Go Ahead Harris and Pick a Female VP! Unconventional Wisdom and the 2024 US Presidential Election

 

Politics is often about conventional wisdom. Yes, such wisdom is not alway

s correct and in fact often wrong. Going into the 2024 US presidential election there are three bits of conventional wisdom being circulated.

           One Kamala Harris must pick a white Caucasian male from a swing state as her vice president.

            Two, Harris cannot select a female as vice president.

            Three, the odds are still against her, according to the polls, and that Donald Trump is still favored to win the presidency.

            Politicians, pundits, and polls often are the basis for how journalists think about campaigns and elections.  They form the orthodoxy or received wisdom for a campaign cycle.  But received or conventional wisdom often is incorrect.

            Years ago I published an article which challenged two bits of conventional wisdom in politics. One was the belief that there was a bump from the location of a national political convention in a specific state. The second was that the selection of a vice president from a particular state would enhance the ability or competitiveness of that state for the party that selected that favorite son or daughter. I examined the data back to WWII and found that in fact, conventions provided no bump for the party in that state, or for that candidate. Additionally, there was no evidence that selection of a vice presidential candidate from a particular state would enhance the ability to win that state.

            Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, these two beliefs persist. Thus the reason why the Republicans chose Wisconsin in 2024 for the location of their convention.  Perhaps maybe that is why the Democrats picked Chicago for their convention because of its proximity to the Wisconsin media market.

            How does all this apply to 2024 and the three bits of conventional wisdom noted above?

            Since Harris became the likely Democratic Party nominee for president the focus has turned to who her vice presidential pick will be. Conventional wisdom is suggesting it has to be a person from a swing state and that it has to be a white Caucasian male. The  conventional wisdom is that a popular figure from that state will enhance the Democrats’ ability to win that state. The idea of being a white Caucasian male is to balance out the demographics of Kamla Harris.

            While the governors of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Michigan might all be amply qualified to be president, as well as Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, there's no indication that merely placing them on the ticket enhances the competitive competitiveness of those states.

            Think about it. According to many statistics, barely 40% of Americans can name the sitting vice-president. There is overwhelming political science research indicating that with one notable exception, vice presidents have little or no impact on presidential elections, and that people do not make their voting decisions for president based upon the vice presidential choice. The one notable exception 2008 when Sarah Palin was John McCain's vice presidential pick.  There is evidence that her lack of qualifications, at least according to the American public, potentially cost McCain one or two percentage points in the polls. But he was going to lose anyhow. So perhaps it really didn't matter in the end.

            If vice presidents do not matter, the demographics of the vice presidential candidate equally do not matter. This gets to the second argument that says that Harris cannot pick a female to be her vice president.

            On the one hand, if vice presidential picks don't matter, then perhaps it doesn't matter if the selection  is male or female, pick the best qualified candidate. But on the other hand in 2024 the 2024 election will decided across five or six swing states, with the choice being made by 150,000 to 200,000 voters. It is possible that who the vice-presidential candidate is might matter. And here despite conventional wisdom, it might make a lot of sense for Harris to pick a female vice presidential candidate.

            The single most important voter in American politics, are college educated suburban women. With that, it is also black women who are equally important in terms of voters. Democrats must mobilize both if they are expected to win the presidency. Harris appears to have Africa African American women and women in general. Why not consider placing a female on the ticket as vice president to even further mobilize female voters across the country. Women already are the majority of voters in the United States and there is gender gap favoring Democrats.  More heavily mobilizing the female vote makes an incredible amount of sense in many ways for Democrats much in the same way that Trump (and his selection of JD Vane as his running mate) was not about balancing out a ticket but in trying to  juice up the Trumpistas even more.

            Finally, politicians, pundits, and pollsters  are arguing that as of now, Harris is perhaps in no better situation to win the presidency  than Joe Biden was.

            That may be true as of July 22, or July 24, 2024.  But remember, polls are not predictors. They are snapshots in time and over time political  fortunes change.  Many of the famous prediction machines such as Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight often get it wrong. Back in 2016 on election day, FiveThirtyEight gave Hillary Clinton about an 80% chance of winning the election.

            Polls inform conventional wisdom. They may be accurate at a point in time. They do not always capture shifts in trajectory or shifts in campaigns. Harris's taking over from Biden resets the American presidential race. It gives her an opportunity to redefine the race to capture voters who did not like Biden but equally did not like Trump and it gives her the capacity to energize the base in ways that Biden did not.

            To challenge conventional wisdom. I would argue that Harris is much freer in whom she could select for her vice presidential pick. It doesn't necessarily have to be from a swing state. It doesn't necessarily have to be a white Caucasian male. Given the polarization in America, given the dislike for Donald Trump, and given how apparently she has already brought excitement  among many to her candidacy, conventional wisdom may be wrong in terms of her prospects this year.  Go ahead Harris—pick a female VP if you want.

 

The Crisis of Mainstream Republicanism (and why the Democrats are not far behind)

There may be a simple reason why Bush, Christie, and Kasich are doing so poorly and Carson and Trump so well, at least by comparison–mainstream Reagan Republicanism is exhausted and bankrupt.
There is a terrific piece recently in Politico by Michael Lind that makes that point.  The mainstream Republicanism that Bush and Christie are part of is indebted to Reagan.  He makes a good point but I argued the same point five years ago. The battle to build the Reagan brand of Republicanism had  its roots in Goldwater’s victory over Rockefeller.  As I stated then:

The contemporary battle for the Republican orthodoxy begins in 1964 when Barry Goldwater challenged the Rockefeller wing of the GOP for dominance. Goldwater’s “Extremism in defense of liberty” speech was a repudiation of the accommodation with the New Deal that Eisenhower, Javits, and the Rockefeller wing had reached. Goldwater may have lost the election but he propelled the GOP in a direction that first triumphed with Reagan’s victory in 1980 and his inaugural speech declaration that government is the problem, not the solution.

The Reagan coalition blended together often contradictory movements of economic liberty and social conservatism. The former requires a minimalist state protecting individual choice, the later requires an activist one second-guessing freedom. While ideological, it was still willing to compromise within its party and with Democrats, producing notable and important legislation such as the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. From 1980 to 2008 the Reagan brand is what defined the party. But beginning with the presidency of George Bush in 2001, and clearly by its end the Reagan brand had worn thin and when McCain ran and lost in 2008 it was clear that Reaganism was dead. Obama’s victory, along with Democratic gains in 06-08, signaled that change. For whatever it meant, it was preferred to Reaganism.
Reaganism was a brand–anti government, anti-taxes, and in so many ways, really anti working class, even though ostensibly its rhetoric was populist.  It won over the white working class, the Reagan Democrats, the then Archie Bunkers of the world, mostly because of either the perception or reality that the Democrats were no longer on their side.  Reaganism was successful because of its powerful narrative and because of the weak one Democrats had.

I also argued back in 2010 that the Reagan brand was exhausted, dead by 2008 with the Palin-Bachman remaking of the party.  That remaking is essentially complete, leaving Bush and Christie out.
But the remaking failed to win in 2008 and 2012.  It is still failing yet the mainstream Republicans have yet to figure this out.  Neither the Reagan version nor the one that emerged should be able to hold  white working class America, the group that has seen its economic position gradually erode more and more.  Trump’s success speaks to the failure of both the Reagan and Palin-Bachmann brands of Republicanism.   Trump may not have a plan to help white working class America, but he taps into a sentiment and angst that so far neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have addressed.
There is no good reason why either verison of  Republicanism (Reagan or Palin-Bachmann) should be able to hold on to white middle America  except for the fact that the Democrats have yet to articulate a plan and narrative that speaks to them.  Enter Sanders. The Sanders-Clinton split in the party in part is about the failure of the Democrats to speak to white working class America, suggesting that the Bill Clinton-Obama party brand too may be exhausted. That is the story for another blog another day.

Bumpless Veeps and Voter Suppression

Paul Ryan–A Bumpless Veep
    It’s been slightly more than one week since Paul Ryan was selected by Mitt Romney as the latter’s vice-presidential pick.  The most remarkable think about that selection is that there is no bump.  What’s a bump?  Generally when a presidential candidate names a running mate there is a bump in the polls for the presidential contender.  The bump is due to increased media coverage, initial interest in the new Veep, or some other factor that simply gives at least a temporary up tick in the polls.  But as the New York Times reported today (August 20, 2012) and I talked about on Fox 9 news on Sunday night, Ryan has produced no more than a one-percent bump.
    One-percent?  That’s nothing!  Even Sarah Palin did more for John McCain, yielding perhaps 3-4 or so temporary points before dragging him down.  But with Ryan, the polls seem stagnant and  he has done very little to help Romney in the last week.  Why? Several reasons.  First, Romney picked a bad time to announce Ryan, coming near the end of Olympics and on a late Friday night.  The app they were going to use to announce also failed.  Overall, timing to maximize media coverage was poor.  Second, Ryan’s pick (as I argued in my last blog) was less meant to attract swing voters than to energize a conservative base still unexcited by Romney.  Romney has switched gears to run a base campaign, banking that he can out organize and deploy his supporters than can Obama, and then also pick up disgruntled swing voters who do not like the direction of the Obama economy.
    But Romney has not had much of a Ryan bump because in the last week he has been on the defensive over the latter’s budget, Medicare cuts, and his taxes.   The campaign has shifted to Romney defending himself and Paul and away from a critique of Obama, economy, and jobs. The next jobs report will put the economy back into the news, but for now, Paul Ryan has not yield the predicted bump in the polls.  Will the Tampa Republican Convention produce a bump?  We shall see (but also look forward to a coming blog about this were I discuss the myth of convention bumps).

Voter Suppression Minnesota Style
    Last Friday a Minnesota District Court issued an decision dismissing a case being brought by the Minnesota Voter Alliance (MVA) challenging the constitutionality of election day registration (EDR) and the right of disabled individuals who have guardians to vote. Had the suit been successful, the 500,000+ individuals who register to vote on election day potentially would have been disenfranchised along with all of the other individuals who have guardians.
    The MVA claimed that by allowing those who register to vote on election day to vote the votes of the others are being diluted.  The court simply dismissed this claim as meritless.   In effect, the MVA had failed to show an legal injury.  In rejecting the other argument about disabled voters, the court simply stated that these individuals had a constitutional right to vote and the MVA was wrong in asserting that they did not.  The ruling by the court was definitive and dismissive.  While the MVA has vowed to appeal, the case will go nowhere.  This is the second major legal loss for the MVA; their other one was challenging the constitutionality of ranked choice voting and they lost unanimously before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
    Voting rights in Minnesota are under assault.  MVA seeks to limit franchise as well as the Minnesota Majority.  Both groups raise the spectre and fears of voter impersonation, felons illegal voting, and election results altered due to voter fraud.  Again, the instances of voter fraud are so insignificant in Minnesota and across the country that one has a better chance of being struck by lightning than fraud affecting the outcome of an election.  Study after study has substantiated this proposition and there is no good evidence to contradict this assertion.  The most recent national study to support this argument was done by the Carnegie-Knight News21 program.

Ryan for VP–Sarah Palin Redux?

    Mitt Romney chooses Paul Ryan as his VP.  What are we to make of this choice?  Quite simply, this is one of the best things that can happen for Obama and it also demonstrates a recurrent crisis and problem for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.
    First, for my Minnesota readers, no surprise that the choice was not Tim Pawlenty.  Four years ago I was persistent in arguing that he would not be the VP pick since he added nothing to the ticket.  The same was true this time around too.  Pawlenty would not have been the favorite son candidate to deliver Minnesota and, quite frankly, he would not have delivered any other state.  He was never the candidate of choice among conservatives and thus would not have helped with that base of the party.  Nor does he resonate with voters around the country (as evidenced by his short-lived presidential campaign) and he is not a great pit bull or fund raiser.  Nor does he have Washington experience.  Nor is there any evidence that his blue collar roots would have offset Romney’s Richie Rich image.  Pawlenty was just another boring white guy-a former governor.  He was too much like Romney.  The only thing he had going for him was that Romney liked him and he would have done no harm.
    But why Paul?  Several reasons.  First, Paul is the person exciting conservatives who still do not trust Romney’s conservative credentials.    With Paul one gets someone with grand conservative ideas–sort of a Jack Kemp lite or a Sarah Palin strong–and lots of support from an important wing of the base.  Additionally, Paul is from Wisconsin, a critical swing state, and maybe that was a factor.  Perhaps so too was the Washington experience of Ryan.  And perhaps too Ryan and Romney get along. Thus, there several plausible reasons for Paul.
    Yet for all these reasons, Paul looks like another Sarah Palin mistake that should make Obama grin.  No, Paul is not the lightweight inexperienced person that Palin was.  He is Palin in a different way.  Palin  was thrust on to McCain after his first choice of Lieberman was vetoed by the conservatives who wanted the suspect moderate McCain to prove credentials by picking the governor from Alaska.  Here it seems the same thing is occurring.  Romney is being led around by his nose by the conservatives telling him what he needs to do to get their support.  Selecting Ryan drives Romney and the GOP further to the right at a time when both need to be moving to the center to capture the swing voter.  Maybe Ryan helps with the base but the election is now down to the votes of ten percent of the electorate in ten swing states.  The swing voters will determine the election and it is not clear that selecting a conservative and moving to the right is the way to score this base.
    Ryan is not the Hail Mary pick that Palin was.  She was selected to excite the base and win women voters.  But she too did little for swing voters who were concerned about her lack of experience and McCain’s age.  Ryan will be a cement shoes on Romney.  Obama and the Democrats will trot out Ryan’s budget plans to cut entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare and tie that to Romney.  Romney will have a Richie Rich image to go along with his desire to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and cut entitlement programs for the middle class.  The entire Obama campaign places Romney on the defensive about whose side he is one and it will prevent Romney from discussing the economy.  Romney has lost swing voter with this choice.
    So think about it. Ryan drives Romney to the right and does little to help with swing voters in swing states.  This is a sign of a crisis and desperation in the Romney campaign. At a critical point when Romney should be demonstrating leadership and control over his base, he shows he is still captured by it and trying to shore it up.  If Romney loses this November--and the odds go up now with the Ryan pick--it will be two elections in a row sabotaged by the right.  The lesson though they will learn from it is to get a real rightist as presidential candidate next time.

PS: Go to the Tampa Tribune this Sunday to read comments of mine about the myth of convention bumps.  Here I discuss the myth that states hosting national political conventions get a political bump for it in terms of helping to win the state.

Vice-Presidential Running Mates: They Really Don’t Matter Much

Speculation over who Mitt Romney will select as his vice-presidential running mate is reaching a fever pitch.  Will it be Rob Portman from Ohio to help him capture that swing state, or will it be Mark Rubio from Florida to shore up that state and support with Hispanic voters?  Or will it be Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota, a working class social conservative to balance Romney’s Richy Rich image and mercurial support from the religious conservatives?

            While tremendous fuss is made over vice-presidential selection and convention wisdom declares that Veep selection can balance a ticket and offset presidential liabilities, the truth of the matter is that their value in terms of winning an election is of limited value.  Instead, it is more apt to say that the primary goal in selecting a vice-president is to find one who can do no harm.  Beyond that, locating one that adds real electoral value to the ticket is simply a bonus.

            Think about the office of the vice presidency.  It is an odd office with no comparable political office anywhere else in the world.  The two constitutional duties of the vice-president are to president over the Senate and vote to break ties, and then to succeed the president in the event the latter dies or is incapacitated.  As president pro temp vice presidents rarely vote.  Joe Biden has yet to cast a tie-breaking vote, Dick Cheney cast 8, Al Gore 4.  Instead, the Senate role for the vice-president is mostly ceremonial.  The other duty–waiting for the president to die or become incapacitated–does occur.  Gerald Ford became president upon Richard Nixon’s resignation, Johnson became president when Kennedy was assassinated, and Truman assumed the presidency when FDR died.  

            Succession is an important duty and that is why perhaps so much concern is raised over whom presidential candidates select for their Veep. But otherwise, vice-presidents have duties determined at the pleasure of the president.  They can range from purely ceremonial–attend funerals–to more substantive such as under Carter and Bush where Mondale and Cheney had significant policy roles. One great line about the vice-presidency tells the story of two brothers–one who becomes a missionary to Africa and the other vice-president, and neither were ever heard of again.

            Over time the criteria for vice-presidential select has varied.  In the early days of the republic the vice-president was the presidential runner up.  Federalist Party John Adams won the presidency and his Democratic-Republican rival Thomas Jefferson assumed the vice presidency.  Yet the election of 1800 where Jefferson and his vice-presidential candidate Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College produced the Twelfth Amendment that made the presidential and vice-presidential candidates a ticket selected together.

            Throughout most of the nineteenth century geography was the preferred factor that dominated vice-presidential selection.  Presidential candidates from the north had to select southern or western running mates.  There is little evidence that such geographic balance really meant anything, but it nonetheless persisted as a legend important to presidential prospects well into the twentieth century.  Some point to JFK placing LBJ on the 1960 ticket as crucial to Democrats winning Texas, the south, and the election.  Yet in 1960 the south was still Democratic–at least nominally–even as late as 1968 Humphrey won Texas.

            Where geography actually seems important is with favorite son factors.  A vice-presidential   candidate might be useful in terms of helping a candidate when the Veep’s home state.  However, Lloyd Bentsen did not bring Texas over to Dukakis in 1988 and in 1980 Carter would have won Minnesota regardless of Mondale, Bush would have won Indiana without Quayle, and Bush would have won Wyoming without Cheney.   Clinton did win Tennessee in 1992 and 1996 with Gore in the ticket after Bush won the state in 1988.  Yet in 2000 as president Gore failed to win his home state as president.  Obama won Delaware in 2008 with Biden on the ticket but Kerry also won the state in 2004 with John Edwards on the ticket (who failed to win his state of North Carolina). Vice presidents as favorite sons who deliver their home states are inconclusive.

