People will toss out names like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul, but really, none is a plausible frontrunner at this time, because it is challenging to imagine how the race will shake out. Republicans have a plethora of experienced potential candidates, all of whom could make compelling cases for why they are good choices. We won't really have a good idea of who the real frontrunner is until we start seeing things like donations and debates.
But I do think that Chris Christie is doomed as a candidate.
Gambling sites tend to put Christie as the frontrunner or potential runner-up. As of late March, we can see that Christie is listing at anywhere between 17 percent and 20 percent, with only Marco Rubio consistently scoring higher. (Note: if your odds are in format A:B, the conversion of odds to percentage would be B/(A+B).) But I think this one lacks some common sense.
I think there are two useful frames through which to see the Republican nomination process:
1. The Olsen frame: Henry Olsen describes the Republican nomination process as the competition for four factions: moderates, somewhat conservatives, social conservatives, and secular conservatives, with the candidate who wins eventually seizing the "somewhat conservatives" and one other group.
2. The sequential frame: a social conservative wins Iowa, a moderate or fiscal conservative wins in New Hampshire, and the two do battle in South Carolina to see who becomes the nominee.
In Olsen's frame, Christie would be starting from the somewhat conservatives, sweeping the moderates, and securing the necessary margins early on. Going into 2013, Chris Christie was on the John McCain-2008 path to the nomination: he had a strong brand as a straight-talker who didn't tolerate insincerity or business-as-usual politics, and he was well-liked by people in both parties. Christie's stunning, sweeping 2013 victory validated this position. In embracing Obama and hurricane relief over his role as a Romney surrogate, Christie secured his brand with "average folks" as someone who put the job over politics.
We often talk in politics about Sister Souljah moments, or moments where a presidential candidate, in trying to pivot from the base to the center, will have to take a direct shot at someone in their base. Like most of the DC establishment's pet phrases (-gate, "Hail Mary pass," etc.), it's an annoying and overused phrase, but their is wisdom in the concept, as national elections are, to some extent, about appeals to the broad middle of American politics. Christie had surpassed any need for a Sister Souljah moment, though, with his well-received response to Hurricane Sandy. Christie, in other words, had completely shored up his left flank, and would not have to worry very much about appealing to the center. Thus, he could fight for conservative policies for the first year and a half of his second term, and bludgeon the Left in the campaign... without really suffering for those actions in the general. And to the Right? Christie's case was airtight: look how conservative I've been in blue New Jersey. I won with 61 percent of the vote. I can win and be conservative.
It was like Christie was carrying a loaded gun into every primary debate saying electability. No matter what anyone accused Christie of, he was the electable candidate, the most conservative governor of New Jersey in decades, and a bona fida popular politician. He could go into every debate, parrying attacks on himself by blaming blue New Jersey and highlighting his conservative accomplishments of 2014. And a slimmed down, energetic Christie would be able to win great support in a relentless sweep across the towns of New Hampshire, doing town hall after town hall, littering YouTube with golden, spontaneous moments. It was perfect.
If we take the sequential frame as our starting point, Christie's glide path to the nomination was clear: Iowa was going to split its vote eight ways to Sunday, with Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul all getting their shares (with no one topping 30 percent). Then Christie was going to blow the doors off the world in New Hampshire, particularly with a potentially non-competitive Democratic primary leading independents to vote in the GOP contest. Christie would then use that momentum to go hard after Obama in South Carolina, would win comfortably there, and would secure the nomination early. All Christie had to do from 2013 to 2015 was not do something that would endanger his left flank. He didn't have to take any shots at the right; he just had to let sleeping dogs lie.
And then the bridge scandal happened. And then the Sandy scandal happened. And then the Port Authority stuff started leaking out. For the past few months, I have been reading up on these stories, looking for the smoking gun: what will implicate Christie directly? And so far, it hasn't come out yet. (I don't expect one to at this point.) But I have changed my mind: for the purposes of his case in the primaries, it simply does not matter if Christie was involved. There are three reasons for this:
1. The Democratic state legislature is going to spend all the time it needs and wants on inquiries, investigations, etc. Christie will not be getting any additional conservative accomplishments to highlight on the 2016 trail.
A big part of how Christie was going to appeal to the "somewhat conservative" voters was with an aggressive agenda in 2014. Although he did not win additional seats in the state legislature, he would be in a position similar to Ronald Reagan's second term: Democratic-controlled legislature, but many from pro-Christie voters who could pressure their legislators to support the executive.
But now, those Democrats know that Christie's support is weakened, so they are not politically threatened by his popularity. If anything, they will have to contend with their base wondering why some of them sold out Barbara Buono.
2. We have a pattern of stories that have damaged his left flank. Christie is no longer the tough-talking effective manager. He's just another politician now.
To be fair, you can win as "just another politician"; after all, most politicians are "just another politician." But Christie can't, because his record doesn't justify it among conservatives. If Christie is just another politician, he's not a blunt, effective leader who can take it to the Democratic nominee in 2016. He is the centrist governor of New Jersey who abandoned Mitt Romney in 2012 and pals around with Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama. Why should conservatives vote for him?
Christie now enters those debates in 2016 with a gun in his hand that reads electability, but he has suffered the same fate as Jean-Claude in Taken: the bullets have been removed by Liam Neeson.
3. The 2016 field will be superior to the 2012 field.
This remains to be seen, considering that I thought that the 2012 field would have several capable, competent candidates (John Thune, Mitch Daniels), and it turned out to be an utter disaster. But between Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, etc., I suspect the Republicans will field a few viable candidates. If the 2016 field were as bad as the 2012 field, I would still give Christie a reasonable shot to overcome these issues. But it should be better. Unlike Mitt Romney, Christie probably won't be the beneficiary of "process of elimination" choices.
In other words: Christie's decisions after Sandy had set him up to be the Republican nominee, so long as he executed over the next couple of years and didn't squander the goodwill on his left flank. Regardless of whether these scandals were his fault, they have served to squander that goodwill: his brand is irreparably damaged, and this key year of his governorship will be lost to investigations and scandal reports. On top of this, Christie will not benefit from a weak slate of rival candidates. No matter what he says on TV, that's what's going to keep him from the nomination: his argument has been overcome by reality.
--------------------
Postscript: I've offered up a fairly aggressive prediction. But how would I be wrong? I would take each of my three reasons and flip them around.
1. The scandals dry up and somehow, Christie gets a few more accomplishments that he can take to the Right for 2016.
2. His poll ratings recover and centrists continue to support him. Democrats complain of "Teflon" Chris Christie.
3. The 2016 field is disappointing.
But I don't expect this to happen. I will examine in more detail, of course, if Christie does end up being the nominee.
No comments:
Post a Comment