When I heard that Mitt Romney won the CPAC poll, but first instinct was to say, "big deal." He's won it before--twice; with little predictive effect. The reasons for that have been attributed to deck-stacking by Romney people and just the simple fact that the people who attend CPAC aren't terribly representative of Republican primary voters. Yet, something about this particular win kept nagging at me.
Unlike the past couple of years, this CPAC poll isn't strategic in the sense of someone's primary campaign. Jindal and Palin didn't even show, which I suspect was more about not appearing too eager than apathy. David Mark at Politico reflects one way of look at it.
With no unifying Republican figure to rally around after the desultory 2008 elections, the straw poll results reflect tensions among conservatives about how best to oppose the Obama Administration’s agenda – through openly wishing for failure, a sentiment voiced recently by talk show host Rush Limbaugh, or working with the new president at a time when the American public seek a larger role for government amid the deepening recession.
The tension at CPAC must be incredible--all those differing ideas about the 2nd amendment, tax policy, freedom of speech, foreign policy and global warming? What a hell hole!
Yeah, not so much.
What we were really seeing in the fractionalized vote was pre-season betting.
Having closely observed a number of the primary contests in both parties since the seventies, its pretty clear to me that the single biggest determinant of who wins is the match up between a candidates bona fides and the spirit of times (aren't you glad I didn't use 'zeitgeist' instead?).
That was transparently obvious in 2004 when Democrats flirted with Howard Dean and the stampeded over to John 'War Hero' Kerry. It was 'War on Terror' high season and Kerry had the medals--Dean didn't. A no-brainer as it seemed.
McCain had every disadvantage you can possibly imagine as a candidate--lots of enemies in the base, no money, an unimpressive physical presence, a high thin voice, a lack of oratory and debate skills and yes--he is old. None of that mattered because he had war-on-terror bona fides to beat the band in a party environment that still saw that as the central issue of our times.
With the economic debacle in the offing, Romney is looking like the right man at the right time. His prospects will improve as things get worse--wane if they get better. Its seems that a good many people at CPAC think things will get worse.
Comments (1)
Thank goodness you're back!
Posted by AC Chickadee | March 4, 2009 11:58 AM
Posted on March 4, 2009 11:58