Lost and Found: The GOP governing wing

It is hard to know in advance who will turn out to be a "loser."   As of three days ago the supposed-smart-guys on TV were talking about a 3 person race: Trump, Cruz, Rubio.

There was a logic to this:  Trump represents nationalism and nativism, reshaping the GOP into a populist party.  Cruz represents pure conservatism, reshaping the GOP into a very conservative party.   And Rubio represented retaining the uneasy coalition that holds together the donor class, K Street, and Wall Street (with leadership under Boehner, Ryan, McConnell) and the Tea Party multitudes who vigorously denounce those people.

That third approach is the hardest one to keep together because of the deep internal conflicts within it, but it is also the one that is least disruptive since it keeps the GOP coalition together.

And smooth talking Rubio was the guy who could hold Humpty Dumpty together, maybe, people thought after Iowa's results.   Then the Saturday debate.   The damage isn't just the Republican voters who saw Rubio and cringed.  It was the realization by the hard-calculating donors and K Street that Rubio is not as skilled as they had thought and that he could be savaged in future TV ads.  A hundred million dollars spent showing their candidate looking like a malfunctioning puppet would make Hillary look pretty reasonable in comparison.

Governors govern:  mood angry

But the Republican party divides in directions other than the three I have mentioned.  Politics isn't about TV shows on Fox; it is about governing the nation.  One side of the GOP divide represents the ideological "talk wing" of the Republican party, represented by Fox News hosts, talk radio, the Freedom Caucus of some 50 GOP congressmen, and candidates Trump, Cruz, and Rubio who openly condemn the House and Senate leadership of their own party.   They aren't trying to govern; they are trying to stop governance and consider bipartisan coalition building to be selling out to the devil.  The other side is the "governing wing".  This includes Boehner, Ryan, McConnell as spokespeople plus the traditional parts of the party who hold office in the states.   They aren't a protest party.  They are a party with authority actually to govern so they actually have to collect taxes, run bureaucracies, plow the snow.  In 2016 the candidates are represented on the Republican side by "the governors": Bush, Kasich, Christie.   The mood of the Republican voters has been protest, not governance, so there are lots of dropouts among this group:  Governors Perry, Jindal, Walker, and Pataki, and one senator, Lindsey Graham.

Intense

But there was another fault line that cut across the landscape in yet another direction:   angry versus earnest.   The mood of the audiences has favored angry.  The surviving Republicans are mostly angry: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Christie.   Trump has re-named earnest and called it "weak" and "loser".   (And Bush has made it easy for Trump to get away with that, as I have documented with photos of Bush looking, well, bushed.)  But there is a political market for the other mood, earnest, represented by Carson, Bush, and Kasich.

Governors govern: mood relaxed

Hampshire's voters will help sort some things out.  Do voters want a party of protest or a party of governance, and do they want a nominee who is "Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" or do they want someone who sounds earnest, sincere, and low drama.

There are two candidates in the governing wing AND the earnest wing:  Bush and Kasich.   New Hampshire is where each them have been spending time (Kasich 186 events; Bush 111 events).   In the aftermath of Rubio's implosion, and with Christie having made the case for all of the governors that the times need someone who governs not someone who talks, it is very possible for New Hampshire voters to elevate the three governors into 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place behind Trump.

Posture of low drama

So far, the mood of audiences I saw and sat with was anger.  They applauded the angriest lines possible.   They liked hearing "bomb ISIS" and they like hearing "carpet bomb ISIS" even more.  Trump got more applause than criticism for saying he would "bomb the shit out of ISIS".    Rubio's lines calling Obama a traitor who is in active war against America does not appear to shock Republican audiences.  They applaud it.  

So it is unclear how big is the market for "earnest" as opposed to "angry", but it is there, and it would be more comfortable to the donor and K Street establishment because the money and power and influence are perennial, not temporary.  They don't want to smash the power system because they are the power system.  It is bipartisan.  They don't burn bridges. 

Polls are showing something new happening in New Hampshire:  Kasich is moving up.   

Small group visits

Governing wing and earnest wing.

What has not yet been tested is how long audiences want to hear anger.   Possibly the anger well is deep and voters will not tire of it, so the Republican candidate will be from the anger wing.   If they want angry, and they want it from the ideological principle part of the party, they have three candidates:  Trump, Cruz, Rubio.

If they want anger and governance, then Chris Christie elevated himself on Saturday as the one person in that niche.

And if they want governance and low drama, they have two choices, Bush and Kasich.   Bush has had 111 events in New Hampshire though yesterday;  Kasich 186 events.  If they want governance and anger both, they have had a chance to see it up close; Christie has had 185 events.

Low Drama