Jul
24
Who really chooses party nominees?
July 24, 2010 | 13 Comments
The other day we had a bit of a discussion in the comments about the 2012 election, and Jay Anderson expressed concern about Mitt Romney’s possible nomination, noting that the GOP has a penchant for nominating old-time retreads. That is a fairly good point. With the exception of George W. Bush, every single Republican nominee after Goldwater was either someone who had run an unsuccessful campaign previously or was the sitting incumbent. Nixon of course lost the general in 1960, Reagan had a failed primary campaign in 1976 (and a lower profile one in 1968), Bush the elder lost to Reagan in 1980, Dole was a several time loser, and McCain lost in 2000. Then there was Ford, who was a sitting incumbent.
On the surface, it seems a bit odd to suggest that the Republican party really chooses anyone. After all, this is the age of primaries, and it is the electorate, not party pooh-bahs that select nominees, right? Or is that really the case? With the exception of Reagan in 1980, each of the nominees in the primary era was what you might dub the establishment pick. And what is the establishment? Party leaders, other elected GOP officials, Beltway pundits, etc. I think that I would not be going out on a limb in suggesting that had the nominee been selected in the pre-1972 manner, the result would have been no different in any year again with the possible exception of 1980. In fact, the older system arguably produced as many if not more “outsider” nominations than the new one – Goldwater in 1964 being the prime example.
So this got me to wondering. Are primaries really done deals before they even start? Another way of putting it is, does the emergence of a clear establishment candidate send a signal to GOP primary voters that steers them towards a preferred candidate?
It would be a difficult thing to measure. One potential way of measuring the effect of establishment preference would be to see if there is an immediate upswing in a candidate’s fund-raising post-major endorsement. Polling numbers are unreliable, especially during the course of primary season, but that might be another way to check to see if establishment endorsements have sway.
Another question – does the same hold true for the Democrats? Does the “establishment” candidate have an edge? Well, there the evidence is a bit murkier. I would suggest that, at the very least, McGovern, Carter, and Obama would not have been the selections of an insider party convention or caucus. Even Bill Clinton might not have become the nominee under the old method of selecting candidates. Does this suggest that Democratic primary voters are less swayed by their party’s establishment preferences, or is this just the result of an unusual set of circumstances?
One last thing. Considering the number of incumbent Republican officials that have already been bounced in primaries, on top of other clear establishment preferences going down to defeat (the Kentucky Senate race being one such example of the latter), are we headed towards a new era where establishment preferences no longer hold as much sway, assuming of course that they do currently?
These are all questions to ponder, and perhaps an enterprising individual out there could crunch some of the numbers. It almost sounds like a project for a Political Science class. Just credit Professor Zummo for giving you the idea.
Comments
13 Comments so far
The degree to which branding and fund raising matter is distressing and they might matter less if the salient electorate were less inclined to be influenced by advertising campaigns (as would be the case for county chairmen and aldermen).
The problem with your thesis is that your sample is small and several of these campaigns (1976, 2000, 2008) were quite competitive.
The problem with your thesis is that your sample is small and several of these campaigns (1976, 2000, 2008) were quite competitive.
Good point. It also occurred to me after I posted that it might not be so much one side influencing the other, but rather one candidate emerging from the pack and coalescing around that candidate.
Now if I were a quantitative political scientist I’d hammer out some regression analysis and throw up some formulas to test how much the establishment influences the grassroots (or vice versa), but alas, I’m the books and papers kind of political scientist, not the graphs and caclulator kind.
The CFR, has the deck stacked every single time…both parties,doesnt matter,ever since WWII…………..There have only been two presidential candidates that were not on board with the CFR global government agenda. That would be Reagan, and Barry Goldwater…..Reagan was just too well liked to not get elected,nevertheless, his administration,just like every administration was infested with CFR members… As Hillary Clinton,in her speech to the Council,makes it clear who is in charge….Rockefeller and the CFR..
“Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but its good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I wont have as far to go to be TOLD WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING,AND HOW WE SHOULD BE THINKING about the future. “
Now,the CFR, is a private ,invitation only organization,who’s goal is to bring in a world government…Its members consist of the elite, corporate bankers, the C.E.O.’s of Fortune 500 corporations, high ranking military, and of course the media…BOTH Left and Right wing….Murdoch himself,and NewsCorp can be found on the current member list.