            There is little evidence that vice-presidential candidates affect voter turnout or presidential choice in any significant way.  Political science research indicates that for the most part voters select presidential candidates based on the person at the top of the ticket, not because of who is vice president.  Maybe vice-presidential choice sways one perhaps two percent of the voters, but it is not even clear this is the case.  Individuals who are most likely to be swayed by a presidential  selection–swing voters–are often those least likely to be politically informed or know who the vice-presidential candidate is.  Survey research in general suggests that only 59% of the population according to a Pew study can name who the vice-president is, let alone the candidate, suggesting the limited impact of a running mate in terms of affecting voter choice.

            Yet there are possible exceptions. Sarah Palin is potentially one.  By election day 2008 approximately 60%-65% of population thought she was unqualified to be president or vice president.  This was significant because a sizable portion of the population also expressed concern about John McCain’s age of 72 and whether he would survive four years.  Palin’s perceived lack of qualifications and high name recognition may have cost McCain two or three points in the election, but even then, Obama’s large victory and the other liabilities that McCain had question whether he really could have beaten Obama even with a different running mate.  Palin is more an example of another criteria of vice-presidential selection–at least pick someone who will not hurt the ticket even if a nominee cannot help.

            So what factors make sense in terms of guiding vice-presidential selection?  Discounting favorite son criteria (will the Veep help win his or her home state) which as noted above is questionable, several factors do make sense.  There are four possibilities.  First, will the vice-presidential candidate make an effective fund raiser?  Presidential campaigns are expensive big businesses and running mates who can generate cash are useful.  Second, will the vice-president be an effective pit bill in attacking or criticizing the opponent?  Often presidents do not want to do the dirty work of attacking the opposition so having a vice-presidential candidate such as a Robert Dole or a Spiro Agnew is good. 

            A third factor to consider is whether the vice-presidential candidate serves as an effective symbolic fig leaf to a faction within the party.  Maybe a candidate can reach out to the conservatives or moderates or other constituencies as part of a deal to win support or make them feel better about supporting the winner.  This type of selection criteria was more important in days of brokered conventions but one still hears of vice presidents serving a role in forging unity in a party.  Again, there is limited evidence that a vice-presidential candidate selected for this person actually delivers what is promised. Finally, a vice-presidential candidate may be selected simply because the president and this person get along or are friends.  The choice here has little to do with politics, it is simply personal.

            Overall, there is no magic bullet or evidence that declares who Romney should select.  Vice-presidential choices matter far less than the media and many political pundits seem to think.  Romney is best advised to go with the person he wants, using it as evidence of what types of decisions or choices he would make as president.  After all, the choice of vice-president is potentially the first and most important choice a president can make.

And the loser is....Michelle Bachmann: Thoughts on the GOP Presidential Debate

It may not be clear who won the Wednesday night Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library, but it is clear who lost and it was Michelle Bachmann. It may not be over for her yet, but she left the debate badly wounded and spiraling downward, ready to follow the path already forged by Tim Pawlenty a few weeks ago.

The Rise of Bachmann

Bachmann has had an amazing ride the last few months. Declaring her official candidacy the night of the New Hampshire presidential debate, she won it in part by being the new kid on the block, giving short quick answers, and simply holding her own compared to the other candidates. Her success, culminating in the Iowa Straw Poll victory a few weeks ago, was the product of several factors.

First, unlike the other candidates, she had a clear narrative that appealed to the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Without Palin in the race, the Republican Party remade in the ideology and image of her was lacking a candidate that captured the excitement of the Tea Partiers. Neither Romney, Pawlenty, nor the other contenders captured that excitement and appealed to them. Bachmann did. Thus, with the Tea Party bloc representing about one-quarter to one-third of the party, and with these individuals being highly motivated and likely to attend to show up for a straw vote or a grass roots activity (much like they did in August, 2009 to oppose Obamacare), Bachmann had an advantage for the start in appealing to and motivating this crowd.

Second, Bachmann had a clear Iowa strategy, drawing upon her birth in Waterloo. It was this strategy that knocked Pawlenty out of the race because he tool had an Iowa game plan, but it failed. Bachmann’s social and economic conservatism also appealed uniquely to an Iowa crowd too.

Thus, put together these factors–a remade Republican Party, no Palin or other Tea Party candidate, Bachmann’s message, the Iowa strategy, and her ability to appeal to a large bloc of voters–and you get a straw poll victory.

However, Bachmann peaked in Iowa.

Bachmann's Fall

The roots of her demise were obvious even before Wednesday night. Look at the debate in Iowa before the straw poll. She tangled with Pawlenty and managed to look petty in it. She did not rise above the crowd as she did in the New Hampshire debate. Moreover, she failed to say anything new or significant, simply repeating one-lines she always had–railing against Obamacare and seeking to defend her pithy legislative record against charges by Pawlenty that her accomplishments were insubstantial. Pawlenty was right and when Bachmann stated that her record included introducing the Consumer Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act it was clear that no lightbulb over her head had gone on. It was beginning to flicker off.

Bachmann’s weaknesses have always been there but magnified in the last couple of weeks, coming into full view last night. Bachmann did not have much of a record of accomplishment. Moreover, she has zero qualifications when it comes to jobs and the economy and with unemployment at 9% plus, her inexperience was a liability waiting to happen. Moreover, Bachmann appealed to a bloc but needed to expand that appeal beyond a core group of supporters. She never did that. In fact, she could not do that. Her rhetoric was always clear in how it appealed to one group of people. There was no way she could redo her message to appeal to a broader constituency. New Hampshirites are fiscally but not socially conservative. Her rhetoric would not fly there.

Moreover, her rhetoric in the last few weeks doomed her too. Comments about earthquakes and floods on D.C. representing the wrath of God did not play well. Moreover, her naivety and lack of gravity and depth on issues was apparent. Other candidates rolled out jobs programs and developed ideas on foreign policy, Bachmann simply repeated her same old lines. Staff increasingly had to manage and apologize for her. She was being handled because who she was, was not working.

Moreover, the new kid on the block status was wearing thin. Remember when Trump, Cain, and Giuliani had risen to the top of the polls, only to fade soon? Bachmann suffered the same fate. Simply, she became boring–the worst fate for a candidate–and she lost the buzz.

But had no other Tea party candidates emerged should could have run a long way with a bloc of 30% of the party. But something happened–Rick Perry.

The Perry Factor

Perry immediately cut into Bachmann’s bloc support. She was unable in the last weeks to stem the hemorrhage, and the same was true last night. So think about how Bachmann got squeezed. She failed to hold on to Tea Party bloc and at the same time failed to expand her base. She was doomed.

Wednesday’s night debate revealed how far she had fallen. She was marginalized. She had few questions directed to her, little camera time, and no one really attacked her directly. When she did speak she repeated the banal one-liners she had used for weeks, revealing little growth or thought. She had no plan for the economy. Her responses were often incoherent and at least twice the moderators pointed out she had failed to answer the question and gave her another chance to answer. She failed on the second attempt too.

This was a big debate for Bachmann. She fell to third in the polls, she lost Ed Rollins and her campaign manager, and she needed to take on Perry and recapture momentum. She did nothing to reverse her decline. Now it is too soon to say it is over for her. The Iowa caucuses are months away. However, she is damaged now and may be in the downward swirl of money and support that Pawlenty faced a few weeks ago. She may not be toast yet but they're getting the butter out now.

Final Thoughts: Perry, Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Palin

Perry is the front runner and may run the course of the ups and downs of the new kid on the bloc syndrome. The most disturbing part of the debate for him was the discussion of the death penalty. In 2000 George Bush looked almost gleeful in describing his record of execution in Texas. Perry came close to this too. Worse, the crowd applauded when he stated how many he had killed. This issue may appeal to a Texas and conservative base but not to a broad swing voter in an America much less supportive of execution than in 2000. Bush talked of compassionate conservativism–there was no compassion in Perry’s eyes or words last night.

Romney and Huntsman were the voices of reason last night. Romney defended Social Security and talked of jobs. Huntsman admonished the GOP not to be the party opposing science–it cannot reject climate science and evolution.

Gingrich? Where was he. He had almost no camera time even though he had important things to say.

Finally, if I were Sarah Palin watching the debate last night I would conclude that it is time to run for president. She too could cut into the Perry base and pull the Tea Partiers over to her. She has an opening.

Bachmann, Palin, Overdrive

Bachmann and Palin. The very prospects of both entering the presidential race have created a frenzy. Both are media magnets and savvy in the art of attracting attention. But how do we assess them as presidential candidates within the GOP field and, if either to emerge as a nominee, as a potential candidate against Obama?

I discussed this issue on Fox 9 News recently . Look at the video in addition to my analysis below.

