Quote of the Day:

I am starting to hear rumors that Jeb is telling potential prominent supporters to “keep their powder dry,” meaning not to endorse or support any 2012 candidates until they check back with him.

I really could have done without both of the Bush presidencies that our nation has experienced, but I continue to believe that Jeb is the “good” Bush, and I think the way he governed Florida suggests that as well.  Further, I continue to believe that Dick Armey and the national heads of the Tea Party are going to spend primary season morphing Mitt Romney into Mike Castle.  They’ve tasted the sheer sense of power that comes with knocking off an establishment frontrunner and the temptation to do the same to Romney, with his RomneyCare and his past views on abortion and his perfect hair and aristocratic demeanor, will be just too much to resist.  That leaves Palin as the national version of Christine O’Donnell, or at least Sharron Angle.  In a Romney/Palin race, everyone loses except the Democrats.  And I remain skeptical that retreads like Huckabee and Newt, or yawners like Pawlenty or Daniels, can fill the role of compromise choice.

But Jeb can.

Palin and genius in the same sentence? Yes, and it is more than deserved. Sarah Palin’s manipulation of the media has been an absolute masterpiece.  No one save the President himself commands the attention of the press quite like Sarah Palin.  She may be the first politician who really “gets it” when it comes to our new communication age.  Sure, the Deans and the Obamas and the McCains may have dabbled online and used the internet for some fundraising, but she has really grabbed it by the horns, taking new media and pop culture as they pertain to politics to a whole new level.

When the Karl Roves and the David Frums say she’s not Presidential because of a reality show, I say these insiders are the ones who are out of touch, not Palin.  Isolated in their Washington think tank bubbles, they seem to be missing the changes to the world around them.  In the age where pols show up hosting Saturday Night Live, where 24/7 cable news has changed the landscape, where bloggers have gained stature as the Times and the Post continue to dwindle, Palin seems to be adjusting better than the Old Guard.

This happens nearly every generation.  Presidential nominees used to be chosen by party bosses, until the Kennedys refused to wait their turn.  They started entering the previously meaningless primary elections and gaining widespread support, forcing their way to the top of the Democratic Party.  In prior years, presidential candidates rarely debated and when they did it gained little attention, but with the introduction of television that all changed.  What should have been Richard Nixon’s easy path to the presidency was changed dramatically due to JFK’s appearance on television.  The cool young Senator dazzled the television audience while the sweating Vice President saw his chances slip away.  The old party boss system was eventually beaten down and made irrelevant, culminating in Jimmy Carter’s win in 1976.  Ronald Reagan would have never been able to conquer the GOP establishment had he stuck to the convential wisdom. Instead, he challenged Nixon, nearly toppled Ford, and finally beat Bush and the Eastern Establishment for good.  His fame from film and radio combined with his campaigning for conservatives all around the country forced the establishment to buckle in the end.  Now Reagan is a GOP icon, something that the establishment would have never let happen had it had been up to them.

I imagine that in 1952 no one could have dreamed of General Dwight Eisenhower talking about his underwear or playing the saxophone.  Yet in 1992 there was Bill Clinton talking about boxers and briefs on MTV and blowing away at the sax on The Arsenio Hall Show.  Times will always change, and how we connect and communicate with each other will change along the way. Candidates used to announce their campaigns at or near the convention. Now, they announce on The Tonight Show two years in advance. Lincoln and Douglas may have debated the details of policy for hours on end, but these days debate questions are asked via YouTube. What this all means is that what seems unconventional today could very well be the conventional tomorrow.  The GOP establishment would be wise to heed the lessons of history if they have any hope at all of stopping the Palin juggernaut. ?

Our long national nightmare is over — The Donald is considering a presidential run:

Given that the GOP field appears to be thinner than expected, Trump may just add some well-needed gravitas to the primaries should he decide to run. The candidates who would truly excite the base, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, and perhaps Bobby Jindal, have all pretty much given Shermanesque statements with regard to 2012. Rubio hasn’t even been seated in the Senate yet, Rudy has the same problems that he had in 2008, and Palin is pretty much despised by three-fifths of the general electorate. That leaves a series of ghosts of the GOP’s past (Romney, Huckabee, Newt) and a litany of mini-me governors and senators who no one really cares about (Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune). Indeed, Obama’s saving grace in this election may be the weakness of the GOP field.

But if the GOP does in fact need a trump card (heh), it may need look no further than the Donald. Here are a few basic reasons that Donald Trump should at least be considered for the nomination.

First, Trump knows economics. In all of his statements on the economy thus far, Trump has made it clear that he understands that it’s the fundamentals of the economy that are in trouble, and doesn’t simply spout Hannity-esque nonsense about marginal income tax rates being the reason for all of our woes. The problem with the economy isn’t that we need another across-the-board tax cut to use as a wedge issue, but that America’s economic position in the world has been severely weakened due to a variety of factors, including debt, giving away the store to China, and the fact that we are now part of a global economy where a billion hungry Asians are competing with the American workforce. In order for serious economic growth to take place here at home, America is going to have to become the world’s innovator again. Instead of electing a president whose understanding of economics is completely informed by 25-year old aides from inside-the-Beltway-cocoon think tanks, the elevation of a captain of industry to the top job may be what’s needed to prevent the continued decline of the West.

