Most Roads Led to Rubio, but…

Avatar

Dan Scotto

Dan Scotto lives and works in New Jersey. He has a master's degree in history, with a focus on the history of disease and the history of technology.

Related Post Roulette

43 Responses

  1. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s my understanding, from an NPR report this AM, with a Repub delegate that the delegates “won” in the various state / caucuses are free to vote their conscience from day one and not beholden to any candidate. This is not what has been said in the MSM.

    Does this changes things?Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      It would change a lot, basically it would mean Cruz is going to get the nomination first round of voting but it’d probably provoke a riot among the base.

      Do you recall how the NPR justified their assertion? I mean the delegates are free to vote how they wish and no one’s going to break their kneecaps if they vote the way they’re supposed to but my understanding is that in the first round only the correct vote by a bound delegate will be recorded. So they can vote for King Kong if they want but the gorilla won’t be counted by the chair unless he won that states primary/caucus.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        This was my understanding too, but I’ve only heard this secondhand. The guy who ought to know is Reince Priebus.Report

      • Avatar Damon in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        NPR interviewed a delegate or some such, not sure what his title was, who was going to the Repub convention, and had gone for the last 20+ years. He said a bunch of stuff but that was the net net. He said they start out usually accepting the rules from the previous year and such, and that it’s written in the procedures or rules that “each delegate may vote their conscience” or some such wording, and it’s been like that since 1850 or so.

        A quick scan of NPR website give no joy. Google Fu failing….Report

        • Avatar notme in reply to Damon
          Ignored
          says:

          That was the guy this morning? If so, I heard it as well.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Damon
          Ignored
          says:

          Well the delegate situation is complex and nuanced but when interviewing him from what you’re saying what he said could easily fit into the existing narrative. The basic rub is that the delegates collectively as pretty much all powerful within the convention. We’re talking about the literal congress of the Republican Party minus a constitutional restraint. Those delegates collectively control almost every legal/formal element that constitutes the Republican Party (and likewise the Democratic Delegates). They can technically change the Party rules to say whatever the fish they want.Report

          • Avatar Damon in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            “They can technically change the Party rules to say whatever the fish they want.”

            Actually, he said that, but that wasn’t the point. His original point was that, historically, and written into all the previous rules, was that each delegate could vote his conscience. He’s saying that no one “owes” any vote to anyone at any time, and that’s always the way it’s been. That’s not been the reporting / narrative in the press, which has been that after the first vote, all parties were free to do what they wanted.Report

            • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Damon
              Ignored
              says:

              This was a controversy in 1976 at the Republican convention. The leader of the House Republican caucus was in 1976 John Rhodes. His reaction to the Reagan effort to unbind delegates was, “Then why did we have all these goddamn primaries?”. The rule decided upon at that time was that pledged delegates were bound for the first ballot. A similar controversy erupted at the 1980 Democratic convention; Ted Kennedy’s supporters were walking around with these inane posters which had a robot on them labeled with the rule number (“FC-3” or something) and a prohibition slash across it.Report

        • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Damon
          Ignored
          says:

          I think what he said was “Each delegate is asked about his conscience.” (And disqualified if he shows any sign of having one.)Report

  2. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    An excellent analysis. I would quibble only against your last few paragraphs. This is not the result of some critical flaw in the nomination structure/process. This was the result of conscious policy and political choices the GOP as a party has been making for quite some time combined with serious collective action problems by the unusually large number of center lane candidates.Report

  3. Avatar Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    In section 2 of the OP, the presumption is that if there had been a single “Establishment” candidate instead of Kasich, Bush, Rubio, and Christie, all the votes for those four candidates would have consolidated and left the “Establishment” candidate in the catbird seat.

    Maybe. But I’m not so sure that’s true, especially if permitted hindsight. Two reasons.

    First, if the “Establishment” did have a mechanism for pre-Iowa consolidation, it’d have consolidated around Bush. Evidence for this is money: pre-Iowa, Bush had way more of it than any of these others. Bush, as we know with hindsight, was a weaker choice with actual voters than either Rubio or Kasich.

