Republican Presidential Candidate Analysis

OK, so fair warning – this is an analysis from the perspective of an engineer. Engineers deal in science, facts, data, and the concrete. Most engineers understand touchy-feely stuff, but usually are more comfortable dealing with the objective rather than the subjective. Engineers like the binary, black or white, yes-or-no propositions. They will try to find ways to objectify the touchy-feely. So that’s why the following analysis involves lists, a spreadsheet, and numerical weights and ratings.

Undoubtedly, Republicans (and Independents who are dissatisfied with Obama) are looking for an obvious choice from a set of four far-less-than-perfect Republican candidates. Unfortunately, for most of us, there is no easy answer. That is reflected in the frequent lead-swaps in the polls. I did this analysis to help me personally reach a decision, and I hope it will be of some value to you.

As I wrote here, Priority 1 in 2012, the number 1 priority in the Republican primary is to nominate a candidate who can beat Obama. So the attributes I picked to rate the candidates on are singularly focused on that goal.

Caveats:

1. This analysis gives no weight to who is polling where in the primary, because while that may determine to some extent which one wins the nomination, it has nothing to do with who can best compete with Obama.

2. Even though I implied in the prologue that this is going to be an objective analysis, it is so only to the extent that the subjective is reduced to the objective, based on my values, knowledge of the candidates and personal impressions. For example, on a likeability scale, one voter’s darling may be another’s Jeffrey Dahmer.

Here are the definitions for the terms used in the analysis.

Attribute weight – This is my assessment of the relative importance of each attribute, ranked from one to four, in the general election. The higher the number, the more important I assess the attribute in a contest with Obama. This weighting has nothing to do with the Republican primary race. It only applies to the eventual nominee’s campaign against Obama. If I had weighted the attributes’ importance in the Republican primary, the weightings would have been different.

Attributes:

Fiscal policy – This is a rating of the candidate’s belief in conservative monetary policy, low taxation, and eliminating federal government intrusion into and regulation of private enterprise. I gave this the highest weight, because the poor economy and high unemployment are by far the most important issues in 2012. “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Likeability – Likeability is hard to weigh. But I think it was a significant factor in 2008 in helping independents overlook Obama’s lack of management experience and his radical, far-left politics. Because so many people vote on an emotional basis rather than a rational one, I give this attribute equal weighting with fiscal policy. I originally had it below both fiscal policy and debating skills, but my wife convinced me that, unfortunately, a large percentage of the electorate is clueless about the attributes that matter in the candidates. As it turned out, moving likeability up in weight did not affect the order of the candidates in the final results.

Debating skills – This attribute is broader than debate performance. It covers how well the candidate communicates. It includes the ability to make cogent arguments in any media, including interviews, print ads, TV commercials, etc. It also includes the implied category of head-to-head debate performance and the requisite ability to deal with complex subjects and verbal attacks on the fly. I weighted this attribute high, because having a good policy is useless in a campaign if it can’t be communicated effectively and contrasted to that of the opponent.

Vulnerability – This covers anything about the candidates that could be used as campaign fodder by Obama in negative ads. This already-nasty Republican primary clearly shows that negative ads work extremely well. So the higher the number, the less vulnerable a candidate is to negative ads. This is a very-important attribute.

Integrity/ethics – This is a rating of a candidate’s tendency to say what he means and mean what he says. It is trustworthiness. It rates how likely you’d be to enter into a contract with the candidate on the basis of a handshake only. If the Democratic candidate were anyone other than Obama, I’d give this more weight, but any of the four Republican candidates have a better integrity record than him. Also, unfortunately, this attribute seems to be increasingly less important to the average voter as the country turns away from God.

Management – This ranks the candidate’s management experience. Candidates who have actually managed a budget or been responsible for making a profit should have a decided edge in addressing the deficit budget and debt. This was certainly not a factor in 2008 – otherwise Obama would have been decidedly defeated. But given his now-demonstrated lack of understanding of capitalism and the economy, I think it will be a factor in 2012. “Management” also encompasses leadership.

Washington connection – With Congress polling in the single digits, I think this is an important attribute for independents. And winning the general election is all about winning independents and swing voters. The lower number, the higher the connection to Washington.

Foreign policy – Obama has demonstrated total ineptness in foreign policy, puzzling many foreign policy experts. Except for perhaps Paul, any of the Republican candidates can far outperform Obama in this area. My cat could even do better with its paw on an Ouija board pointer. So foreign policy will not be a significant issue in distinguishing most of the Republican candidates against each other, but I included it to fairly assess Ron Paul against the other three.

Liberty preservation – This is a rating of how committed a candidate is to preserving individual liberty. How true a candidate is to the Constitution and Bill of Rights is implied. I gave this the lowest weight, because any of the four candidates can slaughter Obama on this attribute. Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for liberty. Further, most of the voters who value liberty highly are already going to vote Republican.

Attributes not considered:

Religious beliefs – I did not list this as a separate category, because I think it will be a neutral factor in the general election. Jimmy Carter was a Baptist Sunday School teacher and arguably one of the worst presidents ever. Candidates who are Christians will tend to score high on the “Integrity/ethics” category, so I think I’ve got it covered anyway. I do hope and pray that our next president is a Christian.

Funding – This is certainly a factor in the primary because of Romney’s deep pockets. But in the general election, my assumption is that individual voter and PAC contributions will be more significant than any candidate’s personal contributions.

By the numbers:

		Candidate rankings
Attribute	Attribute weight	Romney	Santorum	Gingrich	Paul
Fiscal policy	4	3	1	2	4
Likeability	4	4	1	2	3
Debating skills	3	3	2	4	1
Vulnerability	3	4	3	2	1
Integrity/ethics	2	3	2	1	4
Management	2	4	1	3	2
Washington connection	2	4	2	1	3
Foreign policy	1	3	2	4	1
Liberty preservation	1	2	1	3	4
	Overall scores:	3.5	1.6	2.3	2.6

Attribute weight: 4=most important, 1=least important
Candidate rankings: 4=best, 1=worst

Rationale for candidate ratings:

Fiscal policy – Paul’s desire to immediately cut back government spending, balance the budget and eliminate the Federal Reserve, along with a voting record that backs up what he says, earned him the top ranking on this attribute. Romney’s actually running companies and the resultant understanding of private enterprise earned him a close second. Gingrich’s record of balancing the federal budget gave him the edge over Santorum.

Likeability – Romney seems the most humble and congenial of the bunch. Paul, in spite of his communications problems, is funny and likeable, so he’s a close second to Romney. In stark contrast to either is Santorum who seems angry too much of the time. He could chill an otherwise fun party. Gingrich is putting on his best face for the campaign. But he seems to have an angry undercurrent, which he can call to the surface at will for effect - for example when he methodically eviscerated John King during the January 19 primary debate.

Debating skills – Selecting the top spot was easy. Gingrich is far and away the best debater. In contrast, selecting the two bottom rankings was hard. Paul and Santorum were very close, but I awarded the bottom to Paul based on his difficulty in expressing himself verbally. Paul has excellent points in his head but just can’t seem to articulate them verbally. In contrast, Santorum can talk endlessly for hours, but sometimes when challenged has trouble supporting his argument. Slight edge to Santorum.

Vulnerability – Paul gets the bottom ranking based on his unwavering isolationism. Ignoring Iran’s attempt to develop nuclear weapons and use them on Israel is just foolhardy, and this is the biggest single factor in Paul’s current polling at the bottom of the pack. In the general election, if Paul were the candidate, this would help him among some of the left-wing folks, but he would lose a lot of moderates and conservatives over the issue. Romney gets the highest rating primarily because he is the most centrist, has an apparently wholesome family life, and other than his possible involvement in milking companies that were going bankrupt, has no apparent skeletons in his closet. I’ve read from some that it is a mistake to nominate a moderate, and they point to McCain in 2008. But that is a red herring. McCain lost for three simple reasons: 1) He was running against arguably the most charismatic opponent in history, 2) he didn’t get much of the black vote and 3) he was running in the shadow of GW’s failed presidency. That has all changed in 2012 – Obama has to now run on his own record, and what’s behind the charisma is not pretty. Whoever his opponent, he will force Obama to explain the poor economy, and Obama will try but won’t be able to blame it on George Bush.

Integrity/ethics – Paul is clearly way out in front in sticking to his principals, which he has doggedly demonstrated in his votes in congress. He will never go along to get along if it means violating his principals and ethics. Near the bottom of the scale are Gingrich and Santorum, but the bottom award goes to Gingrich for his extramarital affairs. If a person will cheat on his wife, whom won’t he cheat?

Management – Romney wins this category because he’s the only one who has run a company and had to balance a budget. Gingrich is next, because of his effectiveness and leadership in working with a democratic president to balance the federal budget for four years and his running a business since he left office. Rounding out the bottom is Santorum, who to my knowledge has never run anything, and he whines a lot – not an admirable management trait.

Washington connection – Romney is the only one who can claim no connection to Washington. And Paul seems to be the only person alive who can live in Washington for 24 years and remain true to his principals. I awarded the “Most Connected” award to Gingrich over Santorum because Gingrich had been in Washington longer.

Foreign policy – I believe Gingrich would be strongest on foreign policy and Paul weakest. I selected Gingrich over Romney and Santorum because I believe he would have the most resolve in dealing with Iran. And while his “big solutions” approach often means a government solution for every problem, I think it would serve him well in crafting an effective approach to Iran and other potential trouble-makers.

Liberty preservation – Paul wins this category – no contest, followed by Gingrich, Romney and Santorum in that order. The difference between Gingrich and Romney is slight, but I gave the edge to Gingrich because of his red-state origins and Romney’s blue-state origins. Santorum got the bottom position because of his desire to ban birth control for all, and frequent talk of drafting federal laws curtailing freedoms, such powers not being granted the federal government by the Constitution.

Conclusion:

The analysis shows that Mitt Romney is hands-down the most likely to beat Obama, with a weighted score of 3.5 out of 4. Going into this exercise, I really didn’t have a favorite. I was not surprised that Romney finished first. I was surprised by the large gap between Romney and the second-most-likely-to-win, Ron Paul. I was even more surprised that Paul came in second with a slight advantage over Gingrich. Surely there is a major flaw in my analysis? Nevertheless, that’s the conclusion the analysis yielded. Where did I go wrong? Comments are welcome.

Update, 3/6/12 - I overlooked what may be a significant factor.  In the "Vulnerability" category, Romney will get a lot of negative ads about his wealth.  So I went back and moved Romney down in the Vulnerability category to second from the bottom, or just above Paul.  But it didn't change the overall ranking order of who is most likely to be able to beat Obama - Romney still comes out the best.  It's Romney 3.2, Paul 2.6, Gingrich 2.5 and Santorum 1.8.