A long time ago in a galaxy not too far away, I introduced something called the "Planetary Model of Primary Politics". It is basically just a fancy way of noting that there are generally two dimensions by which candidates position themselves in Presidential primaries. One is along an ideological axis (liberal/conservative). The other is what I then called an institutional axis -- whether a candidate seeks to work within existing institutions or to reform them.
I now conceive of the institutional axis as more of a populist axis. Does the candidate stress his connections within the elite, usually expressed in terms of his purported experience, competence, or technical knowledge? Or is he an "outsider" who claims to represent the people in contradiction to the elite? Is he a technocrat or a populist?
These two narratives are so fundamental to American politics that they permeate virtually every election campaign, and allow candidates who are relatively ideological similar (or are dissimilar, for that matter) to differentiate themselves from one another. So why do I call it the "planetary model"? Because it looks something like this:
That is, it looks like a "galaxy" of ideological space, with the candidates representing the equivalent of stars or planets. Depending how fanciful we want to be, we can imagine the planets exerting gravitational forces upon one another, seeking to carve out their own safe space in the universe while at the same time stealing matter (voters) from their opponents.
In looking at the galaxy of prospective Republican candidates, we can divide it into four quadrants:
Conservative Insiders/Technocrats
This is a very crowded space, although it could become more or less so depending on the behavior of two individuals: Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal.
I think Romney has wasted an awful lot of time over the past couple of years trying to run as a social conservative, chasing voters he's unlikely to obtain because they don't trust either (i) his faith or (ii) his track record (and subsequent reputation for flip-floppery) as governor of Massachusetts. To the extent there's any early indication about Romney's direction for 2012, he seems inclined to continue playing to the right, having recently used his PAC to donate to stimulus opponents. Then again, that strategy wouldn't be mutually exclusive with a campaign based on fiscal conservativism and social moderation, which is what everyone but Mitt Romney seems to think they're getting from Mitt Romney, no matter what Mitt Romney says or does.
Because of his fundraising prowess, Romney should have the first mover advantage in deciding how he wants to position himself; everyone else will have to follow. But there would seem to be more open space to his left than his right if he is bold enough to go there. The one wild card is Jeb Bush, who seems cut from the same sort of cloth as Romney, but even Jeb would probably have to defer to the Mittster.
The whole appeal of Bobby Jindal is that he can play the part of both the technocrat and the populist, a fact perhaps symbolized by his Cajun-fried heritage. The question is whether Jindal will at some point have to decide between the two. Going the populist route would lead to an eventual high-stakes confrontation with Sarah Palin, either early in the primary cycle or perhaps even sooner. Jindal's alternative is becoming the choice of the conservative cognoscenti, which could cut off oxygen from alternatives like Newt Gingirch, John Thune, Eric Cantor and to a lesser extent Kay Bailey Hutchison. Gingrich is the only one of those alternatives who might exert enough gravity on his own to alter Jindal's strategy, although it's a unclear how Gingrich would position himself in the event of an actually running, rather than merely threatening, a campaign.
Conservative Outsiders/Populists
This is Palin Country, and the 'Cuda would appear to have a free ticket to the semifinals unless she is challenged aggressively on her populist credentials by Jindal or perhaps by Mike Huckabee (although I think that Palin and Huckabee can co-exist until a fairly advanced stage of the process). The other potential candidates in this category, such as Fred Thompson, are mere nuisances to Palin, and are probably just hanging around hoping she goes supernova. Mark Sanford and Haley Barbour also seem inclined to move in this direction following their threatened rejection of stimulus monies, but they are poorly-defined candidates in a field with plenty of name recognition, the Doddering Richardsons of the GOP hopefuls.
Moderate Outsiders/Populists
This quadrant is generally sparely populated by the GOP, whose liberal wing owes its heritage to the highly wonkish traditions of the Rockefeller Republicans. Several candidates, however, brush up against its fringe, most notably Huckabee, whose Main Street economic populism creates differentiation with almost every other candidate in the Republican field.
Tim Pawlenty fits vaguely into this category (especially if one believes that having a mullet gives you populist cred). But I've also never particularly understood what Palwenty's appeal is supposed to be: he got a fair amount of free airtime during the Republican veepstakes last year and didn't leave much of an impression.
This is also probably where Ron Paul belongs, although really Paul is in a sort of libertarian hyperspace that few of us can hope to understand. Fellow traveler and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who endorsed Paul in 2008, could provide for a more credible version of the libertarian message, but is probably too unorthodox a candidate for a party that lacks self-confidence and is groping to find a leader.
