Archive
The Fundamentals Were Never with Trump
Oh, hey, it’s Matt. So, it’s been kind of a while since I wrote here (like a long while). I apologize, but I have been doing stuff on the sidelines like the WTM ratings with Brian. As the end of the 2024 Cycle is fast upon us, let’s explore what I think is the most and yet least controversial take one could have at the end of a cacophony of punditry and pontifications across the political spectrum (we at Within the Margin, withstanding): that the fundamentals of this race never favored Trump. Whether you start the clock on the evening of January 6th, 2021, or the dreaded afternoon of June 24th, 2022, the bell tolled for Donald Trump’s chances of winning. It is through the sort of manufactured luck that typically gets you thrown out of profitable casinos that this character kept drawing inside straight after inside straight to “luck” his way to the final table. We can only hope that this table spells the end of him and the beginning of the end of the vile ideology that will still need to be electorally exterminated over who knows how long.
Now, let me state unequivocally that Trump’s re-nomination was never in doubt. From January 6th to his official clinching earlier this year, Trump was never truly challenged for the party’s apparatus. Ronna McDaniel remained as HIS RNC Chair (until she conveniently wasn’t); his word carried weight in State Party Committee selections and the overall composition of the RNC. It’s effortless to ice out everyone when you control the infrastructure. As much as the Ron DeSantises or Nikki Haleys of the world thought there were ashes out of which to rise, they were never seriously going to challenge for the “crown.” From his announcement, the nomination was his.
It is easy to argue that prior to President Biden’s exit from the race, everything favored Trump. On the Economy, and with the double-haters likely favoring the challenger, this would be superficially true. On the economics question, there’s a lot to unpack given the overall tax cuts from 2017 and their long term effects, the effects of the pandemic, and the long recovery from it in terms of general affordability. The economy is still something of a pain point, but one side declaring a tariff through extralegal if necessary means is sort of self-disqualifying. There was also a burst-through on immigration (a position purposely poisoned for the SOLE purpose of the election, most egregiously by Donald Trump but with huge assistance from Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis) as well. But let’s pull the lens back from the simple narrative of an unpopular incumbent in trouble due to the economy.
Fundamentally, Donald Trump wasn’t running a political campaign. He was using the RNC and his campaign as a slush fund vehicle to underwrite his legal issues. Across every case, he was utilizing the campaign and the RNC to fund his legal expenses. They were not building out campaign infrastructure. They weren’t focusing on voter persuasion and active voter mobilization and registration. Now, it can be argued that these were being taken on by other groups and therefore not a need for the RNC and the Trump campaign…but that’s not a guarantee. Look no further than the “GOTV” of Elon Musk’s America PAC. Prior to America PAC’s actions, the RNC had Turning Point USA running their Field operation and doing… what, exactly?They were not dedicating time in the states that were going to be the tipping point or that sat a knife’s edge. At no point were these vehicles benefitting the campaign. Finally, the registration efforts…we’ll see how effective they were. In the end, there was no effort to run a campaign in the traditional sense; tons of money came into the Trump coffers, and the RNC, but most of it went right back out.
Next, Trump never addressed the elephant he happened to drop into a room by way of the Dobbs Decision. It is certainly my hope that June 24th of 2022 will mark the beginning of the end for the era of Trumpism and that while beating him at the ballot box one last time may be sweet, the ideas and ideals fester. Dobbs was the bomb that changed the supposed “Red Wave” of the 2022 midterms. It kept Democrats in play to keep the majority in the Senate and to only lost the House by a handful instead of 20 seats. Dobbs created that. It’s impossible to say if Dobbs was the major contributor to the first special election after it came down (the Nebraska 1st on June 28th of 2022), but it possibly played a role there and definitely played a role in a number of other special elections and the 2022 general elections. Dobbs led to successful efforts to save reproductive rights in Kansas and Ohio – you know, bastions of liberalism, both – and other states. When asked, all Trump ever answered was, “I did the thing – I gave it back to the states and everyone loves me for it, I don’t know why Kansas and Ohio did what they did, but they did and what of it.” His running mate gave an attempted gaslighting in his debate with the framing that “yes, the GOP hadn’t had answers on Dobbs and its immediate aftereffects, but trust us, we’ll get it right.” Of course, not helping anything in that reframing was the fact the former President stated unequivocally at the one debate he chose to do with Vice President Harris that “I don’t talk to my selection for Vice President.” From that point the VP selection was rendered null and void in this writer’s eyes. Dobbs changed the midterms but remains the biggest known-unkown of the cycle. As of writing, women make up more than half of the early voting electorate. Now, is this indicative of a blow out? No. But it’s more of an underlying factor that was its own self-persuasion event and we still don’t know its total impact. That might be a little word salad-y, but in short: Dobbs changed a lot of things and discounting its effect is to the detriment of those who do so.
The former president never had to address anything of significant import in his third attempt at running for the Presidency. The supposed air of inevitability that he spun up after the midterms helped him glide through the primaries completely unchallenged, to the point that he never took a debate stage to answer for anything in front of GOP voters. Primary debates, even those that otherwise seem useless, still help frontrunners in campaigns and expose frontrunners who don’t have what it takes to win. Trump avoiding the primary debates was brilliant in terms of maintaining his aura of invincibility, but would have led to an actual campaign at a time he wasn’t using campaign money. Beyond the primaries he never let an infrastructure be built to fight anything resembling a close race. The plan for the third attempt was the same as the plans for the first and second in that sheer cult of personality and force of will would prevail. The adage “if it ain’t broke don’t fix i,” is true – however, there were actually some serious “breaks” that were pushed aside as unimportant. There were no investments of time or money to answer the most critical problems of a third Trump run: any help in building a voter contact network of any value and never being able to provide a substantive answer to what’s after Dobbs. Despite that lack of investment, yes, this race has (and was) too close to call. But the fact remains that Trump was never fundamentally favored. Why? Sheer dumb luck and cowardice.
