Bold prediction for tonight’s primaries: competence

posted at 3:05 pm on February 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Why “competence”?  Today will be the first primary conducted in a month, and a temporary end to a series of caucuses that left figurative egg on the faces of state Republican parties.  In today’s column for The Week, I look back at the series of embarrassing stumbles in the nomination process from caucus states, and ask why either party would tolerate such an anachronistic system for something as important as a presidential nomination:

Thanks to their high-tech practice of counting ballots by hand in each precinct and writing down the results on scraps of paper, it took until the wee hours of the morning before the Republican Party of Iowa declared Mitt Romney the winner by eight votes over a surprisingly strong Rick Santorum. But Santorum’s strength was even more surprising than the Iowa GOP calculated. Figures from a few precincts had been written down incorrectly. Two weeks later, Iowa got around to finally declaring that Santorum and not Romney had won the Iowa caucuses, long after the New Hampshire primary results had been certified, making a joke of Iowa’s insistence on going first in the nomination process.

The next caucus took place in Nevada, and disaster followed Republicans into the Silver State. The best that can be said about Nevada’s caucus process was that it took them much less time to figure out who won, but the actual results didn’t get published for two days. Veteran Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston reported on the “chaos” in the Las Vegas caucus location, and said that the process made “the Keystone Kops look like the Mossad” …

The caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado passed with relatively little controversy or trouble, but Maine provided the nadir of the caucus model thus far. First, Maine’s caucuses lasted an entire week, not just a few hours on a single day. No one knows exactly why it takes Maine a week to caucus when the state manages to vote in general elections in a single day. But regardless, when it came time to count the votes, Republicans in Maine managed to make Iowa look efficient. Six days after the conclusion of the caucuses, the GOP chair admitted that the party missed a number of precinct tallies because they ended up in the spam folder of an email account. Romney ended up (barely) winning the Maine caucuses over Ron Paul, but Paul supporters are still angry over the vote-counting failure. …

All of this prompts the question as to why states use the caucus model at all. Caucuses are a throwback to 19th-century politicking, before the days of the “Australian ballot” reform that led to voting privacy and better control of elections by the states. By the early 20th century, political reformers in many states had moved the vote-casting and vote-counting functions of nominating contests to the widely-accepted voting systems, where the votes could be counted by the state government rather than party leaders. While some may complain that even the state ballot system has its problems, as Florida proved in 2000 and Minnesota in 2008, disruptions in the voting and counting process are rare rather than systemic. Instead of creating Keystone Kops scenarios, parties can rely on existing, modern infrastructure to reliably tally the votes for each candidate.

Polls close in both states at 9 pm ET tonight.  Thanks to the use of existing voting infrastructure, we should get a pretty good idea within a couple of hours how Michigan goes, and probably will know for sure about Arizona within an hour.  Compare that to the messes in Iowa, Maine, and Nevada, where it took days or weeks to get solid vote totals — and except for Nevada, for no delegates at all anyway. By tomorrow morning, we’ll know who won both states, and we won’t be hearing about botched vote totals, e-mail spam captures, or any other amateurish stumbles on the grandest political stage possible.

CNN asked me to analyze the impact of Michigan for Mitt Romney in today’s vote, and while it’s not exactly a make-or-break moment, a loss here would be difficult for Romney to absorb:

Going into Michigan, Romney had a home-field advantage, a large edge in fundraising, and most definitely an overwhelming lead in advertising.  Santorum helped Romney out six days ago in the CNN debate with a mediocre, defensive performance resulting from constant attacks by Romney during the event.  If Romney is truly both inevitable and the most electable candidate in the field, those advantages should have been decisive.  Instead, surveys from Public Policy Polling show a rebound for Santorum in the last 48 hours, and the numbers indicate a narrow Santorum victory if that momentum continues.

Even Romney seems to recognize that a Michigan loss complicates his sales pitch.  Earlier today, Romney allowed that “the candidate sometimes makes mistakes,” and that “this isn’t going to be over in a day or two.”  That sounds like a candidate attempting to manage expectations downward on a primary day – although it should be noted that Santorum’s team was singing a similar tune over the weekend.

Calling Michigan a “make-or-break state” for Romney might be an overstatement, but not by much.  He obviously has the resources to go the distance in the nomination fight, a status that his competitors may not share at the moment.  Romney will win states on Super Tuesday next week, too.  However, a loss in his native state after five years of campaigning and planning will damage Romney’s argument for competence and electability, and breathe more life into the Santorum campaign after a week in which Romney should have delivered a knockout blow. In this case, the impact goes beyond the delegate allocation.

