New Hampshire Chooses the Worst Possible Outcome for the GOP

New Hampshire Chooses the Worst Possible Outcome for the GOP

New Hampshire Chooses the Worst Possible Outcome for the GOP

All Republican elites wanted from New Hampshire was a clear alternative to Trump and Cruz. They didn’t get it.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

There are good nights in politics.

There are bad nights in politics.

And there are dark nights of the soul in politics.

For Republicans who had hoped that the New Hampshire primary would clarify the muddled and menacing race for their party’s presidential nomination in a way that did not point to the name “Donald Trump,” Tuesday evening was a very dark night of the soul.

All that Republican National Committee insiders, congressional leaders, and the grasping corporate elites they represent wanted was a little clarity, a slight sense of who they might coalesce behind in order to see off the looming threats posed by a billionaire (Trump) whose over-the-top populism could make Pat Buchanan blush and a senator (Ted Cruz) whose extremism in the defense of liberty would make Barry Goldwater blush. The point, of course, is that both Buchanan and Goldwater lost.

The hope of the elites was that New Hampshire would produce an appealing alternative to Trump and Cruz. Instead, voters turned out in record numbers to give Trump a huge win and to give Cruz a third-place finish in a state where the Texan was never expected to run all that well—effectively strengthening his claim on the Tea Party and evangelical contingents that will be far more influential in the caucuses and primaries to come.

What of the alternative?

New Hampshire gave a “good enough” second-place finish to Ohio Governor John Kasich, who appealed to moderates in a party that has few moderates left outside New England and to independents in a party that does not always allow independents to vote in its primaries. Kasich won by pouring all of his campaign’s energy and most of his campaign’s resources into a fight to finishing second in New Hampshire. He got that finish. But history does not provide much encouragement for this sort of Republican candidacy. In 2012, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman ran a similar campaign, finished a solid third in New Hampshire, and then realized he had nowhere to go. Less than a week after his New Hampshire “success,” Huntsman suspended his campaign.

Worse yet for the elites, New Hampshire Republicans vetted at least two other alternatives—in the form of former governor Jeb Bush and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Bush’s bumbling campaign has been a study in disappointment, while Rubio admitted that what looked like a fifth-place finish on Tuesday was a “disappointment.”

But they are both going on to the next Republican race in South Carolina, as part of a five-way race that will be nasty, brutish and long.

This is a nightmare scenario for the elites. After Bush stumbled in debate after debate after debate, many major donors and party strategists began to look longingly at Rubio. Yes, Rubio was young and perhaps a bit ill-prepared, the argument went, but he was on message and often quite articulate. Then, under pressure from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in the last debate before the New Hampshire primary, Rubio was exposed as a vapid careerist stuck on repeat. That did not get Christie a good enough finish to maintain a credible candidacy; he was talking on Tuesday night about returning to New Jersey to “take a deep breath” and reassess his 2016 run.

Christie will not be the only Republican who is taking deep breaths and reassessing the 2016 race after all the New Hampshire ballots are counted. The governor has a way out. He can quit. The Republican elites have no way out. They are going to be stuck in this dark night of the soul for a good deal longer.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x