The following has to be prefaced with two things. The first is a clear understanding on the reader’s part that primaries are games of show and that in truth the players in those primaries, or candidates if you like, are merely courting the people who vote in primaries. Which brings us to the second thing you must understand, that nobody votes in primaries. That is, nobody but people passionate enough about their government, and more importantly about their particular party/political faction, to give enough of a damn to go out to a polling center and actually vote.
In Republican primaries the numbers are typically lower, since registered Democrats outnumber Republicans and have outnumbered them since pretty much the end of Reconstruction. Indeed the Democrats are not the underdog on the national scale, the Republicans are, and the fact that Republicans can win the Presidency speaks to the absence of voters at the polls. But how low are the numbers during primaries? Well, it ranges from state to state, but between 24.5 to less than 5%. Think about that in terms of actual people though. 5% of registered voters actually voting, means only 5% care enough to go to the polls. Now think to yourself, in an apathetic world, what 5 people out of 100 are crazy enough to keep voting even though no one cares?
Well in an apathetic world the only people who care are fanatics, by definition. And if the only guarantee you have as a presidential candidate is that the fanatics will vote, then who, logically, will you pander to in your speeches and press interviews? The fanatics. It’s the only way to win the nomination. Once you have the nomination the whole story changes, and you can see it when watching the stances of the candidates from 2008 and you’ll be able to see it in the guy who wins the Republican candidacy this year. They will modify their positions to be more palatable to the majority of voters…about half of which will actually vote in the general election…which is still pretty dismal when you think about it.
Now this gives the incumbent a huge advantage over his opponent. Instead of having to backtrack over all the crazy stuff he (or she, it’s just easier to say he right now since the only people in the running in the current election are male) said during the primary, they can just sit back and play the moderate. The only thing that can go wrong is if something goes wrong. And that’s the only way this could be an interesting race once it’s Republican versus Democrat. If the economy continues to suck it up, or gets worse, or Obama is forced to do something very left-wing then it give the Republican a shot.
So who has the best shot, given that shot? When asking that question the primaries should only be viewed in light of how easy the candidate can back-peddle from the stuff they promised the fanatics, and how well they can do that and still save face. That’s why I think Romney could win. Not because I like him, or agree with him, or trust him in the white house (but then again I don’t trust the guy in there now). He’s an excellent back-peddler, much like Obama was. Granted, Romney’s changes of heart will be broadcast on CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, whereas Obama’s were only showcased on Fox and right wing radio shows, but I think Romney will do, and has done so far, better under fire, in comparison to Santorum, whom I like, generally agree with, and would likely trust in the white house, at least more than Romney. But that’s my opinion. Romney could win the white house against Obama. Santorum I think will have a much tougher time. But it has little do with the content of what they say in the primaries, beyond their abilities to un-say it later.
