Month: April 2011

Before doing a review of the current Republican field for President I thought it might be useful to look at races in the past and how different prisms applied to the major candidates running.

Part 1: Republican Royalism: Myth or Fact?

It has been a longtime understanding that the Republican Party is more “royalist” than the Democratic Party.  The last three Democratic Presidents was a one-term Senator and two Governors from small Southern states.  The last three Republican Presidents was a long time party stalwart who was the runner-up in the previous Presidential contest, a sitting Vice-President as well as his son.  But looking down the years other factors were at play.  Sitting and former Presidents and Vice-Presidents were more likely to run on the Republican side just from the sheer fact that the Republican Party has been more successful on the Presidential level for most of the 20th (as well as the second half of the 19th  ) century.  You can also note the increasing relevance and power of Vice-Presidents.  The only two sitting Vice-Presidents (both Democrats) to be denied their party nomination were Alben Barkley and Thomas Marshall. Both within the first half of the 20th century (1920 and 1952) when the position was much diminished compared to what it is now.

Republican royalism is also hard to pin down with multiple candidates fitting within it’s various potential parameters.   It’s meaning has also shifted.  In 1980 the “royalist pick” was debatably Ronald Reagan; the man who tried to overthrow the establishment and the sitting Republican president four years earlier.   In 1952 running against the establishment in 1948 didn’t convince anyone that Robert Taft was “next in line.”  You also had a completely different system of selecting Presidents in 1948 than you will have in 2012.  The Nucky Thompsons you see on Boardwalk Empire mattered far more in 1948.  While the support of say a sitting Governor in South Carolina or New Hampshire is certainly helpful nowadays their power lies almost solely in their organizational ability in helping get the vote on primary day..  The whole notion of who the establishment is differs and who gets to decide whose “turn” it is shifts with popular sentiment and name recognition taking a stronger role.  What one also has to remember is that often times the supposed “royalist” candidate won due to happenstance.  If Guiliani and Romney don’t go negative against each other in the closing weeks of the New Hampshire primary chances are McCain does not win the Republican nomination.  If Robert Dole does not put his foot in his mouth during a TV interview demanding that George HW Bush “stop lying about my record” he might have very well have won both the nomination and the presidency.  A few  razor thin contests separated President Gerald Ford from winning and losing the Republican nomination for President in 1976.

Part 2: Post War Republican contests

There are five categories I tried to assign:

• Who is the “royalist” pick. This is defined as who was considered next in line, is in leadership, or the natural pick of the “establishment.”
• Who is the Eastern Establishment / Wall Street pick. In right-wing mythology they are the liberal wing who the conservatives battled for the soul of the party with. I’m however classifying this as the pick of the mainstream “business wing” of the Party who may or may not necessarily be moderates. Of course “Brahman” sensibilities are also taken into account and play more of a role in 1948 than in 1996. Hence the shift from Thomas Dewey to Steve Forbes.
• Who is the pick of the moderate wing of the Party?
• Who is a the pick of the conservative / “movement conservative” wing of the party?
• Who is the pick of the religious conservative wing of the party?

1948. Republican nominee: Thomas Dewey.

• royalist pick – Thomas Dewey was the 1944 nominee who unexpectedly gave Franklin Roosevelt a scare and came within 3 million votes of the unbeatable President.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Thomas Dewey
• Moderate pick – Thomas Dewey or Harold Stassen
• Conservative pick – Robert Taft.
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: After some turbulence the liberal New York Governor was renominated to try for the Presidency again. Though not on a first ballot.

1952. Republican nominee: Dwight Eisenhower

• Royalist pick – Dwight Eisenhower. As a five star general and the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe he was as close to royalty as you could get in America. Beloved and courted by all parties. That said the choice of his chief rival, Robert Taft, known as “Mr Republican” and the runner up in the last Presidential contests would also be a royalist choice.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Dwight Eisenhower
• Moderate pick – Dwight Eisenhower
• Conservative pick – Robert Taft
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: Taft actually did better in 1952 than in 1948 but had a good portion of his delegates removed at the convention by Eisenhower forces in the name of “fair play.” But given these delegates were removed via a floor vote chances are Taft never had the necessary delegates to win to begin with. But Eisenhower did have to fight harder for the nomination than people realize. Part of the process of healing the schism between Eisenhower and Taft forces was the nomination of a young conservative firebrand, Richard Nixon, as Vice-President.

1956 Republican nominee: Dwight Eisenhower

• Royalist pick – Eisenhower. The sitting President is always the royalist pick.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Eisenhower
• Moderate pick – Eisenhower
• Conservative pick – Eisenhower
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: Even conservative critics of Eisenhower knew the Republicans had a good thing going and were content to wait for the more conservative Richard Nixon to step up to the plate..