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=M
The trilateral commission is the executive arm of the CFR,,,,Founded by David Rockefeller,it is the government. One of the top censored news stories of the year, is Obama and his trilateral commission…as soon as he took office he appointed 11 members,including General James L. Jones, Holbrooke,Rice, Geithner, and Volker
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/22-obamas-trilateral-commission-team/
Now that I think about it, here are your candidates whose preparation for the office was somewhere in the range of adequacy:
Richard Nixon
Nelson Rockefeller
–
Richard Nixon
–
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
–
George Bush the Elder
John Connolly
Ronald Reagan
–
Ronald Reagan
–
George Bush the Elder
Pierre du Pont
–
George Bush the Elder
–
Lamar Alexander
–
George Bush the Younger
–
Rudolph Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney
You run through the list and you deduct…
1. men whose opportunism was manifest (Nixon, Giuliani, Bush the Elder [?], Romney [?]), and then…
2. Those who appear to have certain biases toward political economy they might have picked up at Jaycees meetings but manifest no interest in ideas and prefer to engage in incremental adjustments to architecture constructed by others (Ford, Bush the Elder[?], Alexander [?], Romney [?]), and then…
3. Those whose principles appear haphazard and idiosyncratic (Bush the Younger)…
4. Those who would belong in the Democratic Party in our time (Rockefeller)…
And you are left with Messrs. Reagan, du Pont, and Huckabee. That would be three suitable candidates in 40+ years. As for Mr. Reagan, he had some severe flaws. Did you catch Angelo Codevilla’s article in The American Spectator? There is a reason only a modest fraction of Republican voters are all that satisfied with their party.
I gather, Paul, that the remnants of the John Birch Society have found their way here.
Trilateral commission member,and Obama National Security Adviser, makes it pretty clear who calls the shots for U.S. foreign policies. David Rockefeller frontman ,and known war criminal Henry Kissinger….at a speech to the Council, at the 45th Munich Conference
Published February 8, 2009
Speaker:
James L. Jones
U.S. National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.
“Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Adviser of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th_munich_conference_on_security_policy.html
“Birchers, I hate those guys.”
Well clearly Chris, I mean CHRIS, is barking up the wrong tree. As we all know, it’s really the StoneCutters who run everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBav72i7I3s
Sometime in 2008 I posted a lengthy diatribe about the problems with the primary system. Current system means myself and most others had no say in presidential elections. Having the same states vote early in the process disenfranchises a lot of people. I went ahead and voted for Fred Thompson in the primary even though McCain already had it sewn up. In the general election I had the “choice” between a guy who spent Sunday’s mornings irritating me for more than a decade or a guy I was pretty sure would be much worse.
My idea (which is open to tweaking) is we should have a date by which potential candidates need to submit a job application. We (the electorate) are the hiring managers. No funds are raised prior to that date. After they submit their application each interested candidate undergoes a complete background check is done by the FBI and is given a general knowledge test. Some math, civics, history, some current events, etc. There is no pass or fail grade, but their answers to each question is publicized.
I would prefer that the parties apportion delegates properly, hold their primaries and precinct caucuses on a single day in early June, hold their conventions in mid July, have their national committees chose the VP nominee in August, and hit the Iowa and New Hampshire state parties with every sanction they can if these characters refuse to co-operate. This whole asinine business of nomination by frenzy should stop.
Very interesting thoughts, CC. I’ve always believed this myself. I think it goes hand in hand with a propensity for “conservatism” (in its truest sense at least) that the GOP tends to circle the wagons around the establishment candidate.
It’s not necessarily a knock or criticism, though it can be. In some cases it may be a strength of Republicans to be more inclined to reward faithful service. But I do think at some level ordinary, middle American voters when pushed into a corner tend to trust the name or face that they know.
On the other hand, Democrats have a tendency to take a bigger chance on the outsider. Frankly, with voting bases in places like California or New York or Vermont, etc, it should be expected that the Democrat voter has a different mentality. Obama and Carter are the best examples in recent times. Bill Clinton is a decent example too. Yeah, I know these guys weren’t total outsiders and they had given big speeches to get face time. But if the situations were reversed, I’m not sure these people become president. I think the Republican party voters might have rewarded someone like a Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with being atop the presidential ticket instead.
Let’s see if this changes going into the future. Not sure if the Republican party has had less of a crop of “establishment candidates” in recent times. That Cheney was a 2 term veep with no further ambitions and McCain’s age are x-factors not present in past scenarios.
Jeff – That’s my thinking as well. Dems go for the charming newcomer, Reps go for the old standard-bearer.
There’s also a pre-primary that the Republicans tend to have. They sort out who the top conservative candidate and moderate candidate is, then the primary itself is Reagan vs. Bush or Bush vs. Kemp. (In 2008, no one could agree on which candidate was what kind of conservative, and the system failed.)
I don’t think the Democrats do that kind of pre-sorting. Their primaries are scrambles for the same endorsements, and staking out the same positions. Bill Clinton could have represented a move in the direction of a two-wing party, but that broke down when his designated successor heard the anguished cry of the Planet.
Even a 2012 Hillary / Obama primary wouldn’t do much to break up the monolithic voice of the Democrats. She’d be running to his right on foreign policy, to his left on health care, and pitting the feminists against the racialists again.