control of what part of the party. It won't be played out in public like this one has been.
T2 on February 24, 2012 3:41 PM:
there was Television in 1964. What there wasn't was a national network devoted to one Party's propaganda, such as FOX is now. And the idea that clear lies would go unreported was unheard of. Can you imagine Watergate if FOX had been around?
Also, Citizens United. That horridly activist Supreme Court decision has allowed terrible candidates to compete equally with.....well, each other.
T2 on February 24, 2012 3:45 PM:
WHOA! MItt Romney today: ""I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. And I used to have a Dodge truck. So I used to have all three covered.”
Just another guy, looking for a job. Poor Mitt. WIfe has two Caddies...and you know why?
They have a house in La Jolla, Ca, and one on the East Coast! 1% Mitt.....
Boy, between the 1200 white guys at a 65,000 seat stadium and the 2 Cadillac remark,
Mitt's "handlers" are going to be busy tonight!
Mitch on February 24, 2012 3:47 PM:
@T2
"Think about the above for a minute.....sound familiar?"
My thoughts exactly.
I've said for over a year that I do not believe the GOP seriously wants to win the Oval Office in 2012. It is much better (for them) to keep enough people in Congress to continually block everything the Dems attempt. Keep in mind that their stated goal is to have a permanent majority. They don't want to win for one term; they want to control all three houses forever.
What better way to do that, than to spend the next four years damaging the country and discrediting the Dems? The GOP obviously feels that to be a winning strategy.
Romney has the Big Bucks behind him, which is the only reason that he has held on to first place. His history as governor hurts him with die-hard conservatives, his religion hurst him among the Fundies, his record from Bain hurts him among those who hate the corporate world, and his spineless flip-flopping ruins his chances of gaining the support of multiple groups. Only the plutocracy likes him (and not even all of them), but that won't be enough to help him win.
The other contenders were either products of the media (Bachman, Cain, Perry) but never really stood a chance at the nomination. Or they have appeal to smaller groups (Santorum and the Theocrats, Gingrich and old Repugs who recall his crusade against Clinton). Paul, of course, is the permanent loser in all of this: he has the fire of ideology on his side, but no chance of being the candidate.
Part of the reason for this year's insanity is the media's irresponsible addiction to the horse race. Part of it is simply that the GOP field sucks. The people who are running are doing so on the strength of their own ambitions; it does not seem like any of them have the support of half of their party.
That's a HUGE thing to consider, given how the GOP tends to be much more organized and united than we Dems. Part of me has high hopes that this may all lead to a fracturing of their unnatural alliance of theocrats, plutocrats and libertarians.
But until it does, we all need to be aware. The GOP fights hard, and they fight dirty. They will be nearly as dangerous in defeat as they would if they won.
Danp on February 24, 2012 3:52 PM:
There are two ads on this page that let you buy a chance to be with Mitt on Super Tuesday for only $3. I guess this is how his super organizers are trying to show that they have more small donations. But I'm trying to figure out what kind of person pulls out their wallet for this. I mean he's not exactly Lady Gaga.
g on February 24, 2012 4:16 PM:
Bet TPaw's kicking himself for dropping out so soon. There was all that sweet, sweet superPac money to be had!
Curtis Daddy Love on February 24, 2012 4:50 PM:
I think a better comparison is to the 1974 Demcoratic Primaries. It was the splintering of the Democratic coalition then, as we're seeing the splintering of the Republican coalition and movement conservatism now.
Muskie was the initial front-runner, torpedoed by Nixon's dirty tricks (the "Canuck Letter"). Wallace was winning the South until he was SHOT, for God's sake. Humphrey fell just short in delegates and got MORE VOTES than McGovern, who had the superior ground game. Plus Shirley Chisholm as the far-leftie (Bachmann analog?) and Henry Jackson as the conservative Democrat (Hunstman analog?).
Curtis Daddy Love on February 24, 2012 4:51 PM:
So much for proofreading. 1972. I knew that.