What if the Republicans Lose in 2012

Should Obama win, Republicans could blame the nominee, regardless of who it is -- Mitt Romney for being insufficiently conservative, Michele Bachmann for being too amateurish or frighteningly right wing, Tim Pawlenty for being too boring, or whoever else ultimately wins the nomination for some other flaw. This, however, will be an exercise in avoidance allaying responsibility for a Republican defeat at an imperfect, even weak, nominee and it obscures other significant questions. The real questions Republicans should ask themselves if they lose in 2012 is how they managed to lose a presidential election during a time of poor economic conditions with the country embroiled in at least two, and possibly three, wars. The corollary question they will need to ask is whether their strategy of attacking President Obama nonstop for four years while offering few useful solutions and giving in to the party's most extreme and ugly elements was really the wise decision. If the answer to the last question is no, the Party will have to determine how and why they allowed that to happen.

Romney Still the Front-Runner

In the last week, three things have happened in the race for the Republican nomination for president: Texas governor Rick Perry officially became a candidate, Tim Pawlenty's candidacy officially came to an end, and Michele Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll. While none of these developments involved him directly, all three of these developments collectively were a victory for Mitt Romney, moving him slightly closer to his party's nomination.

Why Huntsman and Perry Aren't the Answer Either

The problem the Republicans have created for themselves is that by empowering the far right of their party to lead the battle against Obama in 2009 and 2010, they have unleashed a flood of candidates who enjoy high name recognition and pockets of intense support on the far right, but no broad support from the electorate more generally. More damagingly, for the Republican Party, the far right may be sufficiently powerful to stop the nomination of any candidate who deviates from their extremist views. This is the test which Romney and the party face; and it cannot be avoided by Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry, jumping into the race fresh from Texas, Beijing, or anyplace else.

Romney's Work Beginning to Pay Off

Romney has done his work relatively quietly while the decisions by Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee not to run and the disastrous beginning to Newt Gingrich's quixotic bid for the White House have received considerably more coverage in recent weeks. Of these three stories, Huckabee's decision not to run is the most significant. Huckabee is a good politician with excellent communication skills and opinions that would have resonated well with the conservative Republican base. Huckabee also had a very difficult time building an organization and raising money in 2008 and evinced little enthusiasm for doing that again in 2012, seemingly preferring the comfort and compensation of his work for Fox News.

Republican Positioning for 2012

The absence of a clear front runner has encouraged numerous politicians, and at least one non-politician, to begin to explore a bid for the nomination. The breadth, and in some respects absurdity of this field, is striking. It includes Mitt Romney, a businessman turned liberal governor turned right wing ideologue, Newt Gingrich, a scandal plagued 1980s-1990s futurist, Haley Barbour, a former governor of Mississippi and chair of the RNC who would not have looked out of place railing against desegregation half a century ago, Mike Huckabee, a friendly sounding but often frightening preacher turned politician, Sarah Palin whose media savvy should not be underestimated, Michele Bachman who seems to take a sophomoric joy in saying every provocative and radical thought that pops into her head, Donald Trump a real estate developer, television personality and blowhard all rolled into one and many more and Tim Pawlenty who looks like the normal viable candidate on paper, but has failed to break through more broadly.