The Times reports today that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s support has started “paying dividends for Romney.” Another endorsement, this one by Rep. Aaron Shock of Illinois, is described as “long-sought,” with Romney going “so far as attending the congressman’s 30th birthday in Chicago.” In a sense, I agree that these endorsements are important; they are fodder for the national media and help to keep Romney in the news amid the oxygen-sucking firestorm of the Herman Cain sexual harassment issue. Perhaps more crucially, a nod from someone like Christie, who is popular enough in Republican circles to have set off his own “Run, Christie, Run!” campaign earlier this year, can seal the deal with major donors. Even an endorsement from the relatively unknown Rep. Shock may send a message to GOP insiders, who presumably follow conservative politics more closely than a Democrat like myself. But I think it is a bridge too far to suggest that such endorsements influence a large number of voters. It’s hard to believe that anyone undecided about his or her preferred candidate would be seriously swayed by the opinion of a governor or Congressperson. My representative and governor are both Democrats, and both won my vote in 2010 — but I don’t put a premium on the endorsements of either. I simply don’t care enough about either man to base my vote on his opinion. Perhaps some people are more enthusiastic about their state’s politicians, but unless a the governor or representative already has a national presence (like Christie) or is the figurehead for a major strain of thought (Ron Paul, for example, or maybe Paul Ryan), I don’t see an endorsement as a make-or-break factor for the average voter. Members of Congress in particular seem unlikely to exert a strong pull, simply because they spend most of their time in Washington and, at least in Oregon, have minimal contact with the 99 percent of residents who don’t turn out for town hall meetings.
An analysis on the Times’ Caucus blog of Iowa’s role in the 2012 nominations mentions research that “contends that endorsements from party insiders are a significant predictor of primary votes.” The key word here, however, is “predictor.” Endorsements may predict the outcome of a primary, but do they determine that outcome? In many cases, I suspect the endorsements are more a reflection of the larger political environment than a driver of it. Mitt Romney has the most endorsements of any candidate, but Romney has also been the 2012 front-runner since he lost the nomination in 2008. It’s difficult to disentangle cause and effect; support in opinion polls feeds on a sense of inevitability, and widespread (though, in Romney’s case, not particularly passionate) support makes high-profile endorsers comfortable about linking their names to a vetted, establishment candidate. The same Caucus post notes that several Republican stars have thus far declined to endorse anyone, pointing out that “many of the coveted party elite, like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida are still sitting on the sideline.”
This seems to reflect larger divisions in the Republican party; average voters are similarly undecided, with Romney earning the dubious distinction of being the lowest-polling “front-runner” in ages. The Caucus suggests, and I would concur, that this is attributable to the rise of the Tea Party, which putatively supports fiscal conservatism but is also a bastion of social-issue voters who feel even more strongly about outlawing abortion and gay marriage than they do about paying down the national debt. Party stalwarts like Karl Rove want little to do with insurgent candidates like Rick Perry, while establishment voices like George Will see Michele Bachmann as too far into the crazy zone to win a general election. David Brooks calls Romney “the serious one,” but the newly emboldened Tea Party is not interested in endorsements from such a relatively moderate camp. Michele Bachmann has taken to insisting that conservatives “shouldn’t settle” for someone less than ideologically pure, even going so far as to cast Romney as a “frugal socialist” alongside presumably more profligate socialists like President Obama.
It’s no wonder, then, that Kelly Ayotte and Nikki Haley, both of whom rode the Tea Party wave into office, are reluctant to hitch their stars to a particular candidate. Endorse Romney and risk being branded an undaring creature of Washington; support Bachmann or Rick Santorum and risk hitching one’s star to a doomed campaign. In a way, there’s more on the line for endorsers than for voters themselves. The average citizen is at least granted the privacy of the voting booth, but big names (Gov. Christie) and small fries (Rep. Shock) alike cast their figurative ballots early, often and openly. Their choices are paraded before the public like bloody sheets after the medieval wedding night, and ridicule awaits any sign of insufficient political vigor.
. . . So Well Read. . . 