In terms of sheer dumb luck: the President got gifts from his primary opponents generally being incompetent; and he ran the table inavoiding consequences in his various trials. Of those challengers only Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy had any semblance of a plan for a campaign, and Haley was the only one who had an actual theory of a case. Ramaswamy made himself a mercenary at Trump’s disposal to take on and take out any opponent that could pose any threat to Trump. At the debates his aim was mostly at Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. Why?ell, they presented somewhat credible threats to Trump. Ramaswamy used his time to take shots on behalf of Trump and was doing so in order to gain some sort of favor after his exit (though it’s debatable what he’ll get as a prize.) Haley was the sole credible challenger, and presented an actual Theory of a case and became THE outlet for Republican dissatisfaction of Trump in the primaries. It wasn’t enough to displace Trump as the nominee (and this would be a much worse race for Democrats had she prevailed), but it’s not unnoticed that the theory she presented as a need for a new generation in leadership was heard by the Democrats and manifested in the change in candidate from Biden to Harris. Trump could hold this theory in a Republican Primary, especially in a primary he effectively wrote the rules for by controlling the RNC. And it wasn’t a concern before Harris – but it should have been givenurther thought after Harris became the nominee for the Democratic Party. Now, the trials were generally dumb luck, especially in Georgia. There’s no other way to put it.
Onto cowardice: Donald Trump benefited from the lack of serious questioning in a primary setting, and from the Press ever since he first announced. Press outlets fear Trump for justifiable reasons (shooting at local papers), but they laid down time and time again. At the outset, it was for ratings and the spectacle of his rallies. Later, it was gaslit into “equal time” and equivocation, especially from the print media, as at the end of this campaign cycle we saw a number of high-profile papers reject the recommendation of their editorial boards and endorse Harris out of fear of retribution had Trump lost. It was always cowardly. Trump benefited from cowardice like no previous presidential aspirant in history.
In total, Trump never had the fundamentals of a campaign, and he never had the fundamentals for a changed race in August. Since that time, none of the fundamentals we think of for a presidential race favored Trump. He skated by on his own hubris and that of his campaign, and on the lack of courage to call him out. Trump ran a bad race in total. The extreme polarization in the electorate is the only reason it ended as close as it did.
The Nuclear Option, the Path to Peril
Recent Rumblings of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid possibly instating the “Nuclear Option” with regards to Filibusters regarding federal appointments, especially with the current Republican make-up leaves me deeply worried about the medium term consequences to what would surely be a short termed victory.
With Republicans offering continued resistance to the president’s federal appointments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is once again threatening to “go nuclear” with regards to the filibuster and force through up or down votes and shut off all debate. Okay, that’s a bit of a misrepresentation, but the GOP has and will continue to hold up nominations by President Obama. This isn’t just a GOP thing right now: in the long history of the Senate, it has held up presidential nominations and spurned a few, the most recent that is highly public and a full out brawl in the Senate was the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in the 1980s. The Senate has a right to “advise and consent” on these nominations as a check on the President; this is irrefutable. However, what has happened is the Senate, over the last three or so decades, has been about not giving consent to a few appointees on both sides of the aisle, but at the same time giving no advice whatsoever with respect to what they’re looking for nominees to accomplish. The echo chamber that is modern media has largely failed at noticing this, and when it is noticed, and reported on, unfortunately it is from those who are considered on the fringe (largely the folks at MSNBC like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes who break down piece by piece the context of these decisions), but no matter.
Senator Reid is said to be considering the nuclear option, and whatever he thinks, he had better be bluffing. Even if he only “went nuclear” on federal appointments, Reid would be opening himself up to an avalanche of trouble. Going nuclear would be a pyrrhic victory and something the GOP must secretly be rooting for as it would give them and ability to go to the American people and further proclaim the victory of the tyrannical Democrat party and that restoring them to the majority is the only way to truly stop the Democrats and their “dictatorship.” Now, the rhetoric is of course ridiculous, but raising money off of “an oppression” would help the GOP in their quest to re-take the Senate (in addition to Dark Money which will almost surely flow into races in North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and additionally West Virginia, South Dakota, Alaska and Montana…which, if the GOP won all these seats, they’d gain a 2 seat majority). Starting January 2015 off in the Majority, the GOP would then be able to initiate their own rule changes and essentially cut Democrats at the knees by introducing onerous filibustering rules on the Democrats, not just on federal appointments (which they would stop in their tracks), but any and all Legislation.
I fear that the current manifestation of the Republican Party will throw away all historical precedent to achieve its goals, whatever they may be now, and will, if given the chance railroad debate in such a way to make it impossible to rise in opposition. If right wing radio is any indication, the Republican Party as constructed now will bury 200 years of tradition and history in its ill-conceived vision of what America should be, and they would be wielding this power in the chamber meant for debate at a higher scale…it’s a terrifying thought.
Reid must avoid going nuclear, and if he can hold his majority together (he’s likely losing 3 seats in West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana, and maybe 5 in Louisiana and Arkansas), he needs to implement further filibuster reforms and return to the constant talking filibuster and other traditions that will at least be fair and preserve some dignity in the Senate. The plausibility of losing the Senate majority, and being forced to work under unbearable rules by a party that simply wouldn’t care as long as they get their way, is horrifying.
What can be done? Well, there’s a few options one: simply do away with the filibuster in general; this to me is a draconian measure, it also may not be feasible for either side to introduce a complete dissolution of the practice. The other solution would be a complete overhaul of the filibuster and other legislative delaying tactics, the biggest of which is the “secret hold.” These changes would include: the transparent hold, where any Senator may place a hold, but has to do so in the open; the end of the silent filibuster, put an end to the threats and force the offended Senator to speak; take a page from some states and require that filibusters be “germane” to the subject at hand, this would eliminate the possibility of Senators using historical documents like the Declaration of Independence (Which Senator Thurmond used in his day long filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957). These overhauls are badly needed, they would maintain the principles of “unlimited debate” in the Senate. I mean if Texas State Senator Wendy Davis was forced to end her filibuster of an anti-abortion bill because she was adjusting a back brace, should not a US Senator be held to similar scrutiny; I think so. I hope that if Democrats maintain control of the Senate, I hope stronger filibuster rules can be put in place that all Senators can abide by.
Update:
Earlier this month, the Senate voted to change the rules on cloture and the filibuster with regards to Executive appointments. This is welcome news, and helpful to clear the logjam of presidential appointments. Still, I fear that threats to the Rules, will always be that, threats, as long as Democrats are in control, but considering that Democrats are in serious threat of losing their majority in the Senate, there’s an uneasiness that the GOP won’t be so cautious when they next regain the majority. Reforming the rules for presidential appointments in the executive was the right step at the time, I just hope the GOP remains practical when they next control the Senate.
Politics and Technology: A Work in Progress
I’ve been bugged for months thinking about tech and politics. It’s been a disaster of a mix. Despite the populace becoming more connected by today’s social media, the hopes of transparency and openness are as foggy as ever. However, when you think in broader terms there are four types of politics, and their individual connections with technology achieve different degrees of success. These types are: Ideals and Interaction, Campaigning, Governance, and Communications and Strategy. The last two offer paradoxes: they’re some of the first to jump on new technologies, but end up doing them wrong. There’s room for improvement in all 4 fields, but there’s also glaring holes in each, with seemingly no improvement in sight.
