Some Comments on the Growing GOP Field
Thoughts on Pence and Christie.
On balance I always find the psychology of entrants into primary pools to be often very interesting. This is because it is frequently obvious to anyone who is paying a modicum of attention that a given candidate has a butter cow’s chance in the hot summer sun of surviving the process for long. As such, one wonders what goes through the mind of a given candidate. Are they hopeless romantics who love a quixotic quest? Are the committed ideologues who have a message to spread? Are they really auditioning for another job (e.g., cabinet, veep, or ambassador)? Are they delusional? Are they possessed by an overactive ego? (Or some combo thereof?).
Usually one can rationalize the entry of a candidate into the process by saying that they are running for veep or a cabinet position. But I give you Mike Pence (via CNN, Pence announces presidential run: ‘Different times call for different leadership’). Pence is rather obviously not running for vice president, having already held that position with Trump, and let’s just say that ended badly (if you haven’t yet streamed that season of Politics, USA, I won’t spoil it for you, save to note that there were quite a few twists at the end!). By extension, he isn’t running for a cabinet slot, either.
Further, given the way he was treated by much of the base at the end of his term in office, coupled with his attempt to try and shed some of the bad parts of the Trump administration, but still cling to his time in office, makes for a truly confusing, and self-defeating, melange. While I don’t think he ever had a shot, his only possible pathway was to emerge from the events of January 6th as the true anti-Trump who was willing to use what he knew against the former president.
Instead, his post-Trump administration approach has been akin to warmish milk at the edge of its expiration date.
Meanwhile, when it comes to Chris Christie (via the NYT, Chris Christie Announces ’24 Run, Taking Square Aim at Trump) all I can think of is this image:
Source of the above: the NYT.
I remember seeing this live and it will forever be how I see Chris Christie. He rather obviously sold his soul to Trump in the hopes of getting some position of power (spoiler: he didn’t). It is just insanely difficult for me to take him seriously.
In short, neither of these guys can seriously be looking to join a Trump administration (although maybe Christie still thinks he has an in, as I do not take his principled anti-Trump stand at the moment at face value–but he is fooling himself if he thinks he can neg is way into the cabinet), and it is wholly unclear to me what principled message they think they are spreading. So, I guess they are motivated by delusion and/or ego.
Regardless, neither has a chance and both are simply working really hard to be interesting footnotes in the history of early-ish 21st-century politics.*
—-
*On maybe future bar trivia questions. “Which vice president did insurrectionists want to hang in January of 2021?” “Which governor closed beaches in his state on July 4th, and then was photographed enjoying the beach?”
First:
!!! Is this a common expression I have somehow never heard? Are there a lot of cows made of butter?!
Second: I suspect Pence might be an anomaly. We can never see inside someone’s head, but from everything I’ve read Pence really does believe that God’s Plan is for him to be President.
I suspect there are more ways to make a buck than becoming VP or being offered a cabinet position.
The Kardashians make money by being famous. They’re not great actors or musicians, or whathaveyou.
I suspect there is some gravy to be had by formerly relevant but still famous/recognizable politicians.
You can’t stay famous as a politician (or “politician”) without occasionally running for something.
Besides, what else are they going to do? Day jobs?
@MarkedMan: I present you with the history of the butter cow.
@drj: Fair. I should have included “grifting”–although Christie (and Pence) could probably already parlay their circumstances into TV gigs or some consultant job as it is.
It’s amazing to me that people are so reluctant to accept the simplest explanation: the candidates are running because they believe they can win.
Never mind that we don’t believe it’s possible. It’s incredibly easy in the political world for people to get trapped in their own bubbles. They may be cynical and calculating at some level, but at bottom they have a powerful belief in themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t be there. They’re surrounded by people telling them how great they are, and they consume media that supports narratives favorable to them. (There’s always some contrarian pundit out there willing to write a piece about how a particular long-shot candidate has a better shot than you think.) And history is filled with stories of future presidents who were supposedly written off as long shots when they first entered, from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to Obama and Trump. Of course none of those is a very good analogue for Pence or Christie currently, but the image of the underdog showing up all the doubters is all these candidates need for their daily dose of catnip.
@Kylopod:
Do you think the belief that he really can win is motivating that guy Burgum from North Dakota?
@Kylopod: I would put that theory in the “ego”/”delusional” category. So I would say that I have accounted for it.
I don’t know about some of these jokers, but there’s a gambler’s logic to entering. Trump will probably not implode. But when the conventional wisdom is that being indicted for mishandling classified docs will help Trump, what’s the downside of betting against the conventional wisdom? You are basically saying the crazy event which will never happen are voters turning against a guy caught red-handed hording classified docs (amongst other things).