1960 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

• Royalist pick – Richard Nixon. Nixon was perhaps the highest profile sitting Vice President up until that point since John Calhoun thanks to the “Checkers” speech and his yeomen work supporting local Republicans around the country. Whether or not the establishment or Eisenhower himself trusted him he was seen as the natural successor to Dwight Eisenhower in the Republican Party.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment Pick – Richard Nixon.
• Moderate pick – Richard Nixon
• Conservative pick – Richard Nixon. Though some would rather have had Goldwater.
• Religious – n/a

Analysis: There were plenty of Republicans in all sections of the party who mistrusted Richard Nixon. But his association with Eisenhower moved him towards the center of the Republican Party. And rather than being squeezed he was a perfectly acceptable to conservatives who were afraid of the moderates and moderates who were afraid of the conservatives.

1964 Republican nominee: Barry Goldwater

• Royalist pick – no one.
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Nelson Rockefeller
• Moderate pick – Nelson Rockefeller
• Conservative pick – Barry Goldwater
• Religious – Barry Goldwater. Goldwater’s “southern strategy” began to bring more Southern evangelicals into the Republican Party. I’ll also note that while the Goldwater of 1990 could be termed a “libertarian” to describe 1964 Goldwater as one is just revisionism. With the exception of abortion (his wife was involved with Planned Parenthood) you’d be hard pressed to find an issue he wasn’t lockstep with “cultural warriors” such as Strom Thurmond. Nelson Rockefeller also offended Religious voters of all stripes by divorcing his wife and marrying another divorcee sparking much unwanted debate.

Analysis: Henry Cabot Lodge won the New Hampshire primary in a write-in. The serious Republicans such as Nixon, Lodge, etc decided to skip the race because they saw post-Kennedy assassination Lyndon Johnson as being unbeatable. So instead the right-wing of the Republican Party had their Armageddon against the left that they had been itching for.

1968 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

• Royalist pick – Richard Nixon
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Richard Nixon
• Moderate pick – Nelson Rockefeller
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan. I’ll comment here on why I have been keeping the “religious pick” mostly blank. Until the rise of the counter-culture in the 1960s and the corresponding rise of the moral majority it is unclear especially on the primary level where to assign these voters especially with their connection to the right not necessarily being established. For example the very moderate (though evangelical) Mark Hatfield was held up by Gerry Wills in his book about the 1968 United States presidential election, Nixon Agonistes, as being the quintessential representative of Christian politics. An assertion that would’ve been laughable twenty or even ten years later. There has always been a strong religious and socially conservative core within the Republican Party. And Nelson Rockefeller certainly offended them. But this category will take on more meaning after Jimmy Carter loses the evangelicals after the 1976 election and the explosive growth in these Evangelical churches at the expense of more moderate mainline Protestant churches who in the past were the rock bed of Republican support.

Analysis: Richard Nixon successfully repels both the liberal Rockefeller and the conservative Reagan. Both actually considered working with each other to stop Nixon. But what they really wanted to do was to squeeze Nixon and re-fight the battle of 1964. Of note and a sign of things to come evangelical voters are starting to show their strength enough that the reticent Quaker Nixon felt compelled to talk about God and religion. Though this was aimed more at the national electorate than the Republican electorate. What was aimed at the conservative wing of the party was the odd pick of Spiro Agnew for Vice-President. Though an erstwhile supporter of Nelson Rockefeller he gained a lot of conservative adulation for his hard nosed handling of rioters after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. That he felt the need to shore up his right flank shows how much things had changed since Nixon himself was just such a conservative pleasing pick in 1952.

1972 Republican nominee: Richard Nixon

• Royalist pick – Richard Nixon
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Richard Nixon
• Moderate pick – Richard Nixon
• Conservative pick – Richard Nixon
• Religious pick – n/a

Analysis: Nixon easily fended off attacks from both the left and right. Of course it was his general election rather than his primary campaign that did him in despite a historic 49 state landslide.

1976 Republican nominee: Gerald Ford

• Royalist pick – Gerald Ford
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – Gerald Ford
• Moderate pick – Gerald Ford
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Ronald Reagan. Religious interest in politics became more intense with the backlash over Roe v. Wade. While Gerald Ford condemned the court decision he faced criticism due to his wifes very public praise of the court decision.
  

Analysis: Gerald Ford came within a whisker of losing the Republican nomination for President. Reagan followed in the footsteps of other conservative Republicans such as Taft and Goldwater in appealing specifically to southern Republicans. With the Republican re-alignment of the south already starting and the Republican party taking in former southern Democrats defecting for cultural as well as racial reasons it was especially fertile territory for someone like Reagan. And Reagan certainly was not hurt by his frequent allusion to a “welfare queens” in the South Side of Chicago. ( http://www.threatofrace.org/th… ) as being representative rather than aberrational. I will however point out that Reagan himself was no racist and showed no support for institutionalized racism (though he did support Bob Jones University’s fight to regain it’s tax exempt status).

Ford won barely at the convention in part due to a conservative backlash against Reagan due to him choosing a more moderate potential running mate. Jesse Helms for example who was instrumental in Reagan winning the key state of North Carolina toyed with trying to nominate New York Senator James Buckley instead. Reagan however acquitted himself with dignity and gave a stirring speech at the convention that laid the groundwork for his 1980 campaign.

In terms of the Republican Party being “royalist” and them accepting whoever is in charge or is next in line, it is perhaps more fallacious than the track record suggests. Ford would probably have lost if the primaries were set up then like they are today (with a prominent position for South Carolina right after New Hampshire and just before a southern oriented “Super Tuesday”) . There were petty personalities involved and close votes in States that could have gone either way. The same way the Eisenhower win at the Republican convention in 1952 was not necessarily a given. But 1952 was a year when primaries were virtually irrelevant and the party bosses still held sway. Like with the Democratic Party that had mostly changed by 1976. While there was always a risk of a deadlocked convention (as there was in 1976) the voters rather than the old bosses were in the drivers seat. Then again you could argue given the deadlock among the elected delegates that it was in fact the unelected Establishment delegates who ultimately gave the Establishment candidate, Gerald Ford, the votes he needed for the nomination. But nonetheless the system had changed dramatically.

1980 Republican nominee: Ronald Reagan

• Royalist pick – Ronald Reagan. In the sense that there was an air of inevitability to his nomination given how close he came to beating a sitting President and how he basically never stopped running from the moment he lost in 1976. Of course you can make a good case for the Republican leader in the Senate (Howard Baker) and the former chairman of the Republican Party (George HW Bush). Or even the former Republican nominee for Vice President four years earlier (Robert Dole).
• Wall Street / Eastern Establishment pick – George HW Bush.
• Moderate pick – George HW Bush
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Ronald Reagan. The Moral Majority is in full force and issues such as abortion have changed traditional views among Evangelicals that politics is a dirty business and can only taint religion when religion becomes involves. Many were also ironically tuned in politically by the campaign of Jimmy Carter who was a Southern Baptist. Pat Robertson for instance backed Jimmy Carter in 1976. Of course Pat Robertson came from a Democratic political family having a US Senator for a father and still talks with fondness and pride about his volunteer work for Adlai Stevenson. But like many evangelicals the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan realigned his political affiliation.

Analysis: A classic story we’ve heard many times in politics. A candidate far ahead of their opponents coasts and stays above the fray. Meanwhile one candidate picks up steam and unexpectedly gives them a race. This was the story of the 1980 Republican nomination. George HW Bush worked the state of Iowa hard and came out of nowhere to suddenly create a two man race where it was once Ronald Reagan and “the rest.” Ronald Reagan however got in the trenches and after a solid win in New Hampshire was in the drivers seat for the rest of the campaign.

Many Democrats were pleased with the nomination of Ronald Reagan seeing him as the weakest possible nominee. What many however missed is what a transformative figure he actually was. His social conservatism stole religious votes that had previously gone to Jimmy Carter and even other Democrats. But at the same time due the disarray in the country blamed on the Democratic president there was yet to be a corresponding realignment towards the Democrats among more moderate suburban voters. While it seems obvious now that the Republican Party would become the receptacle of social conservatism it was not at all obvious then. It also proved a wedge for socially conservative Catholics who may have backed Edward Kennedy for various reasons in his primary fight against Jimmy Carter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

In many ways it reflects the long running difference in strategy between the Republican and the Democratic Party. The Democrats like to move to the center to avoid being accused of being extreme or out of touch. Whereas the Republicans can often thrive on creating differences even in taking radical stands if they can draw the line in just the right way. Of course it can backfire. But so can being a milquetoast as John Kerry proved when trying to waffle about his position on the Iraq War in 2004.

1984 Republican nominee – Ronald Reagan

• Royalist pick – Ronald Reagan
• Eastern Establishment / Wall Street pick – Ronald Reagan
• Moderate pick – Ronald Reagan
• Conservative pick – Ronald Reagan
• Religious pick – Ronald Reagan

Analysis: Defeating the formidable forces of the Minnesotan duo of Harold Stassen and Walter Mondale Ronald Reagan easily wins re-election in one of the largest landslides in United States history. Of course this was not something many people would’ve expected little more than a year before. The United States economy suffered a new recession in 1982 and many blamed his radical economic policies. Though a recovery was well under way many Americans had yet to feel it at the start of 1983. The United States also had suffered a humiliation in it’s international reputation after it withdrew it’s forces from Reagan’s ill advised peace keeping mission in Beirut. Polls showed Ronald Reagan very vulnerable. But then the invasion of Grenada sent his poll ratings, particularly on foreign policy, sky high. Edward Kennedy unexpectedly dropped out of the Presidential contest leaving Walter Mondale who upon winning the Democratic nomination decided to eschew a traditional campaign for a “truth telling” campaign where he’d surely lose but gain a “moral” victory. The economy continued to pick up steam. And perhaps unnoticed by many political observers there was a shift in government policy and rhetoric as the most belligerent ideologues such as Al Haig and James Watt were removed or squelched as the Reagan administration took a more moderate course across the map prompting conservatives to bemoan that Reagan’s handlers were not allowing “Reagan to be Reagan.”

In this backdrop Reagan changed the Republican Party. The Wall Street Eastern Establishment for instance really stopped being seen as the “liberal wing” of the Republican Party. They turned into the most adamant champions of Reagan’s tax cuts. And the “big money” business wing had long been moving beyond New York and the East Coast making the “eastern” part suspect.

The moderate wing turned more libertarian as the last of the economic liberals such as Javitz and Weicker fell. Many sought to identify with Reagan’s economic policies to provide cover for their other heterodox beliefs.

The conservative wing became the dominant wing. To the point where the fault lines that had always been there began to show more and more. Pat Robertson, Phil Graham, Pat Buchanan, Paul Laxalt, and William F Buckley had quite fundamental differences with each other. And especially once you add Republicans who formally identified themselves as “liberal” or “moderate” re-branding themselves “conservative” it became an open question what a “conservative” was. There was a bit of a running consensus that still stands among many that “conservative” was whatever Reagan defined it as. But Reagan himself showed a lot more pragmatism and a tendency to equivocate that many of his admirers would like to believe opening his beliefs to wide interpretation.

The religious wing felt like they had the ear of the President but wanted more control. While Reagan championed their causes and was a hero to them there was an impatiences and some suspicion under the surface. For example why would Reagan only address pro-life crowds by loud speaker and why did he appoint the pro-choice Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court? Michael Deaver, James Baker, and even Nancy Reagan were often blamed for steering Reagan towards a more moderate course and again not letting “Reagan be Reagan.”

1988 Republican nominee: George HW Bush

• Royalist pick – George HW Bush. Bush went from calling Reagan’s economic plans “voodoo economics” in 1980 to running virtually as Ronald Reagan’s son. Bush stayed fiercely loyal to Reagan throughout his Presidency and while Reagan stayed neutral in the Presidential contest did nothing that would hurt Bush.
• Eastern Establishment / Wall Street – George HW Bush. The Eastern Establishment was for the most part dead but to the degree it still existed there was no better representative than George HW Bush. This category will just be “Wall Street” for now on.
• Moderate pick – Robert Dole. Was once the conservative firebrand blamed for Gerald Ford’s loss due to his over the top stridency. He also infamously used the abortion issue viciously against a Senate opponent. But with George HW Bush’s pivot to the right and Dole’s reputation as an operator able to cut compromises to get legislation passed he ended up being the moderate candidate in the race. However many leading moderates in the Party endorsed George HW Bush seeing him as one of their own. For instance Newton Mayor Teddy Mann and United States Representative Silvio Conte two of the most liberal Republicans in Massachusetts supported George HW Bush.
• Conservative pick – George HW Bush or Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp had a lot of support among the conservative intelligentsia but thanks to some excellent work by his campaign team George HW Bush ended up becoming the conservative pick. First they were able to blur almost any difference between George HW Bush and his boss, Ronald Reagan. Second they had excellent outreach hiring or co-opting many leading voices on the Right. Conservative firebrand Representative Robert Dornan famously wrote an article in the National Review promoting George HW Bush titled, “My Conservative Pitbull.” While perhaps belonging in the religious category Bush picked up key support from Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell. But George HW Bush’s most impressive task was in framing the race between himself and Robert Dole. Despite Bush having called Reagan’s tax cut proposals “voodoo economics” he attacked Robert Dole for being “soft” on taxes. He was able to portray himself as a the principled conservative outsider(!) against Robert Dole the insider compromising creature of Washington. While many conservatives distrusted Bush by the time his campaign was done they overwhelmingly supported him against the more “liberal” Bob Dole.
• Religious pick – Pat Robertson or George HW Bush. George HW Bush did everything he could to reach out to religious conservatives and succeeded for the most part despite once being a pro-choice socially liberal Republican who once stood against most of what they believed in. He famously sent his son George W Bush to be his liaison to their community. And quite conveniently the future President soon had a religious epiphany declaring himself a “born again Christian” who was one of them. George HW Bush also picked up the support of Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell as well as a number of other leading preachers within the Christian right. However there was considerable mistrust of him as well as considerable popular support for Pat Robertson who came managed to beat George HW Bush for second place in Iowa. While Pat Robertson’s run was unsuccessful it laid the foundation for the Christian Coalition he would soon found afterward. The man Pat Robertson would choose to run the Coalition would be a supporter of one of his rivals (Jack Kemp) by the name of Ralph Reed.

Analysis: This race showed just how much Ronald Reagan had changed the Republican Party with every candidate declaring their fidelity to the policies of Reagan and the “conservative cause” with even the moderate former Governor of Delaware moving radically to the right. It also set up the template for future Republican contests. Conservatives finding “problems” with all the candidates but willing to grudgingly accept a candidate they find too “moderate” out of fear of someone else they feel is even more “liberal” might win. At the same time the establishment is in terror that if not this time then next time the far right “barbarians at the gate” will take over the party dooming it’s chances.

1992 Republican nominee: George HW Bush

• Royalist pick – George HW Bush – In fact one of Buchanan’s most famous attack lines was to call the President “King George.”
• Wall street pick – George HW Bush
• Moderate pick – George HW Bush
• Conservative pick – Patrick Buchanan
• Religious pick – Patrick Buchanan

Analysis: Patrick Buchanan ran an unorthodox against the at first popular incumbent president straying from the Reaganite conservative orthodoxy into what can be termed paleo-conservatism with it’s more isolationist notes once sounded on by Robert Taft. He also focused on immigration picking up the nativist themes the more moderate Pete Wilson of California used to help himself get re-elected Governor of California in 1990. He was also a conservative “culture warrior” who took Dan Quayle’s 1988 “family values” message and turning the volume up fifty fold famously at the Republican convention. Buchanan’s strength probably had more to do with discontent over the economy and Bush breaking his “no new taxes” pledge than anything to do with Patrick Buchanan. But again it raised fears among the conservative Republican establishment of them being swept away in conservative populist furor.

1996 Republican nominee: Robert Dole

• Royalist pick – Robert Dole – the runner up in the last election
• Wall Street pick – Steve Forbes. Miles apart from Thomas Dewey showing just how much this category has changed.
• Moderate pick – Arlen Specter
• Conservative pick – Pat Buchanan or Phil Graham
• Religious pick – Patrick Buchanan

Analysis: Like in 1988 this open primary saw former real or perceived moderates moving to the right. Steve Forbes moving to the right on social issues and Lamar Alexander moving to the right in just about everything. Arlen Specter notably stuck to his moderate guns and went absolutely nowhere. Though of course his presidential campaign was far from serious and just a vanity run to get himself attention. This race also shows the dangers of trying to look at any Presidential race too far in advance. Phil Graham with his strong conservative support and large fund raising prowess from being the Senate Finance Committee Chairman was seen as a formidable top tiered candidate. Perhaps even a favorite. He fizzled hard and fast. Buchanan on the other hand came a close second in Iowa and actually manage to win New Hampshire in a crowded field. The heterodox Patrick Buchanan helped second place performer Robert Dole by polarizing the race. While Patrick Buchanan was arguably the “conservative” candidate his views on trade, wall street, and foreign policy concerned far too many conservatives who would otherwise have been suspicious of Dole. Steve Forbes flat tax proposal found resonance among some economic conservatives but questions about his degree of opposition to abortion drove many social conservatives away.

2000 Republican nominee: George W Bush

• Royalist pick – George W Bush or Dan Quayle
• Wall Street pick – Steve Forbes
• Moderate pick – John McCain
• Conservative pick – George HW Bush
• Religious pick – George W Bush or Dan Quayle

Analysis: Going into the 2000 race many saw the nomination as being Dan Quayle’s to lose. Better than anyone he was able to rally the conservative base. His unexpected withdrawal left a void that was ultimately filled by George W Bush. Following the template of his father George W Bush was able to cast himself as the “conservative” candidate against the more “liberal” John McCain. He also banked heavily on the financial and political base his father had built during years of public service. While conservatives looked down on George HW Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein and breaking his “no new taxes” promise he was even in defeat on a personal level a well regarded figure both among Republicans and the public at large. George W Bush also used his contacts within the evangelical community he nurtured during his father’s campaign for President as well as his own for Governor to his advantage.

2004 Republican nominee – George W Bush

• Royalist pick – George W Bush
• Wall Street pick – George W Bush
• Moderate pick – George W Bush
• Conservative pick – George W Bush
• Religious pick – George W Bush

Analysis: With the sad passing of Harold Stassen in early 2001 no one could stand in the way of George W Bush being renominated.

2008 Republican nominee – John McCain

• Royalist pick – John McCain was the runner up to President Bush in 2008.
• Wall Street pick – Unclear.
• Moderate pick – Rudy Giuliani
• Conservative pick – Unclear.
• Religious pick – Mike Huckabee

Analysis: This race is a classic motif common to most Presidential contests. After a long grueling campaign voters become wary of the entire face and yearn for someone from the outside. There were many Republicans who thought Howard Baker should run in 1988 or Colin Powell in 2000. The entrance of Fred Thompson just showed how much this phenomenon was simply the classic “the grass is always greener on the other side” syndrome. Once he got in his numbers sank like a rock. Guiliani was the early favorite with strong fund raising and a surprising ability to appeal to social conservatives based solely on his supposed terrorist fighting skills as Mayor of New York during September 11th. Mitt Romney was able to place himself on the national radar with his own strong fund raising tapping wealthy Mormons in much the same way Michael Dukakis did within the Greek community twenty years earlier. He was also the “lesser evil” of many Conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter. Mike Huckabee took advantage of the former or current social liberalism of the top of the field as well as his own background as a preacher to build a strong even if not formidable challenge of his own. But ultimately Guiliani and Romney doomed each other after going negative on each other giving John McCain a surprising win in New Hampshire and the momentum he needed to ultimately triumph.

Part 3: Problems Applying Labels to 2012

I was tempted to write something about how the current crop of potential Republicans fit into these categories and the problem is just how much these definitions have changed without anyone even noticing. Let’s take the term conservative. In 1964 one’s position on race was a key indicator of where someone such as Barry Goldwater stood on the political spectrum. While perhaps the language of racism moved into the realm of code words in many parts of the country within four and certainly within eight years hardly anyone anywhere was a formal segregationist anymore. In 1968 Ronald Reagan was the darling of conservatives even after signing one of the most permissive abortion laws in the nation as California Governor. By 1976 abortion was a key issue Ronald Reagan used to attack the more moderate Gerald Ford. Robert Taft in 1948 and 1952 was seen as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party while at the same time supporting the expansion of public housing for the poor. Something now that even the most liberal Democrats wouldn’t touch.

In 2008 Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina endorsed Mitt Romney citing his Massachusetts health care plan as an example of conservative public policy that should be expanded to the rest of the nation. In 2012 the same Jim DeMint won’t support the same Mitt Romney unless he repudiates this now “liberal” policy initiative that is too similar to that passed by Barack Obama. The Mitt Romney who was seen as perhaps the best “conservatives” could do in 2008 is now seen by many of those same folks as the “liberal” in the current field despite moving as far to the right as he can.

But who knows where Romney or anyone for that matter will be seen and defined in another year. The fact is history can only be written after and not before the fact. The candidates and even the issues have yet to define them. At this point we can only guess and give a rather uneducated one at that. Even if it’s safe to say that no one is going to be calling Michelle Bachman a lefty.

The Minnesota DFL, even in the face of a GOP wave-year in 2010, were nonetheless optimistic with Mark Dayton polling very well and with majorities in the state legislature large enough to withstand a wave election.  While Mark Dayton was elected, one of the bigger 2010 election shockers was losing the MN legislature, meaning the state wouldn’t be looked to to rack up a few rare wins for progressives with marriage equality and a redistricting map that at the irritates the hell out of Michele Bachmann.

After doing this analysis, losing the state legislature is no longer that surprising as the majorities were very bloated, relied on districts the DFL had very recently won.  What I personally assumed was that even if it’s a wipe out in the suburbs and Dayton gets killed there, we’ll win with Greater MN and still hold onto a slim-downed majority.  Also, our legislature map-making process makes it so that losing one chamber probably means losing the other.  This is because one state senate district equals two state house seats so if you lose both state house seats, you probably lost the state senate seat associated with them, or vice versa.  (REDO, YOU’LL ACTUALLY HAVE THE NUMBERS TO GIVE SOME PRIMER SOON ENOUGH.)

State Legislature Representation

Year	Legislature	Majority			Percentage	Turn Over
2003	House	GOP	82	52	61%/39%	–
2005	House	GOP	68	66	51%/49%	DFL+14
2007	House	DFL	85	49	63%/37%	DFL+17
2009	House	DFL	87	47	65%/35%	DFL+2
2011	House	GOP	72	62	54%/46%	GOP+25
2003	Senate	DFL	35	31	52%/48%	–
2005	Senate	DFL	38	29	57%/43%	DFL+3
2007	Senate	DFL	45	22	67%/33%	DFL+7
2009	Senate	DFL	46	21	69%/31%	DFL+1
2011	Senate	GOP	37	30	55%/45%	GOP+16

The most important thing this table shows is the high amount of fluctuation that occurred this past decade.  After redistricting, the GOP were at their height of legislative power but this quickly collapsed over the decade.  This means the majority the DFL had coming into 2010 was weak electorally due to such a large percentage of the caucus coming from formerly Republican districts and as newly elected incumbents themselves.  A pro-GOP year came along too soon for our own wave-elected incumbents to solidify themselves so the outcome was everyone getting wiped out.

Also note that the 2009 senate elections are only the changes in two special elections that occurred.

Plenty more after the jump including lots of maps!

BLAH

As for the maps themselves, I didn’t do different colors for gains versus holds simply because there has been so much turn-over and I didn’t think it’d be as useful for comparative purposes.  I also used a very tight definition for the metro area so I’d estimate it at only a 30 mile radius from the center-point.  (This made it better for map-making purposes.)  It’s also hard to see but there are two state house districts for both the cities of Duluth (NE corner) and Rochester (SE corner).  (The Rochester ones only once they go blue.)

State House

2011 State House Election Statistics

District	Area	Losing Margin	2008 Pres	2010 Gov
1A	Greater	17.4%	R51/47	R45/44/9
1B	Greater	1%	D51/46	D46/43/10
2B	Greater	4.8%	R50/48	R46/42/10
3B	Greater	2.5%	D50/47	D47/41/11
8B	Greater	12.2%	R52/45	R49/40/10
11B	Greater	17.1%%	R55/43	R52/35/12
12B	Greater	14.1%	R57/41	R52/35/12
13B	Greater	5.4%	R52/46	R47/39/13
15B	Greater	0.1%	D57/41	D46/41/12
16A	Greater	11%	R55/42	R52/35/11
17B	Greater	18.6%	R54/44	R51/36/12
25B	Greater	0.2%	D54/44	R46/42/12
27A	Greater	0.4%	D58/40	D49/39/10
30B	Greater	4.8%	R53/45	R51/33/14
37B	Metro	16.3%	D50/48	R48/37/14
38A	Metro	5.4%	D56/42	R44/43/13
38B	Metro	4%	D53/45	R46/39/14
40A	Metro	3.5%	53/45	R46/42/11
41B	Metro	5%	D54/45	R45/39/15
42A	Metro	.6%	D54/44	R45/40/15
49B	Metro	2.9%	D49/49	R48/40/11
53A	Metro	12.7%	D50/49	R49/37/13
56A	Metro	4.1%	D51/48	R48/38/13
56B	Metro	6.3%	D53/46	R48/39/13
57A	Metro	3.2%	D57/41	D45/41/13

TEXT!!!dufhaeiu ghacnlithn3ch4tacinuh4auihrixucnht L4YT AGHY ACLT

DFL State House Losses

Class	Losses	% of Total Losses	Total Class	Survival Rate
2003	6	24%	—–	—–
2005	3	12%	14	79%
2007	11	44%	19	42%
2009	5	20%	6	17%

State Senate

2011 State Senate Election Statistics

District	Area	Losing Margin	2008 Pres	2010 Gov
4	Greater	9.2%	R51/47	R47/40/11
10	Greater	9.7%	R56/42	R54/35/10
15	Greater	1.7%	D51/46	R45/41/12
16	Greater	14.9%	R58/39	R56/31/11
17	Greater	12.2%	R55/43	R52/35/11
22	Greater	18.9%	R52/46	R50/37/8
25	Greater	2.6%	D49/48	R47/39/8
28	Greater	10%	D50/48	R47/38/15
30	Greater	1.6%	D50/48
31	Greater	11%	R55/42	R52/35/11
38	Metro	3.6%	D55/44	R44/41/14
40	Metro	2.1%	D54/44	D44/43/12
47	Metro	5.1%	D51/47	R48/41/8
51	Metro	5.3%	D52/46	R44/43/11
53	Metro	5.5%	D51/58	R48/38/13
56	Metro	3%	D52/47	R48/38/13

DFL State Senate Losses

Class	Losses	% of Total Losses	Total Class	Survival Rate
2003	4	25%	—–	—–
2007	10	63%	11	9%
2009	2	13%	2	0%

BLAH BLAH iunuon euangua4w here is some text.

Did this map assuming that the Mass redistricting cmte decides to get rid of Olver, or gently force him into retirement. Mass is hard to draw because Keating lives in Quincy, which means that no matter what SE Mass looks ugly. If O’Leary had won that primary, map could be a lot cleaner. The only way to clean SE mass would be to toss Keating and Lynch into a primary, which then creates an open seat in Barnstable (and wouldnt solve the seat elimination problem)

The map eliminates a district by parcelling out Olver’s district between McGovern, Neal and Tsongas. No PVI’s available, but lets assume they are all safe D. Let me know if they are otherwise (Tsongas’ district might be close to a tossup, not sure.)

Also tried to not split counties, towns etc.

Out west, CD 1 (Blue) has Springfield, Amherst (olvers home) and the Mountain towns. NEAL

CD 2 (Green) takes in most of Worcester County, Franklin County and a little of Berkshire County. McGOVERN.

CD 3 (purple) takes in Fitchburg from Olver, Lowell and most of N Middlesex county. Loses Lawrence and Metheun to Tierney. TSONGAS

CD 4 (red) takes in almost all of Essex county. Just about contiguous with county lines. TIERNEY  

CD 5 (yellow) takes in Medford/Malden area, goes around to Waltham, Watertown, Framingham. MARKEY

CD 6 (dark green) takes in Somerville, Cambridge and 3/4 of Boston. It is exactly 50 % white. CAPUANO

CD 7 (crimson) takes in some of Boston (loses a little bit of that base to Capuano), Norwood, Taunton and Brockton. The non-Boston area stays pretty similar to current district. LYNCH

CD 8 (grey) takes in Franks home base in Needham/Newton/Brookline area, and sweeps down to take Fall River (from McGovern) and New Bedford (which he currently represents). FRANKS

CD 9 (light blue) takes in Barnstable county, the eastern half of plymouth county (Plymouth and Weymouth) and snakes up into Quincy, where Keating lives. KEATING

Missouri Republicans don’t look like they’ll be able to get their maps through. For whatever reason, the House and Senate are having trouble agreeing on maps. Since Democratic Governor Jay Nixon stands ready to fight back against a Republican map with his veto pen at hand, the chances that Missouri’s congressional map will ultimately be thrown to a court are rising.