The internet and subsequently social networking have been the biggest boons to ideologues of all stripes and they have increased interaction in incredible ways. The openness of the internet is a boon to political interactions, and while it can produce varying levels of discourse, it’s still discourse. Social media has also increased the visibility of large scale events much more effectively than old-hand means (word of mouth, flyers). That’s not to say that large scale events are bigger today that ever – they aren’t, but they don’t necessarily have to be any more. The large-scale distribution of Facebook or Twitter can let millions know about an event and can raise the amount of coverage as previously uninformed (political journalists learning about things like Occupy Wall St through Twitter) people are then exposed to event before during and after, in a way that even a decade ago was impossible to imagine. The internet helped foster this means of distribution as it’s been an open and free space to exchange ideas (current frenzies of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act or CISPA withstanding). Social media has put the exchange of ideals on an even faster pace and allows people of all stripes to exchange ideas however far to either end of the political spectrum they are. The problem with the integration of ideology and tech is that the cacophony is deafening and there’s limited means of filtering out the noise. Sure, there are means of joining like minded groups (Ruck.us; Google+ Communities, Facebook Pages and Groups), and soon some means of maintaining discourse in limited numbers (Branch, a new service that is an overlay of Twitter comes to mind) may help, but there isn’t really a civil way in the feral grounds of the internet for right and left to exchange ideas freely without the need to invoke Godwin’s Law. Twitter and Facebook are broadcasters of ideology, but there isn’t a space to have real discussions yet. I’ve failed to mention blogs and such intentionally: while dear reader I appreciate your reading this, it’s more likely than not that we’ll agree more most of the time on ideology.
When it comes to governance and constituent relations things like Facebook and Twitter are making progress depending on how politicians use them, but the overall experience of reaching out to politicians is as dark today as ever. For years people attempted to reach out to representatives (either their own or others) and have been faced with poorly designed forms and horrible stock replies that show little attention to detail. And this is understood. As Congressmembers have to listen to hundreds of thousands (Congress) and millions (Senate) of voices it becomes difficult for the Representative and their small staffs to read, digest and reply to every single email, voicemail, fax, letter, phone call, Facebook message and Tweet on any given issue or request for services (it still happens and the caseworkers for these problems don’t get nearly enough recognition for their work, so to them a quick Thank You). This is going to sound high minded, but this is where a partnership between the tech world and the political world needs to be formed to automate the processing and means of reply to those who reach out to their representatives. Ideally a server that electronic (email forms, Facebook, Faxes) messages get moved through for key phrases and measure of importance for reply (requests for aid getting highest priority and “your position on X is contrary to mine” getting lower) movers data into a comprehensible but powerful database for staff to work through what needs the most attention (cases) to least (I demand your vote to be of my and my conscious only). And they can further triage response. Now I know that I’ve thrown individual opinions under a bus, and that’s not my intention, those opinions provide insightful data and in aggregate can show a representative a sense of how activists are feeling (if you’ve taken the time to reach out to your member of Congress on an issue there’d no shame in calling yourself an activist), but the likelihood of swaying a vote through these means is minimal at best (speaking big picture and sheer number of votes).
I wanted to separate Communications and Strategy from one another with regards to technology, but they present familiar conundrums: both are eager to jump on the next big thing to give their party an edge over the other (yes I know I’m speaking in abstract, and while the GOP is behind technologically right now, I refuse to think they’ll lag forever) but both sides continue to operate in the tried and true. The past decade has seen an explosion of communications avenues for campaigns, activist groups, elected officials and single operators to work with the aforementioned means of Blogs, Facebook, Twitter etc, but also YouTube, advertising on Hulu, Google ad words, open variants of like platforms (Adwords, YouTube etc; DailyMotion or Vimeo for example) as well as applications on the iPhone and soon other platforms like Android and Windows phone and maybe even BlackBerry. This is all expected, desperate campaigns and those with huge cash reserves alike are always looking for new means to reach out to new voters and the Internet is it. The Obama campaign had a public Spotify playlist that could be listened to on demand by anyone on Spotify, when I was done for the day on the campaign and watched Hulu, there were ads played; they left no stone unturned at all times. That was the strategy. As we move away from the Obama campaign these lessons will continue on through the former employees. These are all good things, but if done wrong, they can potentially lead to disastrous results. The biggest pitfalls for Communications and Strategy is that there is practically zero margin for error: once something is out there, it’s out there in some form forever, and there is no turning back. These is why campaign emails and donation requests and Web sites lead themselves to be bland, because they are tested and scrutinized to be as uncontroversial as possible and to invite no attacks or questions upon the candidate or the official or whomever. The Internet has made campaigns even more removed from the human element because every little mistake can be magnified. That’s not a problem of technology but instead of the human psyche where our representatives must be perfect (and yet when they aren’t we tar and feather them or keep re-electing them as though nothing had ever happened…maybe we’ll get a Professor or two on the Podcast to discuss this phenomenon). As technology advances this problem of overpolish and frantic need to present the perfect candidate is more likely to compound than improve.
I’ve held off on campaigning and tech because there’s so much I can discuss here. I have mainly talked about the Internet, and it’s a big factor for campaigns, but the biggest thing to me is hardware. As the iPad and other mobile devices have gained a critical mass in everyday use, it’s time to integrate them into campaigns. The iPad Mini is powerful enough to handle most tasks in the field and can provide campaigns, especially the data and analytics departments, the next big thing: real-time data entry. The importance of real time can’t be understated, being able to process things on the fly makes Field that much more efficient for everyone involved. An always-connected, cheap tablet that has a reliable interface to a system like Votebuilder or Nationbuilder (and both need touch friendly interfaces. I don’t know how they operate on a day in day out basis – but I know VAN has an iOS app, but it requires additional things, and it doesn’t just work) is the next big thing in Field it can go out canvassing with folks and be right there to make phone calls in addition to laptops at phone banks. A subsidized 3G/4G connection on campaign mobile devices will be a better investment for a campaign than Radio ad buys going forward. But Technology is also changing the manner in which field operates; as people move away from landlines to cell phones, contacting people over the phone is becoming harder. (The development of Digital Field is able to help mitigate that a little bit, but phones are still a valuable need for Field in terms of GOTV.) Returning to the need for a cheap tablet, they can provide additional data by photographing misnumbered or blank houses while door knocking. Technology is changing and it should be integrated into field operations at any level. Small towns and villages shouldn’t worry about buying Votebuilder to run successful campaigns, but at the same time, expecting decade-old Excel files isn’t a winning strategy either. There’s software improvements that can help field games as well, but they’re more nuanced. There are plenty of software packages to get started in terms of campaigns: there’s Google that has a suite of things that you can dig for (until Google’s next round of spring cleaning might knock it out), there’s NationBuilder, and so many others. I’m scratching the surface of that’s going on with Tech and campaigns.We’re at a very exciting time as Social is starting to leave its infancy and constant connectivity presents interesting ways to experiment with Field moving forward.
