So, a looooong time ago I promised to give some strategic advice on who people should be advocating in the primaries. I got a little LOT sidetracked by actively campaigning in the primaries, finishing my work at Penn State, packing up my things, moving to Seattle, and unpacking my things. I’m settled in now and have a little more time to write. Unfortunately, I’m now writing long after the primaries were settled. I’m still going to deliver on what I promised oh so long ago, and give my opinions on who the various parties should have nominated this year. I’m going to start with the Republicans…

For the long-term health of the party, I think John McCain was a bad choice. He does do well with independent voters, and thus may present the Republicans’ best chance at beating Barack Obama. (Winning independents is a necessity for Republicans in 2008 – more on this below.) However, I don’t think McCain represents a radical new direction for the Republicans, which is something they sorely need. Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee all would have been better choices, but each one for different reasons.

Romney would have been a good choice because he’s an empty suit. He was already campaigning on the “change” mantra in the primaries, had a background of running (and winning office) in one of the more liberal states in the country, and is very charismatic. His empty suit, filled with the right message and delivered to the American public with his charm and political savvy (not to mention his money) could have allowed the Republican party to re-brand itself. Unfortunately for Romney (and his party) he thought “Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan” was a winning new brand strategy… and it wasn’t. So Romney would have been a good choice before the primaries started, but then he came (politically speaking) out of Mass., pandered way to the right and talked about “change” on one hand and “Reagan” on the other. In the end, he came across as cold, empty, and too…. political? Flip-floppy? A better strategy could have won him the nomination and possibly the Presidency. The route his campaign took left him with no shot at either.

A nomination of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee would have been absolutely disastrous for the party in the 2008 election. Both candidates would have been viewed as too far to the right to defeat Clinton or Obama. However, both candidates also would have re-energized different subgroups of the Republican Party and would have been able to lay down strong, grass-roots structures upon which future campaigns could be built. (If you want a Democratic analogy, think Howard Dean 4 years ago.) Ironically, they represent two wings of the Republican party strongly at odds with each other.

Ron Paul is the libertarian’s choice, and that group showed how ready they are to take the Republican party and run with it. They carried his campaign with tremendous online communication and viral marketing strategies, and turned out incredible fundraising numbers. This group of people is fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and if the Republicans had chosen Paul their party would have been headed in that direction. Paul’s too conservative for the nation to elect him president this year, but his army would have re-built the Republican grassroots and onine movements and set themselves up for future runs for office at all levels of government.

I used to think Paul was the only choice that could have allowed the Republican party build for the future in this way, but now I think a Mike Huckabee nomination also could have done this. Huckabee also speaks to a highly energized, grass-roots wing of the Republican party that happens to be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Paul’s supporters (see why the Republican coalition is so impressive?). He is supported by socially conservative/fiscally liberal Republicans, which are for the most part Christian conservatives. This wing of the party is the group that many people think carried Bush to victory in 2004. Despite losing independents to Kerry, Bush and his campaign turned out the base more successfully than the Democrats did, thanks in large part to laws/amendments banning same-sex marraige in swing states such as Ohio. These bills were put to public vote in large part to drive Christian conservatives to the polls and get them to vote for Bush while they were there. This group is well connected at the grass-roots level, and while they didn’t have the fundraising or electronic prowess of Paul’s followers, they could have developed it in the run-up to the general election. Similar to Paul, I think Huckabee’s stances on a variety of issues (primarily social ones) wouldn’t have wooed enough independents to achieve victory in 2008. But focusing the energy of the Christian conservatives may have set the stage for victories in 2010 and beyond.

However, none of these guys won the nomination. As I said earlier, I think the Republicans ended up making the best short-term and the worst long-term choice. McCain doesn’t electrify any of the huge sources of grass-roots support on the right, he’s too well-known to re-define himself (again), and his long, 8-year pander to the Republicans leaves him with little opportunity to redefine the party. (The John McCain of 2000 would have been the PERFECT choice for the Republicans, but that guy is looooong gone.) McCain does best amongst independents and “undecided” voters – a group of people who are generally less involved in politics and therefore less likely to donate to campaigns, knock on doors, and properly build the party structure for future success. These are the people you need to win elections, and he’s not going to get them. What’s worse for the Republicans, the Democrats (with a lot of help from George W. Bush) are quite motivated, and for a change are incredibly organized. Over the last 8 years, they have stopped competing with the Republicans for swing votes, and instead have focused on transforming their base into a mass-media outlet, online advocacy group, and large-scale fundraising machine that uses pyramid schemes to continually increase its own size. This is also why the Republicans need to win independents so desperately this year – the Dems are fired up (and ready to go), and have increased their ranks substantially… its almost a lock that the Democrats will win more votes form their base than Republicans will from theirs in 2008. This leaves Republicans with McCain being their best shot at the White House this year. Personally, I don’t think he’s going to get there, and I think the Republicans would have been better off falling on the sword this time around in preparation for battles down the road. If he wins, it doesn’t really matter if he was the wrong long-term choice for the Republicans because then they’ll have 4-8 years of a McCain presidency with which to re-define themselves. However, like I said… I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

Next up: hindsight analysis of the Democratic primaries. Hopefully it won’t be as long until my next post.