Political scientist Hans Noel and the "Invisible Primary"

[crazed_hoosier1]

I've been debating whether or not to resurrect this. But, in the interest of helping to enlighten the naive among us (I'd say they 'know who they are', but -- by definition -- they probably don't), I've decided to do so...as this has made the rounds in the blogosphere the past week or so.

Here's how the interview was prefaced:

The 2012 Iowa caucuses are still seven months away, but Republican presidential hopefuls are already well into the “invisible primary”—a tumultuous time of speechmaking, fundraising, coalition-building and constant travel, as they seek to boost their name recognition, stand out from the field, and secure the GOP nomination once the voting begins.

This part of the campaign looks very different than it did in an earlier era, when party bosses huddled behind closed doors at the convention to pick a nominee. But a 2008 book, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, argues that for all the changes, the real action during the invisible primary is still in the exchanges between party leaders. CJR contributor Greg Marx spoke last week with Hans Noel, a co-author of the book and an assistant professor of political science at Georgetown University about that argument, and what it means for reporters covering the campaign.

I've not read this book. And, as I've not been having any trouble sleeping lately, I don't plan to. But, IMO, it's hard to argue against the case it apparently makes.

Anybody who read "Game Change" got some first-hand accounts of this process going on within (particularly) the Democratic ranks. Long before any votes were cast, Democratic power-brokers were hard at work trying to prevent Hillary Clinton from being the party's 2008 standard-bearer. The book highlights conversations with, among others, Sens. Harry Reid and Claire McCaskill regarding Obama.

In 2004, glancing around the political denizens of the Internet anyway, it was hard to find much in the way of popular support for John Kerry. You had your Dean fans, your Clark fans, your Edwards fans, and even Gephardt fans. But it was hard to find too many people jazzed up about John Kerry.

Yet, he won the nomination anyway.

And it's hard to find a starker contrast between popular opinion among grassroots activists and party insiders than in the example of John McCain winning the Republican nomination in 2008. That's not to suggest that Republican voters didn't show up at the polls and pull the lever for McCain in 08 (or Dem voters for Kerry in 04). It's simply to suggest that insiders still have the same kind of influence today that they had in the "smoky room" days of yore.

Other political scientists are touting this interview (and Noel's book). Jonathan Bernstein, for instance, writes:

"if you want to understand the presidential nomination process the very best thing you can read that I've seen in a long time is Greg Marx's interview of political scientist Hans Noel just published over at CJR."

Seth Masket of the University of Denver writes:

For a truly great discussion about just who party insiders are and how they affect presidential nominations, look no further than Greg Marx's interview with Hans Noel (one of the co-authors of The Party Decides) in the Columbia Journalism Review. Hans explains the book's main arguments extremely well. The main point -- one that I've tried to make here on a few occasions, though not quite as eloquently as Hans -- is that the really important people at this stage of a nomination contest are neither the candidates nor the voters, but the party elites who are trying to figure out just what they want in a nominee and how to get that person.

John Sides of GWU also touts it.

This is why the Michelle Bachmanns and Herman Cains of the world don't have a plausible chance -- not, anyway, without a full-scale disintegration of a major party underway.

[MikeyJoe]

[xr4ticlone]

Well, considering the absolute garbage that both parties have doled out for candidates it makes sense.

[opiate of the masses]

Originally Posted by MikeyJoe

that pic cracks me up every time

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by opiate of the masses

that pic cracks me up every time

Well, it's certainly easier than putting together something resembling a counter-argument. That's for sure.

I think you have to have your head buried in the sand to deny what Prof. Noel and his colleagues are saying. It would be nice to think that intra-party politics among power-brokers was, at best, secondary to the will of ordinary voters in a nominating contest.

But that's not reality -- reality is the other way around.

[MikeyJoe]

Originally Posted by crazed_hoosier1

Well, it's certainly easier than putting together something resembling a counter-argument. That's for sure.

It's also faster than retyping the same argument for the 50th time only to be drowned in a three thousand word essay response.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by MikeyJoe

It's also faster than retyping the same argument for the 50th time only to be drowned in a three thousand word essay response.

Why even respond at all, then?

Lord knows I'm not opposed to snark when the situation warrants. But it loses its punch if you feel compelled to do it over and over again, doncha think? Maybe it depends on the crowd, I dunno.

Besides, if you've made a serious attempt at disputing this, I don't recall it.

This guy makes a very compelling argument, IMO. And it doesn't surprise me that at least some of his colleagues are endorsing the concept. I just happened upon it the other day, well after this topic was bandied about here -- so I thought I'd post it to at least let you bozos know that this is not some paranoid delusion I just dreamed up.

I think it's hard to refute.

[Gushawk]

To say that the preferences and support of insiders matter, a lot, is not the same thing as to say those insiders could make John Huntsman...or hell, even Tim Pawlenty...the nominee if they decided to throw their support behind him.

It's going to take everything they have to make Mitt Romney the nominee, and that might not even be enough.

[MikeyJoe]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

To say that the preferences and support of insiders matter, a lot, is not the same thing as to say those insiders could make John Huntsman...or hell, even Tim Pawlenty...the nominee if they decided to throw their support behind him.

Don't even bother trying.

He can't wrap his mind around the fact that no one is trying to tell him that the "party insiders" don't matter at all. From the beginning, he has only been criticized for his "these are the plausible candidates, these are not" posts.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

To say that the preferences and support of insiders matter, a lot, is not the same thing as to say those insiders could make John Huntsman...or hell, even Tim Pawlenty...the nominee if they decided to throw their support behind him.

Mmmm, I wouldn't say that either. But, then, that wasn't what I was saying when this topic was broached. My point never was that any of those would win -- my point was that the others couldn't.

It's probably more appropriate to look at this as something of a veto. The 5 candidates I listed could conceivably get over this hurdle. The other candidates in the race (which, I should note, did not include Rick Perry) couldn't.

I don't think it's too bold of a statement to say there was never, and still isn't, any conceivable way that Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, etal could end up with the nomination of the party which nominated the likes of McCain and Bob Dole.

And that has less to do with their relative popular support and more to do with the internal machinery of party politics. That's why guys like Kerry and McCain end up with nominations -- and guys like Howard Dean are usually on the outside looking in.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by MikeyJoe

Don't even bother trying.

He can't wrap his mind around the fact that no one is trying to tell him that the "party insiders" don't matter at all. From the beginning, he has only been criticized for his "these are the plausible candidates, these are not" posts.

Yes, but I was (and still am) correct about that. Even as people scream and point out that "Michelle Bachmann is leading in Iowa!!!", I just shrug my shoulders.

People who say that are laboring under the misconception that such things matter. Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008, too. And he, like Bachmann, never had a realistic chance at going the distance.

These things are a lot more fixed than most people would prefer to believe.

[Gushawk]

It's the notion that John Hunstsman has a "better chance" than Mike Huckabee or Michelle Bachmann that people find so offensive, crazed. And the reason they find it offensive is that it is bullshit.

The odds of the party apparatus being spurned by an "angry mob" of teatards and Christian socons are just far, far greater than the odds of a winning plurality Republican primary voters turning up and pulling the lever for John-freaking-Hunstman.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

It's the notion that John Hunstsman has a "better chance" than Mike Huckabee or Michelle Bachmann that people find so offensive, crazed. And the reason they find it offensive is that it is bullshit.

The odds of the party apparatus being spurned by an "angry mob" of teatards and Christian socons are just far, far greater than the odds of a winning plurality Republican primary voters turning up and pulling the lever for John-freaking-Hunstman.

I've explained this time and again. Let me try it another way....

I think Michelle Bachmann has a much better chance of placing 2nd than Huntsman. But there are no points for 2nd place. My point is that Huntsman could get the insider support needed to win the nomination...Bachmann could not.

Even if Huntsman ends up dead last and Bachmann ends up 2nd, the point remains. My comment was not about relative strength. It was about who does and does not have the wherewithal to gain the insider support needed to actually prevail. That speaks nothing to what order they'll come in.

Of the declared candidates, only Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman could win. Perry probably could, too, if he gets in. Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, etal have zero shot at getting the insider support that victory requires.

[BuffettHawk]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

To say that the preferences and support of insiders matter, a lot, is not the same thing as to say those insiders could make John Huntsman...or hell, even Tim Pawlenty...the nominee if they decided to throw their support behind him.

It's going to take everything they have to make Mitt Romney the nominee, and that might not even be enough.

This is how I see it also. Of course the party bigwigs are important to a presidential nominee. They have an established network of supporters, lobbyists, fundraisers, and donors that the candidate needs to succeed. The party bigwig can deny access to those people, or at the very least not endorse the candidate, but that doesn't mean the candidate cannot succeed through other means.

[Gushawk]

There is a much better chance that Huck/Bachmann would win the nomination without such insider support than there is that Hunstsman would ride a wave of it to the nomination.

No one buys the premise that lack of insider support renders a candidate's probability zero and that therefore you're right because you assert Huntsman slightly exceeds zero. In reality, Mike Huckabee (had he run) and Michelle Bachmann (now that he isn't) have a somewhere in the greater than 1% single digits chance to win it. John Huntsman's chance starts with a zero and decimal. That's just reality.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

There is a much better chance that Huck/Bachmann would win the nomination without such insider support than there is that Hunstsman would ride a wave of it to the nomination.

No one buys the premise that lack of insider support renders a candidate's probability zero and that therefore you're right because you assert Huntsman slightly exceeds zero. In reality, Mike Huckabee (had he run) and Michelle Bachmann (now that he isn't) have a somewhere in the greater than 1% single digits chance to win it. John Huntsman's chance starts with a zero and decimal. That's just reality.

Nope. Candidates don't win without a criitical mass of insider support. That's Noel's point and id say he's entirely correct. History is crystal clear on the matter.

Bachmann and Huck have 0% chance of getting it. Not 1%, not 0.5%. Zero.

Just because Huntsman's a longshot -- and I've never denied that he is -- doesn't change that.

That doesn't mean that MB's popular support won't be enough to win her some delegates, place high in certain states, etc.

But that's not winning.

[Gushawk]

There is a better chance of Romney dying of a heart attack two-thirds of the way through with Bachmann in close second and her proceeding to eke out a narrow victory than there is of John Hunstman even sniffing a third place finish in a single state other than Utah. I fear your obtuseness on this point is at this point beyond redemption.

[ThePracticalPundit]

[ThePracticalPundit]

[ISUFan98]

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by Gushawk

There is a better chance of Romney dying of a heart attack two-thirds of the way through with Bachmann in close second and her proceeding to eke out a narrow victory than there is of John Hunstman even sniffing a third place finish in a single state other than Utah. I fear your obtuseness on this point is at this point beyond redemption.

If there ever came a point where it appeared that somebody like Bachmann could conceivably win the nomination, the party establishment would pull out every single stop to ensure that she did not -- whether it was because of Romney having a heart attack or whatever.

And, again, I'm not saying that Hunstman has a snowball's chance -- I've never claimed that. I simply pointed out that there are two hurdles that must be cleared...one involving insider support, the other involving popular votes. It seems pretty obvious that, whatever Huntsman could do in terms of wrangling insider support, he would struggle mightily with that 2nd hurdle.

But he could conceivably get to that second hurdle -- whereas somebody like Bachmann can't.

That's not me being obtuse -- it's a clear-eyed view of how nominating processes work. And that's why none of us have ever seen either of the major parties nominate gate-crashers, despite plenty having tried.

About the only time in American history that it has happened was when Lincoln won the GOP nomination in 1860 -- but that's because the GOP was a fledgling party. Everybody in some sense was a gate-crasher in that nominating battle.

Since then.....nada.

[opiate of the masses]

Originally Posted by MikeyJoe

He can't wrap his mind around the fact that no one is trying to tell him that the "party insiders" don't matter at all. From the beginning, he has only been criticized for his "these are the plausible candidates, these are not" posts.

+1 this is exactly correct and there's no way i'm getting in that "these are the plausible candidates, these are not" argument w/ crazed again

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by opiate of the masses

+1 this is exactly correct and there's no way i'm getting in that "these are the plausible candidates, these are not" argument w/ crazed again

Well, there is no argument to be had. What I said was, and still is, correct.

Whether you accept that or not is a different matter entirely.

[Gushawk]

McGovern was kind of a gate crasher.

[opiate of the masses]

Originally Posted by crazed_hoosier1

Well, there is no argument to be had. What I said was, and still is, correct.

Whether you accept that or not is a different matter entirely.

yah ok whatever

you insisted that mike huckabee had a 0% chance of winning the repub nomination, had he run. but you feel that john huntsmann has at least a small positive probability of winning the nomination, say 1%.

i guess you feel that is correct. i'm sure a longwinded post is forthcoming, but all i have to say is that your opinion on this matter is totally stupid and has always been totally stupid

[Gushawk]

Originally Posted by opiate of the masses

yah ok whatever

you insisted that mike huckabee had a 0% chance of winning the repub nomination, had he run. but you feel that john huntsmann has at least a small positive probability of winning the nomination, say 1%.

i guess you feel that is correct. i'm sure a longwinded post is forthcoming, but all i have to say is that your opinion on this matter is totally stupid and has always been totally stupid

+1. It borders on incomprehensible.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Originally Posted by opiate of the masses

you insisted that mike huckabee had a 0% chance of winning the repub nomination, had he run.

Correct.

but you feel that john huntsmann has at least a small positive probability of winning the nomination, say 1%.

Not quite so correct.

Two hurdles to overcome. The first is insider support, the second is popular support. To win, a candidate has to be able to get over both. The problem for candidates like Huck is that they couldn't get over that first one...no matter how well they'd be able to do with the second one.

The five candidates I listed all had a chance to get the insider support necessary to win the nomination. Huck, Bachmann, etal didn't.

i guess you feel that is correct. i'm sure a longwinded post is forthcoming, but all i have to say is that your opinion on this matter is totally stupid and has always been totally stupid

Well, stupid or not, it's true and supported by history -- which is why I brought it back up again in light of this guy's interview. Candidates don't win nominations of major parties without a critical mass of their party establishment backing them. Period, end of story.

[Gushawk]

I'm still curious if crazed regards McGovern as a gate-crasher. He certainly didn't have early insider support. Nor was he a strong general election candidate insiders would have excitedly coalesced around.

[Aloha Mr. Hand]

Outlier.

[opiate of the masses]

Originally Posted by crazed_hoosier1

But a 2008 book, The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, argues that for all the changes, the real action during the invisible primary is still in the exchanges between party leaders