Republican Bubble Baths

Last Tuesday, a small number of voters in two caucus states, and
voters in a basically meaningless primary (it did not choose any
delegates, and one major candidate was not even on the ballot) created
one more in an endless series of"political" bubbles in the Republican
contest for the 2012 presidential nomination.

Rick Santorum won all three of these events. He was expected to win
two of them. He defeated Mitt Romney by a narrow margin in Colorado
where he was expected to come in second. Now we will have a second
Santorum "bubble" (the first occurred after Mr. Santorum tied Mr.
Romney in the Iowa caucus). The first bubble lasted only a few days
because in the next voting, the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Santorum
trailed far behind. In subsequent voting, including South Carolina,
Florida and Nevada, he did not do well, coming in a distant third or fourth.

First, I want to give Rick Santorum some personal credit for the campaign
he has run this cycle. No one gave him any chance to emerge at the outset
of the campaign, and he was not impressive in the early debates. But he
persisted and worked hard, and he stuck to his guns as clearly the most
consistently social conservative candidate in his party. Other candidates
had better resumes, were more colorful, and had much more resources, but
one by one they fell by the side of the political road. Mr. Santorum is now
"somebody" in his party, and he earned it the old fashioned way. Mr.
Santorum, it needs to be added, has not yet needed to defend any personal
baggage as the hitherto major candidates attacked each other with bitter
personal attacks and advertising.

Mr. Santorum, as certain as his poll numbers will now rise, will also
receive the vetting he has not had until now. A two-term U.S. senator
from Pennsylvania, he was defeated for re-election by 18 points in 2006.
Subsequently, Mr. Santorum went to "K" Street in Washington, DC,
and became a millionaire in short order. Both his serious rivals, Mr.
Romney and Mr. Gingrich (as well as Barack Obama), became self-made
millionaires, so that in itself is not an issue, but now there will be a
serious examination, as happened with his rivals, of how he made so
much money. One of Mr. Santorum's strengths is also one of his
vulnerabilities, that is, his dogged persistence of many of his very
conservative ideals. An example of this occurred in the recent debates
when Mr. Santorum confronted Mr. Romney on the issue of restoring
voting rights to convicted felons. Mr. Santorum tore into Mr. Romney's
position of not restoring those rights, but as Mr. Romney pointed out,
the vast majority of voters, no matter the compassionate principle, will
not respond to a candidate who makes this issue into a big deal. Mr.
Santorum is also much admired in the pro-life community as one of
their most consistent champions, but his views on the subject are
absolute. All of the Republican candidates are pro-life, but Mr. Romney
makes an exception in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
This is where the majority of Americans are, particularly independent
voters, and it is a certainty that Mr. Obama's campaign would make
much of this should Mr. Santorum be the nominee.

Since a true vetting has not yet taken place, I am not going to make any
judgment on any character issues regarding Mr. Santorum. Like Mr.
Romney, he appears to be a model husband, father and family man.

The punditocracy, left and right, as well as the partisan spinmeisters,
will now suggest that Tuesday was further proof that Mr. Romney is not
nominatable because the Republican base does not trust or like him.
While this may ultimately have some validity, Tuesday "proved" nothing
of the sort. The relatively small number of voters on Tuesday were events
ideal for fringe candidates. Ron Paul and Mr. Santorum did well because
their base of energized voters showed up. Mr. Romney and Newt Gingrich,
who have larger bases of support in the party did poorly, but their
showing does not necessarily reflect what lies ahead when the largest
number of delegates are selected.

Mr. Paul is a fringe candidate in any case. Like Mr. Santorum, he has
stuck to his principles throughout the campaign, but there is no
evidence that beyond his small base he has any support among the
Republican electorate. He has made some excellent points on the
domestic economy, but his foreign policy and national defense views
are in direct opposition to the widely-held views of the great majority
of Republicans of all stripes.

Mr. Gingrich seemed to be left out of Tuesday's voting. He did not
even appear on the ballot in the only primary, Missouri. But the next
important day of voting, Super Tuesday in early March, will include
states he might win, including Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma.
Mr. Gingrich himself has had a serious of extreme ups and downs,
debate triumphs, attacks on his character, and miscues. He must do
well on Super Tuesday. If he does not, his only hope then would be a
brokered convention in Tampa. Mr. Gingrich' challenge now is to
reach deep down inside himself to discard his oft-cited insecurities
and make himself not only the smartest candidate and the best debater,
but someone genuinely appealing to voters.

I am amused by the "new" conventional wisdom that Mr. Romney
is now not only no longer the frontrunner, but not acceptable to his party.
All this based on three states where a small number of activist voters
dominated the elections. (Only two days before, the "old" conventional
wisdom had him almost the inevitable nominee.)

Let me use the Minnesota caucus to prove my point. I live in Minnesota,
and have been critical of its precinct caucus system for decades. Less
than 1% or 2% of eligible voters show up at the caucuses. The vast
majority of Minnesota voters gave up on them years ago when it became
obvious that, in both parties, these caucuses were being used by tiny
minorities of special interest voters to impose themselves on the majority
of voters. The vote totals in these caucuses chronically reflect an elitist
and anti-democratic system in Minnesota, one that has worked time and
again against majority voter opinion. Neither Mr. Paul nor Mr. Santorum
could carry Minnesota in a general election while, in my opinion, either
Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich could.

A "bubble" for Mr. Santorum over the next few weeks is inevitable. No
doubt he will also receive an infusion of cash, and an influx of campaign
volunteers. Perhaps he will survive the vetting he will now receive. But we
have been through these "bubbles" before, and as I suggested in a recent
column, winners of GOP primaries and caucuses find their momentary
triumphs easily turn into a negative political "curse."

Nor will Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich stand quietly still during the next
three weeks. They and their supporters are not going to passively default
to a tiny number of activist voters and let them dictate the Republican
nomination for president. Is it possible that Mr. Santorum to follow through
on Tuesday? Yes, but the patterns of this campaign year suggest that to obtain
the nomination in Tampa and win the general election, the Republican
nominee will have to have broader appeal than just a party base.

If the Republican Party does not appeal to a majority of voters, especially
to the most voters in states with the most electoral votes, they will not win
next November. The opponent of the Republicans may be, as I have
suggested, a failed president who cannot bring the nation out of its
current crisis, but he is not yet a failed campaigner. In fact, he has shown
himself to be an effective campaigner. Give him the "wrong" opponent, and
he will take him to the showers.

This year's campaign has just begun. As befits a truly historic election, the
battles ahead will be epic and extraordinary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.

SPECIAL SUBSCRIBER ADVISORY

[Subscribers to The Prairie Editor should check
their e-mails for a new SPECIAL ADVISORY
entitled "The Night of the Living Fringe."]

(Readers of this website who wish to receive
special advisories, bulletins and subscriber only
benefits should consult instructions for
subscribing to The Prairie Editor elsewhere on
this website page.)

SPECIAL SUBSCRIBER ADVISORY

[Subscribers should check their e-mail for a
"Special Subscriber Advisory" on the aftermath
of the Nevada caucus and a preview of upcoming
Republican presidential primaries and caucuses.]

The Curse Of Winning A Republican Primary/Caucus in 2012 And Other Curiosities

There is a curious phenomenon happening in the Republican contest
for the party’s nomination in 2012. No sooner has someone won an
early caucus or primary than something bad happens, and someone else
wins the next one.

Rick Santorum surprisingly tied Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus, the
opening voting event in this four year cycle, and in fact, several days later,
following a recount of the ballots, was declared the winner. He did receive
a great deal of media attention as a result of this, and an increase in
campaign cash contributions, but came in a distant third or fourth in New
Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida the next three weeks. He has
has no current prospects of winning another primary or caucus, including
his home state of Pennsylvania in April.

The winner of the first primary, the next week, was long-time frontrunner
Mitt Romney who had almost tied Mr. Santorum in Iowa, and won by a
large margin in the Granite State. Leading in the polls in the next primary,
in South Carolina, many pundits began talking of his quickly sewing up the
nomination in Florida. But before he got there, Newt Gingrich, who had
not done well in Iowa or New Hampshire, made a sudden surge and won
South Carolina by 13 points.

This was now reversed in Florida when Gingrich, who initially had been
leading there by a large margin, faded under a media ad blitz by Romney
and his fellow rivals (as he had in Iowa), and lost the Sunshine State to
Romney by 15 points.

Once again, many pundits declared that frontrunner Romney was now back
on track to sew up the nomination early despite statements by Gingrich,
Santorum and Ron Paul that they would remain in the race. Too late, these
pundits declared, Romney was back on top and heading for more victories.

But then Mr. Romney gave an interview stating he “did not worry about the
very poor because they had a safety net.” This was both taken out of context
and carelessly stated, but regarded as further proof of Romney’s political
insensitivity and the positive aftermath of his victory in Florida was
quickly supplanted by this controversy.

This may not be quite as sensational as the “Curse of Tutankhamen” (the
series of misfortunes which befell those who discovered and opened the
legendary pharaoh’s pyramid tomb in the 1920’s), but it is a curious pattern.
Will it continue? Can Newt Gingrich make still another comeback? Can
Rick Santorum finally win a significant primary or caucus and supplant
Gingrich as Romney’s main challenger?

Mr. Romney is now expected to win Nevada easily. The votes in Missouri
and Minnesota are non-binding to delegates. Michigan is considered
virtually Romney’s home state, so the next real test will be Super Tuesday
in early March where a number of states, including southern ones (where
Gingrich, as he did in South Carolina, may win). Mr. Romney clearly now
has the advantage, but it is not clear if the “curse of winning a primary in
2012” will continue.

Speaking of the curious, which may also be a form of political outrage,
the latest unemployment figures claim that the number of unemployment
in the workforce is down a bit to 8.3%. At the same time, 1.2 million
persons who were out of work were declared non-existent because they
were so disheartened that they were no longer “seeking” employment.
This unilateral gambit is so transparent that it borders on the absurd.
Yet most in the media, all of the Democrats, and even many Republicans
made no effort at objection at this statistical fraud. That includes most of
the Republican aspirants for president. If it weren’t for the Congressional
Budget Office, Robert Samuelson and Rush Limbaugh, most would not
even know this outrage was taking place.

If the Obama administration can get away with making the public believe
real unemployment (somewhere between 10% and 12%) is only 8.3%, they
will soon be declaring there is no deficit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.

Onward: Downward Or Upward?

As expected, Mitt Romney won a clear victory in the Florida primary,
and by a margin similar to the one Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina.
Of course, Florida is a much larger and more diverse state, and this bodes
well for the former Massachusetts governor. He also continues to have a
decided advantage in cash and organization. But the contest is not quite
over; in fact, if former Speaker Newt Gingrich is to be taken at his word,
the contest might go on for some time.

There are now only four major candidates left in the Republican field.
It would seem now that only two of them could win the nomination. The
presence of the other two candidates is another advantage for Mr.
Romney, particularly Rick Santorum's continued candidacy since he
shares the "Anybody-But-Romney" constituency with Mr. Gingrich.

You could almost hear the sigh of relief from the so-called Republican
establishment last night. Some of them did not originally support Mr.
Romney, but Mr. Gingrich's candidacy has ironically brought them all
together under the rubric of "electability."

Mr. Gingrich could not disagree more with this view. He contends that
Mr. Romney cannot beat Mr. Obama, but that he can. So far, however,
the polls do not support the former speaker's contention.

In order to press on, Mr. Gingrich has edited down his campaign, always
filled with new ideas and perspectives, to populist, anti-establishment
themes that he intends to persuade religious and economic conservatives,
Tea Party supporters, and disaffected Democrats to join his side. The
conventional wisdom, reasserted after Florida, is that Mr. Romney's
nomination is now inevitable, and that Mr. Gingrich has once more
imploded in full view.