Technology is ever changing and the changes we’re seeing today are exciting in how they can help present change to the current status quo at all levels. There are a ton of extra and more sophisticated things that can be discussed but I’ll need to flesh those thoughts out or take them to the podcast.
Finally, We’ll be putting up our Podcasts very soon, so keep a look out for that.
On Gun Politics
The old adage of the Beltway that Social Security is “the third rail of American Politics” may just be wrong. It seems as though the complex, neurotic and seemingly bizarre politics of guns, gun policy and anything involving the term “gun control” may well be the third rail, especially since the conversations, not even policy, seem to fry political discourse within moments.
I’m as guilty as many as simply avoiding gun politics unless it’s shoved into my face with the most recent of tragedies. They’ve happened time and again, and the call to action is almost always silenced in the long game of history. The tragedy at Newtown’s Sandy Hook School isn’t the first school shooting of the year, but it was the most gruesome. As the media was quick to point out, this was the 32nd school shooting since the massacre at Columbine High School. We’ve seen other massacres at all levels of schooling, and every time we react in a knee jerk way about our gun politics, and it has so far produced a record that’s pretty abysmal…maybe it’s time to start changing the overarching approach and when we actually have the gun conversation that’s so badly needed needed in this country.
The way we go about it now, responding to a tragedy with mass hysterics from the Left and Right should have ended on March 1st of 2000, the day after a school shooting in which the perpetrator and victim were 6 years old. Instead both sides of the gun spectrum cling to self-righteousness and petty arguments and responding with fear mongering (more especially on the pro-gun side of the equation who is continually convinced that specifically Liberals are coming to take their guns, and yet there’s nearly 300 million guns in the United States and it’s a safe bet that no “guns rights” activist can name a single instance in which a liberal, any liberal, has ever come and taken their gun without just cause) or blaming things we have no business blaming out of bias (video games, movies and music immediately spring to mind). We butcher the conversations that are needed in every single gun tragedy we immediately start throwing out rhetoric one way or the other about the Founding Fathers and the Founders intent, more on that later.
I’ve always found my own stance on guns at a conflict. While a pacifist, I can understand the wishes of some to own a gun to hunt (a noble endeavor) or to protect one’s home (an honored tradition whence the long time lawlessness of our nation is taken into account), I can even almost understand the wish to own guns for sport. On that last reason I don’t understand why one doesn’t just go to a shooting range and just use an assortment of firearms at the range to get their fill? Regardless, I’m also well aware of the argument made by so many who cite the 2nd amendment as a reason to purchase weaponry. This is the weakest of all arguments because the people who make the case have seemingly no idea of the full text of the amendment or its context within a historical perspective (which is very easy to attribute to the education system or just plain willful ignorance). However, the FULL Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Between our myriad of police forces, sheriffs departments, state level police, federal agents of all sorts, and our Armed Forces, we have more levels of “well regulated Militias” than the founders could ever have dreamed. This is of course all my own opinion and more than open to healthy and open discussion.
It is my hope that this most recent tragedy actually brings about a real dialogue that is badly needed. There have been some encouraging and saddening signs already. I’d like to begin by promising friends and those with whom I’ll never agree with on political issues: Democrats and Liberals are not going to take the guns you have, not unless you give a reason to; it’s too damned much work honestly, we’d spend all our time just chasing games, remember I said there’s something like 300 MILLION guns. Now, that being said, can we please have a conversation about types of guns that can be sold and the size of cartridge magazines? I mean you can kill just as effectively with a 15 round clip for ANY weapon as you will with a 60 round clip…I’d almost be willing to accept the hunting argument with a 15 round clip, hell, 15 rounds is fun for the shooting range I’d bet. However, all I’ll wonder if you NEED a 60 round clip is “how many people are you looking to harm;” it’s beyond unnecessary. Likewise, I’m willing to settle on shotguns and handguns and hunting rifles with no argument…but no one needs an AR-15 or a Mac-10 to bring down a 10 point Buck or to stop the idiot looking to steal from your house, those are meant for one thing: killing. I’m not asking for much I don’t think, there’s much more that I want: closing the gun show loophole, thorough background checks, yearly inspection on the upkeep of the weapon and constant re-certification to own a gun, and pie in the sky dream of ending “Conceal-Carry” in this country.
I hope that the overarching view on guns in this country can change. We don’t need all out bans on all guns, but I think we can come together on re-establishing the Assault Weapons Ban and prohibiting the size of obnoxious sized magazines of ammunition. Unfortunately given the rhetoric of both sides since last week’s horrific events, I don’t think we’re ever going to have the actual constructive conversation that we need, we’ve desensitized ourselves to it by now, it’s seemingly impossible to think anything will change.
I don’t know what to think and have had a hard time with the news over the last week, I don’t know what to fight for as my hopes of vast changes on guns are met with the reality that is no small matter. A functioning and useful conversation is necessary…I’m just hopeful that we get to the table this time with all sides involved, even the idiots calling for arming teachers in school. At the same time, I fear we’ll never get to that table with everyone fair and openminded to change.
Who Had the best year in Elective Politics? Patty Murray
With the 2012 elections over, it is time to highlight the politician that shone brightest: Senator Patty Murray. The Chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee(DSCC) had the best year in Washington, maintaining control of the Senate and even expanding upon the Democratic majority in a year that on the onset of the cycle looked bleak.
Both Brian and I looked at the map last year and were worried about how bad our losses were going to be: Missouri and Claire McCaskill’s terrible approvals and the red hue of the “Show Me State” was a sure fire loss; Kent Conrad’s seat looked like a goner after the blood bath of 2010; Indiana was another lost cause seat since we were going to lose it in the Presidential; Scott Brown was that rarest of species…a New England Republican; Things looked dicey in Virginia and Montana where we won nail-biters six years earlier; money poured like coffee in Ohio where Sherrod Brown was taking on State Treasurer Josh Mandel; also things looked bleak in Wisconsin after the losses we took over the last two years there, but we elected our first openly gay US Senator in Tammy Baldwin. But then a funny thing happened on Election Night: we won them all. Now, does Patty Murray deserve all the credit; no, each candidate ran great campaigns and at the end of the day, the voters elected the Senators. But Patty Murray made the decisions to back each of these campaigns vigorously. Now, we also lost some tough races this year: Richard Carmona made things very interesting against Senator-Elect Jeff Flake and Rep. Shelley Berkley took a hard luck loss against Sen Dean Heller, we’ll inspect more on those loses another time. Senator Murray made wise bets and was able to come off with a remarkable string of wins in spots my colleague and I thought would be tough holds or likely goners.
Granted, in two of the races mentioned the Republican nominees preformed hari-kari on their candidacies at the worst possible times in the campaign cycle, but former Rep Todd Akin was able to re-gain some polling ground on McCaskill based on voters dislike of the state’s senior Senator. For Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, his fall happened a few weeks after Congressman Akin’s contemptible remarks on rape and abortion and Mourdock simply bet the house by EXPANDING upon them. From there Congressman Joe Donnelly’s life in what was to be a tough pickup if at all, became a lot easier. Their (Akin and Mourdock) candidacies were ruined as the national discussion caused by their remarks put national Republicans on the defense with a rather large constituency group: women, with whom they hoped to do better this year. (the reasons for this are many and to be expanded upon in future posts). In both cases, the DSCC smelled blood in the water and pounced with vigor, moving resources needed to hold and pick up a seat.
Murray also showed great recruiting throughout the cycle securing top names to run in order to force the Republicans hands and when presented a curveball with the candidacy of Angus King in Maine was able to withhold from actively campaigning against King to allow for the Senator-Elect to choose caucusing with the majority party (which he was likely to do regardless, but it’s much easier to make friends when you don’t attack them in a campaign). Also the selections of Elizabeth Warren and Tim Kaine in Massachusetts and Virginia made for an easier time flipping and holding those respective seats. Warren went on to be the top fundraiser in the Senate for the cycle and is the sort of liberal you want holding the seat of the late, great Ted Kennedy. Kaine made for a great race against Former Senator George Allen who’d been itching to regain his seat after losing it in 2006, one of the great upsets of that year.
But really, the crowning achievement for Democrats and Senator Murray this year had to be the selection of Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. After I read that Senator Conrad was stepping down I thought for certain we had lost the seat just then, even telling Brian as much. In 2010 we lost the seat of Earl Pomeroy in the House and then Governor John Hoeven easily took the seat of retiring Sen. Byron Dorgan; we currently have no statewide elected officials and no majorities in either chamber of the State House. Congressman Rick Berg announced for the Senate seat and it seemed like a sure win, but then Heidi Heitkamp, former Attorney General of the state, jumped into the race. At first it seemed like Heitkamp was toast, she was a former elected and likely not well remembered and didn’t have much money and got a late start. However, for those who did remember her, her exit from the 200 governors race, in which she left the campaign to fight cancer, may have bought some extra good will. But Heitkamp built up her organization (an impressive one that needs more inspection) and got help from the DSCC early in the game, enough so to help her cross the finish line ahead of Congressman Berg, effectively ending his career, for the moment.
Not mentioned at all in my post is Senator Jon Tester and his win in Montana. Tester withstood a strong challenge From Congressman Denny Rehberg. Brian and I were always a bit more confident in Tester than some of the other names mentioned already in this post. Tester and Rehberg ran neck and neck in poll after poll and it looked dicey, but he was able to emerge victorious, retaining both seats for Team Blue in Big Sky Country.
For maintaining the majority and expanding it, and for recruiting great candidates for their seats, Patty Murray had the best election year in Washington and deserves our thanks…I shudder to think what a Republican-led Senate would do.
New York needs Early Vote. It’s as simple as That.
My return to “Within the Margin” begins with a simple request of my friends in the New York State Legislature: Please, please institute In-Person Early Voting as soon as possible.
The idea that New York (a state with a population of around 20 million, of whom 12 million are registered voters, either active or inactive) should have the overwhelming majority of its voters set to an arcane day is preposterous. New York should institute early voting beyond absentee ballots to improve the overall system, and it should do it yesterday.
This year, over 30 million people, including President Obama, voted early in-person. It is exactly the same as voting on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, it also makes voting more accessible to millions, both in and out of New York. It’s unbelievable that New York trails behind states such as Vermont and Idaho in terms of ballot access to its citizens. Voting began in Vermont 45 days prior to Election Day and ended the day before Election Day. In Ohio (Where I’d been working since June), early voting by mail and in person began on October 2nd and concluded (after much legal wrangling) on November 5th. New York, which has more voters than either state combined has a woeful system for early vote (no in person and needing an “excuse” to claim eligibility) that actively hurts its democratic process. This is a problem.
While the system in place worked for so long, the reality is expecting 12 million people to go vote on a Tuesday in November is crazy. Crazier still are some of the unforeseen events that can occur that can make Election Day a bigger mess for all involved in my beloved home state, like say, a Super Storm that’s part hurricane and part blizzard and all battering the crap out of New York City. Superstorm Sandy provides the best argument to implement in-person early voting, or at the very least “No-excuse absentee ballots,” implementation of the program would create far less strain in the future. Even then, you don’t need Sandy to provide the argument when the point can be made that Early voting expands democracy.
The nature of elections is changing, and keeping New York behind the curve is disadvantageous. This isn’t about the partisan make up of the electorate (as Democrats hold a roughly 2:1 margin in registration), but about enfranchising more people to vote. Places hit the hardest by Hurricane Sandy, such as Breezy Point, are Republican leaning. Last year, Hurricane Irene wrecked Havoc on other Republican leaning areas, had that hurricane struck a week before the election it’s ramifications would have been felt by the local party. (In no way is the preceding sentences a reflection on electoral results, but more a case for instituting Early vote so people could get their votes cast prior to the disastrous effects of Sandy this year.) Early vote still heavily favors Democrats as we get out to vote earlier for whatever reasons, but to think that Democrats will continue to hold this monopoly is asinine. Eventually the Republican Party will begin to turnout its base early and the current theorem that Dems turn out early will no longer hold true. It’s about access though, and you can never predict what can happen on an individual basis to prevent someone from voting.
