April 6, 2011
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL HORDE EYES 2012 ILLINOIS PRIMARY
ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART
By moving Illinois' presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the third Tuesday in March, the General Assembly has taken the state out of the 2012, 2016 and maybe 2020 Democratic game.
In 2008, 44 states held their primaries or caucuses before mid-March, and the Illinois primary, in which Barack Obama thrashed Hillary Clinton by 1,316,234-667,930, was held on Feb. 5, along with contests in 21 other states. In a two-person presidential campaign, it's over before March.
However, the state is definitely back in the Republican game, especially since there is a motley, multitudinous crew of more than 15 presidential contenders, none of whom is likely to clear out the field early. The purported top tier includes Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrinch, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour. The secondary tier includes Donald Trump, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, Mitch Daniels, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. With each clawing to get 5 to 10 percent of the vote, and with the social conservative vote being more fractionalized than the mainstream conservative vote, it will take 30 or more primaries to winnow the field.
That means that Republican primary voters in the Land of Lincoln, who traditionally have been inhospitable to stridently anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, anti-gay rights conservatives, will be in a position to play kingmakers. A late victory in Illinois for a mainstreamer such as Romney, Barbour or Pawlenty could be a game changer, while a triumph by Palin, Huckabee or Trump could be a game winner.
In an effort to aid then-U.S. Senator Obama's presidential bid, the legislature "frontloaded" the 2008 primary, moving it to early February. Obama won more than half of the 2,152 Democratic delegates who were chosen that day, and he won two-thirds of the 185 delegates who were elected in Illinois, which helped checkmate Clinton.
For the Democrats, who will enthusiastically renominate President Obama in 2012, the change is inconsequential. Gadfly Ohio U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinish will run as the anti-war candidate, and he might pull 10 to 15 percent of the vote, but there will be a later impact, in 2016 or 2020, when Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is launching a presidential bid.
The preponderate 2012 impact will be on the Republicans, who will have 70 Illinois delegates. By the time March rolls around, the January fireworks from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries will have subsided, and the February primaries in New York, California and eight southern states will be history. In March, contests are set for Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Illinois, states with a total of 372 delegates. Those four states will determine the nominee.
Aggressively outspoken social conservatives do not prevail in Illinois elections, and they rarely win Republican primaries. An exception was 2010, when Bill Brady won the gubernatorial nomination with barely more than 20 percent of the vote in a large field. In presidential primaries, the "establishment" candidate, often the least conservative, triumphs.
In 1976 Gerald Ford, who was thought to be a certain loser in the election, topped Ronald Reagan by 456,750-311,295. In 1980 Reagan was the "establishment" candidate, and he got 547,355 votes to 415,193 for insurgent Illinois Congressman John Anderson and 124,057 for George Bush. In 1988 Bush, the vice president, beat the more conservative Bob Dole by 469,151-309,253, and seeking a second term in 1992, Bush beat media commentator Pat Buchanan, an opinionated social conservative, by 634,588-186,915. In 1996 Dole, by then the "establishment" choice for president, beat Buchanan by 532,467-186,177.
Buchanan got just over 22 percent of the vote in both contests. Clearly, that's the right-wing ceiling. In 2000 insider George W. Bush beat outsider John McCain 496,646-158,752, with McCain getting just 21.6 percent of the vote. In 2008, when McCain was the anointed candidate, he topped Romney by 426,777-257,265, with Huckabee getting 148,053 votes (16.5 percent).
Statewide Republican turnout ranges from 700,000 to 950,000 in presidential primaries. Given the nation's $14.2 trillion national debt and the stumbling economic recovery, Tea Party activists have supplanted social issue crusaders as the Republicans' core constituency. Republican voters have a choice: Either nominate a controversial loser to send Obama a message or nominate an electable winner and send Obama into retirement.
There is a profound difference between a practical politician and an amateur. One wants actual power in order to implement ideas. The other wants attention in order to feed his or her ego. Here are sketches of the contenders:
Obnoxious (to Democrats) conservatives. It is said that Palin has a brilliant future behind her. At least 40 percent of the electorate love and admire her, but 60 percent detest her. She cannot win. Likewise for Huckabee, an evangelical Christian who did not win any 2008 primaries. Huckabee is intelligent but unelectable. The two candidates appeal to the same base. If both run, both lose.
Sentimental conservative. Gingrich blazed a congressional trail when others could not even find the ground, but his halcyon days as U.S. House speaker are a dim memory. Great ideas do not rehabilitate a shopworn image.
Emotional conservative. It takes a billionaire media celebrity like Trump to beat a media-made, billion-dollar-raising celebrity like Obama. Trump is testy and critical of America's eclipse, as well as of America's adversaries. But President Trump? That's ridiculous.
Competent conservatives. Romney (Massachusetts), Pawlenty (Minnesota), Daniels (Indiana), Barbour (Mississippi), Christie (New Jersey) and Huntsman (Utah) have governed states, slashed budgets and spending, and fought bureaucracies. If Americans decide that Obama has failed to perform adequately and is to blame for the continuing recession, then a competent replacement must be found. In 2008 Obama appealed not to intellect but to emotion. To beat him in 2012, his opponent must appeal to intellect not emotion and must have a proven record of competency.
Eccentric conservatives: Libertarian Paul, a Texas congressman, opposes all U.S. foreign aid and military, interventions. In short, he wants to get the U.S. out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and also to get the government out of people's lives on issues such as abortion, drug use and sexual practices. Bachmann, a photogenic Minnesota congresswoman, wants to shut down much of the federal government. Great ideas. Going nowhere.
Contrary to Obama's 2008 promises of "change," America has regressed to the throes of "stalemate politics." In the past, such situations gave rise to anger and anxiety. The people are eager for a release of tension. They wish to live their lives, ignore politics and avoid having to make continual electoral choices.
In a perfect world, one party would emerge as the natural governing party and dominate for a generation or more. That occurred with the Democrats in 1828 and 1932 and with the Republicans in 1960, 1896 and 1980. Unfortunately, in the past 20 years, neither party has proven competent. Obama squandered his 2008 opportunity to cement a governing coalition.
Ironically, throughout history, America's political parties grew and withered based on their ideology. They always grew when they were in favor of government expansion. The Jacksonian Democrats of the early 1800s stood for localism and state's rights and were the conservative, anti-government party. From 1860 until the 1920s, the Republicans espoused nationalism and economic development through government funding, spending and regulation. The Democrats under Franklin Roosevelt seized the pro-government mantle in 1932, faced a backlash and retrenchment in the Reagan-dominated 1980s, and now are again expanding government.
The 2012 election will be a tussle between those advocating "bigger government" and those insisting upon "better government." As for smaller, cheaper government, that's a figment of the imagination.