Moderate Insiders/Technocrats
This is supposed to be Charlie Crist's space, but I just don't get the sense that Crist is particularly serious about running, having cozied up to Barack Obama while teeing off the Republican establishment. If Crist does not run, or waits until 2016, that could vacate this space for Utah Governor John Hunstman, who perhaps sensing his opportunity is moving hard and to the left on issues like civil unions and the stimulus. A reform-minded candidate like Mitch Daniels could potentially fill this space, as could a recycled one like Rudy Giuliani; this is also where a wild card from the business or the military communities might wind up fitting in. But it will be filled by somebody, as it's a valuable space to own in a year where the other party won't be hosting competitive primaries, leaving independents and Democrats free to weigh in on the GOP contest. The Republicans could wind up with a moderate nominee on accident.
So, What Happens Next?
I don't know. Ask me again in a year or so. But I think it's not too early to be talking about this stuff, because the primary wars are also a proxy war for the future of the party.
2.24.2009
A Starry-Eyed Look at the 2012 Republican Field
by Nate Silver @ 9:20 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

79 comments
Great diagram Nate. Is there any way you could combine it with a heat map style diagram of where republican primary voters are? Since the more voters in one area the more space for candidates. I haven't looked at polling on the likely composition recently but I suspect it would be far from an even distribution.
Why is Ron Paul considered moderate in your model. Isn't libertarianism an extreme form of conservatism?
Here's hoping for a Crist Victory
Very interesting post, Nate. Excellent analysis as always. I'm not sure I agree with you about splitting the political spectrum into ideology and institutional, however. Ideology is such a vague concept. This kind of comparison does little to differentiate between conservative economics and social conservatism, for example. It also leaves out foreign policy (mostly hawk vs dove).
Of course, my complaining about the setup is rather mute, as few would want to look at a graph with four (or even more!) axises. I suppose I just feel as though economic/social is a more useful political model.
How is Giuliani not a populist? His mocking snarl of "I hate the same people you do and I'll lock 'em up forever" seems to me the only part of his background that Republicans would find appealing.
"Why is Ron Paul considered moderate in your model. Isn't libertarianism an extreme form of conservatism?"
Paul's more of a paleo-conservative, which isn't exactly representative of the modern hard right. Stuff like a strong adherence to the constitution and an antipathy to military interventions are really out of line with modern conservative thought, though his economic policies (generally) line up.
Politics1 noted last week that since expressing support for civil unions, Huntsman has been absent from all GOP events in Utah. Either he's trying to craft a record with appeal outside Utah or he's not interested in running for President.
Huntsman also faces the same issues as Romney re: faith from the Republican base.
Pawlenty is more of a hardliner than a moderate, both fiscally and socially. He just smiles a lot, but as governer he has played extreme hardball.
@Eric
In some ways libertarianism is extremely conservative. You have to differentiate between economics and social issues, though. Libertarians are all for major tax cuts (for everyone, not just the rich) and for cutting government spending, which make them conservative. They are also for increased civil liberties, and are generally pacifist, making them liberal.
Nate really went to town with that astronomy metaphor didn't he...
I think this is my first comment after months of reading this site. I just wanted to say that "a sort of libertarian hyperspace that few of us can hope to understand" really, really made me laugh. Thanks Nate!
Nate/anyone,
Any reason why some are red as opposed to blue bubbles
Pawlenty is a hard core, I will never, ever tax conservative. He is in no way moderate. As he tries to amp up his bonifides for a 2012 run he is getting even more "I will never tax even if it means the damnation of our state." The only reason he may appear moderate is because there is a veto proof house and a close to veto proof Senate he has to contend with. Pawlenty is a snake oil salesman with a silver tongue, but moderate he is not. Not even close. He is closer to Michelle Bachmann, he just isn't as patently stupid.
My impression is that Hutchison is relatively moderate, although that's largely based on being pro-choice, as well as some discussion on this blog that she may be a getable vote for Obama on some issues (eg, Ledbetter). This doesn't mean she is moderate on other issues, but if the purpose is to determine what options the various blocs of GOP primary voters have, it seems that she would have a tough time finding her niche on the conservative side based on this issue alone. If the single issue anti-abortion voter doesn't hold as much sway in the GOP come 2012, that would be a welcome development, but even with the current economic situation I don't think that will be the case (or even if they do consider the economy more, they will tend to gravitate towards the views of politicians that they already trust on social issues, like Jindal). If she does enter the 2012 race, I think she would have to shift toward the center rather than try to overcome the handicap of a pro-choice record to win conservatives. Romney already tried that, and it didn't work out too well for him.
Nate, with each passing day you never cease to amaze me with your unique perspective on politics. Your blog is one of a kind and I hope you'll be around a long time to share your original thoughts with us. I like your "planetary" approach because it is a powerful metaphor within the grasp of most of us. Would you consider one day focusing on the forces at play on the far right (Palin, Limbaugh, Steele) and how that might impact on realignments going forward. There is a lot of conflict in that space above and below the radar screen and it would just be interesting to get your take on it.
Libertarianism is not conservatism and not liberalism (or progressivism).
In social issues libertarians are liberals and in fiscal issues they´re conservatives.
So Eric isn´t right, libertarianism isn´t an extreme form of conservatism (i think it´s pupulist).
The common sense of all libertarians are the hate of all forms of big government (in social or economic issues).
I wasn't sure about the red/blue at first, but it appears red are senators or congressmen, while blue are governors or mayors. Apparently, Washington pols are more likely to be insiders and conservatives, with Paul being the big outlier, and Thompson being less insider now that he is a former Senator.
Looking at this, it makes me think that political space is actually a multidimensional hypervolume, but of which most of the axes do not explain a great deal of the variability in the positioning of the candidate. But by looking at a 3rd axis of state interventionism to libertarianism you would be able to more logically place the likes of Ron Paul who tend to be odd ducks within the modern GOP
Nate,
If I promise to make a donation, will you put a ShareThis at the end of your updates??
Petraeus?
You're missing the name of the GOP's actual nominee in 2012,the man who will give Obama the most trouble: David Petraeus.
I think Bobby Jindal, not Petraeus.
Jindal says he won't run for Prez if he wins re-election as governor in 2009.However, if he turns down the stimulus money and we get hit with another hurricane that could get ameliorated by category 5 levees and restored wetlands along the coast, Louisiana voters will roast him on a spit the same way we did Blanco.
He's gambling on the ultimate unpredictable-the weather. Turning down the stim money looks good for him on the rhetoric, and so long as the reality of category 5 hurricanes remains an academic exercise between now and 2009, rhetoric will carry him pretty far out in Cajun country and up around Shreveport. Should it become another "The Bayou Drowns as Governor Plays Political Fiddle", well, he'll be all freed up to run for Prez in 2010 alright. I'd love to see what the audience does to him if there are any Louisianans present during Q&A time.
Good analysis. Disgustingly early to even be contemplating this stuff. Rushing the decision left the R's with a sub-par candidate last time around, so I think the tendency will be for candidates to pace themselves until 2010 is in the bag.
Agree that Petraeus needs to be on the list. Crist's circle is way too big. Gingrich is to the left of Romney. Many are really overlapping in the Barbour/Bush/Hutchinson sector, which would mess up the graphic.
Where would McCain have been on there? More specifically, where would the McCain of August 2007 and the McCain of 2008 fit?
Re: Libertarian != Conservatism
The observation that Libertarians are "paleo-conservative[s]" (Adam) seems most correct to me. The libertarian philosophy is "socially liberal" only in a passive or non-interventionist sense. They routinely do not feel that modern socially liberal movements reflect their philosophy as these almost all rely on intervention. They reject laws requiring, encouraging or enforcing citizens to act in a socially liberal way, but they also strongly object to the law treating any citizen differently than any other, this latter trait being the reason why many cite them as being socially liberal.
For instance, while libertarians officially support civil unions/marriage for all (not one set or rights for one set of folks and another for the other), they almost uniformly reject affirmative action and non-discrimination laws.
Thus, the shorthand way of explaining libertarianism, "socially liberal, fiscally conservative", is incorrect though occasionally useful if one is pressed for time. I've recently taken up the phrase "federal government restricted to the explicit constitution", which is also incorrect, though I feel it is less so.
Underestimating the likes of Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, and Eric Cantor could turn out to be a bad idea. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee are very problematic candidates for their own special reasons, and I think we're going to see they have certain ceilings.
If Sanford, Pawlenty, or Cantor can portray themselves as the youthful professional conservative candidate, the coalition of voters either of them could build would be enough to challenge The Triumvirate.
Romney and Huckabee hit their ceilings in 2008. The myth of Palin will build back up in Republicans' minds over Obama's first term, and then her triumphant return to the stump will be quite disillusioning (George McGovern, Gary Hart, John McCain). As for Jindal, I frankly don't expect him to waste political capital running for president at age 40; he's the presumptive 2016 Republican nominee, assuming Obama wins a second term.
David Petraeus could be a massive wildcard, but he keeps denying that he'll ever run for political office. I'm not sure he knows or cares much anything about domestic or fiscal policy. He's a good soldier, but Taylor and Grant proved good soldiers don't make good presidents.
I think it would be helpful to divide the graph into a set of two, with the social and financial spectra each compared to the technocratic/populist one. The previous post didn't suffer from its abundance of graphs.
Good questions, STepper. One implication of Nate's galactic arrangement and his "mass-gravitational force" metaphor is that candidates can't move too around too much in a crowded and competitive space. At some point, the globes absorb others (killer stars?).
Once he had totally eliminated his opponents, McCain was free to try to move around the space, including hitching himself to Palin to strengthen his populist appeal. But in the process of moving -- and further disassociating himself as far as possible from Bush's legacy -- he lost his bearings and his identity, it seems to me.
And of course McCain truly blew it during the "bailout" fiasco, his last chance, it seems to me, to go whole-hog on the populist route. He made the politically stupid decision to back to bailout, and thus thoroughly muddied his message of trying to be "anti-Wall Street" and "anti K-Street." (Not that I ever bought that, given the composion of his campaign staff.)
wv: taxaton (Watch out! The Taxaton is coming on April 15th!!)
Nate,
Thank God you're starting to open up threads about the 2012 Presidential Race! What took you so long? What are the chances PA will be in play? I wonder if NC will remain blue or revert to red. Do you think the GOP should invest money in NH?
Just wondering what you and everyone else thought.
If the primary calendar doesn't change between now and 2012, those conservative insiders are going to have a decided advantage over the rest of the field. Iowa and South Carolina being at the front of the queue virtually guarantees that.
why are some red and some blue?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned another infamous two-dimensional test, and I'm wondering whether and/or how much Nate has seen or referred to the Political Compass; http://www.politicalcompass.org
It lines up social and economic values... maybe add the technocratic/populist scale as a third dimension? I could see that being a more useful way of evaluating candidates.
Ah, yes! It all becomes so clear when you reduce it to a simple 19-body problem! :P
@David -- that's hilarious! I'll talk to my physicist brother and he'll surely have an answer this afternoon....
The "solution" in this case is to let "nature" take its course and reduce the number of bodies by attrition. Some will never be more than hollow shells (no financing, no popular backing), and easily crunched or disintegrated into interstallar dust.
But though candidates may play strategy games there will doubtless be a large stochastic component to what happens. What happens to the domestic and international economies, the performance of the Obama administration, in the international sphere -- or perhaps a large meteor will strike the earth.
Palin will not win the nomination, and here's why:
If it's Huck v. Palin v. Romney (without throwing any wrenches into that...I honestly think this will be the matchups, nobody besides these 3 want to be sacrificial lambs), Huckabee would probably narrowly win Iowa, and Romney would win New Hampshire. Palin's momentum would be stalled, and more likely than not Huckabee would cruise, unless the event of another McCain coming into the mix.
Great stuff Nate. I'm not going to dispute that Romney and Jindal currently warrant a bigger bubble than the John Thune's of the world, but do you have any metric way of measuring "gravity" or bubble-size? or is it just common sense this early in the game?
Palin won't win for much simpler reasons that that, Vinny.
1. She only appeals to pinheads, which fortunately make up only 20-25% of the American population.
2. She'll still be serving time for the numerous crimes she will eventually be convicted of.
I have a feeling that my analysis of GOP politics might be as useful as George Will's analysis of Democratic Politics (he always seems to get it about as far wrong as possible) but here is how I see it about now.
Firstly, Patraeus is a none starter. Too much of a soldier in an election that is likely to be fought on domestic issues, mainly the economy and healthcare. Iraq will seem like yesterdays story.
Secondly, the GOP are desperately going to try and have some kind of fight for the nomination in 2012, however false that might be. I think they are going to try and copy the Democratic Party's fight in 2008. I think IF Jindal gets involved he is going to show up Sarah Palin for what she really is, but if he doesn't get involved and Palin does she has a good chance of hanging in there for quite a while. My guess is though that Jindal knows he has time on his side and that 2016 could well be within his sights.
Thirdly I don't see anyone on the moderate end of the spectrum gaining traction in the Primaries, the contest isn't going to be a standard right vs left fight. It will be a clash more of image and identity, much as the Democratic fight was in 2008. Whats interesting is the lack of a high level WASP candidate, other than maybe Huckabee, although I do think his media career now may be a major stopping force in terms of running in 2012.
Personally, and this is always a dangerous game, if I was pushed to say right now, my guess is that the 2012 Republican nominee will either be Palin or Romney. As such, barring disaster, Obama should be a relatively short priced favourite to win a second term.
Oh and a picture of a couple of glasses of Leffe Beer is far more appealing to look at than a picture of Ronald Reagan.
Nate, interesting concept, but I'm not sure I love the word "technocrat" for your purposes. In fact, I'm pretty sure I hate it :-) I think it carries strong implications of technological know-how which is by no means equivalent to being an "insider." One dictionary definition is "a member of a technically skilled elite." Would this better describe Mitt Romney or a white-hat hacker, and are both of these "insiders" who cleave to existing institutions?
Personally, I think an "institutional" conception of the Y-axis is better than a "populist" conception, but if you must stick with the latter, I'd say at least use a word like "insider" to describe the upper half of the chart.
A theory on the colors:
Since we've seen so much of the astronomy metaphor so far, perhaps it's a redshift/blushift extension. Some are coming, others are going.
Interesting approach, I think I like it. I don't know what made you place the candidates the way you did, but it seems that the primary field is very centrifugal? Though I guess it only makes sense because you need to stand for something.
By the way, it looks like Romney is pursuing the Nixon-post-1960 strategy: becoming an intra-party power player. However, I think that this space is already very crowded.
Is Petraeus a republican?
I think it is a little early to handicap the 2012 election, especially where Obama wants to half the deficit after 4 years.
Btw, I seen some concern posting over on some liberal blogs about the president's persistent drinking allusions and shown in public drinking. This, of course, would be nothing new with presidents. From Johnson to Nixon, many have overindulged. I think it may be to our be benefit to keep an eye on this for the future.
As a Brit, and with a limited understanding of Republican politics, libertarianism looks to me very much like modern British conservatism - fiscally conservative and socially tolerant, though generally non-interventionist from a social point of view.
From Nate's chart it seems like the biggest 'gap in the market' is for a 'moderate populist' much as Obama was the equivalent for the Democrats this time round (at least he seems so in British terms).
I find this interesting as this mythical 'moderate populist' would probably be closest in ideology to British conservatives, but hardly seems to exist here.
Isn't such a candidate the only way the Republicans are ever going to appeal to independents and conservative Democrats and therefore be re-elected? Can such a person ever emerge, or does everyone have to pander to the socially conservative base?
I do find this all genuinely totally fascinating as it is so alien to my concept of conservatism.
Wow JBN seems to want us to have to come up with a whole new term, to describe someone who alleges concern trolling from another site but is not a concern troll.
I don't look at tooo many other sites, but i have never seen any comments on Obama's drinking. I have seem reports of him spending long hours in the Oval Office.
Bush?
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
No one with the last name "Bush" will have a chance at the White House for 40 years.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Ha.
1) you think giuliani is more conservative than crist? really? Crist is a moderate....but giuliani is more liberal than anyone on there
2) to those talking about where ron paul belongs on this "galaxy" ....i think he is in a different universe than these guys. Hes a libertarian...its hard to classify them as conservative or liberal. On one hand pauls views could be easily viewed as extremely conservative...he wants to get rid of the board of education, the FMI, department of defense etc. On the other hand not only did he vote against the iraq war but also against sending troops to afghanistan......a fairly radical view that is ironically enough shared with the people at MoveOn.org
3) I dont exactly see how being a technocrat makes you the exact opposite of a populist. I view myself as a hardcore technocrat and a populist. I believe that for the good of advancements in technology that scientists should have more power/control...,that would make me a technocrat. I also believe that we should have a strongly progressive tax system...We need to tax the rich more and tax the middle class and poor less. I also support most social programs in general. This would make me a populist So by your standards i am a paradox....despite the fact that my views do not contradict each other in any way. Scientists could easily have power while we have lots of social programs, a progressive tax system, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive.
So, What Happens Next?
I don't know. Ask me again in a year or so. But I think it's not too early to be talking about this stuff, because the primary wars are also a proxy war for the future of the party.
Don't play dumb, Nate. It's a field of two, Mooseburger and Bobby Jihad. Everyone else is making up the numbers. The GOP is a regional party, and these two screwjobs are regional candidates.
At least with Clinton and Obama you had John Edwards waiting in the wings. Also, Joe Biden, before he dropped out, won every single debate. The MSM never gave Biden, Edwards and Kucinich credit during the primaries. Likewise Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.
Bottom line: barring any significant fuck-up in the debates or on the campaign trail, whoever raises the most corporate/lobbyist money and nails down the conservative nutbase early on will be the nominee. Mooseburger has a clear advantage with both. She'll either be the nominee or she'll head back to Alaska, because there's no way she'll be anyone's running mate again. Not unless they're desperate. Endorsements will mean fuck-all. There is nobody in the Republican Party you'd want to be endorsed by, other than perhaps Colin Powell, who I fully expect will speak at the Democratic Convention. I'll also be shocked if Governor Brian Schweitzer doesn't deliver the keynote address.
I think you're leaving out a number of factors in your diagram. You have Ron Paul, for instance, listed as on the moderate end of "conservative" despite his connections to Stormfront and the white-supremacist militia movement. That doesn't rate a nudge toward the right wing? And you have Huckabee listed as more moderate than Palin--maybe fiscally, but he also advocated for putting queer people in camps because they're a society-destroying plague. That's moderate, now?
Are you simply ignoring social conservatism? Or does treatment of minorities not figure into the "ideological axis"?
@mirror mirror
I totally agree and I would totally fit as a conservative across the pond.
The thing that drives politics especially in these early primaries is the base. For R/conservatives There is the fundamental christian base (pro-life pro-family) and the anti-tax base (self-explanatory). If you don't come from one of those schools its pretty hard to make it through.
McCain learned this from 2000. There is no real fiscal conservative base to run on. So, this time he climbed onto the anti-tax base and rode it. He picked Palin for the fundamental Christian base.
IMHO letting these two base factions control the party is dangerous long term. If Obama can actually halve the deficit like he claims the R party will be exposed as only being "pro-family" and anti-tax and IMHO be in danger of being permanent minority status
The one silver lining is healthcare reform. There is some movement to actually present an R plan which is better than just saying no and trotting out the "socialized medicine" label.
BTW, if I were Charlie Crist, I'd switch parties. He doesn't look like a Republican, and he certainly doesn't sound like a Republican.
This ought to be a three-dimensional (or higher) political space. Liberal and conservative are usually measured along at least two axises (economic and social).
You'll see people disagree strongly, for instance, about whether Giulianai is relatively liberal or conservative. A religious conservative would call him a liberal because of his stances on social issues like guns, gay rights and abortion. Anyone else would call him a conservative (or authoritarian) due to his hard-right positions on Iraq, the war on terror, and government powers with respect to things like torture and eavesdropping.
So, by my count you have these axises:
Social issues (God, guns, gays)
Civil-liberties (torture, eavesdropping, habeas corpus, etc.)
Foreign policy (isolationist vs. interventionist)
Economics (free vs. regulated market, taxes, social welfare, corporate welfare, etc.)
Populist (vs. technocrat)
Of course, each of those can be further subdivided, but it becomes an exercise in splitting hairs, which is fairly pointless. The direction of each axis doesn't necessarily align with the traditional meaning of the words "liberal" and "conservative", which can be confusing.
The blues are governors, the reds are US senators or representatives.
Nate,
Please explain meaning of red and blue colors. As always, very thought provoking writing.
Will the GOP put out a serious candidate in 2012? If Obama is still popular wouldn't they run a throwaway like Sarah Palin? Then run Jindal in 2016 (assuming they really think he's the GOP's Obama.)
Nice to see this thread made it to nearly 40 posts before turning to non-stop insults towards anyone even remotely leaning to the right. Look, not everyone who considers themselves conservative is an idiot.
I originally started coming to 538 because I trust Nate Silver's analysis a great deal and I expected the discourse to be at that of a higher and more intelligent level than anywhere else. Unfortunately, it's turned largely into Republican bashing.
RIght now the Republican party is about as popular as the Democratic party in 1988 when they nominated Dukakis. There is NO national Republican who will be favored against Obama. Anyone they nominate is likely to wind up like Bob Dole.
A LOT of who runs however, will depend on Obama's popularity. IF Obama continues to have popular support above 60% well into 2010 that will thin out the herd quite a bit. Some of them will decide to wait for a more favorable opportunity in 2016.
This trend will be strengthened by Republican DONORS. Not a lot of them will want to pony up big money for a Quixotic tilt at windmills if Obama looks unbeatable.
So, if his popularity is cratering then it's a vicious fight to prove which is the Wing-nuttiest among them.
Sarah Palin will have trouble lasting through the primaries without looking like a total idiot - even compared to other Republicans. Having someone like her campaign against President Obama is like putting Alcorn State up against USC in the BCS title bowl.
Nate,
You've forgotten someone ... someone who wants that GOP nomination & who has already signalled he's prepared to spend $2B of his own fortune ($15-16B) to win.
Mike Bloomberg is no joker in the pack. If he can buy a 3rd term as NYC mayor -- and he probably can -- he'll be in the '12 race. hence his posturing now, refusing free federal food stamps for NYC poor.
