The Newt electability trap
Is the right starting to deceive itself about the general election prospects of a guy whose baggage has baggage?
Topics: Opening Shot, Politics News
FILE - In this June 16, 2011 file photo, Republican presidential hopeful, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. Gingrich's top two fundraising advisers resigned Tuesday, June 21, 2011, and officials said the Republican candidate's hobbling presidential campaign carried more than $1 million in debt. The departures were the latest blow for the former House speaker who watched 16 top advisers abandon his campaign en masse earlier in June. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) (Credit: AP)It seems logical enough to assume that if Republican primary voters are thinking about electability when they go to the polls next year it will be good news for Mitt Romney and bad news for Newt Gingrich.
After all, Romney is supposed to be the safe option — the conventional, generic, vetted and well-rounded candidate who won’t scare off the pivotal swing voters who are inclined to throw out Barack Obama because of the rotten economy — while Gingrich would bring formidable baggage and no shortage of self-destructive tendencies into a general election campaign. This helps explain why Romney has been running about 4 points better than Gingrich in head-to-head match-ups with Obama, according to the RealClearPolitics average.
Republicans have seemed to understand all of this; a poll last week gave Romney a 15-point edge over Gingrich on the question of electability. But if you think this assessment is set in stone, think again: It’s possible that Gingrich, if he surges into a clear, sustained lead over Romney and continues to erase what were once sky-high negative ratings, will come to be seen by Republicans as their best general election bet — no matter how flawed such a conclusion would be.
The reason has to do with a human tendency to work backward in forming opinions — deciding first what you want the outcome to be, then coming up with a rationale for it. When it comes to politics, this means that the more that voters want to support a certain candidate, the harder they will strain to justify it.
We’ve seen how this can distort perceptions of electability before. In the 2000 GOP primaries, the polling evidence seemed inarguable: John McCain was performing far, far better than George W. Bush against Al Gore. McCain, logically enough, tried to incorporate this into his campaign message, promising Republicans that he’d beat the vice president “like a drum.” But Republican voters wouldn’t hear of it. McCain was their enemy and Bush was their friend; this is what they’d been told by scores of GOP elected officials, activists, interest group leaders and media personalities (Bush had the party establishment wired, don’t forget). The pro-Bush line on electability was almost comically absurd — McCain was only outperforming Bush against Gore because “mischievous” Democrats were trying to trick Republicans into nominating a weak candidate — but that didn’t stop Republican voters from buying into it.
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki More Steve Kornacki.




Tensions Brew Inside White House Over Counsel's Role
House May Launch Hearings Over Justice Department Media Spying Scandal
Is This The Face Of A New Global Human Rights Movement?
Anthony Weiner's First Campaign Began With An Apology For "Race-Baiting"
The Time Lois Lerner Failed To Investigate A Major Al Gore Fundraiser At The FEC
Comments
35 Comments