It’s like putting 10 dollars down on a 1:1000 bet but with the bet being over something which would have been 3:2 in 2008.
The former president, Obama, and Benito, were not favored to win the nomination when they entered the race.
Many things have a very small chance of success. But the chance is zero if no attempt is even made.
Look, the odds of winning the lottery range from 1 in 14 million to 1 in 170 million, depending on the game. The one sure way to win, buy one of every possible combination, usually costs more than the jackpot, minus taxes and logistical expenses, and that’s if no one else hits it and has to be split*.
There are definitely better ways to spend one’s money, or even to invest it. And yet many people play the lottery.
The odds of winning a party’s nomination must be way better than the lottery. It also requires more time, effort, and money (though that can be recouped with donations). Therefore the people running have not better way to spend or invest their time, effort, and money, or think they don’t.
* The lottery paradox is explained by the millions who play. If there are 30 million possible 6 number combinations, and all lottery buyers taken together buy 16 million unique ones (assuming many repeat), the the odds of someone in that pool winning the lottery are slightly better than 1 in 2.
“In short, neither of these guys can seriously be looking to join a Trump administration (although maybe Christie still thinks he has an in, as I do not take his principled anti-Trump stand at the moment at face value–but he is fooling himself if he thinks he can neg is way into the cabinet), and it is wholly unclear to me what principled message they think they are spreading.”
Christie is saying he will be the attack dog who takes down Trump, even if that means he does not get the nomination. If true, this gets the Republican Party past a large collective action problem, in that Trump supporters will not rally behind a person who attacked Trump, therefore, it is in the interest of anyone who wants to win not to attack Trump. Instead, most of the candidates will hope someone else (or something) takes down Trump, leaving themselves in position to pick up Trump’s supporters.
Given Christie’s history, I have trouble seeing this as true, but it is at least a plausible reason for Christie to try to be on the same debate stage as Trump.
It was well reported that Pence believes God wants him to be president, and God can work miracles. But only if he’s running. And that would still be some miracle.
In 2016 everyone said Trump couldn’t win the nomination. Few thought a relatively obscure black Senator from Chicago could win the nomination.
You can’t win if you don’t play the game. I, too, am skeptical that some of these candidates can do well in a GoP primary, but we’ve been surprised before, and the reality is that someone will come out on top.
@Andy:
When Trump first entered the race in mid-2015, he was leading the field. Obama wasn’t leading in 2007, but he held a pretty solid second place throughout most of the year.
Christie is at 1% and Pence at 3.8% on RCP currently. I agree, however, that the whole vague “They said it couldn’t happen and it did” narrative is something these candidates cling to like Linus to his blanket.
@Modulo Myself: Even if Trump implodes, there’s no reason to think candidates like Pence or Christie would be the likeliest to pick up the pieces.
@Kylopod:
THIS^^^^^.
I ran into a fair amount of this type of delusion when I worked in politics. It’s astonishing how convinced many politicians are that somehow THEY are the ones who have the vision to see a path where no one else does…
@Kylopod:
I should think it’s like Linus clinging to The Big Pumpkin. The blanket was totally real 🙂
Trump is the winner in all this because all these people polling at 0-3% are just going to water down the vote.
Trump already has his ~30% baked in.
The rest are only engaged in a branding exercise.
@Steven L. Taylor: Gotta love that! I had no idea
@Kylopod:
No, but they will get to be seen as part of the group who took him down, even (or because of) none of them ever stood up to him face-to-face. Or so they believe.
These guys would all love to have dignity. It’s the difference between the Rudy of 9/11 and the Rudy of 2020 or Elon Musk five years ago and Elon Musk now.
@Daryl:
That’s ironic, because back in 2015-16, Trump himself was engaged in a branding exercise, and really didn’t expect to win.
And I have to ask again, is a guy like Burgum truly motivated by the idea that he could win? A guy whom nobody ever heard of before last week? If so, he must have a yuuuuger ego than Trump.
@Moosebreath: While this is clearly the wide sentiment:
I do not think the 2016 process says that this is true – rather I think those that have written that De Santis etc not attacking Trump are making an intellectual’s error are right. The Primary vote in the Republican primaries appears to be dominated by a large segment of voter who are attracted to the Dominanation Game and are not intellectualised policy driven at all but want an Alpha Male (as they understand it, not to adopt such an abstraction as real or their view as proper). DeSantis pussy footing around Trump is a display in subservience to such an audience and ineffective.
Perhaps Christie will actually make this play (I confess given his track record this is … well I would not place money on that). Certainly treating Trump with kid gloves and expecting people to come to you on ideas and arguments is a failure.
There seems at least a plausible case that attacking Trump on his own terms, branding him as a loser, will attract the domination crowd….
@Kathy:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the species as a whole benefits from a certain percentage of individuals pursuing high reward/low likelihood strategies even if that turns out bad for those individuals most of the time, so there is probably a selective pressure toward it. Gambling is probably exploiting that tendency to capture money.
Well, I am reminded of a proverb, which I think is Chinese, but I might be wrong: “If you want to fool the world, fool yourself first.”
So, yeah, so many of the candidates believe!.
And, it is also the case that they get backing that might or might not believe, but want a particular voice or idea represented in the presidential race, and shell out bucks to get someone into that campaign who’s going to sell that idea.
With regard to Pence, the idea that his run is some kind of holy crusade doesn’t seem out of place. But no, he would not be interested in being VP again.
@Modulo Myself:
It’s possible that Elon Musk let the brain worms in when he discovered that he had a trans daughter, but Rudy Giuliani was like this since at least 1989 when he ran for mayor and lost (to a Black man, which might be relevant).
This is a man who announced he was getting a divorce before telling his wife. This is a man who ranted about ferret owners having a mental disease because they love weasels. This is a man who helped rile up a police riot as part of his second mayoral campaign (a very racist police riot).
He looked good on TV on 9/11. That’s it.
About 9/11, Giuliani also overruled the guy who was in charge of selecting a location for the Office of Emergency Management a center to coordinate police, firefighter and ambulance responses. Rather than placing it in Brooklyn, he placed it in the World Trade Center itself — a decision that was criticized at the time because of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.
In short — the story of Giuliani is not of a man changing to become a sad caricature of what he was, but a vile, racist loon who briefly looked good on camera and who people decided to treat like a hero because they really needed a hero and he was there.
@Moosebreath:
Christie got burned by Trump. (Did he sell his soul, as people claim? That would depend on whether you think he ever had one…) Don’t underestimate spite as a motivator.
Especially spite that fits in nicely with need to be visible to be relevant again.
Christie has a long history of being a spiteful, petty man.
@Kylopod:
Remember when Herman Cain was front runner for a while in 2012?
The prevailing wisdom in the beginning of the 2016 cycle was that Trump was the novelty candidate riding a bubble, who would implode as surely as any other novelty candidate.
There is a decent chance that Trump is out of the race suddenly (multiple indictments is unprecedented, plus he’s really old and not in the best of health). You can estimate that anywhere, so let’s just guess 50-50 for simplicity. I do think the nomination is his to lose, but he has a decent chance of losing it or just plain dying.
Ron DeSantis is the second place guy right now, but looking at him, it’s kind of hard to see his brand of weird, obsessive playing well outside of Florida. He will probably implode. 80% chance Meatball Ron doesn’t succeed.
So, 80% of 50% is 40%, which means a ballpark wild guess is that there’s a 40% chance the that the race is suddenly wide open and the nominee is going to be one of these random little people. Maybe even North Dakota guy, who is a complete blank slate generic white guy Republican.
Seems like a great time to run if you’re a nobody.
@Jay L Gischer: I wonder how much political consultants factor into this. The make money when people run. They have a big, big motivation to convince people to run.
@Gustopher:
“Christie got burned by Trump. (Did he sell his soul, as people claim? That would depend on whether you think he ever had one…) Don’t underestimate spite as a motivator.”
While I agree with this as far as it goes, he was burned by Trump by not being named to his cabinet in 2017 and was basically shunted aside throughout Trump’s term, and we really haven’t seen any attacks from Christie on Trump before the last couple of months. That’s why I have trouble seeing this as true.
@Gustopher:
Remember when Donald Trump was the front-runner for a while in that cycle as well? He never entered the race of course, but he did lead the field according to many polls. And he did experience an implosion of sorts, after the release of Obama’s birth certificate, the humiliating White House dinner, and the capture/death of Osama Bin Laden. It’s not clear which of those events was the cause, as they all happened in quick succession. In any case, his polling suddenly collapsed–he dropped nearly 20 points in PPP, from 1st to 5th place in an instant. PPP called it “one of the quickest rises and falls in the history of presidential politics.” Just a few days later, he announced he wasn’t running.