    Second, of these four “Establishment”-friendly choices, two were overtly running against the “Establishment,” including Rubio. Rubio’s initial appeal was to bridge the Tea Party and mainline conservative factions. Christie, meanwhile, was aiming populist and got pre-empted as the “teller of plain truths and maker of good bargains” by Trump.

    Rubio never enters and those voters go a little bit for Bush but mostly for Cruz. Christie never enters and those votes go to Trump. Kasich never enters, those votes (mattering pretty much in New Hampshire) go to Bush. Bush gets squeezed out after losing his home state to Trump. Say bye-bye to the “Establishment.” As in real life, in this hypothetical we’d today still be looking at a race of Trump versus a slightly stronger Cruz.Report

    • Avatar Dan Scotto in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      I think this is fair, but I also think this is a situation where the “establishment” needed to think in terms of “half a loaf” versus “no loaf” at all. If the establishment position was Bush > Rubio > Cruz > Trump, going for Bush was a strategy that risked total annihilation. Rubio was a safer pick in the sense that it could have forestalled a much worse outcome.

      Basically, the Bush loyalists should have known better, IMO. But I agree that the mechanism for consolidation may not have existed.Report

      • Avatar Francis in reply to Dan Scotto
        Ignored
        says:

        Dan,

        Is there any evidence of a singular establishment any more? From the other side of the aisle, what I see is the growth of a multi-polar party with each pole (a) having the money and voters to exercise real power and (b) hating the others. Trump obviously is his own locus of power. But isn’t it the case that Rubio had his own locus of money and supporters who really hated the Bush team? And isn’t the same story true for Cruz?

        Who among the major donors is taking any guidance from Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan?Report

        • Avatar Dan Scotto in reply to Francis
          Ignored
          says:

          I think there is a lot of truth to this. I guess my point was that Rubio was an option that should have been palatable to Jeb Bush supporters while also picking off enough of the hard-line types that the Bush supporters should’ve defected to Rubio, strategically, much sooner.

          I think Citizens United, in its way, has made consolidation a lot harder.Report

          • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Dan Scotto
            Ignored
            says:

            I think Citizens United, in its way, has made consolidation a lot harder.

            In 2008, you have four consequential candidates; the last of the remainder leaves the race 27 days after the Iowa caucuses. In 2012, you have four consequential candidates; the last of the remainder leaves the race 16 days after the Iowa Caucuses. In 2016, you have four consequential candidates; the last of the remainder leaves the race 32 days after the Iowa caucuses. This makes a difference?Report

  4. Avatar Lurker
    Ignored
    says:

    “The divided field resulted in Rubio bleeding potential votes to Kasich and Bush in South Carolina, and Kasich on Super Tuesday.”

    But Trump “bled” votes to Kasich too. We like to think that voters’s preferences align into neat and tody categories, i.e. that all the Kasich voters would pick a “mainstream” (which is hilarious given that everyone in the R race is right of right) candidate. But that isn’t how it works. Trump would pick up a lot of Kasich voters, too.

    Are their polls from the past showing anyone would’ve beat Trump head to head? Even if there were, Trump may have changed his focus if the field were narrowed and won anyway. So the hypothetical one on one matchup needs to be fair to Trump.

    R’s don’t like to admit it, but their party’s voters love Trump because he is racist, xenophobic, small-minded, a conspiracy theorist, and an unrealistic fantasist. That is the mainstream voter. The mainstream donor wants low taxes and no regulations like minimum wages or child-labor laws or something.Report

  5. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I am with North and Burt. 2016 was in the making for years and decades because of GOP rhetoric and the rhetoric of conservative media especially talk radio. Burt is right that the GOP establishment could have just rallied behind Jeb! more effectively and quickly and turned the contest into Jeb v. Trump.

    But they did not. I think people took Trump as a non-threat for way too long. Even if Trump stayed in for the long haul.Report

    • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      GOP establishment could have just rallied behind Jeb! more effectively and quickly and turned the contest into Jeb v. Trump.

