The traditional analysis is that the GOP is divided into social conservatives, economic conservatives and national security conservatives.
Using this filter, we can see why the GOP field is fractured.
Huckabee has got the corner on the social conservatives.
Paul has got the libertarian wing of the economic conservatives.
McCain and Giuliani are drawing from the national security conservatives.
Romney is drawing a little bit from all three.
Thompson had the potential to draw from all three but his candidacy is sitting on the launch pad fizzled.
Hugh Hewitt and the National Review's endorsement of Romney make the case that Romney is the full spectrum conservative that could pull together a coalition for victory in the general election.
The question for Team Mitt is can they ratchet up the passion level and increase the size of their draw from the three wings of the party?
Will he be able to say to the social conservatives who are backing Huckabee, I know I'm Mormon and not an evangelical Christian but I care about the issues you do, will you join me?
Will he be able to say to the libertarian economic conservatives, Paul is onto something and I want you to know since I have experience in the business world, I hear your concerns, will you join me?
Will he be able to say to the national security conservatives, I honor McCain's military service and backing President Bush on the surge. I admire the leadership Mayor Giuliani showed on 9/11 and his tough mindset against Islamic extremism. I can assure you I will bring in the best people to protect our nation and fully recognize America's unique place in the world, will you join me?
Huckabee isn't credible with the national security conservatives nor the economic conservatives and if the money doesn't start flowing in, the Iowa win will be duly noted and quickly forgotten. But who will collect his supporters or will they just go home?
Paul isn't going to drop out because he feels he is on a mission to be the voice for that wing of the party and he has the money to keep going. Paul's voters will punch that chad all the way to the very end. They will back the GOP nominee in November in any case.
McCain draws the independent and reform minded Republicans and national security first and foremost conservatives but alienates the mainstream GOP. He needs the win in New Hampshire and fresh cash to keep going.
Giuliani draws from the can-do, moderate and national security first and foremost Republicans but alienates the social conservatives. He has the cash and is placing all his bets on Florida and super duper Tuesday. If he can get a strong showing somewhere before that, then his strategy has a better chance of working.
The precedent for his strategy is Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton knew he would lose Iowa to favorite son Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Clinton knew he would lose New Hampshire to neighboring Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas. So he placed all his bets on Super Tuesday and won enough delegates to propel himself to the front of the line. He did have the advantage of a strong showing in his loss in New Hampshire to get some momentum going forward.
So where do we go from here?
In classical argumentation, there is logos, pathos and ethos.
I think Romney's case is "logos," based on reason.
But politics has a certain (a lot actually!) of pathos!
How can one explain the size of Obama's and Huckabee's victory in Iowa?
How can one explain Romney putting so much energy into Iowa and only getting 25%?
It may be a strained analogy but Eharmony's approach is find compatibility and then see if there is chemistry. Romney might be the compatible candidate for conservatives but I'm wondering if the chemistry is missing?
Unless Romney can generate some passion for his candidacy, he is in trouble.
He needs to get a win either in New Hampshire or Michigan. If he goes 0-3, its three strikes and your out.
If he can't pull the threads of the party together soon, I think Mayor Rudy has the best chance to pull enough of the factions together to make a go of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment