Larry Hogan Came Out as Pro-Choice. That’s a Non-Starter for a Republican Primary.

Larry Hogan

As discussion continues concerning a potential Republican Primary challenge to Donald Trump, the name that continues to be mentioned is Larry Hogan.  It isn’t without reason: He’s one of the most popular Governors in the country and doesn’t have anywhere else on the political ladder to land.  His largest issue, as David Byler recently examined in the Washington Post, is whether he would appeal to Conservative Republican voters nationwide after governing as a Centrist in Maryland.

A smart candidate in this situation would begin to examine how best to appeal to the Right. As Byler’s data analysis clearly shows, a candidate will not be competitive with Trump simply running from the Center without winning over some Conservatives in the process.  Hogan evidently ignored this memo.  In a sit-down with the New York Times this weekend, he was asked his views on Abortion.  This is how the Times describes it:

And asked whether he believed Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal nationwide, had been correctly decided by the court, Mr. Hogan replied in the affirmative: “I think so.”

Running as a pro-Roe candidate in a Republican Presidential primary is a quick path to irrelevancy.  Rudy Giuliani was the last candidate to attempt this, and he was never able to gain traction while dropping out very early in the race.  Past candidates without strong convictions on the issue, such as Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John McCain were nonetheless prudent enough to move Right on the issue before running for President.

Besides Trump, the most successful candidates in recent memory to do well in Republican Presidential Primaries while often challenging the anointed front-runner (as Hogan would be doing) did so from a strong pro-life base of support.  This would include Ted Cruz in 2016, Rick Santorum in 2012, and Mike Huckabee in 2008.  Even Ronald Reagan, who Hogan would be seeking to follow the example of in challenging a sitting President, was pro-life by the 1976 election and used the issue to distinguish himself from the pro-choice Gerald Ford.  Nobody is going to mistake Hogan for Reagan, Cruz, Huckabee, or Santorum, but he at a minimum needed to start making inroads with the Conservative portion of the party.

What is more baffling about Hogan’s statement is that as the Times mentions, he has previously said he is personally pro-life.  He very easily could have decided to tell the Times that he is personally pro-life, has been forced to work with a Democratic majority in the Maryland legislature, and that on the National level would appoint Constitutionalist judges while working to defund Planned Parenthood and reduce Abortions.  That would have been a first step towards appealing to Republican primary voters without outright flip-flopping.

Hogan, for whatever reason, actually decided to move left on the issue by affirming Roe v. Wade.  This position is no different from that of Democrats, most notably 2016 Vice Presidential Nominee Tim Kaine, who claim to be personally pro-life and yet continue to defend Abortion-on-demand.  Who Hogan received this advice from is unknown, but it is a colossal misstep that will be revisited frequently if the Governor decides to enter the race.

Making the decision to shift left on Abortion even worse is that pro-life Republican voters who view overturning Roe as a high priority are not inevitable Donald Trump voters in a contested primary.  Looking at the numbers, these are voters broke for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson at rates higher than the Republican primary electorate at large during the 2016 primary.  While Evangelicals may have supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, that doesn’t mean all Evangelicals have forgotten about Trump’s decidedly immoral lifestyle, or that some wouldn’t consider voting against him in a primary again under the right circumstances.

Furthermore, since getting elected, Trump has done little to push the Republican congress towards defunding Planned Parenthood or passing a pain-capable Abortion ban.  Both of these issues are pro-life priorities that went nowhere during a 2-year period in which Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.  There is room to attack Donald Trump from the pro-life position that virtually all Republican primary voters hold, and it is completely illogical that the current most-likely challenger to Trump has no desire to take this opportunity.

There is a very narrow path towards competing with Donald Trump in a Republican Primary.  It involves winning over many different groups of voters, and is a delicate balancing act.  Pro-choice Republican voters are nowhere near the forefront of these groups.  If pro-choice Republican primary voters are a major portion of a candidate’s base, then like it or not, that candidate will not receive enough of the vote to be remotely competitive.

By coming out in favor of Roe v. Wade, Larry Hogan has predestined that he will immediately be met by fire from Social Conservative groups and pro-life figures who may have been willing to hold back, listen, or work with him otherwise.  If that happens and he finds himself unable to get traction if he enters the race, he will have no one to blame but himself for needlessly and haphazardly running against one of the Republican Party’s most important constituencies.

Analyzing a 2020 Republican Primary, Part 4

This is the last part of my series on the 2020 Republican Primary.  In Part 1, I looked at where things stand right now as far as prospects for a contested primary are concerned.  In Part 2, I looked at what an ideal candidate would look like to have the best chance of success.  In Part 3, I examined which individuals would have the incentives to make a run against Trump.  Here, I am going to look at 15 individuals, in alphabetical order, who may due to some combination of the points I made prior may warrant a look.

Let me go ahead and make one broad statement about this list: With very few exceptions (and noted where made), these candidates all fit three of the criteria I mentioned in my last post about incentives to run.  Basically all of them have expressed displeasure with the President at some point on some issue. Almost all of them have no pending reelections, no higher offices they are likely to seek, and would not be better served by waiting for another election cycle if they decide they are interested in the Presidency.  Because of that, some of these names are not stars, but they are the candidates who it would actually make sense for right now to consider running.  If Trump’s numbers fall further for one reason or another, the incentives may shift for higher-caliber candidates to consider a run.

Congressman Justin Amash (MI)

Why – Justin Amash is about as “Anti-Swamp” as anyone in the United States Congress.  He consistently rails against both parties, and is often on the fringe minority of votes.  He is probably the Republican member of Congress most willing to criticize Trump as well, and has made it clear he is not a fan.  Finally, while he’s not the person to want to climb the political ladder for the sake of it, he doesn’t have many other options at this point to advance.  He has slim chances of winning statewide office in Michigan, and his willingness to rail and vote against his party gives him no chance of advancing in House Leadership or Committee Status.  If he wants to make as big a mark as possible on the national dialogue, this might be his best chance.

Why Not – While Name ID isn’t everything, Amash’s may be too low to even attract earned media and give him a chance to grow recognition.  Additionally, his more Libertarian views may place him outside the party mainstream that, if anything, is shifting towards a larger role of government.  While he may attract small-dollar donors from the same people who Ron Paul enthused in his Presidential runs, his ability to fundraise enough to seriously compete is in question.

Former US Senator Kelly Ayotte (NH)

Why – Ayotte was your fairly typical Republican US Senator during her six years in office, and she has good relationships with mainstream Republicans as well as the infrastructure on the Right.  She is from New Hampshire, and would have an excellent chance of beating Trump there and possible generating early momentum.  She opposed Trump following the Access Hollywood tapes, and has spoken out against him before and after the Election.  She probably would have won reelection with Rubio or another candidate on the top of the ballot, so this would be the ultimate revenge.  Finally, while she could run for US Senate again or possible Governor in the future, this could very well be her best chance of going further.

Why Not – Much like Amash, her Name ID is very low nationally, and it would take a lot of earned media and dollars to fix that.  Additionally, it’s unknown if she has any desire to be President or to slog through a Presidential campaign with unknown odds of success.

Former Governor Jeb Bush (FL)

Why – He has ran before, so he’s obviously interested in being President.  He very clearly dislikes Trump, brings instant Name ID, and can raise serious dough.  Finally, as long a shot as it would be, it’s doubtful he would do any better in a crowded Republican field in 2024 or 2028 than he would 1:1 with Trump.

Why Not – While his stock is probably higher than it was in 2016, the Republican base is still very anti-Establishment.  Perception is reality, and the perception is he is moderate and too insider.  While boring competency might get him some more votes, it’s probably not enough to be competitive.

Former Governor Chris Christie (NJ)

Why – He wants to be President, he’s mad at Trump, and he won’t do any better another year.

Why Not – He’s probably more moderate than anyone on this list not named Kasich.  Additionally, it would be difficult for him to lay out a vision for running beyond “I want to be President”, and that doesn’t sale.

Former US Senator Bob Corker (TN)

Why – He has expressed openness to running and has serious Foreign Policy credentials.  He has shown willingness to clash with Trump, and he’s probably never going to get a better opportunity.

Why Not – He’s viewed as too DC/Establishment from his 12 years in the Senate, and it’s hard to say if he would be able to separate himself from that perception.

Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (VA)

Why – Carly Fiorina, in my opinion, is currently the most complete candidate on this list to challenge Trump.  She is a strong Conservative who isn’t going to be able to be labeled a RINO.  She is an anti-politician like Trump and can run on a drain the swamp message.  She has ran for President before and has Name ID from it.  Finally, she has high favorables among Rubio/Cruz/Carson voters, but would probably still struggle to stand out in a crowded field in the future.

Why Not – The main reason she should not run would be if she just no longer desires to be President or to go through another campaign. Other than that, she should run.

