GOP Primary Megathread!

[DGuller]

Santorum up 7 pts in Ohio.

Can Huntsman re-enter the race?

For all we know, he already did.

[Sheilbh]

Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?

'I've visited Singapore a few times in recent years and been impressed with its wealth and modernity. I was also quite aware of its world-leading programs in mathematics education and naturally noted that one of the candidates for president was Tony Tan, who has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. Tan won the very close election and joined the government of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who also has a degree in mathematics.

China has even more scientists in key positions in the government. President Hu Jintao was trained as a hydraulic engineer and Premier Wen Jiabao as a geomechanical engineer. In fact, eight out of the nine top government officials in China have scientific backgrounds. There is a scattering of scientist-politicians in high government positions in other countries as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in physical chemistry, and, going back a bit, Margaret Thatcher earned a degree in chemistry.'

I don't get the point of this.  Singapore is, at best, a heavily managed democracy still kind of run in the image of the Minister-Mentor.  Looking up Tony Tan he's been a Minister in some form or other for the past 30 years and his main competitor (interestingly a Doctor) was also from the PAP.  I don't think this indicates anything more than preference within the Singaporean leadership for this sort of background, which is hardly surprising if you read anything the Minister-Mentor's ever said, especially on education.

China's a dictatorship.  It's hardly surprising that their leadership's very often drawn from a similar pool.  Though I think in China it tends to be a generational thing.  The Fourth Generation (Hu-Wen) have lots of engineers and I think the Third Generation (Jiang) did too, the Fifth Generation (currently being chosen) is likely to have lots of businessmen, finance grads and princelings.  I think it looks to have very few scientists or engineers.  Obviously the Mao and Deng generations were primarily made up of revolutionaries.

Maybe it's striking that managed democracies and dictatorships perhaps lean more to 'technocratic' backgrounds not someone who can effectively press the flesh (as, say, Bill could though he's very intelligent).  But I really don't get the relevance of Merkel or Thatcher.  Their backgrounds are exceptional, I don't think it really indicates anything they were very rare for being scientists but I don't think it had much bearing on how they performed as PM or Chancellor.

[derspiess]

I think the GOP should go for Santorum.

I'd be rooting for that as well if I were on your side

[Razgovory]

I think the GOP should go for Santorum.

I'd be rooting for that as well if I were on your side

British or gay?

EDITED:  I forgot.  Catholic

[Sheilbh]

I think the GOP should go for Santorum.

I'd be rooting for that as well if I were on your side

  Not at all. 

I think Romney would be a disaster for the Republicans.  He'd lose and I think the base would rightly go insane at the betrayal by the establishment in foisting such a shocking candidate on them because he's allegedly electable.  Then I think you'd see a few years of wandering in a populist wilderness.  I think Romney's basically the anti-Goldwater.

On Santorum I think he's got convictions which matters.  Personally I quite like him, I think he comes across best of the remaining candidates (Republicans like him most too, he's got the best favourables by a mile) and generally I think you should vote for the candidate you like rather than trying to jiu-jitsu your opponent into the candidate you think they don't want to face.  That way lies John Kerry.

Finally I like Huckabee and I agree with David Brooks.  The last few elections the GOP's most important vote has been the white working class and I think that's reflected in candidacies like Huckabee and Santorum who are both culturally conservative with a bit of economically populist rhetoric - though no more than rhetoric.  Santorum's not the idea candidate to express that, neither was Huckabee, but I think they're both pointing in the direction the GOP's heading in the next few elections.

Also I don't think Romney deserves the nomination because he's not effectively won it by now - and I really do think it's as much his campaign's failures and complacency that's led to this situation.  He looks, as he is, like a man who's only ever won one election even though he's been running for something for almost 20 years.  By contrast Santorum, for all of his faults, has so far been a very impressive retail candidate with good organisation and all the rest.

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf, your post reminds me of that thread you started a while back about how the best way for the Tories to regain power was to adopt communist economic policies.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf, your post reminds me of that thread you started a while back about how the best way for the Tories to regain power was to adopt communist economic policies.

What Red Toryism?  It wasn't communism and there wasn't a great deal of policy.  The guy was and maybe still is influential in Tory circles though.

Edit:  And you'll note I said rhetoric.  Santorum and Huck were very, very right wing economically - at least in their Presidential runs.

[CountDeMoney]

On Santorum I think he's got convictions which matters.  Personally I quite like him, I think he comes across best of the remaining candidates (Republicans like him most too, he's got the best favourables by a mile) and generally I think you should vote for the candidate you like rather than trying to jiu-jitsu your opponent into the candidate you think they don't want to face.

Don't know why;  Santorum would have your gay ass institutionalized.

Although when somebody as socially conservative comes along like Santorum, who is so adamantly anti-women and anti-gay, you just know he's either 1) a pathological submissive, or 2) has had plenty of cock in his time.