Secondly, and relatedly, Trump would be able to figure out how to get our fiscal house in order, and would probably be trusted to do so given his business creds and his status as a solutions-oriented fellow instead of an ideologue. It seems counterintuitive, but Americans would probably be more willing to let folks from the board room take a crack at Social Security and Medicare than folks from, say, the Heritage Foundation. That’s because successful businesspersons have proven that they can manage other people’s money, that they can increase the rate of return, and their goal is a successful outcome for the programs, not to act as a Trojan Horse that stealthily dismantles the programs for ideological reasons.

Third, as he pointed out in the clip, Trump understands that America must move from a position of overall weakness in the world to a position of overall strength. And as any fan of “The Apprentice” can verify, if there’s anyone who possesses the innate ability to project an aura of confidence, self-assuredness, and raw power, it’s the Donald. This skill is essential to any world leader, who will be charged with the task of forming relationships with other heads of state, and who will need to be able to persuade presidents, princes, and potentates to see things the way America sees them. Reagan had this skill. So did Clinton. And so did Dubya. Obama clearly does not. As for Trump, the power to persuade is part of his very core.

As for social issues, Trump doesn’t have much of a history with these issues and his answer in the clip seems to suggest that he might actually be pro-life, or supportive of conservative judges, or both. No one is saying that Trump is going to come out as a closet evangelical over the next two years. Nor should he, as such a move would be craven and transparent and destroy The Donald’s sense of authenticity. But I would hope that the GOP nomination is still open to those of all faiths, or of no faith at all, and is not the property of one specific branch of one specific religion. Further, Trump is quite clearly a sophisticated, urbane fellow who is a bit of a wolf and who isn’t likely to become either a plumber or a puritan anytime soon. I’m sure there will be some GOP voters who will only cast ballots for those who chop brush and spend Sundays behind the pews, but I’m not sure that the majority of Republicans will have any such requirement of their prospective nominee. Cultural cues are less important to Republicans than they’ve been in a generation, as economic and size-of-government issues dominate, and as Chris Christie, another city boy, crushes the competition in straw polls of right-wing activists. If there were ever a year that a Southern strut wasn’t going to matter, it would be in 2012.

Finally, there’s no question that Trump would be able to out-debate, out-shine, and out-class Obama during a general election campaign. And he would play well in Eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey, not to mention New Hampshire. Plus, Trump could run a national campaign, not a regional one, pitting his vision of a strong, robust America against Obama’s managed decline of America. All of that makes Trump at least worth a look.

There are many small pictures being painted now about the 2010 national mid-term elections, why they turned out as they did, and to where they lead in the next session of Congress and to the 2012 presidential election. Some of these pictures are crude, but others are finely fashioned, and yet, following the tough expressions of the voters in 2006, 2008 and 2010, small pictures do not seem adequate as we look forward to a provisional and disturbing period ahead.

But what is the big picture? To attempt to draw such a picture, however imperfect, requires a suspension of personal ideology, partisan “spinning” and pre-determined outcomes. I suggest we begin with as many “facts” as possible.

I think it is fair to say that most American voters are distressed not only about economic conditions and rivalries, and external threats, but also about the performance of elected officials and non-elected public bureaucrats, and about government behavior itself. It is not just that there is opposition to higher taxes, and an inexorable growth of government in every citizen’s life, There seems to be a growing doubt that the collective structure of government itself is not working well enough, fairly enough and honestly enough to serve the public needs of today.

This is no small matter. It is also not the fault of only one political party. In its current mood, the U.S. electorate is alternately cleaning the houses of both parties, and with a velocity which has no real precedent in American history.

The American republic was founded on some revolutionary (for its time) principles that attempted to create a workable system of balancing the rights of individuals and the needs of the society of individuals. In a very creative and far-thinking way, the founders of the republic created a constitutional document, since rightfully amended, to make a people’s government do its job, do it well, and enjoy public confidence.

Our national history has had more than few bumps. The original constitution was drastically limited in its civil rights and suffrage, It took a civil war to expiate some of the basic inconsistencies of our earliest governance. The nation, at its inception, had great size, and it grew larger over time, but the population was very small until waves of immigration bulked up American society in time for it to play an important and unique role in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, and the Technology Revolution of the 20th century.

We are the third largest nation in population, but our total is only one-seventh that of China and India, each with more than one billion each, and eventually they will dominate the world economy. It took them some time to arrive at even where they are now because they were to slow to adopt the market structure of democratic capitalism. China persists in employing capitalism without the democratic process, and that will slow them down, but both the Chinese and the Indians have traditions that will, at some point, provide the largest economic markets in the world.

This new “reality” has only become evident in recent decades, and it has upended U.S. labor markets as well as our financial and product markets. In turn, this has provoked continued and growing unease among American workers who, in the current economic downturn, face chronic unemployment and lack of training and opportunity in the new and resulting American economic markets. Consumer confidence in these circumstances is shaken.

Government intervention in economic markets has, at best, a mixed history, and most Americans know that when government tries to run or manage traditionally private markets, it usually fails, and fails badly. That is because government management is not a free market, but instead is a state-run monopoly. We have historically permitted the state to manage certain aspects of the public sector, particularly domestic police and national military functions, but whenever we have allowed the government to go into free market situations, they fail to come close to the traditional success of private free market management. Why should we be surprised? We are, and have been, a free market nation for more than 200 years. Our society and its success have been based on those free markets.

Governments employ unpopular means when they interfere with free markets. They assess taxes and fees, and impose regulations and controls. Some of the latter are necessary to protect public health and safety. Large societies, by necessity, need to place some limits on free markets. Recently, some excesses of U.S. free markets, especially in financial institutions, have produced an economic crisis. Some may argue that past government interference, in the form of taxes, regulations and prohibitions, contributed to that crisis, but the fact remains we are in an economic downturn fueled by failures (described often as “bubbles”) in the private real estate, investment and technology sectors of the economy).