Outsiders within the GOP

The simple way to describe Bachmann and Palin is that both are outsiders within the Republican Party who draw their strengths from very similar sources. Both candidates have clear messages about taxes, limited government, and social conservatism that appeal to the Tea party wing of the GOP. Thus both have something that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and perhaps even Mitt Romney lack—a clearly identified voice or political narrative that definitely appeals to an energetic base of the Republican Party. This linkage of a voice to a constituency is critical because it means that both of these candidates have a capacity to mobilize an identifiable portion of the party. When it comes to Iowa for example, a state all about caucuses and grassroots organizing, the ability to appeal to a specific and highly energetic constituency is very important, especially for Bachmann.

Comparing Bachmann to Palin

Bachmann and Palin share other affinities. Both are terrific at fund-raising. Palin is a major draw on the speaking circuit and since leaving the vice-presidential race she has branded herself and daughter Bristol into a Paris Hilton like commodities that has made her millions. Palin is an industry and can raise money, perhaps even for a presidency. Not as well known as Palin, Bachmann has proven to be a powerful fundraiser–garnering $20 million plus for her Congressional campaign last year and reportedly with more than $2.5 million already for her potential presidential bid. Moreover, each has a propensity to say the outrageous–Bachmann in declaring the constitutional framers as having freed the slaves, Palin in her take no prisoners campaign rhetoric. Both have been recurrently featured on Fox and MSNBC, pandered before conservative and liberal audiences as Nielsen ratings enhancers.

There is no question though that Palin is the better know of the two candidates. Right now she is near the top of the GOP polls and her bus tour is gathering a lot of attention. Were Palin to run she would start off strong, even if she were to skip Iowa.

Bachmann’s is truly an Iowa strategy. From Waterloo, she hopes to mobilize her roots and appeal to a Tea party constituency (and discontent with other GOP candidates). It is not inconceivable that she could get 20% of the caucus attendees, thereby pushing her to the front of presidential contenders. This is possible but for Palin.

Palin and Bachmann draw strength from the same part of the party. Should both enter they potentially split their support and the Tea Party wing. This sets up some interesting dynamics. First, if both run, does their conservatism force the rest of the GOP further to the right or do they concede it to them and battle for whatever one calls the more moderate wing of the party? Even if only one of the two runs, the same question can be asked. But if both run the potential of a split complicates strategies for all of the field in terms of appeal to their base, ignore, move to the right or more centrist.

Their Negatives

But as much as there are strengths are parallels to Palin and Bachmann, both face liabilities. Both are outsiders in the party. Palin likes her rogue persona and Bachmann has constantly upstaged the GOP in terms of stealing the light from Paul Ryan and the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech. Then there is their political rhetoric–nothing moderate here for either. How they can broaden their appeal beyond the Tea Party within the GOP is a mystery, let along to the swing voters in a general election will be difficult.

Palin has two additional problems. She is well known (a plus) but also has astronomical negatives. Carrying over from the 2008 VP bid, over 60% view her as unqualified to be president. She did herself no favors in her self-absorbed response to the representative Giffords shooting. Second, she has little in terms of a presidential infrastructure that can help her in Iowa or other early states and having alienated many in the GOP establishment, she is damaged goods in many ways.

Bachmann too has alienated the GOP establishment but she is not as well known nationally and therefore does not appear to have the same negatives as Palin. People have not made up their mind about her since she is not as well known. Unlike Palin, Bachmann has a chance to define and make her image and create a narrative. Palin is already done. She has no real potential for growth and makeover–perhaps by choice. Her brand and persona are fixed. Finally, Bachmann is working Iowa and seeking to build an infrastructure, Palin really is not.

Final Thoughts

Overall, assessing the two, while Palin is better known Bachmann has more room to grow as a potential GOP presidential candidate. But of course, both many stand in each other’s way, competing for money, voters, and a slice of media coverage. Because of their similarity, don’t look for the Tea Party dream ticket of the two running together. This is a ticket that would appeal to 25% of the general election electorate–giving Obama a major victory.

No doubt we have not heard the last of Bachmann and Palin. “You ain’t seen nothing yet” as BTO once sung.

Pawlenty, Palin, Podcasts, and Presidential Politics

Pawlenty
There is a great old line from the television show Hee Haw that went: “If it were not for bad luck I’d have no luck at all.” This describes the last two weeks Tim Pawlenty has had.

Last week just as he was ready to start his book tour (aka presidential campaign) Michele Bachmann declares her interest in running for the presidency. Pawlenty becomes the other Minnesotan running for president and he is displaced in the news cycle by her.

