Analyzing a 2020 Republican Primary, Part 3

On By The EditorsIn Politics, Uncategorized1 Comment

Last time, we looked at what a 2020 Republican challenger to Donald Trump should look like in order to experience the best chance of success.  Today, I’m going to take a quick rundown of what a challenger would look like who would have the incentives to run in this race.  There may be some potential candidates who meet all the criteria I went over in Part 1 who may nonetheless pass because the Individual Incentives of running don’t make sense for the candidate.  Running for President is a grueling, often thankless task.  For voters who would prefer an alternative to President Trump to get a chance to vote for such a candidate, it’s important to consider who has the incentives to take on this task.  This is a topic I’m sure I will revisit frequently over the next year, so feel free to chime in if you think of any I missed.

Briefly though, I’m going to revisit the “success” definition I touched on last time.  On the broader level of analysis, there are really two ways one can “succeed” in a challenge to Trump: Outright winning the nomination, or performing competitively enough to preserve a value system apart from Trump for the party post-Trump (much like Reagan did running against Ford in 1976).  On the individual level, though, there are a number of other definitions of success that may not have anything to do with electoral success.  For example, a candidate may run in order to try and push a particular issue or issue-set into the conversation (Example: Ron Paul 2008 and 2012).  More perversely, a candidate may run in order to generate attention that can monetized as a book deal, a TV contract, or through some other means.  Finally, there are some candidacies that are just completely inexplicable (Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, etc).  All of these are individual definitions of success that often directly contradict with the broader voter group’s definition of success.  Here are some of the incentives, though, that a potential Trump challenger who would want to take on this significant task might have that doesn’t impede the Trump-skeptical’s electorate desire for a candidate who can win/compete with Trump:

  1. The potential challenger wants to be President.

This may sound obvious, but it’s worth considering.  In our current environment, if you become President, a significant number of people will dedicate themselves to tearing you and your family, friends, and colleagues down every possible opportunity.  Your lifestyle will change entirely, and privacy will basically be non-existent.  You will be tasked with making some of the most consequential decisions of any person on Earth.  Many good people have passed on running for office, including the Presidency, for some combination of these and more reasons.  Even if a candidate would be good for the job, he or she has to decide there is a significant desire to take on the job.

  1. The potential challenger with incentive to run would not benefit from waiting until a different election cycle.

There are a number of good Republicans who have interest in being President someday.  For many of them, running in 2020 against a sitting Republican president carries significant risk that, if they lost, may very well impede those chances.  For all his faults, there are a number of Republicans who would not support anyone who primaried Trump if they lost and ran again in, say, 2024.  If you’re, for example, Nicki Haley, would you rather run in 2020 and alienate a large number of Trump’s core supporters, or would you rather wait until 2024 or 2028 and run as a candidate who still has the potential of appealing to all factions of the Republican Party?  That exact same calculation applies to Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, Mike Pence, Tom Cotton, and a number of other Republicans with national ambitions.  That said, there will be some candidate who will have a better chance of success by running against Trump one-on-one in 2020 than they will in a crowded field of Republicans in 2024 or 2028.  They might be a hair to the middle of the GOP base, or they may just not stand out in a crowded race like happened to many candidates in 2016. Those candidates are the ones to keep an eye on.

  1. The potential challenger has at least somewhat serious concerns about Trump.

Because of the two reasons above and more, an individual who doesn’t have a significant problem with the President isn’t going to run.  I’ll use Ben Carson as an example here: He checks some of the boxes you would want to see in a Trump challenger, he’s ran for President before, and he would probably have a hard time standing out in another GOP primary that looked like 2016.  That said, he seems to have no serious issues with the President.  Not every potential challenger may have been as vocal about their issues with the President to this point as John Kasich, Jeff Flake, or someone else, but they at least need to have a “fire in their belly” to give their candidacy a sense of purpose.  If a candidate felt particularly strongly about this point, and viewed their candidacy as a “calling” or public service, it might be enough to override any concerns the candidate had about ruining any future election prospects.

  1. The potential challenger doesn’t have a reelection to worry about.

Any candidate who ran against Trump who would stand for reelection if they lost would instantly have a target on their back in a primary.  Look no further than what happened to Jeff Flake in Arizona (though to be fair, he wasn’t particularly popular before Trump).  Let’s say you’re Tim Scott, and you actually have some issues with the President, national ambitions, and a sterling profile among many different parts of the Party.  If you run against President Trump and lose, and then immediately stand for reelection in South Carolina in 2022, you all of a sudden have created a difficult race for yourself.  On the other hand, if you’re Larry Hogan, you’re term-limited as Governor, have limited prospects in Maryland, and may not have another step up on the political ladder (aside from Vice President or Cabinet Member).  That is a large reason why Hogan has expressed so much interest recently in the idea of a potential Primary.

Analyzing a 2020 Republican Primary, Part 2

On By The EditorsIn Politics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Last time, I looked at the lay of the land concerning the possibility of a 2020 Republican primary.  The idea has started to pick up a lot of traction in the media.  It’s not without merit, as polling is starting to show that even before an actual campaign, a strong number of Republicans are open to the idea of a challenger.

One of the most important questions to start with in assessing this topic is “What qualities/traits is the ideal challenger going to have in order to have the best chance of success?”  While the ultimate success would be defeating Trump, that may or may not be possible depending on the environment, so you can also reasonably say that winning some primaries and taking a significant proportion of the votes in order to lay a marker for what the National GOP should be post-2020 would be a success (See: Reagan ’76).  There are a number of different ideas I could mention here, and a candidate may not need to meet all these characteristics to succeed by either definition.  Nonetheless, here are 4 key ideas to consider in what a Republican challenger to Trump should look like to have the best chance of success:

  1. The successful challenger should come from (or at least run from) the Right, not the Center

Like it or not, Republican Primary voters are not looking for John Kasich.  They want someone who will govern as a Conservative.  Tim Miller, who worked for Jeb Bush in 2016, makes this point on a recent Bulwark podcast, saying that, for example, a “Where is the Wall” type approach is probably going to be what has the best chance of gaining traction.  You could supplement this with a wide variety of issue points, from “Why is Planned Parenthood still funded” to “Why do we still have Obamacare” to “Why is the deficit ballooning” to “Why do we have an administration full of war hawks arguing we need to go into Venezuela after Trump said he wouldn’t get us into conflicts”.  Depending on how the candidate and his or her team wants to run, there is lots of material to attack Trump from the Right with that doesn’t even require going full Ted Cruz/Tea Party to do it, much less Stephen Miller/Ann Coulter.  You can’t abandon all Conservative orthodoxy either though, like John Kasich.  This ties very closely to point 2, which is ….

  1. The successful challenger appeals to your 2016 Rubio/Cruz/Carson voters

A lot of people forget Donald Trump won the 2016 nomination with a plurality of the votes ( ~ 45%).  If a candidate can unite the coalition of non-Trump voters from 2016, and then maybe activate some number of new voters who oppose Trump, the math works.  We can talk about what the ideal combination looks like (Rubio’s Charisma and Optimism, Cruz’s animosity to DC and appeal to Evangelicals, Carson’s background and outsider status, etc.), but a successful campaign needs to start with the question “How do I hold together Trump-skeptical Republicans?” and go from there.

  1. The successful challenger should be from outside DC (Businessman, Governor, etc) or should have a record in DC of standing up for Conservative values and against “the Swamp”.

The overall distaste for “The Establishment” or “The Swamp” by your typical Republican Primary voter has not changed since 2016.  That said, there is still a base of people who aren’t happy with DC but who aren’t happy with Trump either because of his character and haphazard approach to governing, or because they feel he has sold out his base and become “The Establishment.”  The successful Candidate is going to be able to appeal to these voters by railing against corruption in DC.  The very savvy campaign will be able to show why Trump is “The Swamp” due to all his self-dealing with the Trump Organization, Trump Hotel, etc.  The average voter may not care about Roger Stone and Russia, but they may be made to care about Trump telling them he was going to drain the swamp, and then getting rich off it himself.

  1. The successful challenger will be able to fundraise very successfully.

Going up against a prepared Trump-RNC apparatus is not going to be a task for the faint of heart.  Running a serious challenge to any serious incumbent is a difficult manner.  A very savvy campaign may be able to run an effective challenge in a cost-effective manner.  In a 24/7 news environment, doing more Earned Media as opposed to massive TV ad buys should be doable, as long as the dollars saved are going to building field staff, top-notch digital, competent data operations, etc.  That said, it’s a Presidential campaign, and a top-notch operation will require serious dollars.  There’s multiple ways you can do this.  Maybe the candidate is charismatic and a good debater, so that there may be room for a strong small-dollar donor apparatus.  If the candidate is well-connected, or perhaps comes from a business background, you could possibly run a more Super PAC driven campaign.  Regardless, though, it’s going to take someone who is serious about fundraising one way or another to build the groundwork to launch a serious challenge against an incumbent.

 

Call this 4b or 5, but I’m going to throw out one more quality that may not be essential, but could be helpful.  Name ID would help a candidate get a fast start out of the gate and have instant credibility.  I put it as non-essential because most Republicans with some type of notable experience will immediately receive significant earned media and exposure.

