Would a Long, Drawn-Out GOP Primary Be So Bad?

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

On Laura today, and around the campaign coverage blogosphere, there's discussion of what happens if Romney wins today (possible, maybe even probable) Thompson wins South Carolina (possible, maybe even probable) and if Giuliani wins Florida (possible... yeah, maybe even probable, as he's dumping so many resources and manpower into that state).

The Daily Kos crowd, and some Republicans, think it's a disaster if it's a five way race heading into Super-Duper Tuesday.

It's trouble for the GOP if the Democrats solidify behind one candidate quickly. But I don't think that's going to happen. Hillary and Obama have the funds, the staff, the grassroots, etc., to go all the way to the convention. The latest race-oriented fight between the two makes it unlikely that either will want to concede quietly after a defeat or two. And Edwards isn't terribly far behind; he might as well collect as many delegates as he can and hope that he'll get to play kingmaker.

Beyond that, those of us who don't live in early primary states might actually enjoy having our votes matter for once. Think about it, in 2000, South Carolina was decisive for Bush. Buchanan was still in the race until California in 1996, but that was still before quite a few states (and Dole had the momentum some weeks before). In 1988, South Carolina was pretty significant for the elder Bush, and Super Tuesday gave him a big leg up, and by the time it got to Pennsylvania, he had clinched.

If you think Iowa's wacky caucus rules make their choice unrepresentative, if you think Wyoming's caucus rules were too strict, if you think the independents of New Hampshire and the crossover Democrats of Michigan might make those states' choices somehow invalid... don't worry. You'll get your say (well, not all of you, but a lot of you). The Super Duper Tuesday states will be huge, and the Maryland-Virginia-D.C. votes a week later might even make a difference.

Whoever the Republican nominee is, he won't be a reflection of the quirky preferences of the early states. He'll have fought and won over a wide variety of political terrain.

UPDATE: Mark Shelden concurs.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I concur with these thoughts by Campaign Spot reader Patrick:

I might add to that prospect, at least for Republicans, whomever would end up with the nomination in that scenario, while not universally loved by definition, would be respected. Too often, the sense of a lack of grass roots control over the party sinks in, but not with a drawn out process like that. Nobody (except the Paulists, who can't be pleased) will be able to say their guy didn't have a fair shot, and that goes a long way in Republican circles. The sense of "Well, it was fair" will help the party coalesce in this view, and provide strong momentum heading out of the convention.

The key is the nominees need to stay focused on the goal - a Repub win in 2008. What didn't happen in '76, for example, was that while Reagan and Ford were cordial, Reagan did not actively urge the party to embrace Ford, and then did relatively naught after the convention to help. When the public began to come to their senses on election day, the slow beginning for Ford made him run out of time.

Is it too much to ask the main one or two losers to come to the convention and unambiguously, and in prime time, speak in support of the candidate? Not a Kennedy kinda handshake thing from '80, or a Reagan speech which ended up hurting Ford in '76, but a clear and unambiguous speech FOR the nominee. Maybe it is, but the party will be sorely in need of it.

01/15 10:45 AM Share