In the past, these economic downturns were soon replaced by economic upturns. This particular downturn seems to be persistent beyond the usual time frame, and some are arguing that the unprecedented government intervention in the markets is causing the problems to persist. Both Republicans and Democrats are complicit in this government intervention. Just as along U.S. participation in the Viet Nam War, with no success in sight, produced a voter reaction in 1968, the U.S. participation in the Middle East, produced a reaction in 2006. The mortgage banking crisis weeks before the 2008 presidential election effectively ended the campaign in favor of the Democrats, but when the Obama administration continued the “bailout” policies of the Bush administration, and compounded these with unprecedented federal intervention on the free market U.S. economy, voters again reacted by dramatically changing the make-up of both houses of Congress.

Does this mean that voters will refuse to re-elect President Obama in 2012? If he and his administration continue their current policies, and these policies continue to fail, we will have a new president on January 20, 2013. If the Republicans resist these policies, and come up with successful policies to replace the Obama program, the new president will be a Republican. The Democrats, as I suggested months ago, could also refuse to re-nominate Mr. Obama and then select someone who the electorate might have more confidence in residing in the White House, especially if the Republicans fail to nominate their most able candidate (whoever he or she might be).

The best candidate for each party will be the person who most ably diagnoses our current circumstances, and sees the biggest picture of where we are and where we need to go from here. The best candidate for each party will have the best understanding of the U.S. role in the world in the years ahead, and how we might navigate through the natural evolution of the world economy, as well as face down and thwart the malign threats the U.S. faces from totalitarian figures and regimes across the globe.

Let this conversation begin.
______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog

To go with the news today that Romney will not announce until March 2011 at the earliest, Hotline On Call (stick them in your blog reader if they’re not already there) brings us similar news from the Barbour and Daniels camps.

Barbour and Daniels both said in interviews that they will not make a final decision (read: announce their candidacies) until April or May, citing their focus on upcoming legislative sessions as their reasoning.

We can add two more candidates to the list as well: the Seattle Times has reported that Gingrich “will wait until April” to make his announcement and Pawlenty has indicated he will share his decision “toward the end of the first quarter of next year.”

So that makes five big names that are waiting until at least March or April (or later) to announce. This is welcome news to me, as I’m sure it will be to politics-weary Americans. (It also makes it more likely that many candidates will sit out the first primary debate of 2011.) This calendar stands in marked contrast to 2008 when we had seven candidates announced before the end of February.

Obviously, the two big names that haven’t leaked or trial-ballooned their thoughts on an announcement date are Huckabee and Palin, who are the ever-increasing wild cards in this whole campaign. How will these late announcements affect the race? What do you think Huckabee and Palin will do?

In 2008 Barack Obama and his merry band of Hope’n'changers painted the electoral map blue in places that haven’t been blue for decades. States that shifted from voting for Bush in 2004 into the Democrat column in 2008 include Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia.

The job for Republicans in 2012 is to figure out how we can get a better map so we can retire Obama and put one of our own back into the White House. It’s easier said than done. Despite Obama’s current troubles – Americans don’t often kick sitting presidents to the curb. In addition, Obama’s coalition of younger voters and minorities will make it tough to win certain states that have been reliably if not overwhelmingly red in recent elections.

One bright spot for the good guys is that the electoral map will soon be updated based on the latest census data. The number of electoral votes in each state will be adjusted based on population shifts. Luckily for us, much of the population growth over the past decade has been in the Sunbelt.

A look at some of the changes:

(more…)

Obviously, this analysis can and will change over the next year and a half… but this is always an interesting discussion, and it will be interesting to have something to look back on and remember where this all started…

Since we know the early schedule of caucuses and primaries is already tentatively set, let’s use that to try and predict how things might turn out come 2012 for our candidates.

First, let’s take a look at who’s running: Romney is definitely in. Gingrich is definitely in. (I’ve said it here before, and I’ll say it again: you don’t divorce your wife because she doesn’t “look presidential enough” if you’re not going to run for President at some point in the future, and this is more or less Newt’s last chance.) Huckabee and Palin both view themselves as God’s chosen candidate and their massive religious egos will cause them to jump in. Pawlenty is in for sure, if for no other reason than he understands the GOP nominating process oftentimes comes down to “wait your turn,” and he’ll be willing to finish second this year for his chance in the future. (And yes, I do think he’ll finish second – more on that in a second.)The rest of the candidates (Thune, Daniels, Pence, Johnson, et al) are going to fill the same rolls as Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, Paul, et al did in 2008: a necessary third tier of really decent folks who just aren’t going to make it.

All that being said, there’s been some rumblings about some already-released 2012 primary state polls. While I enjoy political horse race stuff more than the next guy, I have to remind myself: Washington, California, Oregon, Wisconsin, and other state polls don’t matter. Not yet, anyway. They might, depending on how far this campaign gets drawn out. All eyes right now should be on four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

So let’s take a look at how our pack of candidates in faring in these states.

Iowa Caucus

Iowa is shaping up to be a contest between Huckabee and either Romney or Palin. This is Huck’s state to lose, with the obvious caveat that in 2008 it was Romney’s to lose for all of 2007 – and lose it he did. CNN has Huck and Romney tied for first with Palin in third. Voter Consumer Research pegs the race at Huck in first, Romney in second, Gingrich in third, and Palin in fourth.