In the long term of this contest, that's more likely to be accurate, but in the
short term (that is, the next month or so until after Super Tuesday) it may
not be so. Right now, Mr. Santorum is Mr. Romney's unintended best
friend. As long as the former Pennsylvania senator is actively on the ballot
in upcoming primary and caucus states, it is problematic for Mr. Gingrich
to overtake Mr. Romney even if he makes another political comeback.
Mr. Santorum apparently believes that if he waits long enough, as he did in
Iowa, that he could outlast Mr. Gingrich as Mr. Romney's last challenger
standing. Anything is possible, but this more likely fits the category of
wishful thinking. (He may also want to have a place in an adminIstration
led by President Romney.)

Ron Paul's role in the remaining forty-plus primaries/caucuses is not likely
to change. He will receive a relatively small percentage of the popular vote,
as he did in Florida, occasionally spiking up a bit, especially in caucus
states. Many of his voters are voting Republican because he is in the race,
and it is not clear who would be helped most if he withdrew (which, almost
certainly, he will not do).

What we are going to see now is the grand spectacle of an all-out populist,
anti-establishment campaign from Mr Gingrich, one of the most talented
communication candidates of recent times. I am not suggesting he can
pull it off and be nominated in Tampa, but neither am I categorically saying
he cannot do it.

A lot of folks are mad at him, including his party's establishment (of which
he was once a prominent member) and along with Mr Romney and Mr.
Santorum, are saying nasty things about him. At the same time, he is attracting
some conservative grass roots voters who were for other candidates. Mr.
Gingrich is a rare phenomenon; on the one hand he is an intellectual and a
self-proclaimed visionary, and on the other he is a street fighter. Given his
knack for verbal fireworks, and self-implosions, the next several weeks will be,
as I have already said, a spectacle of high (and low?) order.

I, for one, am putting aside all the current manifestations of anger, rhetorical
emotions and various noisy compulsions to take sides.

I am just going to enjoy the show.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.

How Important Is Florida In 2012?

I just returned from almost two weeks in Florida where the next
primary will be held in the contest for the Republican nomination
for president. In the rapid up-and-down performance of the leading
GOP candidates, Mitt Romney seems to have pulled ahead to a
comfortable lead over his major remaining challenger, Newt Gingrich,
in the opinion polls just prior to the voting on January 31.

Only a month ago, such a prospect was viewed as the likely final
electoral episode of the 2012 GOP nominating campaign. After
winning Iowa and New Hampshire, and leading in South Carolina,
it was then thought that Mitt Romney would be the presumptive
nominee of his party.

What happened subsequently, however, has shaken this presumption.
First, Rick Santorum, following a recount of the Iowa caucus ballots,
was declared the winner in Iowa. Perhaps this has little substantive
meaning, but in the words of Mr. Romney, "A win is a win." Second,
Newt Gingrich, following stunning debate performances in South
Carolina, came from behind to win the state's primary by 13 points.
Third, Mr. Romney, who had been rarely attacked by his rival previously,
became a target on issues of his work as CEO at Bain Capital, and for his
failure to make public his tax returns.

Now, with South Carolina in the past, Mr. Romney has provided his most
recent tax returns, defended his record at Bain Capital while accusing his
attackers of betraying conservative principles, and counterattacked Mr.
Gingrich again (as he did in Iowa) with tough ads and comments. Whereas
Mr. Romney has seemed on the defensive in South Carolina, it is Mr.
Gingrich who seems to be spending too much time defending himself in
Florida.

And so it goes. First Romney, then a succession of poll "bubbles" for
Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Gingrich and even Rick
Santorum. Then Romney again. Then Gingrich again. And now Romney
again. Is there any reason to think this is the end of the contest?

While four straight wins for Romney might have overwhelmed the field
and made his nomination inevitable, the present "standings" do not
indicate inevitability. The winner of Florida wins all 50 delegates, but
Florida, one of the largest states, originally had 100 delegates before it
was penalized for scheduling its primary so early. Mr. Romney will also
win all of Virginia's 40 delegates because most of his opponents,
including Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum failed to qualify for the
Virginia primary ballot. But more than 40 state primaries and caucuses
remain, and most of the national delegates have not been chosen. "Super
Tuesday" is about a month away, and many of its primaries are Southern
states where Mr. Gingrich might yet do well (as he did in South Carolina).
A campaign calendar with a contest not dissimilar to Barack Obama vs.
Hillary Clinton in 2008 is quite possible.

Why is this so? It is so because the the 2012 contest for the GOP
presidential nomination has become a contest between the basic factions
of the Republican Party. Mr. Romney, it has become obvious, is the
candidate not only of the Republican "establishment." but of the more
moderate wing of the conservative base of the party. Not all of these
were necessarily his supporters at the beginning of the contest. Mr.
Gingrich has become the candidate of most of the grass roots
conservative wing of the party, including many in the powerful "Tea
Party" movement. Not all of these were necessarily his supporters at the
campaign outset, but with the other major conservative candidates
withdrawing, he has received most of their support. Mr. Santorum, who
is now a distant third in the race, continues to receive a large share of the
religious and social conservative vote, but it remains to be seen how long
he can stay in the race without sufficient funds and organization. Ron
Paul, the only other remaining candidate, is in fourth place, and seems to
be stuck at a popular vote that is under ten percent. He occasionally does
better than that, especially in caucus states, but he has no reasonable
chance to win the nomination.

So it will be two-person race, with two other and trailing candidates, from
now until June. One of the two leaders is likely to clinch the nomination
by then, as Mr. Obama barely did over Mrs. Clinton in 2008. but the
Florida results, even if Mr. Romney wins by double digits. are not likely
going to resolve the GOP nomination.

High profile Republicans associated with grass roots conservative and
"Tea Party" voter sympathies, including Fred Thompson, Herman Cain,
Rick Perry, and perhaps most significantly, Sarah Palin, have endorsed
Mr. Gingrich. Leading conservative voices such as Sean Hannity and
recently, Rush Limbaugh, have defended him. Each of them have
reinforced the notion that Mr. Gingrich is being unfairly attacked by the
"Republican establishment." The "Tea Party" supporters played a significant
role in the landslide victories of Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections.
In order to win in 2012, Republicans need these grass roots voters and
activists to be enthusiastic not only for their presidential candidate, but for
their congressional candidates as well.

Mr. Romney remains the favorite to win the nomination. Republicans are
still favored to keep control of the U.S. house of representatives and win
control of the U.S. senate. The economy, seemingly enjoying a short-term
upswing, remains problematic, especially its chronic unemployment. World
economic and political conditions remain perilous. Yet none of this leads
automatically to Republican victory in November. Mr. Romney needs to
gain the trust, as well as the enthusiasm, of his party base and of more
independent voters if he is to prevail.

Newt Gingrich may have more political lives than the proverbial cat. His
challenge in 2012 touches the heart of the conservative impulse in American
politics, and in the desire, across party lines. for dramatic change in the way
government does business.

The true secret in modern American presidential politics is the story a
candidate tells voters. That story includes his or her past, but it vitally also
tells his or her story of the future. Part of the reason Mr Gingrich keeps
coming back, with all of his personal "baggage" and controversies, is not just
that he is the best debater. It is also because he is, as was Mr. Obama in 2008,
a superb storyteller.

The Romney campaign, and its candidate, has to learn to tell a better story if
they want the keys to that certain residence on Pennsylvania Avenue next
January.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.

A New Variety of Populism?

Populism in the United States is older than the republic and its
unprecedented constitution. It was a vital ingredient of the American
revolution in 1776, and provided much of the natural organizing
energy for the American colonists to overthrow the regime of
George III and his British army.