[Ideologue]

Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.

Yes, they do.  It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.

There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.

Only if he is socially inept.

While I agree - it is a little more than that.  It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.

Lol Golden Gate.

[alfred russel]

Sheilbh, I think you are off on a few points.

Huckabee was running on a platform of repealing the income tax. That isn't just conservatism with a populist streak--it is crazy.

Santorum is a lightweight. He isn't distinguished academically, in the private sector, or in the public sector. He recently said that he was willing to die on the fighting gay marriage hill. He has promised to use the presidency to discuss the evils of birth control. He was a crappy senator that lost reelection by 18 points. He might be a decent and principled guy, but he isn't presidential.

[CountDeMoney]

Seriously-- I don't think Americans dislike intelligent people, per se.

Yes, they do.  It's counter to the legacy of the Calvinist work ethic, and intelligent people have had a habit of getting together and starting rather nasty revolutions.

There's an inherent distrust of the smartest kid in the class.

Only if he is socially inept.

While I agree - it is a little more than that.  It is why you get David Sedaris joking about Princeton students having a class telling them how to avoid mentioning where they went. Why many Stanford grads will say they went to a small school in California...in the bay area...near San Francisco.

Pretty funny, but a bit off:  never met a Princeton grad or Stanford grad that didn't feel compelled to not inform me of their alma mater 15 minutes in.  LULZ I ATTENDED WHEN CONDI WAS THERE YOU KNOW

Maybe it's just a Left Coast thing.

[Sheilbh]

Huckabee was running on a platform of repealing the income tax. That isn't just conservatism with a populist streak--it is crazy.

I'm not convinced that's not where the GOP's been heading the past few years.

Santorum is a lightweight. He isn't distinguished academically, in the private sector, or in the public sector. He recently said that he was willing to die on the fighting gay marriage hill. He has promised to use the presidency to discuss the evils of birth control. He was a crappy senator that lost reelection by 18 points. He might be a decent and principled guy, but he isn't presidential.

I agree with everything you've said.  But I think you're judging him too harshly, by the objective standards of running for President.  He should be judged by the very different standards of running for President against this field of Republican candidates.  Santorum is more credible than anyone but Romney or Huntsman and I think he's a more effective candidate than either of them.

Edit:  And to be fair he may have been a bad Senator who lost by almost 20 points (in 2006, to be fair) but before that he'd won election and re-election to the House (in a very Democratic district), then election and re-election to the Senate.  For all his faults he has a history of actually succeeding in campaigns.

Romney on the other hand lost his Senate election by around 17% (in 1994), won election for Governor.  Then decided not to run for re-election (in 2006) because he possibly would have lost and he wanted to run for President.  He lost the primary in 2008 and so far has seen his number of votes fall in almost every state since.  Looking at his polling among independents or his style of campaign I have absolutely no idea how he got the reputation of being the electable one.

[alfred russel]

Sheilbh, I don't give Huckabee a pass for being crazy because the republican party is going crazy.

For Santorum, if you are grading on a curve against the republican field, he does look better. And Romney is a terrible campaigner. And Romney is the most cynically unprincipled politician ever. But you can't take from Romney that he is actually a heavyweight in business and has skills leading large organizations, which to me is more credible than what Santorum brings to the table.

I have no interest in voting for Romney against Obama, but I'd rather a credible president get the nomination. First, the candidate might win, second, if Obama's popularity dives and he wins reelection by default, that doesn't bode well for the atmosphere in government the next four years.

[Neil]

Was Huntsman actually credible as a presidential candidate?  He was like a better class of Romney, but without the tons of cash and the organization.

[Sheilbh]

For Santorum, if you are grading on a curve against the republican field, he does look better. And Romney is a terrible campaigner. And Romney is the most cynically unprincipled politician ever. But you can't take from Romney that he is actually a heavyweight in business and has skills leading large organizations, which to me is more credible than what Santorum brings to the table.

I think the principles and the campaign and communication elements of the job actually matter more than management skills or anything like that.  No President actually has the skills to be President when they take office - maybe Eisenhower came close - but every one of them needs to be able to communicate effectively and have people believe in them.  I've seen nothing that suggests Romney's got either.  It's like he's had the soul bled out of him by political consultants.

I'd add that I also think the skills required in a successful businessman are rather different than those of a successful political leader, which is probably why so few make the jump successfully.  I'm reminded of that Tony Blair line 'It's like when people say to me: "Oh, So-and-So, they don't believe in anything, they're just a good communicator." As a statement about politics, it's close to being an oxymoron.'

I have no interest in voting for Romney against Obama, but I'd rather a credible president get the nomination. First, the candidate might win, second, if Obama's popularity dives and he wins reelection by default, that doesn't bode well for the atmosphere in government the next four years.

I wouldn't vote for him, but I think Santorum is credible.