Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

[A-Tex Devil]

Citizens United has created a monster and no one, Jason, knows what to do.

Here's one Harvard Law lecturer who is aware of some history and is currently allowing the problem to rattle around in his head. I link to this not because I think it is meritorious (I do not), but because he published this today in the WaPo. Tom Donnelly




This will have some populist appeal, but it is rife with risk. If you permit such a people's veto, then you also risk that real rights get trampled, and they would since people will not always vote to do right, but will instead vote their prejudices. Still, I thought that the idea was worth a link.

It's a little more effort than a people's veto, but what he is basically describing is a constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass, and they should be to maintain our checks and balances. I'd prefer our federal government not to be Texas and other states where there are hundreds of amendments, many which were meant to fix short term issues with no view of the long term problems and gridlock such amendments eventually create.

As far as Gingrich's view of judicial review, without commenting on the merits of it, I think it will appeal to a lot of people, and is actually a pretty gutsy and potentially magnetic issue to put at the top of his platform.

[Mike Corey]

Describing Gingrich's suggestion that judges be removed from the bench by U.S. Marshals as "gutsy" is a euphemism, in my opinion; I'd call it reckless, as have many of Gingrich's conservative peers. Politically, however, it's been quite crafty.

Indeed, I'd suggest that it's so reckless that it is not a genuine suggestion, but rather a political one to endear Gingrich to the voters with whom--as you noted--will be drawn to the ire like moths to a flame.

Now, 50 years ago in the wake of Brown v. Board, there was a genuine debate in academia over the growing scope of judicial review. Gingrich's contribution lacks the depth or thought of such conversations, IMO.

[A-Tex Devil]

Describing Gingrich's suggestion that judges be removed from the bench by U.S. Marshals as "gutsy" is a euphemism, in my opinion; I'd call it reckless, as have many of Gingrich's conservative peers. Politically, however, it's been quite crafty.

Indeed, I'd suggest that it's so reckless that it is not a genuine suggestion, but rather a political one to endear Gingrich to the voters with whom--as you noted--will be drawn to the ire like moths to a flame.

Now, 50 years ago in the wake of Brown v. Board, there was a genuine debate in academia over the growing scope of judicial review. Gingrich's contribution lacks the depth or thought of such conversations, IMO.

Heh. I was trying to use an adjective that would avoid PPB territory.

"Judicial Activism" is a hot button topic, even among those that couldn't begin to explain what the term means, or when a law or precedent is overruled by a court, when it is "activist" and when it's not. So I think we are in general agreement.

[tommy]

Citizens United has created a monster and no one, Jason, knows what to do.

Here's one Harvard Law lecturer who is aware of some history and is currently allowing the problem to rattle around in his head. I link to this not because I think it is meritorious (I do not), but because he published this today in the WaPo. Tom Donnelly




This will have some populist appeal, but it is rife with risk. If you permit such a people's veto, then you also risk that real rights get trampled, and they would since people will not always vote to do right, but will instead vote their prejudices. Still, I thought that the idea was worth a link.

I know we're veering off topic here. But among the many problems that this idea would present, one immediately struck me. So if the Citizens United case itself was decided 5-4, then somehow the issues raised in it would now be up for a vote of some sort by "the people." Without any question, the airwaves would be flooded, primarily by corporate interests, trying to convince people to vote in the way that the Court had decided it. So we'd be faced with the prospect of big money corporate interests monopolizing and dominating the political "discussion" and exerting heavy, heavy influence on voters' decision as to whether big money corporate interests should be able to monopolize and dominate the political discussion. Through the looking glass time.

[Mike Corey]

The New York Times chimes in regarding the effects of Citizens United on the GOP primary and specifically the flood of ads pummeling Gingrich.

[throatybeard]

Makes me wonder if a witch might not have cast a spell: "She turned me into a Newt!"

I go' better.

McCain seemed to be in a small lead in most of the polls with less than a week left in the race...Maybe it was the ads, maybe it was something else, but McCain slipped in New York in the final few days, barely losing the primary to Bush. Once the result of the New York primary was known, the media pretty much declared Bush the winner of the nomination and many in the McCain camp admitted that the race was over.

Dude, seriously. I forget the exact dates, but they were in March. I know this because me and Shalay were married on the 5th and left for about a nine-day honeymoon to Cornwall on the 6th. At which time, people were talking like McCain could win. We came back home, Duke had beaten Maryland again in an ACCT final, and Bush was coronated. That fast.

[OldPhiKap]

Following up my meme that Ron Paul will probably end up a third party candidate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ng-rivals.html

[JasonEvans]

Following up my meme that Ron Paul will probably end up a third party candidate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ng-rivals.html

Well, perhaps the key line from that article is this--

Paul continued to suggest any third-party run by him is unlikely, while refusing to rule it out. He ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, and unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination four years ago.

“I can’t imagine it happening,” he said of a third-party candidacy.

Though it is worth noting that Paul would be crazy to talk openly about a third party move at a time when he is running as well as he ever has for the GOP nomination.

Interesting question-- with so many disillusioned with the way the two parties control things, is it necessarily true that a Paul 3rd part candidacy would hurt the GOP more than the Dems? I suppose he would hurt in that he would take some of the anti-Obama vote that would have otherwise gone to the GOP candidate, but I am far from convinced he would only pull from the right-hand side of the aisle.

-Jason "I think Paul could easily get 10+ percent if he ran as a 3rd party candidate" Evans

[Jim3k]

There are other news stories about the Montana case, but Prof. Volokh has a good synopsis. This may set up a case whereby Citizens United gets revisited--or, Montana gets reversed by return mail.

[OldPhiKap]

Well, perhaps the key line from that article is this--



Though it is worth noting that Paul would be crazy to talk openly about a third party move at a time when he is running as well as he ever has for the GOP nomination.

Interesting question-- with so many disillusioned with the way the two parties control things, is it necessarily true that a Paul 3rd part candidacy would hurt the GOP more than the Dems? I suppose he would hurt in that he would take some of the anti-Obama vote that would have otherwise gone to the GOP candidate, but I am far from convinced he would only pull from the right-hand side of the aisle.

-Jason "I think Paul could easily get 10+ percent if he ran as a 3rd party candidate" Evans

Paul has already said he can't support Gingrich, and that he thinks Romney is no different than the things he has railed against for years. He is 76, so if he wants a platform for his ideas a third party candidacy makes sense.

And I agree, he will take votes from Obama as well as Romney. Love to see all three in a few debates.

[Wander]

Love to see all three in a few debates.

What's the rule in the general election debates in regards to having more than two debaters? (I understand there's probably not a hard rule, just wondering realistically how popular he'd have to be to get in there).

I also wouldn't be surprised if Paul ran as a 3rd party candidate. I don't think he likes Obama any better or worse than he likes Romney, and there's no way he's going to get picked as VP or for a cabinet position or anything, so why wouldn't he? He's spreading his message effectively.

[OldPhiKap]

What's the rule in the general election debates in regards to having more than two debaters? (I understand there's probably not a hard rule, just wondering realistically how popular he'd have to be to get in there).

I also wouldn't be surprised if Paul ran as a 3rd party candidate. I don't think he likes Obama any better or worse than he likes Romney, and there's no way he's going to get picked as VP or for a cabinet position or anything, so why wouldn't he? He's spreading his message effectively.

I think it is up to the host and network.

Ross Perot and Admiral Stockdale were included in some debates during the '90's. I don't think there is a set "rule" on it. I seem to remember Ralph Nader in a debate or two, but that may be my faulty memory.


Meanwhile, Ron Paul has pulled into second in New Hampshire (at Gingrich's expense) and Libertarian candidate (erstwhile Republican candidate) Gary Johnson supports Ron Paul:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...-ron-paul.html

[mph]

I think it is up to the host and network.

Ross Perot and Admiral Stockdale were included in some debates during the '90's. I don't think there is a set "rule" on it. I seem to remember Ralph Nader in a debate or two, but that may be my faulty memory.


Meanwhile, Ron Paul has pulled into second in New Hampshire (at Gingrich's expense) and Libertarian candidate (erstwhile Republican candidate) Gary Johnson supports Ron Paul:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...-ron-paul.html

The general election debate rules are negotiated through the Commission On Presidential Debates. While the CPD promotes itself as a non-partisan organization, it could more accurately be described as bipartisan organization. The dates and locations for the 2012 debates are set and can be found here.

The commission established a threshold of 15% support in national polls, but I don't recall if that rule was in place in the 1992 election as Perot/Stockdale would have qualified anyway. No third party candidate since Perot has been close, including Nader. The 15% rule is somewhat controversial for playing a role in protecting the two party system by limiting the exposure of 3rd party candidates.

FWIW, the CPD website is a great resource for political junkies, where you can find a comprehensive collection of presidential debate transcripts and video.

[mph]

The last Des Moines Register poll is out. They have Romney (24%), Paul (22%), and Santorum (15%).

Perhaps the most interesting news:

In four days of polling, Romney leads at 24 percent, Paul has 22 percent and Rick Santorum, 15 percent.

But if the final two days of polling stand alone, the order reshuffles: Santorum elbows out Paul for second...

What makes Santorum’s growth spurt particularly striking is his last-second rise: He averaged 10 points after the first two nights of polling, but doubled that during the second two nights. Looking just at the final day of polling, he was just one point down from Romney’s 23 percent on Friday.

I'm leaning toward a Santorum, Romney, Paul prediction.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm leaning toward a Santorum, Romney, Paul prediction.

Romney would be very happy with that, I think.

[Jarhead]

This morning I learned that five candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States have not qualified for the Virginia primary election in March. I also learned that they have joined together to sue the Commonwealth of Virginia for qualification in said primary election. Let me ask a simple question. How is it that these people who aspire to be President cannot accomplish the relatively simple task of qualifying by the deadline? We do not need a president that doesn't understand due diligence? It is not a partisan issue. The Democrats often behave in the same disgraceful way, but we are fortunate President Obama will go to the convention unopposed for nomination this year.

[Mike Corey]

How is it that these people who aspire to be President cannot accomplish the relatively simple task of qualifying by the deadline?

Mitt Romney has amusingly answered this question. Voters will be deciding it soon, too.

The answer--some of these candidates lack the organization and planning to be president--harkens back to some of the earlier comments in this thread: this is not the best of the best of the best the GOP has to offer. The GOP's persistent reluctance to concede their nomination to Mitt Romney seems indicative of its understanding that it can do better.

But with no apologies to Donald Rumsfeld, you go to the polls with the candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had. At the end of the day, the GOP will have little choice but to rally around Mr. Romney, whose organization alone should make him the choice to tango with the president in the general election.

[Newton_14]

This morning I learned that five candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States have not qualified for the Virginia primary election in March. I also learned that they have joined together to sue the Commonwealth of Virginia for qualification in said primary election. Let me ask a simple question. How is it that these people who aspire to be President cannot accomplish the relatively simple task of qualifying by the deadline? We do not need a president that doesn't understand due diligence? It is not a partisan issue. The Democrats often behave in the same disgraceful way, but we are fortunate President Obama will go to the convention unopposed for nomination this year.

Not a political expert by any stretch, but after reading the qualification rules for Virginia in a post up thread, I found nothing "relatively simple" about that process. A very ridiculous process would be more accurate.

[JasonEvans]

I was talking today to a media friend who is in Iowa right now. He is talking to a bunch of the pollsters as well as to insiders at the various campaigns. He said he has no idea who is going to win and IT IS NOT A 2 MAN RACE at this point. He said a lot of folks think Santorum is surging so much that he is going to win. Gingrich is finishing 4th, at best.

-Jason "it really may come down to the weather-- I think bad weather could be bad for Romney" Evans

[sagegrouse]

I was talking today to a media friend who is in Iowa right now. He is talking to a bunch of the pollsters as well as to insiders at the various campaigns. He said he has no idea who is going to win and IT IS NOT A 2 MAN RACE at this point. He said a lot of folks think Santorum is surging so much that he is going to win. Gingrich is finishing 4th, at best.

-Jason "it really may come down to the weather-- I think bad weather could be bad for Romney" Evans

I agree it is open. I would also tend to agree if someone claimed that Iowa makes no difference whatsoever in the nomination process.

That said, I think the 2008 Iowa caucus winner, Mike Huckabee, is beating his head against the wall every day for not running this time. He chose to stay in the rich confines of his Fox program and other paid activities. He could be the leading the field -- nationally and in Iowa -- if he had chosen to run.

sagegrouse