“Coalescing” was the word of the day after Mitt Romney won last Tuesday’s Illinois primary. Did the victory suggest that “at long last, Republicans seem to be finally coalescing around Mitt Romney’s candidacy”? Was his handy win in the Land of Lincoln evidence that “much of the GOP establishment has coalesced around Romney’s increasingly inevitable coronation”?
In any other year, Romney would already be waging a general election campaign against President Obama, but in 2012, the inability of his party to settle on one standard-bearer has raised doubts about the strength of the Republican establishment. The Tea Party wing, effectively sticking its tongue out at party elders, ignored pleas for unity as it hopscotched between Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. The Tea Partiers’ distaste for authority dulled the impact of those who might, in previous years, have called an end to the race. Who wants to listen to Karl Rove when he represents everything about Washington — big government, earmarks, Bush-era federal policies like No Child Left Behind — that they love to hate? That Jeb Bush’s much-coveted endorsement of Mitt Romney was overshadowed by an adviser’s Etch-a-Sketch gaffe speaks volumes about the weakness of the GOP establishment. What might once have ended up as a one-liner on David Letterman is now sufficient to distract from the fevered efforts of party stalwarts like Jim DeMint and Haley Barbour to hand Romney the crown. If DeMint, who has declined to make an official endorsement but whose profession that he is “comfortable” and “excited” about a Romney candidacy is “the functional equivalent,” can’t stage a decent coronation, are there any kingmakers left in the Republican party?
That isn’t to say that endorsements don’t matter; they just matter less than candidates, who announce each new backer with an e-mail blast to the press, would like us to believe. No endorsement is a game-changer, with the possible exception of a resurrected Ronald Reagan materializing in Tampa to offer Mitt Romney an in-person benediction. Especially in presidential races, when the candidates themselves are bigger stars than most of the senators and governors doing the endorsing, it’s unlikely that many votes hinge on a nod from a local representative or grass-roots activist. Endorsements matter primarily at the margins, when the approval of a respected figure is enough to tip undecided voters toward a semi-appealing candidate. Though this is most obvious in extreme cases — even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time selling Ron Paul to the hawkish, my-country-right-or-wrong GOP — it is arguably most significant in Romney’s situation. Jim DeMint’s stamp of approval would mean little if the public were already in love with Romney, but because even the people voting for Romney do so without much passion, the candidate needs every bit of momentum he can get.
I’ve long doubted the impact of endorsements. The candidates themselves make by far the strongest arguments for or against their skills. Endorsements are quiet, bloodless announcements, while a politician’s own words and demeanor serve as immediate, in-your-face advertisements. Exhibit A is surely Rick Perry, an instant front-runner who entered the race with legions of millionaire backers and a presumption of competence. But the lesser Republican office-holders who thought it a safe bet to fall into line behind him ended up with egg on their faces when the Texas governor wanted to eliminate more cabinet departments than he could name. Oops. Likewise, the support of all the “Hermanator” fans in the world couldn’t couldn’t save Herman Cain’s candidacy after multiple women went public with claims of sexual harassment.
Romney, however, is neither a village idiot nor a womanizing slimeball. Despite a persistent tendency to stick his foot in his mouth (“I like being able to fire people”) and highlight his wealth (“I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners”), he is nothing if not highly qualified. The biggest dilemma Romney faces is that voters just aren’t sure they can trust him. Is he the “severely conservative” businessman who will repeal “Obamacare” on Day 1 and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood? Or is he the mushy moderate who once promised to be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, who never met an issue on which he couldn’t change his mind? One 58-year-old Louisiana voter is quoted by the Washington Post as saying, “I don’t like Mitt Romney. I think he’s a Democrat coverup.” But most Republicans don’t necessarily hate Romney — they’re just not passionate about him. With uncertain, undecided voters are ripe for swaying, Romney’s situation is tailor-made for endorsements to matter. His campaign is all about influencing people at the margins, about tipping voters from ho-hum to . . . well, if not to enthusiasm about his candidacy, at least resignation to it.
If the biggest concern Republicans have about Romney is his perceived lack of conservative bona fides, an endorsement from Tea Party darling Jim DeMint could be particularly influential. When Pat Toomey, the Pennsylvania Republican who once chaired the anti-tax Club for Growth, submits that “I think Mitt Romney is a conservative, and I think if elected, he’ll govern as a conservative,” the effect is of a Nixon-goes-to-China moment. Especially given the skittishness this election cycle of big names to put their reputation behind a candidate reviled by the grass roots, Toomey’s endorsement means something. Endorsers are wary, of course, of what might be called the Nikki Haley effect; the South Carolina governor alienated her Tea Party supporters by stumping for Romney in the lead-up to the state’s primary, then suffered a double humiliation when Newt Gingrich breezed to a win. But Toomey addressed the Tea Party issue head-on, saying that “I think Governor Romney is absolutely committed to the principles of limited government. I think he knows the free enterprise system is a source of prosperity, and opportunity, and personal fulfillment, and elevating people out of poverty.” Though the backing of a stalwart conservative wasn’t enough to make a difference in January, when South Carolina voted, the race has changed dramatically since then. Gingrich is no longer a viable alternative, and Rick Santorum’s delegate-starved candidacy looks less plausible by the day. Ten months of constant campaigning has worn on voters, who are ready for the whole thing to end. They want a leader to unite behind, and they’re ready to be convinced that Romney is it. In this atmosphere, Toomey’s endorsement — and probably Haley’s, if she’d been able to put off her decision — may be enough to push Romney over the edge.
Personally, the only scenario in which I can imagine caring about an outside recommendation is similar to this. If I were faced with a Democratic candidate with a weak background on abortion rights, I would certainly be comforted to know that he or she had been vetted by someone unquestionably pro-choice — former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, or Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards. It wouldn’t make me vote for a candidate I hated — and there are definitely Republicans who hate Romney, and wouldn’t be influenced even by the aforementioned second coming of Ronald Reagan — but it could tip me toward one who I tepidly favored.
Just because certain endorsements are valuable doesn’t imply that all are equally relevant, however. When everyone from state senators to county commissioners sign on to a national ticket, the announcements become rote tallies of names unfamiliar to all but the most politically active voters — unfortunately, the very voters who are informed enough to make up their own minds. Did anyone in Illinois care that Christine Ragdogno, the Republican leader in the state senate, threw her weight behind Romney? (Or that, as she did so, she accidentally referred to him as “Mittney”?) Alone among the candidates, Romney has run a campaign well-staffed and meticulous enough to coddle local politicians and tote up minor endorsements. Since 2008, political committees controlled by his campaign have donated $1.78 million to Republicans at the state and local level, including $500,000 to conservative candidates in the first 13 states to hold primaries. By contrast, Rick Santorum is handicapped by logistical errors; he fails to file enough delegate names to receive the full slate in Illinois, and he misses the ballot altogether in Virginia. While toting up minor endorsements may not help Romney’s poll numbers, it does deny other candidates the backing and free publicity that may be more important to a small, struggling campaign. Timing also makes a difference; though Romney has been steadily accumulating supporters throughout the primary season, a last-minute wave of approvals can reinforce the sense of inevitability that the former governor so desperately needs. The Washington Post writes:
[H]e is also picking up more conservative support as impediments to his nomination appear to be diminishing. On Monday Romney trumpeted the endorsements of a handful of prominent conservative leaders — House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas and tea party star Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — who called on Republicans to unite behind Romney.
Al Cardenas hardly has the star quality of Nikki Haley, but his endorsement comes at a more crucial moment, when the field is narrower and Romney is close to sealing the deal.
That political bigwigs have favored Romney over Santorum or Gingrich is a function not only of Romney’s sustained courtship but of the nature of his candidacy as well. A man who once attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers needs the approval of the party’s right wing, while all three of his opponents thrive on their reputations as buck-the-establishment outsiders. Ron Paul is only the most obvious example of the appeal of orthodoxy overturned; in their own ways, Santorum and Gingrich also disdain the Washington in-crowd and the “Republican establishment.” Michael O’Brien of MSNBC observes that “the fact that Romney has rallied more establishment support to his campaign than any other candidate . . . adds kindling to the fire Gingrich has sought to stoke in the race.” Rejected from the mainstream GOP for past sins (Gingrich), perceived apostasy (Gingrich, perched on the couch beside Nancy Pelosi), or uncompromising rhetoric (Santorum), these candidates are now in a position to do the rejecting. Both pride themselves on speaking supposedly hard truths to the ossified establishment, and neither tempers his extremism to become more palatable to supporters. For this reason, the media focuses little on circumstances — Rick Santorum served in Congress for 16 years, yet no sitting senator has endorsed him — that would be damaging to a candidate seeking a stamp of approval.
I still find it humorous when sundry local officials soberly throw their support to a national candidate, as if the public is waiting with bated breath for the endorsement of the county dog-catcher. The Washington Post described Jim DeMint as the “Big Fish,” but a fish is still a fish. We’re not talking about the hand of God reaching down from the heavens, a la a medieval altarpiece, to tap a politician on the head. Save for the occasional horrific mistake (Santorum surely regrets backing Arlen Specter in 2004), few endorsements really matter. But for a candidate struggling to come off as likable (paging Mitt Romney), each one must be something of a relief: You like me! You really like me!
The latest indication that they at least sort of like him? The chairman of Florida’s Republican party, though officially neutral, told CNN that “it’s time that Republicans step back and think about what’s best for the party . . . . Governor Mitt Romney’s made the case and it’s time to” — wait for it! — “coalesce.”
. . . So Well Read. . . 