Watch out for Mike. He's mean, intent & wealthy beyond all others' dreams.
A couple of other things:
People need to give this Petraeus shit a rest. Like I said the other day, if Americans wouldn't elect the biggest fanboy of the Iraq surge, what makes you think they'd elect the poster boy of the surge? America's gonna be out of Iraq in 2 years anyway, so what's the point? The economy will likely still be the number one issue in 2012.
The reason General Wesley Clark was drafted, likely by the Clintons, was because the 2004 Democratic field had become indistinguishable. Also, the party establishment, particularly the DLC, were pissed that Howard Dean, a strong critic of the Iraq occupation, would be the candidate going up against a "wartime president". Unlike Petraeus, Wes Clark actually knows about economics and was a quick study when it came issues and on the campaign trail. With hindsight, Clark/Edwards should have been the Democratic ticket in 2004, though I suspect Hillary would have been Clark's VP.
Lets say the unthinkable happens, President Obama is below 50% approval and is facing a tough reelction battle heading into Summer 2012. Obama could quite easily have Biden step down and pick Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner or Evan Bayh as VP. Maybe even Hillary, if he's losing a chunk of the female vote.
Of course, a lot of bad shit would have to happen for a situation like this to come up, but there would be huge advantages. Virginia would definately stay blue, likewise Indiana, and the chances of taking Montana would increase significantly.
My opinion is that it's too early to talk about 2012. We should be talking about economics. When we are done with economics, we can talk about 2010. After that, talk about 2012.
Petraeus: Keep in mind how many of the last presidential elections were won by the candidate with the more impressive military record... not that many.
I notice a lot of people keep on bringing up using a social vs. economic scale. I'm certain that Nate agrees that is a better model for classifying political leanings in general, but he explicitly states in this post that the purpose of a social vs. populist/technocratic scale is that during primaries these are the top two ways to separate candidates in the Republican party. I agree with this. Outside of elections, however, the populist/technocratic classification is hardly ever used, and should continue to be excluded from other scales such as the one at political compass.
Could we just resurrect William Howard Taft? He only served one term.
Love this analysis and how you break down variables that distinguish candidates.
Speaking of your analyses, you've been mentioned in Wired as an example of a citizen analyst who has beaten the professionals.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_reboot?currentPage=4
Road Map for Financial Recovery: Radical Transparency Now!
Tim Bray, an inventor of XML who has been an advocate for XBRL reporting standards, points to political blogger Nate Silver as a helpful model of a citizen-analyst. During the 2008 presidential election, Silver, a baseball statistics whiz, pored over polling data to come up with his own—almost always dead-on—analysis of House, Senate, and presidential races. He was an outsider who manipulated huge quantities of data, allowing him to come to conclusions that had escaped the professional political analysts.
So, when are you going to comment on your mention in Wired for your own readers?
Pawlenty is much more of a technocrat than a populist. He ran (in the first place) on his cred as a former state senate GOP leader, and since then on his experience as governor. He's never rocked the boat institutionally and seems completely content to work within the system as it is. Compare and contrast to Jesse Ventura, who was a total outsider and reveled in that. It was Minnesota's negative reaction against populist Ventura that put technocrat Pawlenty into office.
I'd say Romney, but he destroyed his brand in 2008.
A Republican, fiscal conservative who's socially libertarian/liberal and who successfully guides a company through the recession of 2008-10 might be just the ticket. Bill Gates?
I'm going to say that I don't think the utility of the technocratic-populist demarcation has been established. I urge you to do some factor analysis, Nate, and prove me wrong, since I do like neat typologies.
I think your technocratic-populist schema is really about fiscal conservatism versus "compassionate conservatism". The fact that Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are placed there allows me to test this hypothesis. Thompson and Paul were both fiscally conservative, but "populist". If populism was an important demarcation, then Thompson and Paul supporters should like Huckabee more than other candidates.
The New Hampshire exit polls asked candidates their opinion of Mike Huckabee. If indeed there is some populist tendency, Thompson and Paul supporters should be more likely to be favourable towards Huckabee.
52% of Paul supporters were at least somewhat favourable to Huckabee.44% of Thompson supporters were at least somewhat favourable to Huckabee. That is compared to 49% of Republicans overall (excluding Huckabee supporters).
In Florida, the "second choice" question was asked. So lets look at Paul supporters.
Giuliani: 15%
McCain: 8%
Romney: 30.3%
Huckabee: 24%
Thompson: 3%
Nobody: 20%
In other words, over 45% of Paul supporters liked the technocratic candidates, versus 27% that preferred populist ones (I think McCain is probably in the middle).
