Mitt Romney ran a campaign in 2012 that was breathtaking in its cynicism. Everything about the man’s background in business and politics indicated that he was a PBP, but he insisted throughout the primaries that he was “severely conservative.” In essence, he was telling the Reactionaries what he knew they wanted to hear, while all the time winking suggestively at the PBPs and the CDs. It worked: he got the nomination, and outperformed his party in the general election, even though he didn’t win.
Fiorina’s business background vaguely resembles Romney’s, and her most memorable moments on the campaign trail, other than her confrontations with Trump, have revolved around social issues that resonate primarily with Reactionaries. Could she pull off the same trick? Probably not, for the following reasons:
- As I have explained previously, the GOP always wants to nominate someone who reminds them of Ronald Reagan. Romney might not have sounded like Reagan, but at least he looked a bit like him. For obvious reasons, Fiorina fails this test. She would be well-advised to use Margaret Thatcher, who was also much beloved by the GOP, as her role model.
- Romney was clearly a successful businessman and had substantial credentials as a politician. Fiorina’s record at HP is a continuing source of controversy, and she has no qualifications as a political leader.
- Romney profited from the absence of any serious PBP rivals (Huntsman doesn’t count) and from Rick Perry’s failure to grasp the significance of the immigration issue. For 2016, the immigration issue already belongs to Trump, and the Romney Coalition lane has several reasonably formidable candidates.