Second Verse, Same as the First: The 2012 Presidential Election in the South

2: The 2012 PresidentialNomination Process

21 2 The 2012 Presi­den­tial Nomination Process John A. Clark In retrospect the nomination of Republican Mitt Romney to challenge incumbent Presi­ dent Barack Obama seems like a preordained conclusion . To be sure, the former Massachusetts governor was perceived to be the front-­ runner in a crowded field of contenders. Romney entered the 2012 campaign with experience, name recognition, and a campaign network built during his unsuccessful run for the nomination in 2008. Part of his support was based on the likelihood that he more than any other candidate could topple Obama. Nevertheless, many Republicans had reservations about Romney. They seemed to be waiting for someone better to come along and enter the race. In the end, no such alternative candidate emerged. Romney captured his party’s nomination and narrowly lost his general election bid. The real race for the Republican nomination was not as clear-­ cut as this account suggests. It is true that no single alternative to Romney emerged from the pack of contenders who entered the race. It is also true that there were numerous times throughout the campaign that it seemed that Romney was on the ropes or at least vulnerable to defeat. A less experienced candidate with a less extensive organization and fewer resources might not have been able to weather the challenges that the front-­ runner faced. Far from inevitable, the battle for the Republican nomination was heavily contested at first. Then, in the blink of an eye, it was over. 22 H John A. Clark As a region, the South in 2012 did not decide the Republican nomination . It did, however, provide opportunities for candidates who hoped to appeal to voters who were wary of Mitt Romney. Had their support solidified around a single candidate, the outcome of the nomination—­ and thus the general election—­ may have been quite different. Setting the Stage for 2012 The system through which the major political parties select their presi­ den­ tial nominees is in seemingly constant flux. Significant changes in 2012 involved changes in laws governing campaign finance and rules created by the Republican Party itself. In addition, an extensive series of debates exposed the candidates to potential supporters and opened them up to a level of scrutiny not previously seen. Each of these changes affected the nominating process and its ultimate winner. Changes in Campaign Fund-­ raising The Federal Election Campaign Act amendments adopted in 1974 were an attempt to clean up campaigns for Congress and the presidency. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the new laws were designed to foster transparency and encourage participation by small donors rather than wealthy “fat cat” donors. With regard to presi­ den­ tial nominations, a hybrid system of private and public funding was created. Individual contributions were capped at $1,000, with a federal match of up to $250 to encourage support from smaller donors. In exchange for these matching funds, qualifying candidates voluntarily agreed to limit both their total spending and their spending in individual states. The total, indexed to inflation, was $42 million in 2008. A different set of spending rules affected the general election campaign. Between 1976 and 1992, only one candidate chose to forego matching funds to avoid the spending limits. That candidate, John Connally in 1980, failed to gain traction with voters and may have discouraged other candidates from following his path. In 1996, Steve Forbes used his ability to fund his own campaign as a signal that he was not beholden to special interests. He failed to win many votes, but the old campaign finance regime was beginning to fray. George W. Bush declined to accept matching funds in 2000 yet still raised an unprecedented $60 million before the first contest and more than $100 million by the time of the Republican convention. When contribution limits were raised to $2,000 The 2012 Presi­ den­ tial Nomination Process H 23 in 2002 (and indexed to inflation), it became easier for candidates to forego public funds. By 2008, most major contenders in both parties chose to raise and spend as much as they could within the constraints of the individual contribution limits.1 In 2012, a new wrinkle in the system of campaign finance allowed individual contributors to give as much as they wanted to support the nomination bids of their preferred candidates. Most candidates formed so-­ called Super PACs to raise funds in unlimited amounts. Corporations were...