The Republican party is no longer the center-right party of a moderate America. In fact, it has become highly sectionalized. Trying to use the representative majority to their advantage to push through a conservative agenda, they took their agenda a bit too far. For example, when the first proposal for the Bush tax cuts was proposed, Rove met with a democratic Senator. The Senator informed him if he made a few small changes, he'd get seventy votes. Rove's response? "We don't want 70 votes, we want 51." Its the kind of political theory that has pushed the Republican further right and thus shortened their platform. It's not a party that is representative of the whole nation anymore; they've indeed become a regional party.
The deep south, bible belt, the Montana's and Dakota's of the world, those have always been the states of the conservative base. The problem is that's all they have anymore, and unless they broaden their platform, the next 8 years are going to take a turn for the liberal.
So again, "what now?" The Republicans are going to need a new brand of Rep. candidate that returns to moderate ideology. A lot of people have asked me, Who are the leading candidates for the GOP in 2012/2016? Here's my list of the top five.
5. Sarah Palin, Gov. Alaska
Why she'd be a good nominee:
She's the de facto "next in line" candidate. As the VP on the ticket in the previous election, people look to her right away as the heir apparent. Her speech at the GOP Convention propelled her into the national spotlight and seemed to be a political star in the making. She's the anti-Romney, as she carries the perception that she really is just an average "joe" (most popular name of 2008?) who seems to be in touch with the everyday American. She's charismatic, and those that like her, LOVE her. A true conservative, the Republican base would fully support Palin in a run in 2012...
Why she wouldn't get the nomination:
...For many of the same reasons. She represents the kind of candidate that in my estimation needs to stay off the top of the ticket if they want to win a presidential election. She has no appeal to moderates or independents, and McCain campaign advisers absolutely SLAMMING her on the way out isn't helping her image. Reports that she didn't know the countries in North America or that Africa was a continent, true or not, will really linger would those who already find her to be on the lower end of the bell curve in terms of intelligence. Between Katie Couric, not knowing the role of the VP in the senate, the wardrobe shopping spree, she's got a TON of negatives from the middle left. Don't be surprised if she revamps her career; maybe makes a play at the Senate and comes back strong around 2010, but right now she's very unlikely to be the Republican nominee with the enemies she's apparently made out the door.
4. Mike Bloomberg, Mayor NYC
Why he'd be a good nominee:
You want to talk moderate, this is a guy who has been a Democrat, Republican, and everything in between. He would have a ton of crossover appeal, someone who could literally go for a 50 state campaign and identify with an electorate in every state. A fiscal conservative, he's accumulated one of the largest sums of personal wealth in the entire country, and would be able to play up his expert credentials on the economy. Being a popular mayor of New York City would be the high profile experience role that not only gives him name recognition, but might even put New Yorks 31 electoral college votes in play for the GOP. And if foreign policy is a tenant of a candidates political dynamic, red states will relate to Bloomberg, who opposes the time table withdrawal from Iraq. Seems like he could be a dream candidate except...
Why he wouldn't get the nomination:
... Remember that part about being a Democrat before? There's a good reason for that. His social policies would drive the conservative base nuts. Everything about his social views paints him as a bleeding liberal; he's pro abortion, pro gay rights, supports gun control, and has immigrant sympathies that are in no way aligned with the Republican party. If he's a great candidate for foreign and economic policy, his social policy would make him completely unelectable in the GOP. In fact, while I don't think he could win either major party's nomination, if he was going to win either he's probably more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican. Democrats are more willing to accept a right of center fiscal policy than the conservative base would be willing to accept a social progressive like Bloomberg. More so, he's not married, and is a Jew. Seemingly insignificant, but I'm not sure we're ready for a Jewsih president. That aside, his best shot at the Presidency? Run as a third party independent against two candidates with limited moderate appeal. If somehow we ended up with a 2016 Mike Huckabee vs. Dennis Kucinich, Bloomberg could have a Ross Perot like role in the election, only more so.
3. Ron Paul, Rep. Texas
Why he'd be a good nominee:
Ron Paul probably had the most enthusiastic Republican following in '08. He's someone people with libertarian sympathies, and even moderate Democrats, could get behind. He has new ideas that would fit the change model and really shake up the current Republican political structure. He's an old school Republican; an endorser of limited government and social conservative. It's a combination that could give him appeal across the political spectrum from the base to the middle.
Why he wouldn't get the nomination:
Representative Paul could fall victim to the prevailing conventional wisdom that casts him as a fringe candidate in the lot of Ralph Nader. His ideas are intriguing, but appeal to a more intellectual lot. His platform is more about ideals and outside of the mainstream policies of the modern Republican party. Ideally you'd like a candidate that balanced an ideological change with a pragmatic approach, but his reforms are probably too far away from the norm to appeal to a broad enough electorate. While he looks good with his supporters, flying under the radar, I would have concerns about his policies standing up to the scrutiny of a major party. For as wide as his appeal is, it's also shallow. While there are people far right to left of center that love him, there are just as many people in that same group who don't care for him, or know him at all for that matter.