More Thoughts on the Ralph Northam Debacle

On By The EditorsIn Politics, Society, UncategorizedLeave a comment
  • If the Democratic Party was smart, they would realize many pro-lifers are disillusioned with Trump and would love an alternative. That they are running the opposite direction means they either are scared of the Abortion lobby (see David French) or are bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, EMILYs List, etc.  In fact, many of the Democrats running for President support legislation similar to the Virginia bill, per NRO.

 

  • Northam is supposedly one of the more Moderate Dems. There are even rumors up in Virginia that he nearly flipped to the Republicans in the State Senate at one point when it looked like it might be advantageous.  That a “Moderate” would go out on this limb as telling.

 

  • The fact that the interviewer never even thought to ask a follow-up question is a symptom of what the media at large thinks of the issue. I disagree with the Trump administration’s antagonism to media and believe in a strong, free press, but this is where being in a bubble comes into play.  They just don’t understand why Americans care about this or why anyone would see it as unborn life at stake.

 

 

  • That Northam sees doubling down on Twitter after his botched statement as an appropriate response tells a lot about where his party is. Even 5 years ago, any Democrat would apologize for saying that.  Now, it’s just more base posturing.

 

  • I’m a Christian. You don’t need to be a Christian to be Pro-life.  Pro-life is Pro-Science, and anyone from any or no religion can and should be pro-life.  That said, think about how much faith it takes to look at an unborn child (or in Northam’s case, a born child) and say it is not actually a real human life.  Some strains of Secularism have their own dogmas that require just as much or more faith than any religion.  I have a strong sense of faith in my beliefs, but it’s wrong to portray one side of this issue as being based solely on faith and the other as solely on reason.

The Governor of Virginia Endorses Infanticide

On By The EditorsIn Politics, Society, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Watch the video.  It is beyond disturbing.  People ask why #NeverTrump Republicans don’t just vote Democrat.  The primary reason is that the Democrats are bought and paid for by Big Abortion and, at least at the National level, have no room for compromise and are in fact radicalizing.  While such issues should never be viewed through strictly partisan lenses, this is how Democrats blow elections.

Analyzing a 2020 Republican Primary, Part 1

On By The EditorsIn Politics, Uncategorized1 Comment

Today, I’m kicking off a 4-part series offering a broad analysis of the 2020 Republican Presidential Primary.  I am a Republican who is a strong supporter of the idea, but I will try to analyze it from a somewhat detached perspective for this series.  I’m sure this is a topic I will return to over the coming year, but I’m going to go ahead and kick off a quick series looking at this in broad strokes.

In this first part, I’m just going to go over the lay of the land as far as a primary challenge to Trump goes.  I think that there is a hard but low floor of around 10-15% virtually any challenger could pull against Trump.  I also think there are some candidates for whom the ceiling is not much more than that.  The good news, though, is that the number of Republicans interested in a primary is going up.  I suspect this is a result of massive Democratic gains in November, the government shutdown and negative reactions associated with it, and the Democratic primary gaining steam and igniting reflection on Trump’s electability and a Republican primary.  That said, Trump is still broadly popular among Republicans, and would win in a landslide over virtually candidate were the election today.

That said, recent polls have started to show interest in the idea of a Primary challenge.  Nationally, the most recent ABC News poll says 32% of Republicans nationally want a nominee other than Trump.  To my knowledge, that is the best National number to date.  In Iowa, per a CNN/Des Moines Register poll in December, 29% of Republicans would either definitely vote for or consider a Trump alternative, while 63% say they would welcome a contested primary.  Additionally, in New Hampshire, an NHJournal poll has Romney already pulling 24% against Trump if they went head-to-head.  It’s not a majority by any stretch, but if a generic candidate without a campaign is already polling in the 20s and 30s, then it is very possible to compete with Trump in a primary.

Finally, the media is beginning to take the idea of a primary more seriously at this point.  While some Trump-skeptical outlets have been pushing the idea before these last couple of months (I specifically remember Charlie Sykes in the Weekly Standard), it has spread since then.  The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, National Review, the Bulwark, and other outlets have either reported concerns in the Trump camp over a primary, ran opinion/analysis pieces on the prospects of a primary, or covered Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s recent moves that led some to believe he may run.  Media isn’t everything, but it is a sign of weakness that we didn’t see for most of the past two years.

So what are the prospects for someone running against Trump?  As an optimist, I think things are improving and shaping up so that someone will step into the ring.  What the end result is, I don’t know.  That said, the fact that it may even be worthwhile from an electoral perspective to have a primary challenge, based on poll results and momentum, is an encouraging development, and I expect that at least someone will decide at some point this year that it’s time to take the plunge.

Room for Braves Roster Improvements

On By The EditorsIn Sports, UncategorizedLeave a comment

As we get closer to the start of spring training, some Braves fans are getting a little nervous.  While the Braves added Josh Donaldson, they haven’t really improved anywhere else, all while the Phillies and Mets have made serious moves.  With free agency winding down, Gabe Burns of the AJC asked on Twitter today, are there any free-agents outside the Big 3 (Harper, Machado, Kimbrel) you would like to see the Braves bring in?