      Rubbish. He had plenty of money and contacts. He also had public support prior to July 2015. It proved evanescent. About 2/3 of his observable support evaporated over the next five months, a fate also suffered by Mike Huckabee (but none of the other candidates bar Scott Walker on an earlier timetable). Nothing that MOAR donors and MOAR endorsements was going to remedy.Report

    • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      2016 was in the making for years and decades because of GOP rhetoric and the rhetoric of conservative media especially talk radio.

      You shouldn’t take your dumb memes seriously. They’re talking points, baby.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      2016 was in the making for years and decades

      Indeed, after 2015 it was more or less inevitable.Report

  6. Avatar Kolohe
    Ignored
    says:

    Your mention of WW1 makes me think this has been a lot like WW2

    Trump (Germany) and Cruz (USSR) have early non-aggression pact.

    Jeb (France), big player with long powerful history and seemingly impenetrable fortress gets routed early and shockingly.

    GOPe (Allies) are on the ropes, but then Trump (Germany) launches a vicious and sudden attack on Cruz (USSR). GOPe (Allies), by circumstances, lend Cruz (USSR) the support needed to push back Trump (Germany).

    Trump (Germany) and Cruz (USSR) get into a drag down knock out brawl, that Trump (Germany) eventually loses, which grants Cruz (USSR) portions of Trump’s (Germany) former territory, and a preeminent position in the whole game.

    Then in the next iteration, GOPe (non-USSR allies) and Cruz (USSR) fight the battle that everyone thought coming even before Trump (Germany) starting blitzing the game.Report

  7. Avatar Joe Sal
    Ignored
    says:

    Rubio first, didn’t have a record with significant ‘markers’ of having done tangible things for the base-right (on moral alignments, economy, or push back on ‘sentiment’ law/policy creation).

    Second, I think there were optics, thinking the ‘right progressive’ was the next strong phase of the GOP, which the establishment GOP probably was expecting.

    My bet is the GOP will/has faction into three parts. The first being the authoritative conservatives (top faction). Next the ‘right progressives’, tucked un neatly between the old conservatives and the libertarians(middle faction). The third will be a mix of Libertarians and the right anti-authoritarians(lower faction).

    Right progressives(middle faction) at the moment are too close to where the establishment is camped. To go against the establishment means to move up or down from the middle.

    You don’t often see a strong anti-authoritarian in elections, so the field is littered with the mixed shades of authoritarians. For the party to be strongest while the middle faction is the weakest means the high faction and low faction has to start looking at things they agree on. This will be reflected in the alignment against the institutions and ‘sentiment’ laws/policies of the left, and maybe it’s current economic policies. Rubio wasn’t a strong contender to those alignments. Jeb and Kasich are the weak middle.

    I think a poor performing economy and the ‘sentiment’ laws/policies will affect how far the base is willing to polarize away from the middle.

    And for the record, If a strong authoritative right president produces considerable change and threatens institutions and implements its own ‘sentiment’ laws/policies, I see the left factioning in a mirror image of what the right is doing. Each party factioning away from the middle. I think it is already begun with Hillary being too close to the establishment middle faction, Bernie being low has been stronger than most would have guessed.

    The pendulum of ‘change’ swinging farther each time, or possibly receding if the economy and or sentiments start to align. The danger is for each side to double down on malicious authoritarians to skew the control institutions/policies in their favor. There is inherent risk when there is no sovereign individualist republic, representative factions continue to slosh around, grasping for control of the leviathan.Report

  8. Avatar Art Deco
    Ignored
    says:

    You need an editor; three sentences might do: (1) Marco Rubio has been wrong on a non-negotiable issue; (2) He has a history of being deceptive and untrustworthy on that issue; (3) He’s mediocre in terms of his intellect and accomplishments.Report

    • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Art Deco
      Ignored
      says:

      If it’s such a non-negotiable issue to the ‘base’, why did the George W. Bush, a big-time supporter of immigration reform walk out of office in 2008 with a 70+% approval rating from self described conservatives? I mean, conservatives realized all these immigrants were running around in the past couple of years.Report

      • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Jesse Ewiak
        Ignored
        says:

        George W. Bush failed in his efforts to effect an amnesty.

