Politico's strange new respect for Glenn Youngkin

John Harris, founding editor of Politico, writes a love letter to Glenn Youngkin in which he all but implores the Virginia governor to run for president. What little the title of the article — “Why Glenn Youngkin Would Be Crazy Not to Run for President” — leaves to the imagination, the subtitle — “the Virginia governor offers two things Republicans need: A non-hostile alternative to Trump and a compelling centrist challenge to Biden” — fills in.

But there’s a good reason why Youngkin might not run for president. His chances of winning the Republican nomination are very slim.

The field of potential GOP nominees is dominated by two men — Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Between them, they consistently command about 75 percent support in the polls. Youngkin is consistently at 1 percent.

By what reasoning does this state of play suggest Youngkin could capture the nomination? Here’s Harris’ case:

Republicans are divided over the question of division. Do people want an end to the politics of conflict and bombast represented by Trump and his one-time protégé, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis? Or is exploiting the alleged cultural and ideological excesses of the Democratic left the path to defeating President Joe Biden? Youngkin’s potential appeal is that it isn’t necessary to decide — just say yes to both questions.

But the combined support of Trump and DeSantis shows that Republicans aren’t really divided over the question of division. Most of us are committed to the politics of conflict as necessary in today’s America and satisfied with at least one of the two frontrunners.

We also believe that at least one of the two could win the general election. Maybe we’re wrong, but current polling suggests that both could defeat Biden.

Harris addresses one criticism of Youngkin — that he’s too much like Mitt Romney — this way:

The reality is that Youngkin is less an updated version of Mitt Romney than he is of someone who actually became president, George W. Bush. Apparently by chance rather than design, what Youngkin articulates is something very much like “compassionate conservatism,” the credo that got Bush elected in 2000. . . That is reflected in Youngkin’s prominent advocacy of improved state mental health services — “Nobody has been spared this crisis” — and a state partnership with the impoverished and predominantly Black city of Petersburg, just south of the capital.

Like Bush early in his national career, Youngkin combines the background of a wealthy elite with an affable jockish sensibility — Youngkin played Division I basketball at Rice — that helps with populist messaging. As with Bush, his political persona is intertwined with a plainly sincere if showy religiosity. “Can I say grace real quick?” he asked during a recent interview. Assured by his more secular visitors this was fine, he spoke aloud a minute-long prayer to the Heavenly Father, thanking him for the meal of fried chicken tacos and seeking his blessing for the “General Assembly members and the work we are about to do.”

But George Bush’s compassionate conservatism is not a formula for winning the GOP presidential nomination in this era. Just ask Bush’s brother, Jeb.

Dwayne Yancey, who writes for a Virginia site, presents a realistic view of Youngkin’s prospects. He says:

It’s easy to see Trump winning the nomination: He’s the frontrunner. It’s easy to see DeSantis winning the nomination: He’s the next-strongest. It’s also easy to see one of the other well-known candidates catching fire and finding a path to the nomination — Haley, for instance, or former Vice President Mike Pence. I’d rank the likelihood of those scenarios in that order: Trump first, DeSantis second, another well-known candidate third.

It’s not impossible for someone else to ride a groundswell of support to the top, but a lot harder to imagine. It would involve an intensive campaign, and Republicans becoming dissatisfied with both Trump and DeSantis and the other second-tier candidates. That’s possible, of course — lots of things are possible — but historically improbable.

A win in either Iowa or New Hampshire is not predictive; we’ve seen Iowa losers (such as Trump in 2016) go on to win the nomination. We’ve seen candidates who didn’t win either one go on to win the nomination (Joe Biden in 2020). However, not since Jimmy Carter in 1976 have we seen someone win the nomination who wasn’t part of the national conversation as a serious contender well before the first votes were cast. Even Trump was a frontrunner in the polls by the late summer of 2015. If Youngkin runs, he’ll be attempting something that hasn’t been done for a long time.

To me, the most interesting question raised by Harris’ article is this: Why did he write it? Maybe he wrote it because he really thinks Youngkin would be crazy not to run for president. Maybe he just wanted clicks.

But I suspect Harris wants Youngkin to run because he thinks Youngkin’s entry would help Trump and thinks Trump would be easier than DeSantis to defeat in the general election.

The first view — that a crowded field would help Trump — is widely held. And some on the left admit they want Trump to be the nominee because they think he’ll lose.

I find echoes of Harris’ piece in this article in today’s Washington Post. It’s called “GOP donors open to other Trump challengers as DeSantis tries to find footing,” and it reads like an invitation to Youngkin, as well as no-hopers Chris Sununu, Chris Christie, Tim Scott, and Asa Hutchinson, to enter the race.

The Post notes, however, that at a spring gathering of conservative activists and donors in Sea Island, Georgia, Youngkin “disappointed some in attendance by steering clear of any suggestion he wanted to tease a coming campaign.”

He wouldn’t be crazy to steer clear of mounting such a campaign.