Two problems with Schweikert's theory of the case
Schweikert wants to run in what could have been Robson's lane.
Based upon post-announcement interviews, this seems to be David Schweikert’s theory about how he wins the GOP gubernatorial primary next year:
Andy Biggs and Karrin Taylor Robson will split the MAGA vote. Schweikert will capture the Reaganite conservative vote. He will then sway enough MAGA voters to return to their Reaganite conservative roots, or vote for him because of his self-proclaimed greater electability in a general election, to gain a plurality.
That’s not exactly the way Schweikert is putting it. But, with an informed reading between the lines, that’s his theory of the case. I see two problems with it.
First, although Schweikert prides himself on getting math right, this math regarding the configuration of the GOP primary electorate doesn’t add up, unless there is some significant change from the last four election cycles.
There is a residual Reaganite conservative faction within the GOP primary electorate. And there is a segment of GOP voters disaffected by Trump’s leadership and the MAGA remake of the party. The combination is not unsubstantial.
The 2024 Arizona presidential primary was held on March 19. By that point, Trump had cinched the nomination and Nikki Haley had withdrawn from the race. Yet Haley got 18% of the vote.
Now, this was a closed primary; independents couldn’t vote in it. And, for a primary, the turnout was respectable at 44%. Well over 100,000 high-efficacy Republicans turned out in an election already decided to cast a ballot that can only be interpreted as a protest vote against Trump.
Other statewide election results – which have given Democrats, despite a registration disadvantage, both U.S. Senate seats and the top three state offices, governor, secretary of state, and attorney general – can only be explained by a higher-than-usual crossover vote by registered Republicans for the Democratic candidate.
In nearly all cases, a Trump endorsed candidate won a contested primary over a more traditional Republican who probably would have won the general election. MAGA’s populist nationalism has taken over the GOP, particularly here in Arizona. Even in a three-way race, residual Reaganite conservatives and disaffected Republicans probably won’t add up to a plurality. And, thus far, MAGA voters have shown no interest in tactical considerations, such as which candidate can win a general election.
The second problem is that Schweikert is a highly compromised prospective champion for those who would like to see a little independence from Trump from the GOP nominee.
Now, there is a distinction in Schweikert’s favor worth noting. Both Biggs and Robson have been endorsed by Trump. Their public communications are a series of mash notes to him. And will continue to be throughout the campaign, irrespective how much what Trump does alienates non-MAGA voters. That’s the bargain. The price of keeping Trump’s endorsement will be complete and unreserved support for whatever he does or says.
On the other hand, since the start of Trump’s second term, Schweikert’s public communications hardly mention Trump at all. He hasn’t engaged in the Trump sycophancy that has characterized Biggs, Robson, and virtually all of GOPdom.
Still, running as a “true conservative” requires more than silence as Trump runs roughshod over fundamental conservative principles, such as subsidiarity, separation of powers, rule of law, and free markets. Schweikert’s silence on matters he proclaims as important to him is particularly telling.
Schweikert is chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. In March of this year, he released, with what for Schweikert was considerable fanfare, a committee report on the state of the economy. It included a chapter on industrial policy, criticizing that of the Biden administration as embedded in the infrastructure bill, the act providing big subsidies for computer chips, and the legislation also giving big subsidies for green energy. I share these criticisms.
However, since Schweikert issued the report, Trump has imposed tariffs on the entire world, purports to have gained commitments from other countries to pony up funds to be invested at Trump’s discretion, required control of internal operations to approve Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel, required a share of the revenues to approve export licenses for computer chips to China, took an equity stake in Intel and other companies, and steered the purchase of the U.S. operations of TikTok to political supporters. Administration officials indicate that this is just the beginning of an expanded direct role by the federal government in the operations of private companies.
Trump’s industrial policy, with tinges of crony capitalism, is a far more serious and dangerous breach of free market principles than Biden’s subsidies and woke requirements. Yet, I couldn't find much from Schweikert in the way of protest or criticism. Perhaps he will find his voice in favor of abandoned Reaganite conservative principles as a candidate for governor rather than a sitting congressman in a narrow GOP majority. But, if so, how does he attract enough MAGA voters to obtain a plurality?
What most thoroughly compromises Schweikert as a potential non-MAGA candidate was his role in Trump’s attempted coup in 2020. The plot was for Republicans in Congress to not accept the Electoral College votes of enough states to deny Biden a majority. Schweikert’s response was, revealingly, too clever by half. He didn’t vote to reject Arizona’s Electoral College votes, as the fully complicit Biggs did. But he did vote to reject those of Pennsylvania, after which the rioters disrupted the proceedings.
Schweikert’s entry into the race primarily serves to illustrate the serial strategic mistakes of Robson and her campaign. Schweikert is a flawed candidate in what could be Robson’s lane as a more independent-minded nominee. However, by Schweikert running in that lane, Robson will be more confined to the MAGA lane, in which she has less authenticity than Biggs.
Robson is thought to be more of a traditional Republican than a MAGA pureheart. She has given zero evidence of this in either of her gubernatorial campaigns. Her theory of the case seems to be this: she can campaign exclusively as a MAGA pureheart and the non-MAGA Republicans will somehow intuit that she’s preferable to Biggs, who is a MAGA pureheart. That didn’t work against Kari Lake. Schweikert entering the race with at least an implicit non-MAGA appeal will seriously complicate it working against Biggs.
Regardless of his chances, Schweikert becomes the wildcard in an otherwise predictable and plodding race. Biggs and Robson are stuck in the Trump loyalty lane. Schweikert is the only one with some freedom of action, should he choose to exercise it.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.