Yes, a conservative candidate is electable
posted at 12:07 pm on December 29, 2011 by Karl
Commentary’s Jonathan S. Tobin (tough competition for Jennifer Rubin as the media’s most shameless Mitt Romney shill) defends National Review’s anti-endorsement of Newt Gingrich against the critics:
The latest to vent his spleen about this alleged betrayal of conservative principle is Jeffrey Lord who wrote in the American Spectator that the attack on Gingrich was akin to NR’s founder William F. Buckley blasting Barry Goldwater in 1964 or Ronald Reagan in 1980. His point was not just that any of the other conservatives still in the race was better than Romney but that Buckley’s magazine had become the moral equivalent of the old-line GOP establishment that its founder had spent his life battling.
But Lord’s anguish is misplaced. Newt Gingrich isn’t Ronald Reagan. Neither is Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman [sic] or Rick Perry. And if you really think any of them are worthy successors to Barry Goldwater, does anyone on the right believe another 1964-style wipeout that would mean four more years of President Barack Obama is a good idea?
A focus on winning in 2012 is what many conservatives think is wrong with NR’s editors and others who have come to grips with the fact that Romney is the Republicans’ best chance for victory next November. Lord, and others who agree with him are not really arguing that Gingrich should be president any more than they are making a serious case for Perry, Bachmann or Santorum. None of them have a ghost of a shot at beating Obama though all of them can make a much better case than Gingrich for representing a consistent conservative stance on the majority of the issues. Rather, Lord seems to be making the case that ideological purity is a higher value than electability.
What does Tobin have against strawmen that causes him to beat them so repeatedly? His column makes most of the same errors John Hawkins made earlier this week in claiming Romney is unelectable. Like Hawkins, Tobin likely exaggerates the impact of ideology on voter choices, ignoring the fundamentals. The general consensus among political scientists is that in presidential elections, the dominant factor is the economy, with candidate ideology being a distant second. Indeed, the studies suggest that a moderate does 1% or 2% better. The 1964 wipeout of Barry Goldwater is remarkably well-explained by the fundamentals of peace and prosperity that year. Absent the most remarkable economic turnaround in American history, a 1964-magnitude loss would probably not be in the cards for any of the candidates Tobin mentions.
This is not to argue that only the fundamentals matter; in October, I would have placed the odds of Obama’s re-election at better than one-in-seven, and they are likely even better now. Rather, the point is that people who fixate on electability at the expense of the fundamentals tend to lapse into foolish arguments. They also tend to be unknowingly drenched in irony. If you want to fixate on electability, ideology is part of the mix, but so is the very basic Dale Carnegie notion of making friends and influencing people. The snide arrogance of many Romney supporters is every bit as annoying to others as the spoon-banging of True Conservatives claiming they will stay home in November if Romney is nominated. The voices shouting the loudest on both sides about electability seem to have a shaky grasp on the concept.
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
Bravo, Karl… well said.
“Cogito, ergo TEA Party!” ~ DeepWheat
DeepWheat on December 29, 2011 at 1:35 PM
Where did this ‘electability’ thing come from? Seems as if it’s the latest buzz word for all the talking heads. What have we gained if we elect someone other than Zero, if he’s not truly a conservative and we don’t achieve the changes that’s needed to preserve the country.
Kissmygrits on December 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Maybe I need more coffee, but I don’t get what the headline has to do with the body of the story. Sure, theoretically, a dyed in the wool conservative candidate is electable but none of the conservatives running this time (Perry, Santorum, Bachmann) are electable (and this is not an ideological statement, but a logical one) and I don’t need NRO, Jen Rubin or anyone else to come to this conclusion. I’m at a loss trying to figure out who this electable conservative candidate is (unless you mean Romney who is plenty conservative enough for me, but not enough for Hot Airians).
I do think Romney is the most electable (for many reasons) and so far the polls indicate that my reasoning is sound. Among those reasons is his background as a turnaround specialist, so the economy is indeed a big part of it. But I find it highly unlikely that his poll numbers are affected one way or another by anything I (or others) have said, no matter how “snidely arrogant” they may appear. Also, I don’t know a single Romney supporter who will stay home in a fit of petulance in November if he’s not the nominee, so perhaps we shouldn’t be lumped in with the “spoon-bangers”.
Ironically, many of us do wish Romney could be more of a pit bull but I also realize that while it can be profoundly satisfying for the base, it can be polarizing with the general electorate and could make the candidate himself appear “snidely arrogant” – which is one of Gingrich’s problems.
Buy Danish on December 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM
It’s been around since McCain. I think the media were as surprised as anyone that they were able to get him nominated. But now that they’ve done that, they’re like sharks after a bucket of blood has been thrown in the water.
logis on December 29, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Buy Danish,
Technically, Huntsman would be the most electable.
