Missouri’s “beauty contest” primary on Tuesday could be Rick Santorum’s big chance. If he defeats Mitt Romney in that event, as at least one poll shows he is poised to do, the punditocracy and public alike might finally recognize the considerable upside he would offer Republicans as their presidential nominee.
Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.
The evidence of his principled, mainstream conservatism is unambiguous, as is his record of winning long-shot races. What hasn’t been fully understood yet is why, and how, Santorum could win the Republican nomination and the presidency.
Advertisement
Let’s start with a few underappreciated realities about opinion polls held so far in advance of a general election. First, favorable/unfavorable ratings, along with the level of name identification, are far more important than direct “horse race” numbers. Second, poll “internals,” along with focus-group data if possible, should be interpreted to assess how much growth potential a candidate has, along with what his downside political risks are.
If a candidate has been widely known, and widely disliked, for a long, long time, that candidate has little room for growth. Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That’s a serious sign of growth potential. Even better, even as the general public was first really looking at him, Santorum already was doing as well or better than Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups against Obama in the key states of Florida and North Carolina.
Within the GOP, as Bill Kristol argues, Santorum probably has a better chance to defeat Mitt Romney head to head than Gingrich does. Polls bear that out. A number of polls also show that whereas a significant portion of Santorum voters would prefer Romney to Gingrich (this is Gingrich’s polarizing nature again coming into play), the vast majority of Gingrich voters would move to Santorum in a two-man race against Romney. That’s why, one on one, Santorum can beat Romney but Gingrich can’t.
When the “internals” are analyzed, Santorum rates particularly high on personal character, on sincerity, and on steadfastness of principle. Those are bedrock traits that, over a long campaign, help secure a voter’s comfort level with a candidate. A comparison with Reagan is in order here. While Santorum certainly hasn’t shown Reagan’s preternatural communication skills or sheer — almost magical — personal likeability, what matters in a race against a weak incumbent in a weak economy is that voters give themselves the psychological go-ahead for changing something as important as the president. Fear of the unknown runs strong. Even against an absurdly weak Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was only in the last week that voters swung sharply Reagan’s way: They needed reassurance, from watching his demeanor in debates, that he wasn’t the nuclear cowboy the Left tried to portray. Santorum’s palpable decency and sincerity can offer a similar reassurance against Obama. Someone as volatile as Gingrich cannot.
Santorum’s track record also indicates that he wears well over time. Witness his success in the Iowa caucuses, where voters had many months to size up the candidates. Witness his four upset (or at best even-money) victories in Pennsylvania. He doesn’t offer flash and sizzle, but in a long campaign, such as in the media-intensive slog that is a general-election presidential race, his personal and political virtues have time to become more apparent.
Why not Santorum? He's not a retread.The leading candidates, and the people who select the candidates, which are not the voters, of course, feel its Romneys "time"
It's hard for me to understand that a mijor knock against Santorum, is that he loved that baby so much, he wanted his other children to see it.
Why not Santorum? I can't give a good. reason.
I don't think many people are deciding not to support Santorum because of the dead child incident. I wouldn't call it a "major knock" against him. But the story does strike a lot of people as very creepy and therefore reinforces their suspicion that Santorum is pretty far outside the mainstream.
I agree with you that there aren't many people deciding against Santorum because of the way he grieved when his son died. The people who think what he did was "very creepy" would never vote for him, anyway. Those people aren't the "mainstream," however.
I didn't say who is or is not mainstream. I said the incident reinforces a particular perception for people who find the incident strange and disconcerting.
Virtually everyone believes they are mainstream, or at least pretty close to it. And for most people, that belief is reinforced by their circle of friends, region of residence, and/or media they consume. That phenomenon explains why Democrats tend to believe disapproval of Obama MUST be motivated by racism. And it's why a segment of the Republican party believes Newt could win a general election.
I live in a purple part of a purple state, a place with actual swing voters. Regardless of political affiliation, there is a consistent theme here: better, smaller government; concern about Iran tempered by war weariness; frustration/fear/disappointment regarding Obama; apprehension about the economy; concern bordering on alarm about the deficit; libertarian to liberal feelings about abortion; pretty high support for gay marriage; support for lower taxes; disgust with public education coupled with a belief that is an integral part of our ability to be competitive as a nation; and an emphasis on the economic and social value of the family. I'm sure I've left some things out, but that's a pretty good starter list for what seems to be the prevalent attitude around here.
And, of course, all those people believe their attitudes fall within the mainstream - that, in fact, they define the mainstream. But people in other parts of the country feel the same way about their (different) attitudes/opinions/positions.
Well, if the people in your purple part of the country think that one incident of grieving on the part of Santorum might make him a bit out of the 'mainstream', what do you suppose they will make of a candidate who actually believes that the angel Gabriel appeared to an upstate New York farmer, showed him where magic golden tablets were buried, and gave him the magic spectacles enabling him, and only him, to read the sacred texts (which appeared only in the bottom of his hat)? . . . . nothing out of the mainstream about all that, is there?
However I feel about the teachings of the Mormon church, I don't hear Mitt Romney standing on a debate stage and talking about the stranger ones. He isn't giving interviews in which he relates or relies on those teachings. Besides, I'm more suspicious of that whole no caffeine rule than concerned about some golden tablets or what kind of underwear a presidential candidate is (or is not) wearing.
I don't live in a heavily Mormon area and have known only a few Mormons, but I can honestly say that every last one of them was kind, interesting, well-educated, involved in the community, and hard working. There's obviously something in Mormon culture that the rest of us would do well to learn from.
The voters don't select the candidates? Really? How does that work? Did the GOP establishment get to vote a million times in Florida? How does a candidate win the nomination if not by votes?
You're repeating nonsensical talking points via Palin.
No, he's repeating the same argument here that Herbert Spencer made in the late 1800's (though I'm sure he isn't aware of this), and Herbert is correct.
Where Hillyer goes wrong is that he doesn't provide a convincing argument for why a conservative can beat Obama.
So advertising doesn't matter? Did all of the companies that spent millions on ads for the Super Bowl waste their money.
Gingrich's message was drowned out by Romney's negative advertising. And that is all Romney has had since this contest began. He gets the moderates and then when a conservative rises up he hits them with negative ads or oppo research leaked to friendly media.
You moderates are dangerously close to having us conservatives walk from this presidential election. Conservatives down ticket will get my vote but that's it. Romney better pick a conservative VP. Otherwise, we will wait until 2016. Better four more years of ineffectual Obama than 4 to 8 years of Romney alienating conservatives from their own party.
Your theory is dependent on two beliefs that I think are plainly wrong:
a) a belief that Obama has been "innefectual." If he's innefectual then another 4 years won't hurt us that bad. I don't think he's been bumbling, stumbling his way through his first term. He's been quite skilled at forcing his twisted world view onto the federal government through legislation when he had Dems in the House and regulations when he didn't. It will take a couple terms of Rupublican governance just to unwind it all. His policies have been quite harmful to this country. It's not just acts of omission.
b) a belief that a perfect candidate will emerge in four years. Won't happen. It's likely our next field will be better simply because in 2010 we put a lot of Republicans into the Senate and Governorship around the country whereas we got our tails handed to us in 2006 and 2008. I happen to like Rubio a great deal. But we'll find out soon enough that he ain't perfect either. None of them are including you and I.
I will vote against Obama no matter who the Republican is. I won't sit on my hands waiting for a more perfect option. He has to be stopped now.
I think the problem with Obama is what he will do in the last four years. He might well decide to not challenge the First Amendment in his first term, and then he'll reverse himself in the second term. The man appears to have as much respect for the Constitution of the United States as Justice Ginsberg.
"He's been quite skilled at forcing his twisted world view onto the federal government ..."
At last, someone else gets it. Thanks for this comment. Obama has been the most "effectual" President since Reagan. Maybe even more than he was. The problem is not that he is ineffectual. The problem is that all of his many, major, far-reaching effects are exactly what we don't need. Given a second term, he will be even more "effectual." I would beg you to take the same attitude.
Conservatives, please, I'm not a Mittster either. But if it comes down to it, in November I'll grasp at whatever straw is available at the chance of getting rid of the coming health care deform than just sit home and do nothing.
Actually, the previous commenter blew right past the worst of your assumptions: that Newt Gingrich is more conservative than Mitt Romney. Oh, he knows how to speak conservative. He's great at pillow talk: his private life is proof of that. Let's not forget that this is the man who...
1. Has expressed admiration for Woodrow Wilson.
2. Has (repeatedly) called himself a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican".
3. Has (repeatedly) said that FDR was the greatest president.
4. Attacked Mitt Romney from the LEFT on his private sector experience.
5. Embraced anthropogenic global warming AND big government programs and regulatory aparatii to address it.
6. Championed *for many years* the idea of a FEDERAL (not state) health insurance mandate.
I could go on forever with this list, but why? Romney is at best squishy in his conservative bona fides, but he's miles better than Gingrich. I too get excited when he rips into the liberal press or waxes eloquent on conservative principles, but then I come back down to earth. "Oh yeah... this is Newt. I can't believe a word he says. Right." ...and the dream is over in a snap.
Gingrich can sound downright Reaganesque at times, but all the pronouns are different. Reagan never tooted his own horn. He was in love with America, its Constitution, and the Founding Fathers. Newt is in love with himself. He doesn't share your principles, he merely uses them.
Stop accepting the false dichotomy. The reliable polling (read: "Rasumussen") indicates the following:
1. If Santorum drops out, Romney will win.
2. If Santorum and Gingrich stay in, Romney will win.
3. If Gingrich drops out, Santorum will win.
4. If Romney wins, Obama will win.
5. If Gingrich wins, Obama will win.
6. If Santorum wins, Obama will lose.
The math is simple and it confirms what Reagan proved long ago: the way to win is to champion unalloyed conservative principles with a positive attitude. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Rick Santorum. Take it away, Quin: External Link
I agree with everything Commoner expressed, except item #4 (under "reliable polling"):
It is far from a given that Obama would defeat Romney. I would give Romney a 50% chance of winning at this point, and beyond a doubt, Romney would govern more conservatively than Obama. Not as conservatively as the country deserves or needs, however.
Santorum is the more conservative candidate - I agree. But, he's going to need the help of Gingrich dropping out. I don't see that happening ...
In fairness, there's something to what he says. I live in Missouri. I've never even got to vote on who the candidate for any major party for President would be. By the time of the Missouri caucuses, all other candidates beyond the front-runner, for both parties, had dropped out. We have simply never got to vote for a candidate for President. This is true of most of the country.
Because he voted for every big government entitlement program possible while he was in Congress. He is just other Progressive. I cannot understand the mindset of the so-called conservatives who continue to back Romney, Newt or Santorum--none of these guys is a conservative in anyway at all.
Paul's foreign policy is suicidal, so we have to choose among three. Santorum is far less of a big government guy than the other two. It's that simple.
+100
Anyone who thinks Ron Paul's foreign policy is "suicidal" only needs to look at Rome. The Roman Army was off fighting wars as the criminal ruling class kept the bravest out of Rome. This allowed them to loot and bankrupt Rome. Just like the USA today. At least Nero probably had a birth certificate. Meanwhile, the Huns, Visigoths, Vandals et al were coming across the borders into like illegal aliens.
Ron Paul totally gets it as does his son. Santorum at least gets most of it. Newt was possibly the only Republican to feed at Fannie and Freddie's incredibly corrupt feeding trough. Newt would have sold us out to global warming with Pelosi in a heartbeat and they almost succeeded.
