I have nothing to say.

I should not admit this as an active blogger, but I have nothing new to add to the discussion about the impending budget battle taking place in Congress.  Nor do I have much to add about its twin sister, the debt limit showdown.  Together they look like Gerard Depardieu and Nick Nolte on a date at a Chuck E. Cheese.

Although there is one aspect that never made much sense to me and when I ran this issue by my class they just asked if it would be on the exam.  In regards to the debt limit fight, the Radical Right always say they want something in return for lifting the debt ceiling.  As if they didn’t want it lifted, as if solvency was not a priority for them, as if maintaining a credit rating that allows us to borrow money for almost free, is not good enough.  They make it sound like agreeing to borrow money so that we can pay the bills on obligations they voted for is something they don’t want.  It never makes sense.  It is like being at your birthday party and saying to your guests, yes, I will take your gifts, but only if you are willing to agree to mow my lawn, do the dishes, press my shirts, and get the gummy worms out from under the seat of my car that my kids left there.  I can imagine the strategy meeting with the House Republican Study Committee went something like this. (thanks to my student Noah)

Like I said, I have nothing to add to those battles.  Which means we have to go back to our most reliable source of material – Rick Santorum.  In fact Rick Santorum is to invisible primary bloggers what …..well…..Rick Santorum is to late night talk show hosts.

He is ginning up his game these days ever since Sen. Ted Cruz (from the great 51^st state of Canada) has been stealing the spot reserved for radical, nonsensical, candidates.  Rick has been to Alabama to open up a new GOP headquarters (because they need one of those like they need another Chick-fil-A).  But not to be further upstaged by Senator Cruz’s eloquently reading of One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish on the Senate Floor; Santorum just had his first public screening of a new movie that his media conglomerate produced.  It will be coming to a theater or sanctuary near you soon.  Called “The Christmas Candle,” it is an attempt to grow the strong base of support he gets from the Jewish community, at least that is what I read in the comment sections of a reputable “news” source (shout out to @LawnMowerBeerBelly).  The Christmas Candle (here is the brief trailer – no, really, check out the trailer) is also an attempt to appeal to a broader, more Obama-centered, group by appealing to the theme of “hope”.  As Santorum stated in his press release, “Our goal is to release quality entertainment with positive, uplifting messages of hope,” Santorum continued. “That’s what people across America and the world are looking for, including my own family.”   This big-tent-loving, bipartisan move is a clear sign that he would have voted to defund Ted Cruz, like many of the other GOP Senators did, in his recent Senate performance.

This all bodes well for the Santorum for America campaign a la 2016 but I fear he may be slipping a little in his game.  For instance, I was surprised he missed the chance to be part of this ground breaking meeting with conservative and liberal groups in the key swing-state of Wyoming.  (Yes I chose to make two KKK references and leave Hitler out of this posting).  I also expect to see a big shake-up in his campaign staff due to their inability to secure Mr. Santorum a role that did NOT include an Uncle Sam mask in this Koch Brother’s commercial.  Although he seemed to be pretty nimble with that speculum.

Stay tuned for bigger things! Soon Sen. Cruz will not have a forum to dominate and distract people from the nation’s business and Mr. Santorum will, once again, be able to regain his leading spot for 2016.  That pretty much guarantees that I will post at least one more time before 2016.  Thanks for the collective sigh of relief.

Fall = Best Season Ever

And we're back! Late September formally brings us academic classes in full swing and autumnal glory where all college campuses look like they do in the brochures. Crunchy leaves, sweater-wearing students, cheerful football games and underage drinking. Ah, September. On a personal note, my students this semester are fabulous! They totally make up for the feces-fest unraveling now on Capitol Hill, because watching that is enough to discourage even a stalwart, system-adoring political scientist. Here's to a new generation!

But first, let's look at the current state of affairs.

This September brings us another perennial nugget of joy: the threat of a government shutdown. Unless you have been completely distracted by the WORLD'S BEST COMMERCIAL (as, I confess, I have been at times where distraction is necessary), you know about the looming crisis and the resulting rift in the Republican Party. If not, please let this terrific article explain for you the coming week (courtesy of my friend and fellow blogger, Lonce). And sorry for stealing this, Lonce. You an also check out this good one from Politico (like they do anything badly?).

Since this entire kerfuffle is political theater, you just know there has to be Invisible Primary drama behind the scenes and so we begin with the thespianism on the floor of the US Senate right this minute! Quick! To C-SPAN 2 (the Deuce)! Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) launched an old-fashioned filibuster (ala Mr. Smith) against Obamacare and vouched to speak "until I am no longer able to stand." Good on you, sir, and this comes after a bruising little amount of press that called you a bunch of names and also questioned your popularity. It's good to stand for something, especially when you actually have to stand in order to stand for it.

But the possible shutdown tactic is splitting the GOP which is never good, unless you are a Democrat. Specifically, the 2016 IP contenders have to weigh in on this and thus far the results are mixed. Republican Governors Chris Christie (NJ) and Scott Walker (WI) both begrudgingly said that they would not want to shut the government down, as did former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. On the other side are the aforementioned Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, and sorta kinda Florida Sen. Marco Rubio who seems to want it both ways by saying that "The American people support defunding Obamacare and oppose shutting down the government." OK! Not sure how that works out, but here is PolitiFact's take on Rubio's press statement.

So how is it going to end? Good Lord, who knows? I do know that Veep Biden schlepped out to flood-devastated Colorado and promised that regardless of any shutdown, FEMA would provide assistance to those in need which was both reassuring and tactically savvy, all at the same time. Last week, Biden was in Iowa at the Tom Harkin steak fry, which fueled speculation that he was, in fact, running. At the fry, he swapped hats with an Iowan for a photo-op, which only fueled my motherly instinct to yell "DON'T DO THAT!" as a preventative measure against head lice. Joe, don't say I didn't warn you. And don't share your comb or barrettes either.

Wrapping up this week in the Invisible Primary, last night former President Bill Clinton was on David Letterman, who was fishing for Hillary 2016 scoop. Letterman said: “If she is running to your knowledge, blink twice.” Bill denied all knowledge of his wife's intentions, which did not seem to surprise me in the least. Fair turnabout, don't you think?

That's all from the cheap seats. if the government shuts down, I tell my students, the price of pizza is going to sky rocket and beer will be banned in all 50 states. They don't believe me. See? What a smart, terrific group I've got! Hooray for September. And Happy Fall everyone!

There’s Running and there’s “Running”

The baddest of the running bad-asses in Chambersburg is my friend Johna, both whip-smart and jamming-fast, but I can only talk to her when she’s stationary - otherwise she is a sprinting blond dot way ahead of me. Recently I had her cornered and our conversation turned to politics. Johna posed the question of the Democratic nomination in 2016: Hillary or Biden? It is a great question, and the fact that Johna asked it made me think about the differences between running and “running.” Stay with me here: Johna runs a 7 minute mile and runs about 20 miles a day. That is RUNNING. That is running in a way that most of us cannot fathom. That is running for reals, as the kids say, and compared to Johna I am a koala (it’s the sleepiest animal in the world. I looked it up). I run 6, maybe 8 miles at a sluggish pace and while I am “running” I am not really running. Johna runs for a personal record (PR), I run to listen to music and avoid people. Johna will win medals, I will be able to eat two goldfish crackers and not gain weight. Johna is running. I am “running.” And even though both forms of running involve the essentially same movements, they are entirely different activities.

The same thing can be said for the race to the White House. There are good reasons to “run” for president in our fabulous Invisible Primary, beyond the base craving to look in the mirror and say “Hello Mr. (or Mrs.) President.” I recently did a fun interview with the Financial Times where I spoke about this, so please allow me here to briefly address those reasons to “run” for president, as opposed to actually RUNNING for president.

·         Name recognition = Book and TV deals. You may think me cynical, but give Mike Huckabee a shout at Fox and ask him how it all worked out for him? Cha-Ching!

·         Power positioning: You may not make the show, but you may get a job at State. And if you are, say, the Governor of Montana, State looks pretty good right about now. Not that there’s anything wrong with Montana.

·         Ideological positioning: A tip of the tin foil hat goes to Uncle Larry here, for his steadfast devotion to Ron Paul. The good doctor just kept it going, long past the expiration date, just to make a point. And then he handed down the baton to Rand, to keep that running going in what I will for now on call the “Paul Relay.”

These reasons add up to a field full of contenders and wannabees, and sometimes it’s tough to tell who is who. The news stories in the slow August recess weeks are chock full of 2016 prognostications, and if you glance through the top-10 lists on both sides, you will see that everyone appears to be VERY serious about running for president.

My former boss at C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, always says: “Follow the money” and it’s good advice. When these cats start hunting for real campaign contributions we will be better suited to see who is running and who is “running.” It’s good to remember that both running and “running” are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the reasons to do both blend in nicely with one another. But it is fun at this stage of the game to try and guess who is running for a PR and who is running to distract themselves from syllabi that are due... in 4 days. Just saying.

You go, Johna!

Middle of Orientation Post

Not much of a post today, but I've got a little time to kill as I'm in the middle of a talk on time management as part of my orientation for my new gig at South Dakota State.

Whilst effectively multi-tasking between the rah rah lectures and blog reading, I came across this post on skipping Iowa by Jonathan Bernstein.

To reiterate one point: no, it's not too early to talk about this. Laying down the groundwork for Iowa an the other early contests is the essence of the invisible primary. We're fast approaching the time that  events like Tom Harkin's steak fry start to attract possible Democratic hopefuls, say Joe Biden who dropped in this year, and candidates of all stripes will begin trolling the state fair for more important reasons than checking out the butter cow.

One other bit I'd add one the long list of candidates that skipped Iowa, only to flame out in spectacular fashion later is Rudy Giuliani. By skipping these early contests, Giuliani and these other candidates he mentioned showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the process necessary to win the nomination. While that might have been excusible in the 70s when parties and candidates were figuring out the new system, today it's just plain stupid. As we know the triangulation on a candidate by party activists is key to winning the nomination. Pulling out of these early races either shows a candidate doesn't understand this, or that he or she is so desperate at that point because of their systematic failures in the pre-primary phase.

So to rope this back to Christie, if he's serious and smart, he'll no doubt be popping up here in the near future.

Hola from Mexico! Anthony Weiner Esta Un Grande Polla!

-Hello from our neighbors to the South - Mexico! Yes. I am compelled to blog from our family vacation where I am brushing up on my 4th Grade Spanish while drinking a tanker of tequila. Donde esta la Bibliotecha? And do they serve margaritas there?

Dave totally stole my initial thought about the anti-Hillary Super PAC, but since he's the padre of this blog I will give him a pass. My muy fabuloso hermano-in-law Brian and I have been devouring the Anthony Weiner story (much to my husband's chagrin: He thinks Weiner should be kicked to the curb and we start talking about important things. Like hockey.), and so I will intellectually contort myself to make this blog, alledgedly about the Invisible Primary, to include the words "sexting," "sociopath" and "dickhead."

Let's look down the road a few ways, the first to 7 weeks from now: This is when the primaries of NY and NJ hit and we get to watch Chris Christie and Anthony Weiner run for the roses. I'm going to go out here on a limb and predict Christie in a slow walk, and Weiner getting his ass handed to him by a group of gleeful NYers who are drooling over the chance to humiliate him at the polls. Yes. This is a risky bet, but it's why they pay me the big bucks to blog. Let's start with Christie and get to the good stuff: Carlos Danger.

Yes, 2013 is gonna be a big year, mostly because one of the front-runners for the GOP is going to win easily. The hilarious thing is that, even though the off-years are state-wides, the pundit class will use such 5-buck words as "harbinger" and "predictive" and "portent" to say Chris Christie is un dealio grande. As they say in Mexico. Which is pronounced "Meh-Hee-Co." I am off topic. But 2013 will set the stage for the 2014 which is where we go next.

Hola and que tal to the "Madam President" list of winners who should be watched. Also, 2014 is muy importante for the GOP who is withering in the House and hanging on in the Senate, and desperately trying to figure out who will show for the Show of 2016: the hard-line Tea Party-backed conservatives who think Richard Murdock and Todd Akin were simply misunderstood, or the establishment Republicans who think Reagan has been hijacked by... everybody. See (and this is where the intellectual contortion comes in handy), the races that lead up to the 2016 presidential will be analyzed in greater detail than any invasion plan Donald Rumsfeld ever had a hand in.

Hand in? Let's get to Weiner! BOOM! So, as Ross Perot would say, here's the deal. Anthony, I was with you. You did the 5 steps of scandal/redemption nicely enough to lead in the polls.  I warned you that not enough time had passed, but you jumped into the NYC Mayoral race and I thought I might be wrong. But then you went un grande loco on me and changed the narrative: You sexted with random women AFTER you resigned in disgrace? AFTER? AFTER?!?!? Son, you lost me. And here is why.

As my muy bonita college roommate Martha once observed: Marriage is hard. It is. And I am NEVER one to think that I can peek inside someone else's relationship and give them advice. Hell, I am smart enough to know that I don't want anyone peeling my own marital onion, mostly because it ain't anyone's bid-ess but my own and life is complicated. BUT. When we make decisions in private, we don't get to call them private when we run for a public office where the sole criteria is... decision making. See, Anthony - had you either kept your fingers in yer gloves or not run for public office, then I'd still be with you. But you didn't. No, a YEAR AFTER you resigned in disgrace you were still sexting random sycophantic women who took the reigns of power from you and promptly sold it to the highest bidder. Allow me to quote from the marvelous "House of Cards:" Everything is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power. And when you are dumb enough to give up the power to some random age-inappropriate random, then you do not get to be mayor of anywhere. Ever. Really.

So to Anthony Weiner, I say this: Go away, por favor. What you have done to poor Huma is reason enough to make certain that you hide your face for a long while. Dragging her up to a press conference in order to make you look pretty is mean and sociopathic. You are a narcissistic ball of yuck and the Democratic Party can do better.

As for Carlos Danger, I want to say: The interwebs auto-correct my last name to Danger. I always thought this was awesome. Now, I am having thoughtos sugundo. If you get an e-mail from me signed "Alison Danger," there is no relation. Por favor.

An Invisible Primary First?

As some of you may have read in the past week, an explicitly anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC called Stop Hillary has been created.  The founders are a classic mix of intense policy demanders comprised of state politicians (mostly from Colorado), former congressional and presidential campaign staffers, and a lobbyist or two.  Included in this cadre is Matt Rhodes who recently helped found the Republican opposition research super PAC America Rising.  How much money Stop Hillary can raise and what resources they can deploy are anyone's guess, but we shouldn't be surprised that something like this has come along.

So here's an honest question (and if you know the answer please let us know): Is this the first time a PAC has formed explicitly to oppose a non-declared candidate in the invisible primary?

We've obviously seen PACs and super PACs affiliated with candidates beat up on each other, as they did in the 2012 invisible primary.  America Rising itself was a delayed response to the Democratic opposition research super PAC American Bridge, but these are groups with broader goals.   Even Citizens United was established decades before it aired its hugely consequential film on Sen. Clinton in the 2008 primary, though most people never heard of it until 2009.  But Stop Hillary seems unique in its singular purpose.  The names speaks volumes, and probably says it all.

While American Bridge was content to confine its work out of the public eye - digging up dirt and embarrassing bits about various Republicans then feeding it to the press - Stop Hillary seems to be fully intent on grabbing as much publicity as they can.  Their first major play will be a video which is set to be released later this week.  I guess their first test is see if anyone notices...

Coffee House Guy, the Money Primary, and the Invisible Primary

Over the past two weeks I was lucky enough to take a bit a of road trip to Oregon and Washington to visit a dear friend and family before the nuttiness of preparing my house for sale and moving up to South Dakota State (Go Jacks!) begins in ernest.  Generally when I'm on the road I don't make a particular point of socializing with random folks, and my first general order is to never blurt out that I'm a political scientist to strangers.  As my colleagues in the profession can attest to, that can elicit a wide variety of responses, the vast majority of which we'd rather not hear.  However, at a moment of weakness in a coffee joint in Park City, I was pinned down with an incriminating pile of manuscripts awaiting editorial action by coffee house guy.

After his finding pretense to engage me, exchanging pleasantries (which I suck at by the way), explaining what I was up to, and my areas of interest, we had a decent little exchange on presidential elections that got me thinking.  Here's the critical bit:

CHG: So who's the odds on favorite for the Republicans?  After all, we know Hillary will be the nominee for the Dems, since she's got all the money.

Me: Obviously it's too early to make an accurate prediction, but I'd look for someone who's got a good reputation amongst Republican governors and perhaps Senators, and can get along with the Tea Party types, evangelicals, and the country club set... maybe someone like Rob Portman, hell even Jeb Bush if he can restore the brand name.

CHG: What about Rand Paul?  He's got a bunch of hardcore supporters and can probably tap into his dad's great fundraising network, and money's the name of the game in the primaries.

Me: Money is one of those things you can't do a thing without, but it's not everything.  And, it can't be flowing in just one direction towards the candidate.  Early on, it's more important that the candidate be raising money for other folks and the parties at various levels.  Both Ron Paul and Howard Dean were raking the money into their campaigns in the early primary seasons and both had their asses handed to them when the voters began to weigh in.  Their opponents had developed networks of office holders and party activists that could open up the taps when the time came.

CHG: Makes sense.

Me: Yeah, I wish I was the one who wrote the book on that...

CHG: So Hillary's not got it in the bag either.

Me: No, but she's got a lot more going for her than money.  Unless something big happens between now and then, as it did in 2007, she'll be well positioned with Democratic office holders and activists for a strong run.  She'll raise money for them and they for her; to say nothing about the pro staff and volunteers she'll pick up in the process.

CHG: What about those 501 groups?

Me: Yeah you're spot on, just another way for the money to be raised and spent between the players.

CHG: Well good talking to you, take it easy bro.

Me: Uh, yeah.  You too, um dude.

***

The money primary and invisible primary are often conflated, but I think we need to carefully separate the concepts, and be very clear about the nuances of money in the process.  All things considered, I'm all for retiring the use of the term "money primary" all together as it obfuscates more than it clarifies.

For starters, the invisible primary clearly involves money, but it's not determinative.  The term "money primary" evokes a candidate centered process, reminiscent of David Broder's famous observation that politicians are essentiallyself-nominated and financed political entrepreneurs.  This feeds into the widely, yet wrongly held belief that money is everything in politics.  Central to the concept of the invisible primary is that the party - broadly conceived - is attempting to triangulate on an acceptable candidate.  It's as much - if not more - about the various constituencies and officials within the party looking for a good nominee as it is self-starters looking to tap into the organizational and financial resources of the party's principle players.

By conceiving of the pre-primary period as simply the money primary, we lose a great deal of what's taking place within the party.  A commonly held belief about Gov Tim Pawlenty's hasty exit after the Iowa straw poll was him losing the money chase.  While his fundraising clearly was falling behind Romney's, we now know that his real trouble was finding bannermen amongst well placed Republicans.  While there's clearly some simultaneity with money and party support going on, history shows us that party support is the critical factor.  And as I suggested to the coffee house guy in Park City, the entrepreneur like Dean in '04, who pads his own pockets nicely, but fails to pad the pockets of others in the invisible primary, will probably take an inglorious early exit.