And yet… right?
Karl on December 29, 2011 at 3:24 PM
It’s a cudgel for the media to use against any conservative who might threaten the selected stooge they’ve chosen to lose against any given democrat.
squint on December 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM
Well I must be a contrarian cause I thought Romney was the most electable (and a far more “conservative”, but I digress) in 2008 too. And McCain didn’t lose because he was attacked by sharks. They pulled the class warfare card over how many houses and shoes he owned, but that was hardly enough to cost him the election. He lost because he bungled the Wall Street meltdown, and so forth.
Technically based on paper models perhaps (the same could have been said about Fred Thompson), but Jon is registering less than zero on the public radar. It could be name recognition, but methinks his uncongenial personality has a lot to do with it. While Mitt isn’t exactly a firecracker, or warm and cuddly, he doesn’t give the impression he’s walking around with a huge chip on his shoulder.
I betcha voters see a small person, literally and figuratively, who is humorless and sour. His “LOL” antic was nasty, childish and un-presidential. His personality reminds me of Obama, but he lacks that soothing baritone to lull voters into pulling the lever for him. Unless the GOP field has a total meltdown, which is probably what he’s holding out for but I won’t be betting with him on InTrade…
Buy Danish on December 29, 2011 at 6:52 PM
There is, of course, no way to guess what the “point” of that bizarre diatribe is supposed to be. Romney called the TARP bailout a “success,” even when he had no stake in it and could have at least pretended to be conservative if he so chose.
And the stuff about… shoes, or something? Romney’s in a better position to weather the “class warfare” rhetoric?
Whatever. Of course I never said that John McCain was the most liberal person in the entire world; only that it was a coup for the liberal media to get him nominated as a Republican Presidential candidate, and that’s where the 10,000 news stories in the past three years touting that “Only Someone More Moderate Than McCain Can Possibly Beat The Most Radical President In History” came from.
So now they’re doubling down and your guy’s getting his chance. You people should be happy now, but somehow I don’t think that’s ever going to actually happen.
logis on December 29, 2011 at 9:43 PM
logis on December 29, 2011 at 9:43 PM
What “diatribe”? Seriously, at the risk of sounding “snidely arrogant” some of you need to rein in the hyperbole. My point about McCain was not that he supported TARP, but that he appeared desperate (“putting his campaign on hold”) and inept. I venture to guess Romney would not have given that impression to the electorate. But thanks for pointing out he had no stake in it. The Dems and some Hot Airians are trying to link TARP to Bain Capital. Meanwhile TARP was very poorly managed and should not have been extended to include GM, but it was necessary, and it did save us from a total financial meltdown (the “Stimulus” was an unmitigated disaster, but that’s a different ball of wax). Conservatives who think otherwise are delusional in believing that somehow we could have had the entire banking sector collapse and somehow survived intact. TARP is not the problem, it’s the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, HUD, and everything that recklessly endangered our economy via social engineering.
My point was that McCain lost because he was a poor candidate, not because the MSM destroyed him. That they tried the class warfare card (because that was all they had in the faux-scandal department) but that was not what cost him the election.
Where did I say you said McCain was liberal? I said he was incompetent. Anyhoo, Rush Limbaugh’s talking points are getting very old. The liberal media (you forgot to mention “The Establishment”!) didn’t nominate McCain, voters did. Maybe we have different sources for our news, but I have yet to see a news story which says Romney is more moderate than McCain, ergo vote for him. I have seen many commenters make that silly assertion (Romney’s a “Maxist-Leninist”!) but that doesn’t count.
I’m not “doubling down” on anything. I responded to Karl’s column which I found puzzling, and to your comment which warned of blood in the water which was going to doom Romney, or something. As for “being happy”, what is it you want me to do? I am delighted that Romney is picking up steam among GOP voters and the general electorate, but I will reserve my happiness for Election Day when Obama is defeated – whether it be by Romney or someone else.
Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Bad faith, logis, bad faith. They know that Romney’s a repudiation of the Tea Party and will be taken as such if,by some outside miracle, he’s elected. It is yet another block of support in the irrefutable-by-tons-of-evidence mantra, “We have to intellectually and morally lobotomize ourselves and put up a ‘moderate’ candidate to win.”
These hypocrites mock the African-American community for being a “captive” Dem voting block, then turn around and demand exactly the same unquestioning loyalty from the Tea Party. We’ll see if that happens. If it does, the TP is finished as a viable movement.
ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM
ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM
Wow. You are the Master of Convoluted Logic and Builder of Straw Men. Romney has not “repudiated the Tea Party”. Many in the Tea Party support Romney. What’s your point again?
Who is is doing this? BTW, if the TP is finished it’s because it overreached without majorities in the Senate and the White House to accomplish their (our) mutual goals.
Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 3:24 PM