Home > General > The 6-Percenters and Romney: The Establishment Push and Why only Palin Can Derail Romney, Part 2

The 6-Percenters and Romney: The Establishment Push and Why only Palin Can Derail Romney, Part 2

While the GOP establishment is pushing both Romney and “the 6-percenters” history shows that one of the front-runners at this stage in the nominating process is always the nominee. The only frontrunners at this stage are Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin (and in one poll Rudy Giuliani). Over the past 32 years, there has been no “6-percenter” to come and overtake a clear favorite. Before we look at why the media is pushing Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, and Jon Huntsman (along with Romney) let’s compare historical standings over the past 3 election cycles to where currents stand today.

Various Primary poll standings from June-September prior to the Primaries:

Obama 2007 – 26%, 26%, 28%, 25%, 25%, 26%, 23%, 19%, 27%, 30%, 27%

McCain 2007 – 19%, 15%, 15%, 17%, 18%, 15%, 11%, 20%, 16%, 17%, 18%, 20%

Kerry 2003 – 15%, 13%, 17%, 11%, 12%, 14%, 16%

Bush 1999 – 59%, 64%, 49%, 54%, 56%, 59%

Gore 1999 – 65%, 60%, 53%, 63%, 68%, 54%

+All of the candidates were in double digit standings and all were averaging at least 15%. They were either the clear #1 at this stage (Bush, Gore) a clear #2 (Obama) or a clear hybrid of between #1-3 depending on the poll and day (McCain, Kerry). None of these nominees were 6-percenters with long-shot dreams of overtaking the guy guy in the 20% range.

+ Similar stories would be told for all races in the past 32-years with the exception of Clinton (see next bullet point) including Reagan, Bush 1, Dole, Mondale, and Dukakis who were all at least front-runners either in polling or because of their status as a former VP, former VP candidate, or “runner-up” in previous primary election.

+ Bill Clinton is the one “6-percenter” at this stage who would win the nomination. However, the field had no frontrunner as know one wanted to challenge Bush, Bill Clinton wouldn’t even announce his candidacy until October of that year and wouldn’t even participate in a debate until well after that. None of that is an applicable scenario to today where there have been debates and candidates have been announced and campaigning for months, and there are clear frontrunners.

So, where do Romney and the 3 candidates being pushed stand today, at a similar point where candidates were at this stage over the last decade?

Without Palin Polled (most recent first):

Romney -35%, 19%, 30% (average = 28%)

Pawlenty -4%, 7%, 7% (6%)

Bachmann -7%, 7%, 5% (6%)

Huntsman -2%, 3%, 1% (2%)

With Palin Polled (most recent first):

Romney -24%, 28%, 20%, 25%, 21%, 17% (22.5%)

Palin -20%, 23%, 22%, 15%, 17%, 16% (19%)

Pawlenty -3%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 4%, 5% (4%)

Bachmann -4%, 5%, 3%, 6%, 3%, 4% (4%)

Huntsman – 1%, 1%, 1%, 1%, 1%, 2% (1%)

Notes on the above

+ The candidates being pushed by the media have a combined percentage that is 1/2 of what Romney gets. He leads all candidates by 20+ percentage points, gaining between 5 and 15 times the support of any of the media candidate, when Palin is not included in the polling.

+ With Palin in the race, she forces Romney down 6% points, while bringing down the 3 “media candidates” only 1-2% points apiece. So the narrative that Palin is hurting “other, better” challengers is absurd, because with her in the race, those challengers are only losing by 18% points instead of 22% points. And only when Palin is in the race is there even a competition.

+ Likewise, other candidates (Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Ron Paul) are completely dismissed by the media even though they all score higher than the three candidates they are pushing. However, their polls average out in just the 8-10% range and still trail Romney by some 200%. In reality, they have no better chance of knocking off Romney than the 6-percenters. Rudy Giuliani is sporadically polled, but other than one surprise 1st place finish in a poll with 19%, his other poll outings have been 8%, 12%, and 13%, all good for second or third place finishes behind Romney and Palin.

+ The closest thing to the McCain-Giuliani-Thompson-Romney slugfest of 2007 and the Kerry-Clark-Gephardt-Dean slugfest of 2003 would be a race that featured Romney-Palin-Giuliani. A Romney-Palin race would be similar to the Clinton-Obama race in 2007 (with a lot of 6-percenters) and a race featuring only Romney would likely be like Gore and Bush in 1999, with walkaway victories.