2. Mitt Romney, frm. Gov. Massachusetts
Why he'd be a good nominee:
He almost won the nomination in 2008. Realistically, he went toe-to-toe with John McCain, and would easy defeat Mike Huckabee in a series of national primaries. Like Mike Bloomberg, he's got expert credentials on the economy. He was the CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics, and would go over great with those who want a pro-business, pro-free market candidate. His voting record indicates he's heavily for free trade, and almost all of his record shows he's a true conservative on almost every issue. As far as grabbing moderates, he managed to win the Gubernatorial race in a heavy blue state Massachusetts, and gave Ted Kennedy a run for his money in a Senate election in 1994. And for what it's worth, he's got the presidential look. He looks like the the most popular guy in your high school class who was the captain of the football team and dated the homecoming queen. Not too moderate, not too far right, he's an all around solid candidate that a lot of people could get behind.
Why he wouldn't get the nomination:
His credentials beyond the economy are weak. You could trust him to handle the economic issues, but for left of center/moderate constituencies that lean democratic on the economy, he's not going to garner much support. While he'd certainly expand the Republican base, he's not going to sway any Democrats over to the other side. His lack of glaring weaknesses is paralleled by a lack of that something extra; a wild card that could get him from 220 electoral college votes to 270. He's just a solid candidate, but he's not going to inspire people the way Barack Obama would. As far as the idea of changing the way Washington works, there's nothing about him that plays to the change demographic. A big part of that movement is the youth vote, and Romney just seems way too much like your patriarchal, proslatizing dad to get a chunk of the under 30 vote.
1. Rudy Guiliani, frm. Mayor NYC
Why he'd be a good nominee:
When talking about a new brand of Republican candidate, this is the guy you'd have to model is after. He's truly a moderate conservative, and the kind of nominee that could put the fear of god into the hearts of the Democratic party. I'm not sure how far to the right New York would be willing to go, but you'd have to assume his former Mayorship of NYC again puts New York in play. His leadership during 9/11 has given him the perception of a strong leader among much of the country, and would be a sure bet to lock up some high profile endorsements. Conservatives would trust him on foreign policy, and he's definitely a pro business candidate. He's not a 50 states guy, but he's the type that could give the GOP a shot at recapturing Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, maybe a few more, and would have a GREAT shot at grabbing Florida. If he could hold the base, he's probably the Republicans best shot of winning in 2012.
Why he wouldn't get the nomination:
His primary campaign strategy just didn't workout in 2008, and you'd have financing concerns for another run. He's right of center, but he's certainly liberally prone. He's voted FOR abortion rights, and where he exactly stands on that is murky. He's also generally in favor of immigrants earning citizenship and is for some gun control. For all his cross over appeal, many left of center Democrats were less than pleased with what many people would call fear mangering. As Joe Biden put it, with Guiliani, "A noun, a verb and 9/11." You'd also have serious concerns for his ability to lock up the base that Rudy has driven crazy with some of his positions in the past. He's going to have to move to the right a bit most likely, specifically dropping any doubt about him possibly being pro-choice. You'd have to worry that his inability to even win the Florida primary in '08 would suggest he just wouldn't be able to cut it at the executive level. He's got potential, but Guiliani would have to retool and make a hard push with a good strategy in 2012.
Who should be the nominee in 2012:
Rudy Giuliani should be the candidate. With all due respect to Ron Paul, if the Republicans are going to take back the white house, they need to expand their platform, and he's the most likely to accomplish that and hold the base.
Who will be the nominee in 2012:
Sarah Palin will make a run at it, but my money is on Mitt Romney in 2012. I don't think they'll be able to rework their platform by 2012, and it will be reflected in the GOP electorate.
Now the reality is, this is more in Barack Obama's hands than it is the Republicans. If he's able to get the economy back on track and stabilize the credit market, kiss 2012 goodbye, we're getting a 2nd term for the Democrats. If he achieves stability, it'll probably be a year or two before the election, and people will want to keep the guy in office who kept us afloat during a potentially huge economic crisis. However, if he fails, and we're worse off in 2012 than we are in 2008, don't be surprised if it's Mitt in 2012. Also keep in mind, if I was writing this in 2004, Barack Obama would be no where to be found on this list. In 2004 he hadn't even been elected to the Senate yet. If some superstar Republican candidate comes through, then maybe the nominee is someone who comes out of nowhere like that. It's just not likely though, its not how the Republicans work. The tend to put the next guy in line up for nomination, and an Obama like ascendency would be highly unlikely in the GOP. The ball is in the Democrat's course for the next 2-4 years though. Game on.