CNN didn’t ask me about Rick Santorum’s position in Michigan, but I’d say it’s perhaps more important for Santorum to win.  A close second place won’t win Santorum any momentum, not after building large leads before the last debate and raising expectations for a big win in Michigan.  He needs to show he can beat Romney in primaries that matter for delegate counts, and even though Santorum is guaranteed to get a good chunk of Michigan’s delegates either way, having the victory in hand only to have it slip away will undermine confidence in his ability to close the deal.  A loss isn’t necessarily fatal, as Santorum will win Oklahoma next week and still leads in Ohio, but it won’t help him make up ground against Romney in a tough Super Tuesday week.

For the record, I’ll predict a 20-point win in Arizona for Romney, and a close two-point win for Santorum in Michigan.  I’ll be on the air tonight with Jack Riccardi in San Antonio and Hugh Hewitt nationally as the returns come in, so be sure to join me on both programs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

We should’ve annexed Mexico when we had the chance.

eva3071 on April 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Drone surveillance reveals: Border Patrol capturing less than 50% of illegals in parts of southern Arizona

Huge waste of time and money. These pols have no interest whatsoever in managing this border.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 4, 2013 at 4:44 PM

But Napolitano says our border is as secure as it’s ever been! Did we always suck at defending our border? Or did we just lay out a banquette of free government benefits and dare foreigners to walk over and take some?

Socratease on April 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Time to let the military control the border…the boys in camo-pants know how to hold and defend a line in the sand!

powerpickle on April 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Drone surveillance reveals: Border Patrol capturing less than 50% of illegals in parts of southern Arizona

They’re still capturing that many?

Doomberg on April 4, 2013 at 4:53 PM

They don’t care about the “illegals.” They care about us.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-confirms-it-s-spying-on-anti-government-americans

rrpjr on April 4, 2013 at 5:02 PM

That’s the plan.

NeoKong on April 4, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Actually, none of that proves that the feds’ 2011 numbers are inaccurate. It might simply mean that border security is … getting worse.

Well duh… Barky O’Dogeater won’t let anyone enforce our immigrations laws, how could border security possibly get better?

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Did we always suck at defending our border?
Socratease on April 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

No, we only started sucking at defending our borders when the Marxist’s infiltrated our government.

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Looks like we need armed drones for that task.

Obama is so good at whacking Talibanese, I wonder how well he’d do against the rabblke scooting across the border in Arizona?

dockywocky on April 4, 2013 at 5:12 PM

The bill will be be deficit neutral just like Obamacare and you can take that to the bank!

Wigglesworth on April 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM

50% is like a SOLID B+ for 0bama.

BTW, how many jobs were lost or not created by not building the fence that the will of the people Congress authorized. 0 sure is adding a precedent for the next president to ignore any and all legislation from previous congress’s. Not sure why the next president couldn’t refuse all of 0bama HellCare bill because he thinks it unconstitutional.

jukin3 on April 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

What really bugs me is the poll at the top of the LA Times story that asks if drones should be used to patrol the border. 92% are in favor. Ok great, but if you have good desert survival skills and can evade the drone technology more than 50% of these people are in favor of giving these border jumpers a path to citizenship? Morons!

Wigglesworth on April 4, 2013 at 5:38 PM

We should’ve annexed Mexico when we had the chance.

Ya know, that was an almost done deal back after the Mexican American War. There was the concern though of all those Mexicans we’d have to accept as citizens, Catholics to boot, and both the culture and fact that we’d have millions more Catholics, who, at the time, weren’t especially liked by the majority of US citizens, most being Protestant and intolerant if not bitterly loathing of Catholics put the kabosh on the whole annexation thing, IIRC.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Perhaps it’s time to call out the unorganized militia?

Another Drew on April 4, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Could someone politely explain to Senator Rubio that he is in grave danger of becoming Florida’s next Charlie Crist?

Another Drew on April 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Nothing to see here. These are simply undocumented border crossings by unnamed unmentionable entities that we don’t apprehend, see or even acknowledge. Until they are registered Democrats.

ghostwalker1 on April 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Huge waste of time and money. These pols have no interest whatsoever in managing this border.

Well for now. Once that great and grand utopia has been put into place and the leftist have perpetual control of government, and just about everything else, we’ll see how fast the borders are manned and managed……to keep all the producers in our paradise.

Just remember who built the Berlin Wall and who installed the wire and guard towers on the East German border……it wasn’t the West Berliners attempting to keep all those communists out.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Perhaps it’s time to call out the unorganized militia?

When ya set back and think about it, its way, way, past time.

If only.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

410/7333 =/= 50%!!!

abobo on April 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM

In contrast, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, estimated in January that the Border Patrol had caught 64% of those who illegally crossed into the Tucson sector in 2011…

LOL. Based on what?

Anyone who believes any numbers that come out of this lying, sack o’ sh!t government deserves what they get.

How about some fraud prosecutions? Sure …

I do like the “64%” to make it sound as if the number is based on something other than “pull it out of my azz”. It reminds of Barky’s junta claiming that their porkulus had created 3,231,873.32 jobs. Okey doke.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM