United States — September 6, 2011 11:46 pm

Why Is the Huntsman Campaign a Failure?

By

Governor Jon Huntsman is still very much running for president, so writing his campaign’s obituary may be a bit premature. But for all intents and purposes, the Huntsman campaign is flat lining. Some would say it never had a pulse.

Matt Yglesias thinks as much, and he also thinks the only reason Huntsman was anointed as a legitimate candidate is because of the media’s inability to call Rick Perry out for promoting creationism.

“In general, it’s important to appreciate that intra-party conflict plays a very special role in the American media. Operating in a kind of truth-free zone where there’s no objective reality, the closest thing to a ‘fact’ is when all members of one party and some members of the other party agree on something. Consequently, there’s never a greater media darling than a member of congress from a contested district who’s willing to take time out of his busy day of legislating and winning re-election to go whine about the party leadership to a reporter from Roll Call or Politico. When someone does it in the course of a national political campaign, it’s an even bigger deal! . . . None of this would be necessary if journalists felt more comfortable running headlines like ‘Rick Perry Denies Truth Of All Of Modern Biology’ absent an added frisson of horse race conflict.”

I have another theory as to why the media covered Jon Huntsman’s campaign: because, on paper, he was a great candidate. Sterling economic record in a chief executive role, good looks, a personal fortune (courtesy of Dad), foreign policy chops that blow everyone in the field out of the water, and- most importantly- the positions and personality to challenge Obama in a general election.

The follow up question then becomes: why did the Huntsman campaign fail so miserably?

In my mind, there are two main reasons. First, he ran away from himself. Second, he couldn’t mobilize anyone.

Huntsman is a moderate, no matter how much he claims otherwise. This should have been a strength in this Republican primary, but by running away from it, Huntsman turned it into a weakness.

Barack Obama won the 2008 election in part because he won more independents than John McCain. Does Rick Perry appeal to independents? Does Michelle Bachmann? Does Mitt Romney appeal to anyone?

Huntsman could appeal to independents in a general election because he is moderate. He is also calm, relatable, and an above average speaker. On paper, he is better equipped to challenge Obama than any other candidate. No one else is particularly well suited to do so.

Huntsman should have been preaching electability from day one. Republican primary voters care about the economy. Huntsman is conservative on the economy, and has great credentials. Voters don’t really care about much else. The message for the primary should have been “Conservative on the things that matter.” Instead, the Huntsman campaign adopted the strategy of saying “conservative” as much as possible, and hoped no one would notice that Huntsman is about equal to Michelle Bachmann’s gaze at her State of the Union—just right of center.

This decision to try to run as a conservative was a huge mistake. It was the equivalent of a Porsche trying to win a race with a bunch of monster trucks by ramming into them out of the starting gate. The Porsche gets crushed in that situation. And that’s exactly what happened to Huntsman.

Some of my liberal colleagues at the HPR might disagree with me, but most Republican voters aren’t stupid. You can call me naïve, but I believe that they, like normal people, are receptive to rational arguments, especially if those arguments are as simple as “if you want to beat Obama, vote for me.”

Of course, that didn’t happen, and Huntsman has failed to gain any traction because of it. Staff screw ups and intracampaign squabbling didn’t help. Jeff Weaver, by some accounts a cancer of a political consultant, is probably at least partly to blame. But ultimately Huntsman should have realized that he needed to distinguish himself as the candidate who could unseat the president. He has begun to go after Romney in recent days, but it is sure to be too little too late.

The other big factor in Huntsman’s failure is his inability to mobilize support. Of the voters who have heard of Huntsman (only 46%), half like him. While that’s not real good, the real problem is that only 5% register as “strongly favorable.” Is it because Huntsman is unexciting? Possibly. More likely, it is the simple fact that it is tough to mobilize moderates, and the groups that should be Huntsman’s primary constituency (to use Richard Fenno’s definition of the term) —Mormons and Utes—are difficult to mobilize with another Mormon in the race.

The media will likely cover the death of Huntsman’s campaign with less vigor than they did its birth. When that story finally runs, it might be a story of the media wasting our time. I’m inclined to think that it will instead be a story of unfulfilled potential, of the hazards of being in the middle, and of the even greater hazards of being in the middle and pretending you’re not.

Related posts:

Deciphering Mylo Xyloto
Harvard Exceptionalism?
From Riga to Athens: Can the Baltic Model Be Applied Elsewhere?
The Year of the Woman
  • Jimmy Wu

    Great piece. I am pretty sad that the Huntsman campaign hasn’t taken off, not just because I think he would make a great President, but because of the ideas that he would bring.

    Some comments though: I think Huntman’s failure isn’t that he ran away from his moderate roots. It’s almost impossible to run a Republican primary buy appealing to moderates only (especially in this election cycle). There are none in Iowa, Mitt Romney has homefield advantage in New Hampshire, and South Carolina is basically establishment Southern conservatism. John McCain ran as hard and as fast away from his moderate past as possible in 2008 and barely eked out a primary victory only to have conservatives lament that they didn’t get a real enough Republican in the process. John McCain is almost 90% conservative Republican, which is more than Huntsman.

    There’s a famous William F Buckley quote about nominating the most conservative guy who can win or something. In this cycle, electability isn’t the key issue since many Republicans believe any guy or gal can beat Obama. Huntsman should have run much harder to the right on issues where he genuinely agrees with conservative Republicans. He is the ONLY candidate to aggressively back Paul Ryan’s budget reform plan, he’s the ONLY candidate with foreign policy credentials, and he’s COMPLETELY pro-life. The whole running as who you are only works so well if who you are can never get nominated. If Huntsman had run aggressively on those 3 pillars, he would be a legitimate threat at all three Republican pillars. The problem is that Huntsman doesn’t seem willing to go all the way in running as a complete conservative and that last left him in limbo.

  • Paul Schied

    Thanks for the comment Jimmy. 

    A few things: first, I agree with your three prongs of Huntsman’s conservatism angle, but I’m talking more about overall image crafting than specific policy points. Huntsman should have embraced the image of being a centrist with conservative economic positions and drove that image of himself home. Instead, it seems that he attempted to drive home the image of himself as a really good governor. That’s fine in a general election, but kind of blasé for this primary.

    What I’m suggesting here is not that Huntsman should have only targeted moderates (or really targeted them at all). That’s not how you win primaries. What I think he should have done was preach electability to conservatives. He should have made the case that beating Obama was too important a task to trust to a robotic head of hair (Romney), a fringe candidate who couldn’t appeal to the center (Bachmann, et al), etc. I realize that this would have been an extremely unconventional tactic, and that much of the Republican base thinks that anyone could beat Obama, but I think it is very possible to argue that Obama is a tough matchup because of the way he can (or at least did in 2008) appeal to independents and (at least rhetorically) transcend party politics. I think that case was even easier to make early in this primary.

  • Pingback: Paul Schied on Why the Hunstman Campaign is a Failure

  • Pingback: Mormons, Homosexuals, and Public Relations

custom writing