Why the GOP Establishment is Pushing Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Huntsman

I actually have a column on this I am working on and wanted this information available as a reference point. But in summary, each candidate is picked for a specific reason. First, the GOP media/analysts want to give the illusion that there is a real race without the need for Palin, and that THAT race is Romney-Pawlenty-Bachmann-Huntsman. They know that such a scenario would give Romney the nomination without a hand being laid on him (need proof? Watch Monday’s CNN debate).

They like Pawlenty because he is basically a less attractive, less eloquent, less polished, poorly funded version of Romney. They can push Pawlenty as “a strong mainstream conservative” knowing that he will not harm Romney, who is a bigger, better version of the same breed. Why would you go for Pawlenty over Romney? You wouldn’t, which is the point.

They like Bachmann because they can lift her up and pretend to like a Tea Party type candidate. They know that Bachmann is not a threat, because they know that Palin supporters will not flock to her simply because she is a pretty face with breasts. However, their public argument is that Palin supporters will flock to Bachmann, knowing full well that they will not. Confused yet? The analysts know that they Bachmann will not get the anywhere near the level of support Palin would, but pretend that she would so we don’t think they are merely propping up Romney. They know that Palin supporters are not Palin supporters because Palin is a woman (though that may have initially helped them want to get to want to know her). So bachmann is essentially the tea Party decoy that they “like” in order to not have to talk about Palin, and publicly “like” Palin, the only candidate that they know can stop Romney.

They like Huntsman because Daniels dropped out. Both were Romney-esque clones who MSM types gravitate towards regularly anyway. I think they really like Huntsman because they also know he is not a threat to Romney with his 1%, because again, why would you go for a Romney clone when you already have Romney with high name recognition, financial backing, and good poll numbers? And they really like Huntsman because it gives them a second polished candidate to talk about as they find the Palins, Bachmanns, Cains, Pauls, and Newts an embarrassment to the party. So, if they can spend their time talking about Romney-Pawlenty-Huntsman and a little bit of Bachmann, it means they don’t have to talk about a candidate who could actually beat Romney, or any of the candidates who poll better than the ones they are ppushing.

1999-2007 Primary notes by Candidate:

Obama 2007. Though always coming in 2nd place, usually by 15 points or so, to Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2007, Obama was still scoring big numbers and was well ahead of John Edwards (10-12% range) and 6-percenters such as Bill Richardson (he can win with Hispanic vote!), Joe Biden, and Denis Kucinich (he’ll lock in the UFO vote for sure). Obviously, it always was a race between Clinton and Obama and no one else really mattered.

McCain 2007. During this primary, there were simply a number of frontrunners (Giuliani, Thompson, McCain) who were all scoring in the high-teens to mid 20s. McCain was typically the 2nd place finisher in the polls, though sometimes third. Romney was hanging back in the 10% zone while Huckabee was a 6-percenter. And while Huckabee would be one of the few candidates to emerge strong at the end, he still didn’t win.

Kerry 2003. Similar to the McCain situation in 2007, in 2003, though Kerry’s numbers did not make him the clear frontrunner, the mid-teens was actually good enough for a first place finish a lot of the time. There was a crowded field of candidates all polling about the same and taking turns with a small lead (Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Dean). All of the candidates were polling in the mid-teens, and none were 6-percenters, and none would have been a surprise victor.

Bush 1999. In that time frame in 1999, the closest competition was Elizabeth Dole (12%) and John McCain (6%). McCain was pushed by the media in the “6-percenter role” and would eventually be the primary runner-up, though finishing a very, very, very distant second. This primary race was over as early as 1998 when Bush was polling at 49%. Bush never didn’t lead a poll in all of 1999.

Gore 1999. Al Gore was such a runaway in 1999, that they only polled one other person, Bill Bradley who was positioned as Gore’s big primary challenge. Looking back at articles at the time, there were plenty that talked up Bradley big time as major competition in the primary race, though he would rarely break 25% and Gore would rarely fall below 50%.

Categories: General
  1. serfer62
    June 15, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    I am guessing that the Gov will annouce at the earliest after the 2 year limit on frivolous lawsuits expires in July. BUT watching the MFM play their we-will-pick-the-GOP-candidate-again it may be more amusing to wait longer.
    I think we need more Bus Tours…

  1. June 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: