The Republican governor from Texas had everything going for him. The country was in an economic malaise and Americans were questioning whether the future would be as good as the past.
The Democratic president’s poll numbers were in the tank. And the governor, after all, was the favorite of his political party’s establishment. Business types saw him as the go-to guy to set things right, but movement conservatives were far less enamored over time.
All he had to do was win a small state’s experiment with a presidential preference primary. John Connally didn’t. He bombed in that 1980 contest in South Carolina. Ronald Reagan, a one-time B-movie actor turned governor of an even bigger state, California, ate Connally’s electoral lunch in South Carolina, virtually destroying the Texan’s presidential run, and went on to win the GOP nomination and reshape late 20th Century history.
This is not to suggest that South Carolina is where Texas politicians come to see their political aspirations crash and burn. Hardly, as Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 can readily attest. It’s to provide context for illustrating the outsized role that South Carolina has played for more than three decades in determining the nominees of both major parties. Its gateway status as the first of the Southern primaries, coupled with an early slot in the national schedule, make South Carolina a major player, something its otherwise paltry nine Electoral College votes wouldn’t mandate.
Over the years, South Carolina has muscled its way into the mix, securing a third – or fourth place – depending upon one’s counting, in the primary season, behind the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary with Nevada a latecomer to the early list. Along the way, the attention and treasure lavished on these relatively small-population states by the candidates, parties and media has generated lots of primary envy elsewhere among bigger, but heretofore less noticed states. How things shake out for the 2012 cycle won’t be known until late winter or, less likely, early spring.
Even the timing of the primaries remains in question. In September, Arizona announced it would vote on Feb. 28, defying the prescribed order set by the Republican National Committee whose edict stipulated no voting before March 6, 2000 – except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. What is known is that South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary will be held in late January or early February. The date will be set by state GOP Chairman Chad Connelly of Newberry. Meanwhile, he’s watching to see if any other states, jealous of the attention, money and influence garnered by early-voting states, violate the RNC rules.
The Upstate is often the key to winning South Carolina because its counties, centered around Greenville and Spartanburg, the state’s most populous and fourth most populous, respectively, can deliver up to one-third of all primary votes. Winning the Upstate almost assures winning South Carolina. For South Carolina, presidential primaries have largely been a Republican show, although Democrats’ held successful ones in 2004 and 2008. The latter was of major significance because Barack Obama’s defeat of the New York Sen. Hillary Clinton helped propel him to the nomination and the White House. Both South Carolina parties can make this claim – no candidate who has lost a South Carolina primary has won a presidential nomination.
With their party holding the White House and President Obama already running for a second term, there won’t be a Democratic presidential primary here. Campaigns were slower to develop this time around, but now are in full bloom, at least for those with enough viability to raise the necessary cash.
Heading toward primary day, South Carolina looks like a two-tier race with Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. (and 2008 contender) Mitt Romney topping the field. Initial polling showed a rush to Perry, but later surveys were of the statistical tie variety, giving Romney a far better showing that his dismal finish here four years ago. The balance of the field consists of vocal, but financially-challenged, less well-known contenders: Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota; former fast-food CEO Herman Cain of Georgia;Texas Rep. Ron Paul; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman of Utah; and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
Many of the state’s top Republicans, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint foremost among them, are watching and waiting, although some have made endorsements. Freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney of Indian Land has endorsed Perry. As Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia points out, individual primaries don’t take place in a vacuum. “The conventional wisdom is that Perry has the advantage in Iowa, given Bachmann’s fall, while Romney is the natural choice in New Hampshire. Perry appears to be emerging as the Southern favorite which would give him the edge in South Carolina, but this assumes no gaffes or controversies arise – and chances of that aren’t great,” Sabato says.
Another variable for South Carolina is how many of the lesser candidates will still be in race to divide – and possibly skew – the outcome. As a practical matter, some have previously dropped out and Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally trim the field of major and minor candidates alike. Again, traditionally, the victor in South Carolina has at least one previous win in his pocket and emerges from the Palmetto State with a head of steam, more pledges of financial backing and a message to up-coming Southern states – the GOP’s heartland – that he or she is has the credentials for the job and staying power for the stretch.