The most important thing to remember in Iowa is the old adage that has been tested and proven over and over again: there are three tickets out of Iowa. The eventual GOP nominee always places in the top three here. That’s got to leave Gingrich and Palin worried, especially with strong second-tier candidates like Pawlenty focusing on the state. Pawlenty’s only at 1% in the polls right now, but that’s exactly where Huckabee was at this time in 2006.

Coming out of Iowa, either Huck will have met expectations and won, or Romney or a second tier candidate will have pulled an upset. Honestly (and I’m a big Romney guy), it’s difficult to see a way that Romney wins Iowa in ’12. His best hope is that enough religious socons get hot at the same time and split the “I’ll caucus for whoever says ‘Christian’ the most on their TV ads” vote.

New Hampshire Primary

This leads into Romney’s strongest state by far, where the expectations game will now be his burden. Romney has to win New Hampshire by double digits (at least 15%, I would think) to meet expectations and pull momentum going into Nevada. Luckily, he’s built quite a pad for himself here — CNN has him leading by 21 over Palin, who surprisingly snags second place in their poll, and by 28 over Huckabee who comes in third. PPP puts Romney 27 ahead of Huckabee in second and 30 in front of Palin in third.

Who comes in second in New Hampshire is going to be important because of another old political adage: there are two tickets out of New Hampshire. After New Hampshire, the race isn’t officially narrowed down to two candidates of course, but it may as well be – if history is any guide. Of course, there’s a first time for everything, but pay attention to whether or not Huck or Palin can pull off the second place finish in a state where both are mismatches with the voters and neither one of them feels comfortable. This is a huge opportunity for second-tier candidates to shine. I’d expect Pence, Daniels, or Pawlenty to pull off a higher-than anticipated finish in the Granite State. Pawlenty’s already registering at 3-6% in the polls here, which is a good sign for his potential here.

Nevada Caucus

Coming into Nevada, we will most likely have had two different “gold medal” winners (to borrow Romney’s Olympic terminology from the ’08 race). And right now, that will most likely be Huckabee from Iowa and Romney from New Hampshire. What remains to be seen is whether or not Huckabee can translate his victory in Iowa into a second place finish in New Hampshire. That will be especially important as Nevada is another state where Romney is expected to perform strongly. The only two polls I’ve been able to find for the state are unfortunately PPP polls, but they both have Romney in first.

In 2008, Romney exceeded expectations in Nevada, but that was largely due to the fact Nevada shared its voting day with South Carolina and all the other candidates, save Ron Paul, decided to give up Nevada in order to focus on SC. It will be interesting to see how it ends up when everyone is forced to play here in 2012.

Nevada may give a last gasp of air to a dying Gingrich campaign. After potentially finishing as low as fourth or fifth in Iowa and then finishing third or fourth in New Hampshire, Gingrich will be on his last legs coming into Nevada. However, both polls show Gingrich in a solid second place in this state.

The big loser in Nevada seems to be Huckabee so far, ending up in fourth place behind Palin. If he finishes third in New Hampshire and fourth in Nevada, he will be limping slightly going into South Carolina.

South Carolina Primary

Luckily for Huckabee, the race heads into one of his strongest states in one of his strongest regions. Unluckily for him, he’s not leading either poll taken of the state at this very early stage. CNN shows him in second behind Palin and PPP shows him in fourth behind the other three first-tier candidates. According to CNN, Palin leads here, and PPP has Gingrich in first.

If Palin comes into South Carolina with no wins under her belt, though, there’s no way she wins here. If she finishes third or fourth in Iowa and third in New Hampshire, her campaign is essentially done. She might stay in a little while longer to try and do something on the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, but she’ll start looking a lot like Huckabee in ’08 – the loser who just wouldn’t quit.

So who does have a shot at South Carolina? If Gingrich places a strong second in Nevada, and has done better than expected in NH and IA, it might be his for the taking. Or, Huckabee could clean up any voters that Palin was losing at this point and surge to first place — if she was losing enough voters and if they all went to Huck, and if he survives his poor showing in NH and NV. Or this might be another good chance for a second-tier candidate to rise to the top — someone regional like, say, Barbour perhaps? This is clearly one of Romney’s weakest regions, and while he will easily get better than the 15% he pulled in 2008, I have doubts he can win the state outright.

Which leads to something interesting — the third adage to remember about Republican politics is that no one wins the nomination without winning South Carolina.

But what happens if Huck wins Iowa, Romney wins New Hampshire and Nevada, and then Gingrich, Barbour, Palin, or some other candidate ends up winning South Carolina? The field to me at this point looks quite fractured and not as solid as campaigns past. Could this potentially be the first year since 1976 that the candidate who wins South Carolina doesn’t win the nomination? (And in ’76, South Carolina didn’t matter.)

Overall

Here’s how I see things shaping up for each candidate:

Huckabee – Iowa is his to lose, and he will pour resources into the state to ensure what happened to Mitt in ’08 doesn’t happen to him this time. He will have the target on his back and have to fend off some strong regional candidates who are trying to catch fire (like Huck did in ’08) in the likes of Pawlenty and Daniels. He will struggle in New Hampshire if any of the second tiers are gaining traction, simply because Pence, Daniels, Thune, and Pawlenty are better fits for the state than he is. He will suffer another tough loss in Nevada, and limp into South Carolina where the field is fractured and weak. If he could pull off a victory in South Carolina, prospects for a Huckabee nomination look decently favorable, depending on which states decide to line up on March 6.

Palin – She will be done faster than folks expect, given all the media hype surrounding her candidacy. She won’t win Iowa, which means she definitely won’t win New Hampshire or Nevada. Depending on how far back she falls in those two states, her chances and recovering and righting the ship in South Carolina may be dashed. If she somehow manages to pull off a victory in South Carolina she will limp through a couple Super Tuesdays where she will get smoked in states like California, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, and Missouri. A clear path just isn’t there for Palin to nab the nomination this year, I don’t think.

Romney – Romney’s best hope is to place second in Iowa and then win big in NH and NV. If he does that, he has a chance to finish second in SC, and if anyone but Huck wins SC, Romney will be a great shape heading into Super Tuesday contests where he faces a more favorable slate.

Gingrich – He will put on a great show and finish strong in some states, but not strong enough to actually get anywhere. He will finish below expectations in Iowa, which will hurt him in NH. His best shot at the nomination is closing the gap with Romney in NH and finishing second there, then finishing second in Nevada and attempting to take SC outright. If he manages to do that, he’ll be in good shape going in to Super Tuesday. But given the fact that at least one of the second tier candidates is going to surge in Iowa and New Hampshire, that scenario looks unlikely.

Pawlenty – Here’s my dark horse pick (if Tim can even be called a dark horse any longer). I believe the 2012 nomination will come down to a three-way fight between Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty. Romney and Huck will essentially fight it out for the nomination while Pawlenty will take the mantle of “next in line” into 2016 or 2020, depending on what happens in the general election and the veepstakes. Pawlenty will be focusing a lot of time and effort in Iowa, and his numbers are already beginning to climb in New Hampshire (a great sign this early, before anyone even announces!). He has a really good shot at upsetting a major candidate or two and finishing third in Nevada. He’s not even included in South Carolina polling yet, but with the buzz surrounding his good showings in the first three states, he can finish strongly there as well. The major concern for Pawlenty will be fundraising to be able to play with the big boys in those states and to remain competitive when Super Tuesday rolls around. I expect his fundraising to jump considerably as the early caucuses and primaries come and go – the question is, will it be in time?

All of this, of course, is pure speculation this far out. But it is fun. How do you see it shaking out?

All Politics is (Still) Local

It is no secret to political observers that much of the contemporary American Right is of a revolutionary mindset, and is supportive of large-scale, seismic changes to the way government interacts with society.  This certainly exists in libertarian and quasi-libertarian quarters, whose policy goals have always appealed to me intellectualy, and it is equally true among movement conservatives who feel that, three decades into the Reagan Revolution, America is still a nation where tax rates are too progressive, where the state is too powerful, where abortion is still pretty much available on demand, and where tyranny continues to exist in too great a portion of the world.  The right-wing revolutionaries view the Tea Party movement as evidence that their ideology is finally catching on among the greater populace, and Scott Brown’s election earlier this year in Massachusetts was supposed to pave the way for unprecedented Republican gains this fall that would launch the Reagan Revolution 2.0.  All of this is supposed to culminate in a revolutionary conservative being elected to the presidency in 2012, perhaps someone like Sarah Palin, who would then proceed to repeal the 16th Amendment, overturn Roe v. Wade, and spread democracy to the far side of the world.

I submit to you that the election results suggest that no such thing is going to happen, and that a return to the pre-Obama status quo is more likely to come to pass after 2012 than anyone’s revolution.  The simple fact of the matter is that Decision 2010 simply does not portend a second American revolution.  It was not a victory for movement conservatism, but for small-c conservatism, the sort that resists the very kinds of top-down, ideology-driven, bold and sweeping changes that all revolutionaries desire.

First — and I touched on this last week — the Republican gains at the congressional level, while near-historic for the post-war era, are misleading when only the topline results are taken into account.  Yes, Republicans are poised to seat 244 members of their party when the 112th Congress convenes.  What those numbers don’t tell you is that, absent a net gain of 14 House seats in Southern states as compared to the last Republican House in 2005-06, the incoming GOP majority would look a lot like the one that came to power in 2004.  The GOP’s massive Rust Belt gains were pretty much due to taking back territory lost in ’06 and ’08.  Ditto the gains out West.  Other than that, the GOP traded some newfound strength in the Midwest for some seats that remained Democratic in New England, but it was the South that was really responsible for the largest Republican congressional caucus since the 1940s.

These results suggest that the 2010 election was, in most of the country, a repudiation of Obama, and not a call for revolution.  A return to normalcy, not a fundamental re-ordering of American politics.  To be sure, I do not mean to downplay the significance of the Republican gains in the House.  One fascinating statistic, ignored by pretty much everyone on all sides, is that there are 216 congressional districts that voted Republican in 2004, Republican in 2010, and Democratic at some point in the interim.  That means that just over 49 percent of the nation’s congressional districts are likely to vote Republican absent a perfect storm of economic, cultural, international, and ethical dilemmas such as those that plagued Republicans in 2006/08.  And that doesn’t take into account districts like TN-06, which was Democratic for generations but which moved into the GOP column in 2010 due to a blue dog retirement, nor does any of this take into account the re-districting that will take place over the next couple of years, which will almost certainly create a few more solid red districts.  As such, it is plausible that we are on the verge of a structural Republican majority in the House of Representatives.  That is to say, absent a complete Republican meltdown, the GOP should control the majority of seats in the House for the foreseeable future.

(more…)

Any GOP candidates interested in inserting themselves in the 2012 primary race have already got a big decision to make, courtesy of Nancy Reagan, Politico, and NBC News: whether or not to participate in the first GOP Primary debate coming to a TV screen near you in “spring 2011”.

There are several factors that will go into this decision for each candidate, the first of which is perhaps the most pedantic: when to announce your candidacy. There are several lines of thinking that go into that decision; for example, lesser well-known candidates tend to announce earlier in an attempt to get some press before the major candidates suck the air out of the room; more well-known candidates can afford to wait it out for a little while before announcing, but they have to jump in before all the fundraisers/operatives/campaign staff are taken by other campaigns; and candidates will want to hang back long enough to see if some other major candidate is going to get in and steal part of their base before deciding on a run (thus, the announcement game becomes rather like a game of political chicken).

Just for reference sake, here is when the 2008 contenders announced* their bids for the nomination:

• Oct 30, 2006 – Duncan Hunter
• Jan 10, 2007  – Jim Gilmore
• Jan 20 – Sam Brownback
• Jan 28 – Mike Huckabee
• Feb 5 – Rudy Giuliani
• Feb 13 – Mitt Romney
• Feb 28 – John McCain
• March 12 – Ron Paul
• Apr 1 – Tommy Thompson
• Apr 2 – Tom Tancredo
• Sep 5 – Fred Thompson

*“Announced” is a fuzzy term when it comes to entering a Presidential primary, especially for folks like Giuliani who never “officially” announced his candidacy. For our sakes, the dates listed are for the major speeches each candidate made declaring their candidacy, and not the filing of official paperwork with the FEC.

As you can see, there was a group of contenders who entered really early in an attempt to boost their name recognition, then the first tier candidates, and then those that were largely a response to what was, in their eyes, an inadequate field.

We could expect a similar pattern from our 2012 nominees, complicated somewhat by folks waiting to see whether or not Palin and Huckabee are going to throw their names in the hat.

But assuming “Spring 2011” means March-ish, the candidates have an interesting quandary: how late can they push back their entry into the race? Almost nobody I’ve read or talked to thinks a debate nearly a year out from the Iowa caucuses is a good idea. It runs the risk of overexposure, tiring the public out, and extending the race to a point where it potentially damages the eventual Republican candidate. Most Americans are not as interested in the daily twists and turns of politics as we are. Every ‘normal’ person I’ve talked with thinks they would be fed up with politics if people began campaigning that early.

So the candidates (at least those with an ounce of political acumen), are going to want to skip this debate. But how do you turn down an invitation from Nancy Reagan and the Reagan Library? And how do you avoid the attacks that Empty Podium Syndrome would invite, especially if you’re a (perceived) frontrunner?

The easiest way would be to not get in the race that early. Give Americans a break from politicking and campaigning, and then come on strong in April and May before people tune out for the summer months.

So my prediction is this: the only candidates who will show up at the Reagan/Politico/NBC debate will be the minor candidates who are desperate for exposure (Daniels, Thune, Johnson, and Pence for sure; you could potentially add Barbour and Pawlenty to that list depending on where their poll numbers are at that point) and Sarah Palin. Why Palin? Because Romney and Huckabee (and most likely Gingrich) will be smart enough not to commit to attend the debate, if they’re even in the race yet, and Palin (who, for all her strengths, clearly lacks political skills) will view it as a first chance to shine on a big stage without the other frontrunners to steal the spotlight. Romney will stay out for the same reason I imagine he refused to play FOXNews’ 12 in ’12 game: he has determined to do this campaign in his time on his terms. Just as he said, “Thanks, FOX, but it’s way too early and this doesn’t line up with my plans,” he will (implicitly) say the same to the Reagan Library.

Whoever decides to attend this debate or not will be one of the first big stories from the 2012 primary race and much ink will be spilled wondering about whether or not it hurts the big names by them bowing out. I’m telling you right now that it won’t. Remember, you heard these predictions here first!

Of all the good news that the American Right is savouring at the moment, Marco Rubio’s victory must be near the top. Rubio won 49 percent of Florida’s vote, defeating Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek (20 percent) and (at 30 percent) Governor Charlie Crist, a frightfully ambitious former Republican, turned independent, who reportedly flirted with joining the Senate Democratic caucus, if elected. Rubio, a rising conservative star, promises to glow like the Sunshine State that he will represent.

For years, Republicans have been chided — rather unfairly — as the party of old, bald white men. Rubio undermines this accusation. Just 39 years old, Rubio exudes warmth and good humour. His youthful demeanor and movie-star good looks serve him well. Whether pundits like it or not, these things matter to voters.

Part of the pain of the George W. Bush years was watching the President of the United States struggle to place three or four sentences in a row. Too many Republicans endure a similar malady, though rarely with such severe symptoms. In contrast, Rubio communicates very clearly. His campaign speeches and TV interviews were cogent, forceful, and self-confident.

Republicans also have mixed success in appealing to minority voters. Only some 10 percent of blacks usually vote Republican, seemingly no matter what. But up to 40 percent of Hispanics have voted Republican, as benefitted President Bush in 2004.

However, the highly contentious debate on immigration reform has hammered the GOP’s reputation among Hispanics. In 2008, Senator John McCain (R – Arizona) won just 31 percent of that demographic, according to Pew Research, despite being considered fairly relaxed on immigration. (Pew further reports that 34 percent of Hispanics voted for Republican House contenders Tuesday, versus 30 percent in the 2006 mid-term elections. The numbers for blacks were 9 and 10 percent, respectively — exactly where they have been cemented for decades.) As a high-profile American of Cuban ancestry, Rubio offers Republicans a decent chance to heal their self-inflicted wounds as concerns Hispanics.

