2012-02-22

Brokered convention remains a hot topic; GOP infighting a sign of social mood and good for long-term prospects

This discussion points out the difference between an actual brokered convention and a deal before the convention. A deal is more likely, with two candidates teaming up as the most probable event, should there be no outright winner.


Many people discuss how this is negative for the GOP, but I believe this is long-term beneficial. A massive political shift is underway and the negative social mood will bring about more sweeping changes at the ballot box. The worst possible outcome for the Democrats is for Obama to win reelection because this delays the internal reform of the party. Simply put, the infighting in the GOP is partially due to social mood and partially due to the party structure at the peak of social mood. People didn't care about changing the direction of the party while social mood was positive and from 1980-2000 both parties basically saw insiders slowly takeover. In 2004, there was the foretaste of revolution in the Democrat party when Howard Dean surged ahead in the primaries. In 2006, the party had a shot at change, but instead coasted to victory on the back of Republican failures. Then in 2008, Obama was seen as a new politician who could bring a new direction; instead he let the established powers in Congress run the show. The Democrats have now gone 8 years without another major breakout of their discontented voters.

In contrast, the GOP breakup was fomenting by 2006, as voters stayed home. By 2008, Ron Paul's campaign was seen as quixotic, but only one year later, the groundwork laid by his Campaign for Liberty helped fuel the Tea Party movement that was sparked by Rick Santelli's rant.


In 2010, the Tea Party delivered a big victory to the GOP, but also started to change the GOP by bringing in new members and challenging the current leadership. In 2012, Ron Paul's campaign is still trailing the field, but close enough that he could play a role in deciding the nominee. He's also bringing in disaffected Democrats and independent voters; to the extent that he's included in the next government, he could bring in a group of new voters. Meanwhile, the grassroots voters saw an attempt by the party leaders to force a nominee on them and they've been resisting for months.

The Republican side looks messy and disorganized, but it reflects the negative social mood in full bloom. On the Democrat side, opposition is bottled up as the party stays unified behind Obama. Since the Democrats aren't immune from social mood and the longer it takes to reform, the messier it will be. Due to the peak social mood hitting in 2000, the current leadership in both parties is firmly established. Conservatives have spent four years chipping away at the establishment and may need 2 to 4 more years to get a new candidate. If Obama wins reelection, the Democrats may be 8 years behind the GOP in terms of internal reform. And as I've said previously, the main thing voters do when they are in a negative mood is throw out the establishment and incumbents. The party that does the job for them and throws out its own incumbents in the primaries is the one best positioned to win the final elections.



No comments:

Post a Comment