After the short "non-political" period of George Washington's two
terms as president, the revolutionaries of the 1770's split into two
camps or parties of the nation's political leadership, and created an
inchoate "establishment" that lasted until Andrew Jackson, renewing
some of the spirit of the colonist revolutionaries, initiated a then-new
populism that grew in the states and frontier regions further from
New York and Washington, DC. This early American populism evolved
into an agrarian populism which, although having anti-establishment
and radical elements, took on, at the same time, isolationist and
discriminatory elements of anti-Catholic, anti-Black and anti-immigrant
prejudice. This variety of populism flourished in the South and the
Midwest until the beginning of the 20th century.

Before World War I and just after it, there appeared a left wing
populism, much of it inspired by the appearance of radical and Marxist
ideology and regimes in Europe. This new populism was both leftist and
isolationist, and produced several governors and U.S. senators from the
West and upper Midwest. The coming of the New Deal saw the decline
of this populism, and its marginalization when liberals such as Hubert
Humphrey, campaigning against its Marxist and Soviet ties, reduced it
to fringe status.

In recent years, populist-styled movements, left and right, have
occasionally arisen, usually behind an opportunistic figure. Examples
of this have been George Wallace, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader.
Most recently, and including this cycle, Ron Paul has offered an
economically libertarian-styled campaign combined with foreign
policy isolationism. Populist movements have influenced U.S. domestic
and foreign policy in the past, but rarely changed electoral outcomes.
Ralph Nader probably cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000, and Perot
may have altered the result in 1992. A notorious example of when
both right wing and left wing populist candidates tried to change a
presidential election at the same time was in 1948 when Strom
Thurmond, from the right, and Henry Wallace, from the left, used
populist appeals to try to defeat Harry Truman. Each of them received more
than a million votes, and Thurmond even received a notable number of
electoral votes, but Truman still won.

In 2012, however, we see a revival of an old populism, and the appearance
of a new one. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is the new face of the
old far-left radical populism of the past. But the Tea Party movement may
be something new, i.e, a CENTRIST economic populism. This group had a
huge influence in the 2010 midterm elections, and helped fuel the big
Republican sweep of U. S. house, senate, gubernatorial and state legislative
contests. When I discuss this Tea Party movement, which is decentralized,
I am not speaking of its elements which advocate social and religious
issues. I am instead speaking only of the Tea Party's initial preoccupation
with economic and security issues, issues about taxes, deficits, enlargement
of government bureaucracy and spending, and advocacy of a strong military
and an engaged international foreign policy. Just as one hundred years ago,
the "new" left wing populism has now become isolationist, as has Ron Paul's
otherwise more conservative libertarianism.

Although his political background is as a backbench traditionally conservative
congressman, and later "establishment" speaker of the U.S. house, the
presidential campaign of Newt Gingrich has taken on elements of the new
conservative and centrist populism introduced by the Tea Party in 2010.
To the list of movement "villains" which include Obama social welfare and
tax-raising theorists, the federal bureaucracy and its regulations-obsessed
policies, and reduced defense and national security-weakening advocates and
legislators, Mr. Gingrich has added a relatively new "villain" into his policy
mix, the Old Media, including most of the national TV and radio networks,
cable networks and liberal establishment newspapers and magazines. Noting
the indisputable and measurable "bias" of this part of the media against
Republicans, conservatives and outspoken centrists, Mr. Gingrich has
tapped into a long-brewing grass roots resentment in the 2012 GOP
presidential debates, climaxing in the two debates just prior to the South
Carolina primary.

Populist movements, as I have suggested, sometimes influence American
policies in the long-term, but rarely take control of contemporary policy.
That is because they have been either left-wing or right-wing movements;
whereas the majority of American voters, some liberal and some conservative,
reside in the general political center. The question of the 2012 campaign is
becoming increasingly whether a new CENTRIST populism, responding to
the aggravated economic frustration of very large numbers of voters, many
with no allegiance to either major party, could possibly elect a president of
its own.

That is why the campaign of Newt Gingrich, in spite of whatever flaws and
controversies of the candidate himself may have, bears special watching in
the next phase of the presidential campaign.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All right reserved.