Looking at free agents, I’m a little skeptical.  The 3 needs I can see the Braves looking for outside help for at this point are OF, Starting P, and Relief P.  There really aren’t any Relief Ps left in free agency who strike me as a significant upgrade.  For the first two positions, I wouldn’t mind either Marwin Gonzalez or Dallas Keuchel on team-friendly deals.  That said, there were rumors Gonzalez was coming on a 3-year/$53 million deal earlier this off-season, and I definitely wouldn’t want him at that price.  Additionally, while Keuchel wouldn’t be a bad addition to the rotation, I think I might rather trade for a different P with perhaps more team-friendly terms (Madison Bumgarner and Corey Kluber are both names that have come up).

That said, I don’t think there’s not room for the Braves to still make improvements with the right creativity.  For example, David O’Brien of the Athletic threw out the suggestion that the Braves trade Ender Inciarte + Prospect for Kluber, dump Teheran’s salary somewhere, and then sign Bryce Harper.  That’s the type of thinking that could upgrade the Braves roster while still keeping a mid-market payroll.  My biggest concern with that specific scenario is still having Harper on the books when it comes time for the Braves’ young core (Acuna, Albies, etc) to resign, but I do think creative trading is probably the best route for improving the Braves roster at this point in the off-season.

The One in Which Everyone loses their Minds concerning Venezuela

On By The EditorsIn Politics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

First, let’s start with the obvious: Maduro is not a good guy.  Venezuela has a lot of problems with corruption and a sinking economy.  It’s not a good situation.

Lets move on to what should be equally obvious 243 years into the American experiment: American intervention abroad rarely improves the situation, and generally makes things worse in the long-run while costing lives.  Anyone who lived through Iraq should know this.

The last thing the United States needs right now is to get into a quagmire in Central America.  The exact same voices who got us into a mess in Iraq are now charging headfirst to get us into a conflict that benefits primarily defense contractors.  I’m sure I’ll have more to say if we actually get involved militarily, but I can’t help but be somewhat maddened by the audacity of these same goons (John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, etc) to believe anyone should take them seriously on foreign policy and to actually try to make the same mistake again …. and again … and

Larry Hogan on Abortion

On By The EditorsIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has been getting some buzz as a possible Trump primary challenger the past few days.  It does make some sense: He represents the suburbans the GOP needs to win to hold the White House in 2020, and his incentives line up so that he would be more likely to succeed in 2020 and 2024.  There’s been some talk as well though that he may be too moderate to have a chance of even being competitive.

The necessary context here is that Maryland is a blue state on the National level with Democrat, veto-proof majorities in the State Legislature.  Nonetheless, you would think any Republican with any National ambitions would want to at least signal to hold Conservative viewpoints on key issues.  Hogan’s record on Abortion is complicated.  He says he is “personally opposed” to Abortion, but ran on a promise to not do anything to alter Maryland’s laws.  That’s really not too far removed from Democrats like Tim Kaine who claim to be personally pro-life and then are functionally pro-choice as Politicians.  He also said he supports a statewide referendum on a Maryland Constitutional Amendment to codify a “right to choose.”

Let’s be clear here: Donald Trump needs a GOP primary challenger.  Let’s go ahead and add on that Donald Trump is an enemy of an ethos of valuing life, has done practically nothing to advance the pro-life agenda at the Federal level, and has more likely than not paid for an abortion.  That said, as much of a mess as the Republican Party is at the national level, the best thing about it is that it at least espouses to be a driver for ending abortion.  Is it too much to ask to have a Presidential candidate who can at least match that?  That’s even before considering the practicality that any candidate who is going to compete with Trump in a primary is going to have to win over Rubio/Cruz/Carson voters, who are almost certainly not going for a functionally pro-choice candidate.  Trump should get a challenger, but Social Conservatives cannot be ignored in the process of assessing who that should be.

Atlanta Braves Re-sign Nick Markakis

On By The EditorsIn SportsLeave a comment

I’m seeing a lot of disappointment about this. I think Markakis is fine, especially at 1 year/$4 million with a club option for a Second year. That leaves them with room to add more. They’ve really only improved at 3B, which wasn’t bad with #CamarGOAT there already.

They could use a top-half of the rotation Pitcher or a strong Closer. It really depends on how comfortable they are with Mike Soroka, Touki Toussaint, and/or Max Fried making up the back of the rotation. If they think that combination can make up for the losses of Anibal Sanchez and Brandon McCarthy from last year, I would look more at a higher-end Closer. If there’s doubt there, I would look more at Starter.