Assuming that his positives on the campaign trail follow him into office, Rubio appears destined for the GOP national ticket, perhaps as the running mate to an older and more established nominee or, no less likely, as the younger presidential contender who would share the bill with a seasoned “graybeard” — much as George W. Bush and Barack Obama placed, respectively, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and former U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D – Delaware) on their respective tickets.

If so, Rubio would bring to the table his star power, youthful energy, and Florida’s 27 electoral votes, one tenth of what’s needed to secure the Electoral College. That could be a powerful hand to play.

Atmospherics and electoral maths aside, the best thing about Rubio is that he is an idea-driven free-market conservative. Unlike too many top GOP officials, Rubio will not simply blow around with the breeze.

He is a one-man think tank. His website includes “10 Simple Ways to Lower HealthCare Costs,” “12 Simple Ways to Improve Education,” and “23 Simple Ways to Create Jobs.”

Among his “12 Simple Ways to Cut Spending,” he suggests:

“To get spending under control…we should freeze federal civilian workforce pay for one year and bring the pay scale back in line with market rates. In addition, we should reduce its size to 2008 levels. To accomplish this without disrupting critical government services, we should implement a policy of only hiring just one civilian employee for every two who leave government.” Rubio also believes that “We should mandate that all discretionary spending programs end every 10 years after the Census, unless Congress specifically votes to continue them.”

Such ideas are catnip to conservatives. Further, as David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s budget cuts suggest, they are exactly the sort of thing that an overextended industrial democracy must do to rebuild its fiscal house.

As an intellectually and visually appealing senator-elect, Marco Rubio is as good as it gets among this week’s crop of newly minted Republican parliamentarians. His future is as bright as an afternoon on South Beach.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. This article was published originally in The Spectator on November 4th, 2010.

Last night, as I watched the election results fall into place, I felt something very different than the euphoria that I had experienced in 2004, 2002, or even 2000, when Florida was “uncalled” for Gore and landed in Bush’s column.  In each of those elections, I was elated — my team had won, was coming to power, and would presumably do things that were good for the country once in power.  I saw that same elation in Democrats back in 2006 and 2008.  But last night, and today, were different.  Instead of jubilant, I feel almost…subdued.  At first I thought it was just me.  Maybe I am lacking fiber in my diet, I reasoned.  But this bittersweet sentiment — a combination of exhaustion, disappointment, and quiet assent, seems to be permeating the right side of the blogosphere.  Geraghty is feelin’ the blues. So is Ace. And so are many of our readers, as well as conservatives throughout the blogosphere.  What gives?

First, I think that one of the main culprits is whoever sold the conservative masses on this bill of goods that we were somehow going to experience an 1894-style re-aligning election.  Come Election Eve, pretty much everyone was assuming that their own estimates were on the low end of the spectrum of possibilities.  There were supposedly tons of House seats that no one had polled that were going to flip to the GOP.  Barney Frank was going to go down.  So was Harry Reid.  The GOP was going to dominate the country, win both houses of Congress, and usher in the next phase of American politics.  In short, conservatives were hoping for a true revolution, similar to the New Deal or the Reagan Revolution.

But that didn’t materialize.  What we saw instead was a return to normalcy, which, incidentally, was a phrase used by Warren G. Harding’s campaign to describe the end of the Wilsonian interregnum that interrupted the McKinley-TR-Taft-Harding-Coolidge-Hoover era.  What we saw last night was a return to the pre-10/06 map.  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin became light blue again, with Republicans narrowly winning Senate seats in each (something that is to be expected in light blue states during GOP years).  Ohio and Florida became red again, but not so red that Republicans can take them for granted.  Republicans won a huge number of Rust Belt seats, just as they lost scores of Rust Belt seats in 2006.  New Hampshire resumed its status as the West Berlin of the Northeast, a bastion of freedom surrounded by social democracies.  Illinois once again has one moderate Republican senator, but is still basically blue.  The South is back to its ruby red hue.  California maintains its status as the nation’s circus.  And the Rocky Mountain West continues to flirt with the Democrats, just as it did during the early and middle 2000s when it would frequently disappoint the GOP in statewide elections.  It’s as if the past four years were a political phase the country was going through.  Well, now everything’s back to normal.

But that’s just it.  Republicans didn’t want a return to normalcy.  They wanted the Tea Party Revolution.  They wanted Buck to win, Angle to take down Reid, Whitman and Fiorina to come from behind in California, Raese to take the Byrd seat, Miller to be Alaska’s first anti-pork senator, and Christine O’Donnell to make a surprise upset in Delaware.  They wanted to know that Obama would be beaten by ANY Republican in 2012.  They envisioned the repeal of the 16th Amendment in 2013, along with the repeal of ObamaCare.  They wanted a sea change in the way Americans thought about government and interacted with government.

Instead, they got essentially an apology note from Americans for the past 48 months.  And conservatives find this frustrating, because the visions of revolution that danced in their heads are dashed.  If Pennsylvania will only vote statewide for a Republican for national office by a couple of percentage points in a year like THIS, then how are we to expect it to vote for the GOP presidential ticket in 2012?  What about Ohio?  Kasich barely pulled it out.  Could Obama win there again?  Ditto Florida.  Just look at Scott’s razor thin margin.  It’s still a swing state.  And then there’s the West.  Is Colorado the new New Jersey, a perpetual tease for the GOP?