Despite having little knowledge of Missouri (outside of a few visits to St. Louis), I decided to take a stab at what a court-drawn Missouri map might look like. I tried my best to ignore partisan considerations and incumbent residences and to focus on compact districts and communities of interest. I also tried not to hew too closely to the current map, as I believe it was drawn by Dems rather than a court (although I’m not 100% sure about that, since a court drew the current state legislative districts). I’m sure I made my fair share of mistakes along the way, so those with knowledge of Missouri politics are more than welcome to weigh in.

Anyway, here we go with the maps. (Note that the hoof, while not shown, is obviously in CD-07. And ignore the box in the southeast; DRA can be weird with Z-drag sometimes)

MO-03 Incumbent: Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-St. Elizabeth)

This district most closely resembles the current MO-04. However, it was somewhat of a “remainders” district and as such looks a bit weird compared to the others. Luetkemeyer lives here but would probably be happier in the 8th. Vicky Hartzler and some of her old territory (KC burbs, Warrensburg) have been drawn into the 5th, but she’s probably better off running here. As long as she makes it past the general, she’s safe in this heavily Republican district.

MO-05 Incumbent: Sam Graves (R-Tarkio), Vicky Hartzler (R-Harrisonville)

The old MO-06. It becomes more KC-centric and draws together crazy freshman Vicky Hartzler and creepy zombie Sam Graves. Most of the territory currently belongs to Graves, so chances are he’ll run here while Hartzless…er, Hartzler moves to MO-03. Ike Skelton also lives here, but since lots of the territory is unfamiliar and he’ll be celebrating his 81st birthday not long after the 2012 elections, I don’t see him running.

MO-06 Incumbent: Billy Long (R-Springfield)

Little change from MO-07, remains a rock-ribbed Republican district based in Springfield and Joplin.

MO-07 Incumbent: Jo Ann Emerson (R-Cape Girardeau)

This district loses its western portion and moves north along the Illinois border, reaching all the way up to Jefferson County. It should still be strongly Republican, and Emerson is likely safe. Even the most well-funded theoretical Democratic recruits, such as 2010 nominee Tommy Sowers (who has been drawn into MO-03) and country singer Sheryl Crow, are probably too liberal to win here.

MO-08 OPEN

Compacts slightly into the northeast corner of the state. This district overlaps with the current MO-09 so Blaine Luetkemeyer would probably move here.

Now for the STL area.

MO-01Incumbent: Lacy Clay (D-St. Louis), Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis)

This district expands to take in almost all of St. Louis and a bit more of St. Louis County. The tentacle in the middle looks a bit weird but adds a decent number of black voters. Lacy Clay (douchebag that he is) won’t mind this district despite how badly it screws over Russ Carnahan; it goes from 49.8% black to 49.9%, and its white population plummets from 46.9% to 41.7%. Additionally, its 18+ population has the narrowest of white pluralities (46.3-46.2, a difference of 402 people). I have no idea whether Russ Carnahan lives here or MO-02, but either way he has signaled that he will challenge Todd Akin rather than getting into a primary battle with Clay. (EDIT: Carnahan’s old state house district is located in this CD, so it’s probably fair to assume he lives here.)

MO-02 Incumbent: Todd Akin (R-Town and Country)

As mentioned above, Carnahan will likely move here if he doesn’t live here and run against Akin. Unfortunately, I figured a court would elect to throw the rest of STL County with St. Charles rather than Jefferson from a communities of interest perspective, but those with better knowledge of Missouri may question that (after all, I’ve never been further west in Missouri than Frontenac, so I don’t know jack, lol). Then again, the loss of Jefferson (which voted for whackadoodle Ed Martin by 20 points in 2010) doesn’t hurt nearly as much as the loss of most of St. Louis.

Partisan lean-wise, this district is obviously somewhere between the current MO-02 and MO-03; race-wise, it’s 89% white by total population (compared to 94% for the current MO-02 and 86% for the current MO-03). I think Carnahan would have a shot for sure, especially in 2012, but he’d be out the door in a minute in anything resembling a Republican year.

Now to finish up, here’s a closeup on KC.

MO-04 Incumbent: Emanuel Cleaver (D-Kansas City)

This district is the old MO-05, except without any of Cass County. It adds the rest of Jackson County as well as about 70,000 people in Clay County to reach the required population. I suppose Cleaver could theoretically be vulnerable in a 2010 repeat with a stronger opponent than Jacob Turk, but this district will never be held by a Republican for more than 2 years because high turnout in KC during a presidential election means automatic Republican loss. This is all the more so because it drops Cass County, which voted 67-30 for Republican challenger Jacob Turk in 2010.

This district’s total population white % actually drops, though, from 69% to 65%. (Its black population drops too, however, from 24% to 22%; in exchange, its Hispanic population rises from 6% to 8%, and its Asian population goes from 1% to 2%).