        George W. Bush last ran de novo 16 years ago when the issue was simply less salient to Republican voters. Figures at the time of his departure would have been influenced by the success of the Iraq surge (though also influenced by the banking crisis). He also had the benefit of goodwill from the base for being fairly steadfast in his commitments and for aplomb in the face of venomous assaults from the opposition (in spite of being perhaps the least confrontational president in decades re domestic policy).

        People who contribute to fora like this do differ from Republican voters, but among those paying some attention, Rubio exposed himself in 2013 as a liar and a fool or a liar and a fraud. Rubio at his best in national surveys was not performing as well as Kasich is now. He carried one state and two territories (Puerto Rico and DC).

        If you look back at the situation pre-Trump, you can detect a good deal of resistance to the establishment lane candidates, even though Bush was leading in most surveys. F’rinstance, the Quinnipiac poll issued on 23 April 2015 had the sum of establishment lane candidates (Bush, Christie, Graham, Kasich, and Rubio) collecting 39% of the respondents between them. Post Trump, Bush lost about 2/3 of his support, Christie 1/3, and Graham evaporated.Report

  9. Avatar Art Deco
    Ignored
    says:

    However, if the goal of the nomination process is to put forward a nominee that both represents the party’s values and stands a chance to win a general election, factional candidates are terrible choices: the most electable candidates who are likely to carry forward conservative policy platforms are the candidates in the middle of the party. And yet the program, as it currently exists, thwarts their aims.

    Dum de dum de dum.

    Since Gen. Eisenhower headed off into retirement, the Republican Party has on the following occasions nominated:

    1. Opportunists (1960, 1968, 1988, 2012)

    2. Capitol hill fixtures (1996, 2008)

    3. “Factional candidates” (1964, 1980)

    4. A scion with a bunch of ideas which sound like marketing ploys (2000).

    5. Incumbents who were in the first instance opportunists (1972, 1992), Capitol Hill fixtures (1976), “Factional candidates” (1984), scion with marketing ploy (2004).

    Your only example of a ‘factional candidate’ getting shellacked would be Barry Goldwater in 1964. The thing is, Lyndon Johnson had 70%+ approval ratings in 1964, just like Gen. Eisenhower in 1956. Barry Goldwater received 38% of the vote. So, you nominate your least factional candidate (say, Henry Cabot Lodge, who didn’t want the job) and get 42% instead. This is of consequence?Report

  10. Avatar Jesse Ewiak
    Ignored
    says:

    The actual problem with Rubio is that he wasn’t actually all that much of a moderate in the long run. On the actual issues, he didn’t actually have that much of a disconnect with say, Ted Cruz, except on immigration and even there, Cruz has been kind of a recent convert to the “depot ’em all” faction.

    Sure, Rubio would’ve gotten a 2000-esque love-in from the press, ala Dubya, especially against the hated Clinton’s, but the thing was, the 2000 version of George W. Bush actually was putting forth a moderate conservative platform – I didn’t agree with it, but I could at lease see how 50%+1 of American’s could support a plan.

    I simply don’t see that with Rubio, no matter how great his life story is or how good looking he is (using the political adjustment for good looking of course) would actually manage to win a general election, even against somebody like Hillary. The sad thing is, the GOP actually has an awesome candidate in the form of Brian Sandoval who put forth a lot of conservative items in Nevada while still appearing moderate (ala Dubya), but the problem for the GOP is that he’s pro-choice and this isn’t 1980 anymore, so you can’t have a sudden conversion like Poppy Bush did.Report

    • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      The actual problem with Rubio is that he wasn’t actually all that much of a moderate in the long run.

      Republican voters are generally not influenced by the sort of things which bother partisan Democrats.Report

    • Avatar Art Deco in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      I simply don’t see that with Rubio, no matter how great his life story is or how good looking he is (using the political adjustment for good looking of course) would actually manage to win a general election, even against somebody like Hillary.

      All of the notable candidates perform satisfactorily against Hellary in hypothetical match-up polls, with the qualified exception of Trump.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *