My sort-of handicapping of the GOP race

[barking_iguana]

Right now, it's a race between Romney and Perry. Romney was the presumptive horse of the Establishment wing of the party, which has not lost a nomination since 1964. But the Bircher wing is stronger than usual (though perhaps not as strong as sometimes appears, given that they're benefiting from big money that might not stick with them if the Establishment puts its foot down). And Romney is more odious to the Birchers than most Establishment candidates are. That gives the Bircher candidate, Perry, the chance to prove to a sufficient fraction of the Establishment that he's acceptable, so that they at least sit the fight out, if not get on the bandwagon.

In the mean time, Romney has to not quickly fall flat on his face (at even money I'd say he won't fail that utterly) and maybe even get the Establishment excited about him (which I think is more unlikely than the first). If Romney does fail quickly enough, Huntsman will have about 10 days to get the Establishment excited about him, rather than just giving up. They don't have anyone else. Should that happen Huntsman would then have a better than even chance at the nomination, IMO.

So I rate Romney and Perry between them at 91% (and I'm not yet sticking my neck out on how that 91% is split) and Huntsman at 8%. But I also think there's a quite small but appreciable chance that all three of them will run embarrassingly badly and after the first several states, a savior will be called upon. Santorum is the only one left, as far as I can see, who would prevent a catastrophic split between the two wings and is the slightest bit credible, so I think he gets the lion's share of the remaining 1%.

As for Bachmann, she's last month's flavor. Nobody ever considered her a good potential President; she was an expression of identity. And now that Perry is in the race, appealing to enough of the same people that might have voted for her based on affinity, she's toast.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

The reason people have to say that Perry is not like Bush is that Perry gestures and sounds so much like Bush that seeing it causes wincing. The analogy I make, then, is to a candidate being shown arm-in-arm with Newt Gingrich. That will be hard to overcome.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Further correspondence with a friend, carrying on the discussion that engendered this post:

Friend says:

Hey,

That's a very interesting analysis. Thanks! But if there's a need to recruit a savior, wouldn't Christie be a likelier choice? Or for that matter some lesser-known governor who's hard-right but doesn't come across as quite so arrogant?

You know how this works much better than I do, so if I've got this next bit wrong, show me...

I don't see how Huntsman can get enough Birchers to vote for him to be able to beat even a badly-weakened Perry. (Not to mention that a badly weakened Perry just makes room for a return to Bachmann or for the emergence of another tea partier.). But... In the unlikely chance that he is the Republican nominee, Huntsman is a great (!) general election candidate. He may not get many votes from the Democratic base, but he doesn't inspire fear in the base, either, so many disgusted Democrats go to a bar instead of the polls.

Does this sound rigt?

I reply twice, saying:

That's possible, but already being on the ballot in upcoming states is probably necessary. Santorum's running. Christie and Daniels are not.

and

Sorry, I only read your first paragraph before I responded the first time. And that not carefully, as neither Christie nor espeically Daniels are hard right, by the hard right's standards.

The reason why the Establishment always wins is that it doesn't need any Birchers most years to win, if it's willing to cause lasting animosities. If the Establishment sees the general election as hopeless regardless of who the nominee is, then they might not act like their hair's on fire in order to prevent Perry's nomination, even if by that time he's convinced them he's awful both as a potential President and as a standard-bearer. But if they think the Presidency can be won (and sadly, I think it might well) then the Establishment may jettison the base in the war that both sides have been tiptoeing around, trying to prevent, for quite some time. OTOH, to address your next supposition, if Perry fails not only to assuage the Establishment but to remain the standard-bearer of the Birchers, then the Establishment candidate wins by default, provided there is such a candidate still standing. Sure, Bachmann may re-emerge as the alternative, and get a good chunk of delegates as Buchanan did, but she can't do much better than that.

As for Huntsman being a great General candidate, yes, at least if my scenario for how he gets the nomination comes to pass. He would have a strong label of "sensible conservative" attached to him, and voters who would identify with such a label would be unusually energized.