Obviously, he never experienced a similar polling collapse in the 2016 cycle. Then, he maintained his lead the entire time. And most pundits dismissed its importance. But that clearly puts him in a different category from candidates like Pence or Christie who poll in low single digits. If we’re underestimating them now, it means they’ll have to surge at some point. But even that would be a very different situation from what led people to underestimate Trump.
I’m with Gustopher. There is a significant chance Trump ends up dropping out due to health or legal issues. If that happens it’s open season. DeSantis may be polling second but he has, I think, obvious large flaws. That leaves a large group of people with no clear advantage and someone has to win.
Steve
@steve:
Trump may be indicted tomorrow. Mark Meadows has agreed to testify against him in exchange for limited immunity.
Ah! I said before: “There’s always some contrarian pundit out there willing to write a piece about how a particular long-shot candidate has a better shot than you think.”
Voila!
@Andy:
I was one of those who was wrong about Trump.
In 2008 there weren’t a dozen contenders, meaning Obama’s shot at the nomination were not impossible (and a cabinet slot very much on the table).
I totally get the notion that “things can happen” but the reality is, with some exceptions (and not that many) it is fairly obvious that certain candidates are incredibly unlikely to win the nomination.
This is likely his beverage of choice when he wants to unwind. After a particularly long day, he may even have a nightcap. But only one finger; two would be intemperate.
ETA: Obviously, served to him by Mother. With due deference and a curtsy.
@Kylopod:
This.
The mistake I made with Trump was that I didn’t think he could hold that position.
An honest question, to which I do not have an answer (but have a guess): when did someone who entered the polling in the single digits end up winning the nomination?
@gVOR08:
Mike Huckabee, God love him, at least had enough of a sense of humor to go on SNL and make fun of himself. In 2008, he did a sketch in which Seth Meyers tells him it’s mathematically impossible for him by that point for him to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination, so why is he staying in the race? Huck responds, “I’m not a math guy. I’m more of a miracle guy.”
@CSK:
No, he’s trying to pull off a Jay Inslee. Inslee undoubtedly knew that as a one-issue guy he wasn’t going to win. But his presence forced the debate moderators to ask at least a few questions about climate change and the environment. And got some of the candidates to take the position that, “My plan will eliminate fossil fuel use faster than Jay’s.” ND is coal- and oil-rich. Burgum wants to force the Republican candidates to support the idea of keeping coal and oil in heavy use for decades.
@Steven L. Taylor: @Kylopod:
Excluding those with a belief in miracles, as that defies rationality. There is significantly less downside than upside when the opposition controls the seat or the sitting POTUS is term-limited.
Some of these were mentioned in OP. Some people feed on attention. It’s an audition for the ticket or an appointment. But I think there is another side as well. Money.
It seems reasonable that raising one’s national profile would lead to more lucrative offers in the private sector, especially, but not limited to media. Excepting the handful of high profile Reps and Sens, most members of Congress lack name recognition nationally. IIRC, even after months of attention from RW media outlets, and a frosh profile most veteran Reps would envy, AOC’s name recognition wasn’t particularly high. The best way to increase recognition is to hang around in the primaries long enough to get more eyes and ears on you. I would think that would increase your asking price.
And let’s not ignore the potential for donations ro provide various forms of personal enrichment. Even if one doesn’t find a way to redirect funds to one’s pocket, they still pay for luxurious goods and services.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Checking Wikipedia, Bill Clinton had 6% on Gallup in Sep. 1991, about a month before he entered. By Nov., it had gone up to 9%.
@Kylopod:
That’s mostly but not always true.
And this is an unusual year. Trump is dominating in the polls at a historic level with well over 50 and sometimes 60% support. DeSantis is a distant second with about 25%. The math just works out that everyone else is going to be in the single digits. I don’t think that’s happened in a long time – I went and looked at the polling for June the year before the election, for the last several cycles, and the split was much more evenly divided. Typically, the leader at this point in the primary had around 20-30% support.
Obviously, this is contingent, but if Trump implodes or otherwise can’t run, that 50-60% is going to go to other candidates, and some of those who are in the single digits now won’t be anymore.
And part of my point is that June is still super early to start writing people off. In 1992, another unusual year, Bill Clinton didn’t even announce until October 1991.
A lot can happen in the next year – for the GoP the nomination is Trump’s to lose – but if he falters, then the race opens up considerably.
@Michael Cain:
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I knew it had to be something other than the belief that he could win. No one’s THAT delusional.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Just some quick Googling tells me Carter in 76, Dukakis in 88, and Clinton in 92, although Clinton wasn’t in the race at this point in the cycle. Still, he didn’t break 10% until late 1991/early 1992.
