RSS Feed MenuThere are three reasons to jump into a Republican presidential primary.
1) Because you can win.
2) Because you want to take away votes and delegates from the person you don’t want to win, and give them to the person that you do want to win.
3) Because you are delusional.
Aside from my colleague Jeb Golinkin, nobody is thinking that George Pataki is floating his trial balloon because of reason one. Most of the other people I’ve read are thinking reason three.
I’m thinking it’s reason two, personally. I’d look at the example of Earl Warren of California, whose California delegation led by Richard Nixon played a rather important role in giving the nomination to Eisenhower in 1952. Think about it: New York is losing population, but like Earl Warren’s California, it’s a rich source of delegates. What if Pataki turns out to be able to win a decent number of delegates in his home state, and wires enough votes elsewhere to play a role in a brokered pre-convention? (No, we won’t see a brokered convention; all the action will happen ahead of time, away from the floor show.) Along with giving all of us here at FrumForum a whole bunch to write about, the fight could have the salutary effect of giving the Republicans an opportunity to actually hash out their differences, not on the blogs, but in an actual situation with an actual important decision at stake, just as the Democrats did ahead of the 2008 election.
Of course, the difference will be that the best Pataki can hope for is third place, not second. But if being number three gives you your choice between a close number one and two, then third is a good place to be.
It’d probably not work out quite that way. But it’s probably worth a shot.
TerryF98 // Apr 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Are you saying that Jeb Golinkin is delusional?
I have to agree with you if that is the case. I base my observation on his recent writings here.
DFL // Apr 27, 2010 at 9:20 am
If Guiliani couldn’t play spoiler, why Pataki? He’s not particularly popular in New York. Moreover, this is not 1924 or 1952. Party heavyweights no longer control state delegations or blocks of delegates. Unless he wants the thrill of losing to Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee in 2012, Pataki is finished in politics.
Carney // Apr 27, 2010 at 11:12 am
“Favorite son” strategies, while terrific fun for political science nerds to fantasize about, are decades out of date.
The modern era of dependence on a broad base of donors is just one of the reasons. Not enough passionate grassroots activists will donate to a squish, and not enough wealthy influence-seekers, will donate to a certain, self-conscious, pre-planned loser.
Furthermore, no backroom deal will be possible – the 24/7 media, blogs, interest groups, and most of all the delegates will create irresistible pressure for dealings to happen in the open. Efforts to close doors on cameras would be catastrophic PR.
Even if a miracle occurred and Pataki was able to force a nominee on the party that it would not otherwise have wanted, or force weak, watered-down policies on a nominee who would not otherwise have adopted them, that would fatally weaken the party and nominee headed for the general election. Who wants a president who can be pushed around by George Pataki?
joemarier // Apr 27, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Hard to say that the “Favorite Son” strategy is dead, when it played such an important role in Mitt Romney’s campaign (The favorite son in 3 states!). Sure he didn’t win in 2008. But would he be a contender if he washed out in Michigan?
DFL // Apr 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Excellent post, Carney.
Carney // Apr 27, 2010 at 4:25 pm
joemarier, a favorite son, by definition, is a placeholder candidate who is not a serious candidate for the nomination and seeks only to control his own state’s delegation as a bargaining chip or to play kingmaker / power-broker during the convention. Having ties to one or more states and using them in a serious bid for the nomination and thus the White House is not a favorite son candidacy, again by definition.
ottovbvs // Apr 27, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Carney // Apr 27, 2010 at 4:25 pm
…..Heh Carney we agree for once…..both at your 4.25 and 11.12…..excellent summary of reality…..why don’t you make it a habit……quite aside from the obsolescence of favorite son candidates the idea of Pataki as kingmaker is risible
Carney // Apr 27, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Thanks otto & DFL..