These questions aren’t nearly as pressing as they initially appear to be.  Of course Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could vote GOP in 2012.  Even for a down-the-line conservative, a la Pat Toomey.  But it’s going to be close, and the conservative candidate will have to be carefully selected, and we still won’t know the result until 2 am on Election Night, and conservatives wanted to hear none of that.  They were ready to go for broke and nominate someone who made Sarah Palin seem milquetoast.  Now, about 24 hours after the House was called for the GOP, Pawlenty seems a smarter pick than Palin.

Republicans wanted 100 House seats and got 60.  They wanted 10 Senate seats and got 6.  They wanted a revolution and got a return to normalcy.  And, like John Boehner’s victory speech last night, there seems to be little joy in their collective demeanor despite winning more House seats than in any election since 1946.  The GOP was stoic and sober in victory this year.  But there is plenty of reason for sunny optimism.  The emerging Democratic majority has been destroyed.  Republicans regained pretty much all the ground they lost over the past four years.  And we’re back to our rightful status as a center-right country.  That’s not nothing.

Yes, that Warren Harding.  November 2 marks the birthday of many historians’ perennial choice for the worst president ever.  Tea Partiers are embracing the folksy, budget-cutting Calvin Coolidge, who assumed office upon Harding’s death in 1923, but only a few prominent conservatives have dared to try reviving the legacy of our 29th president, tainted forever with the stench of Teapot Dome and other scandals, along with all-night poker and sexual debauchery.

His reputation as a failure is so ingrained in our collective memory that a detailing and rebuttal of his supposedly sleazy tenure is clearly not possible in this tiny space.  Suffice it to say, the scandalous dealings of his Interior and Veteran’s Affairs secretaries reflect his poor judgment, and his moral shortcomings are as emblematic of the 20s as flappers and bootleg gin.  But the WORST president ever?  Proof that the Harding name can’t get a break is that his wife Florence is generally considered the worst of all first ladies.  In a just world, this strong, trail-blazing patriot (an advocate for veterans, she referred to them as her “boys”) would be extolled as a role model and forerunner of such activist presidential wives as Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton.  But the die was cast shortly after the president’s death, and later generations accepted as gospel the proclamations of the historians.

Nonetheless, it was the economic policies of Warren Harding (that continued in the Coolidge administration) that averted economic collapse early in his term and launched the roaring 20s.  His highly lauded appointments included Charles Evans Hughes at State , Andrew Mellon at Treasury and former president William Howard Taft as chief justice of the Supreme Court. His presidency established the first guidelines for detailing federal budgets, imposed limits on immigration, cut tax rates and supported equality for women and black Americans.  Not bad for 29 months in office.  He opposed Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, and — here’s the ultimate sin — ran on a platform of “America First” and a “Return to Normalcy.”

The ever-affable Harding stood in stark contrast to his predecessor  Wilson, perceived by the public to be intellectually effete and distant.  The American people overwhelmingly sided with the Hardings over the reform-minded progressives of the day, and even now he is chided for, as a newspaper man, writing editorials full of ‘platitudes’ about God, country, home and mother.  Author Margaret Truman, in naming Florence the worst first lady, chided her for (I hope you’re sitting down) scolding White House servants who lowered the shades to keep the public from gawking in. ” ‘Let ‘em look if they want to,’ Mrs. Harding said, ‘It’s their White House.’ “   Gasp!

Had it not been for Teapot Dome, Harding would have been remembered as another hayseed who conned voters with such bunk as ‘America First.’  At the time, the Hardings connected seamlessly with a nation weary from war and the emergence of worldwide socialism.  The Hardings were business owners who had run a successful newspaper, thus his administration valued thrift and initiative along with unapologetic patriotism.  His hard work and accomplishments are forgotten by history, while the good intentions of Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama win Nobel Prizes.  His reputation is enjoying a slight revival, but the legacy of Warren Harding endures in the notion that while a president should be smarter than the average voter, he should  draw from the moral fortitude and industriousness of the people, for it is from there that America’s greatness thrives for generations to come.

___________________________________________________________________

David Bozeman, former Libertarian Party Chairman, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Per Dave’s “put up or shut up” challenge, here are my predictions for tomorrow.

House of Representatives: I am predicting a 67-72 seat pickup for the GOP in the House tomorrow night, with the caveat being that I feel that the final result may actually be higher than the top number I have listed here. A 15 point GOP advantage on the generic ballot is simply unprecedented, so we are in truly unchartered territory here. I don’t think that anyone has ever really thought about what a 15 point Republican lead would result in. We’ll find out soon enough.

United States Senate: My final prediction is a nine seat GOP pickup in the Senate, which will result in a temporary 50/50 tie. Like Dave, I believe that JoMo will caucus with the GOP this time around as he sports negative approval ratings among Democrats and Independents, but enjoys a net positive approval among Republicans. I have this viseceral feeling that Raese defeats Manchin tomorrow. But the numbers are the numbers, and they say that Manchin eeks it out tomorrow night, so I am chickening out on predicting an outright GOP takeover.

The thing is, with a 15 point lead in the generic ballot, how can the GOP not flip the Senate as well? There is also the fact that the Senate has always flipped along with the House in modern elections. My gut tells me that the Republicans flip both houses tomorrow. My head tells me they do not.

On a personal note… Being a Minnesotan, it may surprise some people that the race which means the most to me personally is the Florida U.S. Senate race. It has been quite a while since I have felt as invested in a Republican candidate as I have felt with Marco Rubio. You may think I am crazy for thinking so far ahead, but I really believe that Marco Rubio is destined to become not only a Republican nominee, but President of the United States.  I don’t know when it will come to pass, but Marco Rubio will be President someday. So if I start referring to him as “46″, you are all “in” on my reasons for doing so.