March 26, 2017

February 6, 2012

[Off Topic & Political To Boot] An Interesting Analysis of How Candidates Become Party Nominees

This is a dated article in its initiating news report [Gingrich’s win in SC] but it is nevertheless a good analysis of how Parties choose nominees.  I think I can safely say that I’m in the “More of the Same” camp as to *how* things get done . . . which is why the only way the end result changes [that is, Republicans nominate a conservative for President] is if the establishment doing the “open negotiation” amongst themselves becomes a different establishment altogether.

From the FiveThirtyEight blog, where there is more:

The paradigms present profoundly different conclusions about the most likely outcome.

One might be called “More of the Same.” It asserts that the traditional rules of engagement in a nomination race still apply, and that the empirical evidence from past contests is reasonably powerful.

That evidence looks something like this: Although the nomination is technically decided by delegate counts, and somewhat less literally by the preferences of rank-and-file voters, ultimately the nominee is determined by a sort of open negotiation among the party elite, which includes elected officials, major donors and the partisan news media, among others.

Voter preferences can make some difference, but more as a lagging than a leading indicator. Being well-credentialed and building a traditional campaign matters, and candidates who do not do so may soar in polls but inevitably fall back to earth. Moreover, parties tend to come to fairly rational decisions about their nominee, placing heavy emphasis on electability. (This view is eloquently explained in the book “The Party Decides,” by the political scientists Marty Cohen and others.)

The competing paradigm might be called “This Time Is Different.” It asserts that a fundamental change has occurred in America’s political culture, or that a temporary shift is especially salient in this year’s Republican race.

Under this interpretation, elite support and the ground game do not matter as much as usual. Instead, success is more idiosyncratic: personalities matter a lot, and nominations are determined based primarily on momentum and news media coverage.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



The problem with replacing the ‘Republican Establishment” is that the people who want to replace it with themselves are all political idiots. Libertarians and people like that.  So all sensible people realize that they’re better off with the Republican Establishment, even if they don’t like it. Otherwise you end up with people running your party who vote for third parties rather than for nominees they don’t like, which is a sure road to disaster. (Remember: the “Right to Life” Party ran someone against Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

[1] Posted by Real Toral on 2-6-2012 at 10:09 AM · [top]

RE: “The problem with replacing the ‘Republican Establishment” is that the people who want to replace it with themselves are all political idiots.”

Not at all.

For instance, I won’t be voting for Romney—I no longer vote for non-conservatives—but I have no desire to replace the Republican Establishment with me!

; > )

I’m not a Republican and am perfectly content with voting for conservative candidates wherever I find them, and I certainly don’t think the Republican Party needs people like me replacing the Establishment.

But . . . they do need actual conservatives replacing the Establishment, for sure.  Otherwise, they’ll keep nominating Presidential candidates for whom many conservatives won’t vote.

Now—it’s certainly possible that they can make up for the millions of conservatives they’ll lose with Romney as nominee [as they lost with McCain as nominee] with moderates and independents.  I don’t have a firm conclusion on that, although I certainly did with McCain as nominee back in 2008; it was clear to any thinking person that Obama was going to clean his clock.

It’s just a risk that the current Establishment wants to take, and I can’t tell them how to run their party.  It might work, after all.  The Establishment gets a non-conservative Republican like they are, as President, without conservative support.  I can see, given their political worldview, wanting to give that a shot and heck, if I had their political worldview, I’d probably try it myself.  What have they got to lose?  If they actually nominated a conservative Republican and he won, they’d lose *a ton*.  But win or lose with Romney, they have a shot at getting someone like themselves in for another four years.

But for conservatives—not Establishment Republicans, mind you, but conservatives—it’s simply about having a viable party that nominates conservatives, not about protecting the Republican non-conservative choice.

The stark and clear choices that conservatives have before them are to 1) take back the Republican Party such that it begins again to nominate conservatives or . . . 2) take the 25-50 years it will take to build a third party.

I’m choosing option A — and that begins with rejecting any Republican non-conservative nominees. It’s a simple, basic, and useful philosophy.

[2] Posted by Sarah on 2-6-2012 at 10:35 AM · [top]

Beside the left demonizing, vilifying, marginalizing, assassinating their character,  and generally assaulting them with every Alinsky tactic, the game is stacked against getting Conservatives (social, fiscal, political) nominated.


Nowadays, we see the so-called conservative media acting like paid political slanderers.  It’s not hard to guess when it’s all directed toward one candidate, which candidate is behind it all.

When any candidate has no other argument than lies, slander, shell and power games, we Anglicans have learned valuable discernment the hard way, that these candidates have no real argument or merit.

[3] Posted by St. Nikao on 2-6-2012 at 11:43 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.