Now this week he is eclipsed by the events in Tucson. Yes, he did a National Press Club appearance but in reality, who will remember. He was the third, fourth, or perhaps the fifth story of the week, well behind the events and collateral damage and stories that unfolded around him. Moreover, when he did get a chance to talk, the questions were about his views on Tucson, not on his narrative and agenda. In short, Pawlenty had little time to message, tell his narrative, and make his case for being a presidential candidate.

However, even without these two events, his chances were slim. Consistently I have stated that he has little chance of being a serious candidate for the presidency. I also said that two years ago when I said he had no prayer as McCain’s VP. Why? Simply, Pawlenty has no buzz and no originality. Pawlenty is a “me too’ candidate. Others talk about tax cuts, social conservatism, or what have you, and Pawlenty does the same. Palin does a book, Pawlenty does a book. Romney touts his skills as a pro-business governor, Pawlenty touts his skills as a pro-business governor. Pawlenty is always behind others, never able to find a message or theme that lets him stand out from others. Instead, he seems to a candidate in search of a message, a voice, an appeal. He stands below undecideds among GOPers.

Pawlenty’s time is running out. Think of this. The Iowa caucuses are in February, 2012–barely 13 months away. If Pawlenty is to be a viable presidential candidate he needs to be a serious candidate by the fall, 2011. This means that by the beginning of the summer he needs to catch fire. That is barely six months. His book tour is a fizzle. He is no longer governor and cannot milk that for media time. He is competing against others for money and attention. It will probably be weeks before Tucson and other major news items fade before he has a window to get attention. But it will be under the shadow of “Will she or won’t she” for both Bachmann and Palin.

Pawlenty also faces one final problem. He cannot criticize other GOP without burning bridges. With that, the events of Tucson have changed the political dialogue–everyone but Palin understands this. Pawlenty cannot go on the attack without risking backlash.

No, in the end, Pawlenty has had bad luck, but that only ices the dismal chances he has in running for president. He exited the state with it in worse debt that when he arrived. Maybe he did not raise taxes directly, but at what cost? A state in debt, a K-12 system recently ranked by Education Weekly as mediocre, and a crumbling infrastructure. Pawlenty has no real accomplishment to stand on.

Palin
Palin may be correct that blaming her for Tucson is wrong. But it does not matter that she did not pull the trigger herself. No one really believes her crosshairs over Giffords and others were not gun scopes. Her Facebook speech denouncing critics with invective and inflammatory language only reinforced impressions that she has the subtlety of a machine gun. She demonstrated not one iota of reflection that her style of rhetoric was inappropriate, at least this week, and that a vast spectrum of moderate and swing voters do think the caustic dialogue in America created the atmosphere for Tucson. It does not matter whether this is true–this is what the people think. Palin may have endeared herself to her hardcore supporters, but to the voters she needs to woo if she runs in 2012, she failed to reach them and reinforced the image of her as unqualified to be president.

Boehner and Obama
Unlike Palin, both John Boehner and Barack Obama understood the political climate of the day and responded without looking political. Boehner rallied Congress together for a few days and delayed the GOP until next week. Obama gave a masterful speech that caught the sign of the times and the feelings of a nation. He exploited a memorial service in ways that did not look political, contrasting to the Wellstone service back in 2002 that hurt the MN DFL that year, leading to the election of Senator Norm Coleman and Governor Pawlenty. A new rhetoric, at least for now, is what is politically smart. Obama won the respect of many, but especially moderates this week, helping him in his rehabilitation.

How long will the new political environment last? Free speech cannot be held hostage to nuts with guns, but maybe disagreement can stick to heated debate of policy and issues and not personalty. We need not personally attack others to win a battle. Sticks, stones, and names do hurt.

Podcasting about Corporations and American Politics
Last Saturday, I spoke to the Stonearch Discussion Group in Minneapolis about Citizens United and corporate influence in American politics. Here is a podcast of my talk.

The Impact of Citizens United
On Thursday, January 20, from 7 PM – 8:30 PM at Hamline University, East Hall, Room 4, I will be one of several speakers discussing the impact of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v FEC one year after it was decided.

Please join the Hamline University School of Business, Common Cause Minnesota, the League of Women Voters, and Minnesota MoveOn.org for a discussion on the impact of the Citizens United decision and ways that we can attempt to mitigate its impact on our democracy.

Speakers include:
Professor David Schultz (Me)
Rep. Ryan Winkler, the chief author of the disclosure legislation that passed in 2010
Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota
Allie Moen, League of Women Voters

There will be plenty of free parking and good conservation.