Texas offers another good test, because voters were asked whether they would be satisfied with either a Huckabee win, a McCain win, either or neither.
Huck = 9.2%
McCain = 11.5%
Either = 29%
Neither = 50.3%
This is not conclusive evidence, but I think it is pretty damning to the notion that a "populist"-"technocrat" spectrum has all that much salience to how primary voters vote.
We should do our homework before making these kinds of judgments - do voters cluster along these axes?
"A Republican, fiscal conservative who's socially libertarian/liberal and who successfully guides a company through the recession of 2008-10 might be just the ticket. Bill Gates?"
I think it is ridiculous to think that recessions are likely to improve the chances of either a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, much less BOTH.
A bad economy means more poverty and more crime, it means more people turn to religion, and it means people are more willing to accept government intervention.
That is fertile ground for a Huckabee or Palin, not Bill Gates (who is a Democrat).
The colors are inside-the-beltway (red) and outside-the-beltway (blue).
It sort of makes sense re: the red-shift/blue-shift comment above. Blue shift = moving towards the observers (getting closer to DC). People in blue circles have to make it look like they're ready and people in red circles have to move away from what's usually a past full of landmines in DC.
Of course this isn't really the case for Thompson since he didn't do jack as a Senator.
Also, really don't get why Huckabee's way further left of Jindal than Palin is to his right.
If you're going to categorize someone as liberal/conservative based on their recent rhetoric rather than their record (Huntsman), you have to assume Jindal's going to run away from the right on most non-life issues.
lawl, keep (mis)underestimating Sanford and your prez picks will become as worthless as your oscar picks.
Pawlenty is "moderate"?!!!! Please show your work!
I have to say that this is an absolutely fascinating way to visually recreate the very complicated question of where different politicians align themselves compared to each other. I really like the fact that this same type of graphical analysis could be used to illustrate the political spectrum of different political figures on different topics such as fiscal policy, social policy and foreign policy.
Such an array of specified "Planetary Models" of candidates during any type of campaign cycle could create a very useful tool not only for those following campaigns, but also for those running them.
I'm sorry; any model that places Ron Paul at the same ideological value as Rudi Giuliani has ceased representing reality. I think you need a 3-axis model so you can split ideology into a Nolan chart-esque topology, which would clearly differentiate between a Paul and a Giuliani based on ideology. Without this differentiation, your model leaves too much to be desired.
Nate, I think Romney would have a problem running on a fiscal conservatism platform in 2012. Bain Capital, while not as atrocious as Apollo, is like many private equity firms in that many of their highly-leveraged portfolio companies have hard times and are candidates for bankruptcy restructuring. Several LPs will likely be very angry with the recent fund returns, and the stories that worked in 2007 (Bain Capital as a successful business operation) will be easily challenged in 2010-2011. It'd be as if a charismatic John Thain (who is no doubt a smart business talent) wanted to run. Maybe his image can be repaired by 2016, but 2012 would be very questionable.
How could Bush be on the technocratic side? His neo-con ideology is as anti-scientific and anti-intellectual as it gets.
Willard Mitt Romney is occupying Gingrich's spot. Gingrich is occupying Romney's spot. Switch the two, and the chart is much more accurate.
Romney is NOT a social moderate. You need to quit relying on tired old Boston Globe attack articles, designed to turn off conservatives, as your source material. I have never seen a single criticism that paints Romney as somehow being to the left of where he is, that isn't traceable back to lousy Boston Globe attack articles.
Romney is a solid conservative. Will you go and read his last fifty speeches, please? He is far more conservative than Gingrich, and even slightly more conservative than Jindal! Mitt Romney is unquestionably the most intelligent guy in the running for 2012, but he is also the most conservative of the big names. He is to the right of so many people you put to the right of him, it's ridiculous! Please let go of your personal bias against Mitt Romney!
And please, put Huntsman where he belongs; to the left of Crist! Jon Huntsman, Jr. is a terrible, leftist Governor, not only is he pro-homosexual sodomy-based civil unions (forcing taxpayers to pay for the homosexual sodomy partners of state employees' medical benefits!), but he TOTALLY buys into the Global Warming hoax! Jon is an intellectual midget; he's an imbecile!
He's living off of his daddy's money, but Romney made all of his money himself!
Huntsman is to the left of his great father on everything, and to the left of Romney on everything.
I challenge you to find a single thing where HUNTSMAN is to the RIGHT of CRIST!!!
i hope they'll give petreaus and fiorina a chance
Post a Comment