@Andy:
The closest I can find is Dole who was about 50% at this point in 1995.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’ve seen them in multiple state fairs in that area.
https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/state-fair/2022/08/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-illinois-state-fair-butter-cow/65398683007/
@Andy:
There isn’t much precedent in the modern era for a former president running. The closest is Ford in the 1980 cycle, who was included in some polls, though he never entered the race.
Maybe. But it’s going to have be to someone the MAGA people at least nominally approve of.
The timeline of presidential contests was different back then. The first debate for that cycle was in December. Clinton wasn’t considered a late entrant by the standards of that era.
I do agree 1992 was unusual in some ways, but that’s only because most of the really big names declined to run.
@Kylopod:
There’s no “maybe” about it, Trump’s support will transfer to other candidates. It’s possible that all of Trump’s support would go to DeSantis and leave everyone else still in single digits, but that’s just a guess and seems unlikely to me.
@Steven L. Taylor: I had to look up butter cow to see what it was. Knowing made me realize that it was a decent figure of speech (metaphor?).
I wouldn’t count on DeSantis drawing much support from the committed MAGAs. They see him as a globalist RINO Bush lackey.
Question time:
Can a convicted felon still run for president? Either for the nomination or in the general election?
Of course this is brought to nind by a certain Orange Moron I’ll not identify (any more), but plain fact is the Cheeto in question is unlikely to be convicted by mid-July 2024, when the GQP holds its convention.
He might be convicted in New York between the convention and the general election in November. By then he’d be on the ballot, or the official candidate , if he does win the GQP nomination. Can he then be taken off the ballot?
I suppose, as usual, federal law says nothing, and most state laws might not address the issue, either. This would not be unreasonable, seeing how few convicted felons have ever run for president (I think Debs was in prison for the 1920 election).
But it is annoying.
@Kathy:
Yes, there are only three requirements in the Constitution to be President:
In theory, a convicted serial killer could run and become President if they meet those three criteria.
@Kathy: I think we’ve discussed this before. There have been a few historical examples of people running for president while in prison–Eugene Debs and Lyndon LaRouche. But I think it would be logistically difficult to run a full modern campaign in that situation.
That said, I don’t think Trump will be going to prison, and certainly not before next year’s election.
@Andy:
@Kylopod:
I suspected something like that.
Isn’t there something wrong in a country where, in most states, a convicted felon cannot vote, no matter what they were convicted of, but they can run for president?
@Kathy:
There are only 11 states where felons can’t vote, ever. Two that allow them to vote while in prison, a bunch that allow them to vote immediately upon release, and a similar number after any probation or parole is completed. It just seems like “most” because Florida gets an enormous amount of press on this subject.
@Gustopher: I’d pose the opposite question: why not run? What else are Pence and Christie going to do that gives them a comfortable lifestyle while feeding their egos (ditto Haley)? It’s not as if they have to do any actual work. And as you rightly say, with DeWoke in apparent free fall, Trump’s withdrawal from the race would create an entirely new and unpredictable scenario.
@CSK:
That’s mostly because he’s running against Trump. He was well-liked by them before. If Trump wasn’t running in the first place, I think they’d be flocking to him. The problem is that he may have burnt that bridge by now.
@Andy:
Andy, while I* appreciate the support, rest assured that, if nominated, Luddite will not run, and if elected, Luddite will not serve. Not even if Cracker joins me as veep (hey, he’s waaaayyy more rational than I am).
*(both as a convicted felon/honorary member of the Lifer’s Club, and a member of Sociopaths Anonymous)
My campaign slogan – hey, I’m not (quite) as old as the other candidates!
@Michael Cain:
@Kathy:
Well, as noted, felons can vote in most states, but they can’t live in Federally-controlled housing (i.e., Section 8) anywhere. Neither can their immediate family, including children and spouses. Ex’s and parents/grandparents are also subject to this repugnant restriction.
Personally, I’d love to see someone with a felony get elected to a position with government-supplied housing (i.e., governor, President), just for the court challenge that they’re not allowed to live there. Then again, I’d also like to see the proliferation of intrusive and unnecessary background checking for jobs, housing, insurance, etc., etc.
While I’m at it, I’m still waiting for my flying car and/or unicorn?
@Michael Cain:
Well, sometimes being wrong feels good.
@Flat Earth Luddite:
Given the overly punitive nature of most of the US legal system, there should be countless convicted felons who are perfectly decent, law-abiding citizens.
@Kathy:
It’d help them and society both if they could return to the world and have jobs and places to live. But Merikans would rather punish forever than seek grace and forgiveness.