Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s departure from the 2016 Republican presidential race hardly qualifies as the biggest surprise. Even when his campaign made sense on paper, there was concern that he wasn’t charismatic enough to succeed in the Age of Obama. (Remember that State of the Union response?)
But there were a few things we learned from his relatively short-lived campaign.
1. So much for governors. The conventional wisdom was that with the Republican-controlled Congress polling so poorly, GOP might turn to a governor this time around. Four of the last five presidential elections the party has won was with a current or former governor as the nominee. Executive experience was seen as an asset after witnessing some of Barack Obama’s shortcomings. Anecdotally, a lot of activists and primary voters this writer talked to said they wanted a governor.
Well, the economists call it revealed preferences. Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Jindal were the first Republican presidential contenders to exit the race. All are current or former governors. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have been in more or less steady decline. John Kasich had a promising beginning but seems to be losing steam even in New Hampshire.
The two top polling Republican presidential candidates have never held any public office whatsoever, much less run a state. The most competitive GOP politicians in the race are senators. At this point, if Republicans nominate a governor (Bush still seems to be the best positioned), it will be a surprise.
2. So much for policy experience. One of Jindal’s biggest pluses was that he knows public policy. He had experience working with the issues in Louisiana’s state health department, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush and as a member of Congress. He remained a wonk as governor.
Perhaps the fact that his was one of his big positives should have been an early warning. Most voters aren’t wonks. The GOP front-runner, Donald Trump, isn’t a wonk. Neither is the man who most recently threatened to dethrone Trump, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
One of the results of Jindal’s policy wizardry was a comprehensive plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. But his biggest concerns were getting rid of the law and cutting costs, not remaining competitive with Obamacare in terms of coverage. He called his competitors’ plans “Obamacare lite,” because they mostly made a different political judgement.
3. So much for shrinking government. Jindal was one of the few Republican candidates who made a commitment to cutting the federal government down to size a major focus of his campaign. He defended his record cutting spending in Louisiana and energetically pressed the case that this was more important even than beating the Democrats in his final debate appearance. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul likely appealed to small-government types more, yet it is striking this message (even if mixed with a heavy dose of social conservatism) didn’t move many conservatives while the guy leading in most polls had a mixed record at best on government-run healthcare and likes it when private developers profit from eminent domain.
4. So much for Iowa. The first-in-the-nation caucuses may still play an important role in the 2016 nomination process. But after Mike Huckabee pulled his support from the low single digits to top-tier status in 2008 and Rick Santorum replicated this feat in 20012, both by appealing to Iowa evangelicals and winning the state, Jindal was the candidate most counting on Iowa this time. Despite some reports he was starting to catch on, it never materialized and he won’t even be running when Iowans actually vote.
5. So much for leap-year image changes. Before we get too upset about Jindal, it should be noted that as his campaign failed to gain traction he steadily shed his image as a thoughtful policy analyst and started serving up red meat. In his second term, he became a divisive figure even in his home state, feuding with other Republican leaders and even some conservatives.