Regardless of Partisan arguments, we still must institute Early Vote due to its natural advantages and absorb its largest disadvantage (the costs associated with it) as a means to an end. Speaking of the costs, lets also make it so that the electoral situation of this year never happens again in the Empire State: voters were sent to the polls at least 4 times for primaries and the General Election, that is simply unacceptable, no state that I know of sent people to the polls that often. We can mitigate some costs by consolidating Early Vote sites to 1 per County much like Ohio did this year.
There isn’t a perfect remedy to the changing nature of elections and the electorate, but it’s time the Empire State played catch up and propelled itself beyond states and become a beacon for voter access.
Colorado, Minnesota and Mizzou Next, and a few words about Newt.
The Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri contests come up next on the Presidential calendar. Minnesota and Colorado present Caucuses where Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are likely to profit at the expense of Mitt Romney. Caucuses present a strength for Paul, despite his disappointing third place showing in Nevada.
Minnesota and Colorado offer Santorum a lifeline to his campaign. With little in the way of coverage after his Iowa showing (winning it over Romney), the super-conservatives who have taken hold of both state parties should be more palatable to Santorum than Romney, who continues to have a conservative problem…he just can’t seal the deal. Santorum has led in polling in both states in recent weeks, though only just above Romney. Wins, even slight wins, are needed here for team Santorum. Santorum can reboot his flailing campaign and return to fundraising to make the “anti-Romney” case more convincingly. Grabbing delegates away from Romney will help my favored outcome: a fractured convention. Losses here, however, should signal the end of the Santorum campaign and people re-remembering that he’s a joke. Minnesota’s GOP is hyper conservative after the more tea-flavored wing of the party swept into legislative power in 2010. Minnesota offers a great opportunity for Santorum to rebound. Polling has Santorum winning Minnesota with Paul coming in second. This would be a huge shot in the arm for Santorum and for my continual laughter at the state of the GOP. Colorado also offers a 2010 tea fueled base and the endorsement of former Rep and all out crazy man Tom Tancredo should also provide a needed boost to Santorum in the Centennial State. Public Policy Polling has Romney at 40% in Colorado and Santorum second at 26%. This continues the enthusiasm gap meme that’s growing (I’ll write about this later), GOP voters know Romney’s the best of the bunch, they just don’t want to actually vote for him. Turnout in CO will be interesting, low turnout may help Romney, but perpetuate the enthusiasm problem. Santorum may benefit from very high turnout, but it seems more likely that Romney will win here picking up a good number of Colorado’s 36 delegates.
Missouri will be a primary featuring Santorum and Romney, it’s symbolic in that it won’t award any delegates for the convention (they instead will have a later caucus, hence why Paul isn’t playing here for this symbolic primary; by the way, this no delegate primary is just plain stupid). Santorum needs to both play for and ignore this primary; that is it’s meaningless in the long run but a win helps him boost fundraising to stay in the race. This is the first example of Romney going one on one with another candidate and the more conservative Missouri electorate is more likely to support Santurom. Polling from PPP (a Dem leaning firm but one of the best in the business) has Santorum ahead in Missouri right now. This is a news cycle filling primary and nothing more to me: whoever wins can say they won a primary, and nothing more.
I have failed to mention Newt Gingrich because, well, I just can’t take him seriously as a presidential candidate. After the Iowa Caucus, all Newt has done is simply throw bomb after bomb at Romney. I don’t see a guy that wants to actually govern, he’s out for blood. Gingrich has never been anything close to a legitimate candidate in my mind…I’ve actually questioned if the GOP rank and file was serious about nominating this guy. One would think that if h were serious or wanted to be taken serious he would have garnered more endorsements than Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, both of whom have become train wrecks to the American people. Not one member from either house in, especially those who served with him, have endorsed him. Actually former Congressman Duke Cunningham, in jail for corruption, has endorsed him. No statewide elected officials of not have endorsed Newt. How is he supposed to be taken seriously at this point even though he’s won one primary…it’s just crazy to think that this guy possibly has a shot. I just don’t get it. Then again I don’t get the appeal of Mitt Romney.
NC Dems fall into the Tar Pits; 4 announce retirement this year
As someone who went to school in North Carolina, I try to pay attention to what goes on down there. I came to love my time in the Tar Heel state and helping elect President Obama there in 2008 was a great feeling.
Last week Governor Beverly “Bev” Perdue and Congressman Ralph Bradley “Brad” Miller announced they would not seek re-election this year. For Perdue, lagging poll numbers in popularity and unchanged head-to-head polls against 2008 GOP nominee and 2012 hopeful Pat McCrory were the largest culprits in her decision to serve just one term. Miller fell victim to a Gerrymander out of the first Republican-held North Carolina Legislature in a century. Faced with squaring off against fellow Democrat (and slightly more liberal) David Price in the new 4th District or retiring, Miller chose to retire.
Perdue has had a rocky term as governor, to say the least. She entered office during the worst of the economic downturn that faced much of the Country. North Carolina has had one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation since the recessions started and only recently saw its unemployment rate drop below 10%. Perdue and the Democratic majorities in the Legislature attempted to stop the economic bleeding in 2009, but partisan gridlock before the bloodbath of 2010 meant that little was accomplished. After Democrats lost the majorities in the House and Senate in NC, Perdue has largely played defense for much of the last two years, vetoing many bad bills and preventing NC from joining many other southern states in implementing discriminatory Voter ID laws. Assemble partisan gridlock, high disapproval ratings and a re-match against McCrory, and it’s easy to see that Perdue would rather take one for the team and not run again, allowing for another Democrat to grow in status and potentially keep the governorship in the hands of Team Blue. I think the GOP nominee for President could end up having significant impact on the North Carolina Council of State elections as well as congressional elections in the Tar Heel State.
Democrats in North Carolina, unlike other southern and swing states, have a wide bench to sort from to replace the outgoing governor, thanks in large part to their many state-wide elected officials. Right now the entire kitchen sink may well be considering a gubernatorial run. The North Carolina Council of State is largely filled with Democrats elected in 2008 (they hold 4 year terms, voted at the same time as the President). They include: Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton, Attorney General Roy Cooper, Treasurer Janet Cowell, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who likely wouldn’t run for anything besides her post), Auditor Beth Wood, Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson, and Commissioner of Insurance Wayne Goodwin. Of this group, Dalton has announced his intention to run; Cowell and Cooper are out and Wood hasn’t made any mention whatsoever. There’s also State Representative Bill Faison (who according to reports has been stockpiling cash for a while) interested in a run for Governor. Former Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker would also make for an interesting candidate. Congressmen Heath Schuler and Mike McIntyre are way too conservative to a Democratic primary electorate. We don’t know who will jump in just yet, but I can say that Erskine Bowles (mentioned by the Washington Post) wouldn’t last long as a candidate for Governor. After two failed Senate bids and some less-than-successful time on corporate boards, Bowles should shy away from elective office, and he largely has. Also, Congressman Miller and former Congressman Bob Etheridge (who lost to Congresswoman Renee Ellmers in one of the most painful losses last year, and almost exclusively at the hands of two college-age Republican operatives) are now seriously considering the race.
As for Miller, his 13th District, and more specifically his apartment complex was gerrymandered perfectly into neighboring Democrat David Price’s 4th district. The Gerrymander was so precise that Mille is in the 4th but the rest of his precinct is in the 13th district. Republicans in charge of redistricting also made the 13th more Republican in hopes of scaring off Miller from Congress, and it appears that they’ll succeed. The blog Blue NC, and a look at North Carolina’s upcoming elections on Wikipedia, show a slew of Republican hopefuls all lining up to challenge for the seat. No Democrats as of right now have stepped up, though hopefully someone will. It’s not that the 13th will be all that winnable, but forcing the GOP’s hand in a district like the reformed 13th could be useful in the national landscape for the Democratic Party. Forcing precious resources in what should be a slam dunk seat for the GOP would be great. But that’s just my opinion.
Finally, of note, yesterday two female Democratic members of the General Assembly announced they would step down from their posts: Diane Parfitt and Alice Bordsen. From what I’ve read, Brodsen was a redistricting victim and the same likely holds true for Parfitt. It sucks to lose good Democrats, but when one party maintains most of the drawing power, these things will happen. It’s possible that these seats will be held by Dems in November, but it would have to take a historically poor performance by the GOP at the top of the ticket (presidential and Gubernatorial) to lose control of either chamber of the legislature that they’ve so craftily established. While I think North Carolina is a truly purple state for this presidential and gubernatorial election, things look rosy for the Republicans at the Legislative level.
As we get closer to the election a more thorough look at this race will be needed. By then, Dems will have their state-wide situation resolved and voters will remember who Pat McCrory is.
Perry leaves, Newt potentially on the way out as well
The march of inevitability to GOP Nominee for Mitt Romney was either bolstered or hit a snag today – at the time of this writing, I’m not sure which. Reports from The Hill announce that Rick Perry is leaving the GOP field days before the South Carolina primary. Does this help Mitt? Not really in South Carolina, where it’s actually a boost to the conserva-duo of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. But more than likely it’ll help Santorum as he is now the right”s “anointed one.” More on that in a bit.
For Perry, this campaign is likely to end his time in the national spotlight – and what a disastrous time it was for him. A celebrated conservative when he entered the fray, Perry’s lack of message discipline and terrible performances in debates contributed to his short-lived campaign. Perry, unlike Gingrich or Santorum, had the money to compete and could have built the organization needed to win the Iowa caucuses and preform admirably in South Carolina. If there hadn’t been 15 debates between the time he entered the race in August and the time of this writing, Perry would likely be polling second or leading Mitt with many of his vulnerabilities unexposed. Perry’s debate prep was an issue of laziness on his part and on the part of his campaign. After a decade as Governor of Texas, and running with minimal opposition and eventually not even bothering to debate, it’s easy to see that Perry and his initial advisers had no clue what they were in for, especially confronting a man who’s been running for president full time since he left Beacon Hill in 2007. It would be premature and amateur of this author to prognosticate that Rick Perry’s political career is over due to this campaign. However, if the Governor does run for another term in 2014, a good number of Democratic potentials (while our bench in Texas is fairly pathetic, we’d find someone) would want to remind voters of Perry’s stances and gaffes and call his leadership into question. (An aside: while this sort of strategy would work in a more purple state, Texas’ deep red hue would make this mission a suicide run for near about any Democrat) But, the fact remains that the Governor’s national profile is ruined.
With Perry gone, the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party is now down to two choices: Rick Santorum, who has probably won the Iowa caucus, and Newt Gingrich, whose campaign is likely to blow up for the third time. This past weekend, Evangelical leaders essentially anointed Santorum as their pick for who they’d want to be the nominee, and more importantly, to stop Mitt Romney from gaining the nomination. For Santorum, it’s the needed jolt to a campaign that after a week of gushing about his Iowa success essentially fell on life support; he should have written New Hampshire off instead of even setting foot there. It’s tough to gauge how this will effect turnout for the former PA Senator, but it will provide him additional funds with the evangelical field winnowed. Santorum likely gets a good bounce as the sound replacement for pro-Perry, anti-Mitt and any “anyone but Romney and Paul” stragglers as well. Santorum will also likely benefit from the Speaker’s third immolation as a candidate in the course of this campaign.
The Phoenix Gingrich may not have any more ability to rebound from a potentially scandalous interview given by his ex-wife. According to reports on Twitter and the web, Drudge is linking the story and in place of what was called a successful debate by Mr. Gingrich, he’s once again on the defense about his personal life. How many times can a candidate burn and rise from the ashes? Newt’s impeccable luck only comes as a consequence of the abhorrent weakness of the Republican field. If any of the could-haves (for this we’ll say a competent and red meat-throwing Huntsman campaign, Tim Pawlenty not quitting when he did, or Chris Christie organizing a ground game, or Mitch Daniels and/or John Thune mounting a run) had entered and done so without the gaffe-fest Gingrich never would have made it out of his summer campaign collapse.
For this round of musical chairs, another unqualified person drops out, but the fractures facing this GOP primary electorate continue to be glaring between the “mainstream” or “Establishment” crew going for Romney, the Evangelical win pulling for Not-Romney, and the Paulist wing being…well, weird. The losers in all of this aren’t the Republican voters – they brought this upon themselves – but the American electorate as a whole as it continues to show a great apathy towards the two parties and ideas of governance, instead throwing up their hands in frustration about their lack of “choice.” There’s no real free flow of ideas of how government should run, and really in politics there hasn’t been that discussion in a long, long time.
Update (4:37): Perry endorsed Newt Gingrich this morning/afternoon in what has to be gasoline on Newt’s terrible, no good, very bad day. Sunday may well be Newt’s last day as a candidate for President.
With Huntsman Out, who’s going to put themselves above Partisanship?
I want to preface this piece saying that had Jon Huntsman been the Republican nominee that I would’ve had a hard time deciding who to vote for in November. While I disagree with many of the former Utah Governor’s stances, he earned a lot of my respect this campaign cycle for not bending to the will of those within his party, staying true to his vision of America and the Republican party, and for making me thankfully that finally there was a Republican politician that sounded reasonable on many fronts. Huntsman the 2012 statesman seemed willing to look past his personal views and instead want to have a discourse with people where you may have conflicting views, but you could walk away knowing your views were heard fairly and you gave his views and thoughts plenty of consideration.
Jon Huntsman’s exit from the Republican Party primaries was written in stone long before the first Caucuses got together in Iowa, and it wasn’t even his fault. Huntsman’s demise in the COP primary was cemented when he put partisanship besides him and accepted the position as President Obama’s first Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. Look, there were many other facets of why Huntsman’s campaign never got off the ground: flying in the face of conservative Orthodoxy and being reasonable about things like Science and Energy policy, the fact that the super PAC that was “co-ordinated” with his campaign (lets be real, the Super PACs and the Federally registered campaign PACs know what’s going on, especially the Super PACs tightly associated with a candidate) was largely financed by his father, and Huntsman wasn’t willing to play ball with the Conservative wing of his party. Those reasons and his inability to raise funds ultimately killed his chances of making a dent in New Hampshire, where he didn’t have to win, but he needed to push Mitt Romney to the brink (something like a 35%-32% finished between Romney and Huntsman) in order to get his actual “ticket to ride” in this presidential primary.
There’s no questioning Huntsman’s conservative bonafides and a look at his political career on Wikipedia(please note read this today: 1/17/2012 or Thursday and later as Wikipedia will “black out” on Wednesday 1/18/2012 in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Now or SOPA Act) will more than confirm this. He was a staffer in the Reagan White House, was appointed an Undersecretary of Commerce and a US Ambassador to Singapore for President George H.W Bush; during the Clinton Administration Huntsman went to the Private sector awaiting the next Republican administration (since saying that sounds better than saying “ran Daddy’s Chemical Corporation until the next Administration post opened”), and was a Deputy US Trade Representative during George W. Bush’s administration. All of this before even running for elective office in a State where winning the GOP Nomination is the hard part and Election Day is a mere formality. He replaced another Bush appointed, Mike Leavitt, in the 2004 Utah Gubernatorial election with 58% of the vote, and won re-election in 2008 with an absurd 77.7% of the vote. His approval ratings at times were as high as 90%, no other Republican elected official in the race could boast those numbers except maybe 1993 Newt Gingrich, but he’d burned those polls long, long ago. That resume alone should have left the 2012 field of electable candidates to Romney and Huntsman, and had Huntsman actually campaigned on that resume he probably would still be running right now.
Huntsman took up the post-partisan appeal, sounding willing and even slightly eager to work across both party lines to put the interests of the country above those of partisan bickering. In terms of campaigning, this is suicide in a primary regardless of party. Yesterday in New York Magizine, John Heilemann states that Huntsman’s disdain for the process ultimately cost him.
Heilemann argues that:
Yet beyond all that, there was a more basic problem: a candidate who seemed to think of himself as superior to the process, love it or hate it, by which we select presidential nominees and elect presidents. As I wrote in a cover story on him and Romney six months ago, Huntsman entered the race sounding more like a diplomat than a politician and acting as if presenting a glittering résumé were enough to claim the big prize. But it isn’t. Hopefully Huntsman understands that now — for it would be a shame for such a smart man to stroll out of the room no wiser than when he ambled into it.
That’s a completely sound argument, but Huntsman didn’t want to be Ron Paul and he wasn’t going to present himself as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry did. Why; because he’s better than that, sure just showing his resume would have been enough for the GOP of 2000 but not this rabidly conservative GOP today; however, Huntsman’s more experienced and seemingly presidential than Romney and the “anti-Romneys.” Yes Rick Perry’s spent more time as a state executive, but what good has that gotten him in this primary as he got lazy in the debate circuit and makes arguments that may sound fine and dandy to fellow conservative Texans, but make most groan. Huntsman’s disdain of the process was a hindrance to him on the trail, but who doesn’t hate the process and the grind required to be in a political campaign, especially one for the highest office in the land. He seemed to have the most cohesive vision, and in all honesty, as a Democrat, he was the only Republican that truly scared me in the Republican primary.
Buzzfeed makes the argument that:
“The party Huntsman imagined — modernizing, reforming, and youthful — could still be born. That might be the reaction to a second smashing defeat at Obama’s hands, or that might be where President Romney takes his re-election campaign. But it’s now hard to see Huntsman leading that change. He bet, too early, on a fantasy, and ran for the nomination of a party that doesn’t exist, at least not yet. His decision tonight to drop out just marks his recognition of that fact.”
It could be born this year as well, that modernizing and reforming zeal is what is hoped for but the group Americans Elect, a non-profit looking to gain ballot access in all 50 states with $30 million cash on hand. If Huntsman really wants to give his post-partisan message and continue on trying to convince the American people he’s electable, this may be a way to do it in place of running for President for another 4 years akin to Mitt Romney after losing the 2008 primaries. I’ll do a more detailed article on American’s elect sometime in the future. It may be the “sore loser” route for Huntsman to attempt this “non-partisan” “third party” route by way of Americans Elect. Hell, an Americans Elect route could actually help Mitt Romney as dissatisfied and/or impressed (or uninformed) Democrats would more likely vote for a post-partisan sounding Huntsman over casting a ballot feeling unsatisfied with President Obama. the likelihood of this is minimal, but it’s at the very least pluasible.
I recognize I’ve spent much of this space opining, but I felt I could do so because Huntsman’s exit from the GOP Primary has no bearing on the inevitable, the Republican Party will nominate Mitt Romney. Any Huntsman voters are likely comfortable voting for Romney, and there aren’t enough Huntsman supporters to really make things even more inevitable for Romney. If the “Anti-Mitt” vote weren’t split, I’d be intrigued by what Huntsman’s exit could have meant, but that’s not the case. Huntsman’s quick endorsement of Romney to me was part common sense (he’s going to be the nominee, crossing him isn’t going to help you) and part hoping it lands him a position (Secretary of State?) in a potential Romney Cabinet.
With Huntsman out, I have no one to really be interested in in the GOP and their manner of ridiculous rhetoric will continue to turn me off from their want for control. I will still attempt to comment on the field objectively, or as objectively as possible, but it is tough to do in the first place.
Within the Margin 