Former UN Ambassador Nicki Haley (SC)

Why – I mostly put Haley here because people keep bringing her name up.  She is a Conservative who is not the Establishment.  She does seem to have national ambitions, and is probably connected enough to be a serious fundraiser.  She also starts with substantive Name ID and might attract almost Trump-like Earned Media.  Finally, she has credibility with Trump’s base and could possibly peel off support there.

Why Not – I just don’t see how her individual incentives line up to make a 2020 run prudent.  She’s shown minor concerns with Trump decisions, but she doesn’t appear to be nearly as concerned with another Trump term as the other people on this list.  Perhaps most importantly, she’s one of a very select group of people who you could easily see being a serious contender in a future Election if she holds her fire.  Running in 2020 puts all of that at risk.

Former Governor Bill Haslam (TN)

Why – He’s from outside DC and could define himself as a problem-solver who got things done as Governor and left office with very strong favorables.  He’s not going to stand out in a future election cycle.  He probably has the most money to play with of anyone in this list, possibly including Mitt Romney.  He chaired RGA two different election cycles as well, and could probably fundraise off that too.

Why Not – His Name ID is very low nationally, and it’s doubtful he has a desire for the job or campaign that comes with it.  Most importantly, with Lamar Alexander’s retirement, he has a US Senate seat he could very well clear the field for if he wants it.  It would be tough to justify a low-probability Presidential bid with that option on the table.

Governor Gary Herbert (UT)

Why – His profile is similar to Haslam’s.  He has a track record of getting things done outside DC, and has one of the highest approval ratings in the County.  He has contrasted with Trump on some issues, and if he has any interest in the idea of being President, this is his best chance.

Why Not – Also like Haslam, his Name ID is very low, and he’s not known to be interested in the job.  While he doesn’t have an immediate Senate race on the table, he could be a potential US Senate candidate or Republican cabinet pick in the future if he sits out.

Governor Larry Hogan (MD)

Why – Hogan has shown the most interest of anyone recently in the idea of challenging Trump.  He could run as a DC outsider, and he has already started contrasting his record with the partisanship in Washington.  He’s term-limited out of office in 2022, and he’s never going to get a better chance to run than now.

Why Not – His Name ID is very low.  Most importantly, though, he has an extremely Moderate record on Abortion, Gun Rights, and other issues important to the Republican base.  He might be to the left of John Kasich, which is saying something.  He might be one of the most willing candidates to run, but I think he has one of the worst chances of success of anyone on this list.

Former Governor John Kasich (OH)

Why – He wants to be President and doesn’t like Trump.

Why Not – He has antagonized the Republican base at every opportunity, and there is no appetite among voters for what he is offering.  He is disliked by almost every segment of the party for one reason or another.

Former Congresswoman Mia Love (UT)

Why – Conservatives like her for her willingness to speak out as one of the few African-American elected officials who are GOP.  She’s spoken out against Trump as well, though.  Additionally, Trump probably cost her election (that seat is probably a lot less competitive under President Rubio).  Like Ayotte, there’s something of a revenge factor.

Why Not – Even though she lost, she may still have a future in elected office.  Would she really want to put that on the line with a long-shot Presidential run?

Former Governor Susana Martinez (NM)

Why – She’s one of the original, 2010 Tea Party class and has credibility with the Right.  She’s now out of office and probably wouldn’t get a better chance if this is something she’s interested in.  Additionally, New Mexico is about as far from DC as you can get, so it’s hard to peg her as “The Swamp.”

Why Not – Low Name ID and no known desire to run.

US Senator Mitt Romney (UT)

Why – He has as much Name ID as anyone on this list, and clearly (at least at one point) has a desire to be President.  He can probably fundraise more money than anyone on this list, as well as self-fund.  He doesn’t care for Trump, and at his age, there’s probably no better time to run than now.

Why Not – Conservatives are still suspicious of him and whether he is too moderate.  Additionally, two presidential campaigns takes a toll, and he may very well have no interest in a third.

US Senator Ben Sasse (NE)

Why – Last on this last, Sasse is well-liked by a lot of the higher-up Conservative institutions.  His Name ID is decent due to his frequent Trump criticism.  While he contrasts with Trump, it’s hard to see him standing out among a crowded field of “normal” Republicans in the near future, but …

Why Not – That being said, he’s young and I’m not as confident he wouldn’t get another chance several cycles down the road.  His desire to run is suspect, and he’s perceived by some as Establishment (even though nothing could be further from the truth).  Finally, his Senate seat is up in 2020, and if he wants to keep it (which is uncertain at this point), a Presidential run would very much imperial that.

Analyzing a 2020 Republican Primary, Part 1

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.