Rick Santorum won big victories in three small contests in the Republican presidential race last Tuesday. In doing so, he reshaped the oft-reshaped nomination battle once again. But he has not installed himself as the favorite, and neither he nor Mitt Romney has established himself as the candidate who can do best in the general election.
These were small contests not because the states involved were small — Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado all have populations near the national average — but because the primary in Missouri and the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado are nonbinding, so their results don’t give any candidate any convention delegates.
Advertisement
So the contests weren’t really for keeps, as all three were in 2008, when Romney won them all. It says something negative about Romney that he wasn’t able to motivate many people to come forward to vote for him. But it doesn’t say everything that Santorum was able to motivate more, with overall turnout tanking in Missouri and lower in Colorado and Minnesota than in 2008.
The one candidate who took a clear loss was Newt Gingrich, who failed to get on the ballot in Missouri, finished a miserable fourth in Minnesota, and beat Ron Paul by one percentage point in Colorado. Those are dreadful results 16 days after his big win in South Carolina. It’s not clear how he maintains the visibility he needs to recover.
Both Santorum and Romney can reasonably claim that he would be a stronger candidate in the general election. Republican voters in contests that count may want to examine and evaluate their claims.
Each can cite some supportive polls. Santorum, not as yet the target of high-visibility negative campaigning, can point to recent national and Ohio polls showing him running stronger against Barack Obama. Romney can cite other national and Virginia polls showing him doing so.
Santorum’s case is that he has shown appeal to blue-collar voters — to the non-college-educated whites whom Democrats have been enticing to return to their fold for decades.
His platform, with its zero corporate tax on manufacturing, is tailored to appeal to these voters. And he believes that his strong conservative stand on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage can establish a link with tradition-minded people in Catholic neighborhoods and old factory towns.
The Obama administration’s attempted decree that Catholic charities must buy health insurance including abortion pills gives him a strong talking point.
But are there as many votes there as Santorum thinks? The old steelworker House district where he was first elected in 1990 has been losing population ever since. And even in 2008, John McCain won non-college whites by a 58 percent to 40 percent margin.
Santorum would probably run better among this group than Romney, whose unforced errors and political tin ear have made him seem aloof.
But there’s also a case to be made that Romney may run better among another, less noticed group — affluent voters.
This year and in 2008, Romney’s best showings in primaries have come in affluent areas. And polling seems to indicate that he does particularly well with affluent women.
Those are groups among whom Republicans have been slipping for more than a decade. In the 2008 presidential election, voters with incomes over $100,000 split 49 percent to 49 percent.
You can see the trend in the four suburban counties just outside Philadelphia. The first George Bush carried them with 61 percent in 1988. Since then, the Democratic percentage has been rising steadily, reflecting the liberal stands of affluent voters, especially women, on cultural issues.
Barack Obama carried them with 57 percent in 2008. You see similar patterns in the suburbs in most major non-southern metro areas.
Santorum carried the Philadelphia suburbs in Senate races in 1994 and 2000. But in 2006, a dreadful year for Republicans, he lost them by 60 percent to 40 percent, a worse loss than McCain’s.
Santorum would probably do better this year, with economics overshadowing cultural issues. But it’s easy to imagine that Romney would run better in what seems to be his natural terrain.
Political analysts have been assuming that Democrats’ gains among affluent voters are solid. But are they more solidly committed than non-college whites?
Both the “Santorum’s stronger” and “Romney’s stronger” theories seem plausible to me now; neither seems proven. I’ll keep them in mind as the race continues.
But, let's not even consider that Ron Paul runs better than both of them with Independents and disaffected democrats. Because those groups won't matter at all come election time! Keep ignoring him boys. Your gonna get a big surprise at the convention.
I wrote something like this elsewhere and I am putting it here, as well.
Santorum may be a good guy and sincere; he may offer our best hope. If he is the nominee I will vote for him. But do all of our readers believe Santorum can beat Obama? I am not so sure.
If NR had not put that banner headline against Gingrich, who knows how things might have turned out? Yes, Gingrich is arrogant and full of himself. Yes, he has an unpleasant past. Yes, he offers too many ideas instead of being Reaganesque and concentrating on the few big ones that matter. Yes, he can't seem to run a good organization. But he is the only one who tells it like it is. He is the only one to call Obama a Saul Alinsky radical. The others are too polite. He is the only one with the exact right tax policies and specific spending cuts. I believe he is the one we need at this moment. And NR is determined to undermine his ability to get traction. We may get stuck with someone else. And I surely hope it will be the one that will get our country out of the dangerous mess Obama and company have put us in. But conservative media has not been a help in the process of the selection.
I hope we don't all rue the day once we get our candidate. I hope the best man wins and we take it all in November.
And I am adding here that too many on our side discuss polls and tactics. So few deal with the ideas. If our pundits dealt only in ideas, Gingrich wins hands down. If our pundits dealt only with proposed solutions, how to talk to liberals, and what a candidate says he will do, Gingrich wins it all. Imagine a world where our pundits did not show their genuine hostility to Gingrich all the time. Imagine if they pretended an objectivity. We need a strong conservative to undo damage. Santorum and Romney make their appeals by using groups - Romney with his talk of the very, very wealthy, middle class and poor and Santorum with tax cuts to manufacturers. We are not a country of groups with special interests. Conservatives should not use group think. The only candidate who remembers that we are Americans and we are all in this together is Gingrich. He may offer suggestions about helping the poor move up. Bur they are conservative solutions. We will win with ideas and unapologetic conservatism, not with hoping for good demographics.
Let voters decide who should win. Our pundits should be discussing ideas, not polls.
I want to join in and support you with a hearty "Hear, Hear".
Just watch their CPAC speeches. Newt is the only one who thinks like a President, and who's got the background to show that he actually knows how to do it.
Frankly, I don't see the first doubt. Newt Gingrich is more qualified to be President than anyone else out there, far and away.
Newt's unpleasant past and arrogance are enough to do him in. He can't win the nomination, despite his occasional good ideas (like colonizing the moon). Both Romney and Santorum have major flaws that could prevent them from beating Obama. I can't tell which one is more electable either, especially with the economy improving, but I feel much more comfortable with Santorum. Romney's only virtues are that he has money, organization, a Presidential appearance, and he isn't Obama. Santorum is an authentic, but not doctrinaire, conservative. His primary flaw is that his outspoken views on reproductive issues will drive many voters to Obama. If Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him against Obama, but that is it. I won't give him any contributions or do anything else for him. I've contributed to Santorum.
Rick Santorum can beat Obama in November and has the best chance of the four. Newt has too much baggage, Ron Paul needs to be Rand and Romney cannot close the deal. I like Ron Paul but his son is the real deal. Ron comes off too snarky lately, attacks Santorum because Ron is friends with Romney.
Rick Santorum needs to focus more on the economy and start beating Obama like a drum on the misery he has caused in America. Give people a choice of four more years of Obama misery which will get far worse. Or a chance for recovery.
Santorum is the most youthful of the group and looks much better than Obama. Yes it is a beauty contest. Focus on young people who have no job prospects. Be more like Reagan and tone down some of the social issues. We knew Reagan had his faith but he hammered Carter on the economy.
Rick can get close the deal with Catholics, Evangelicals, Reagan Democrats, conservatives, Italian-Americans, the youth vote, Hispanics, baby boomers, seniors and the middle class. If America gets 4 more years of Obama - it is game over for baby boomers, seniors and the middle class. Rick needs to go after Obama because Romney, Paul and Newt are no longer your opponents. Stay on the economy.
Who is the stronger against Obama?
That is an interesting question, but the answer is NOT Romney, or Santorum, or Gingrich, or Paul, or Ryan, or Pelosi, or......fill in any name; the answer is the conservative constituency of voters.
No politician will advance a Conservative agenda, because no politician shares our values. 2010 proved what happens when "conservatism" runs against "big government." 2011 proved what happens when "conservatism" relies soley upon elected "representation".
It will be the Conservative voter who stands strongest against Obama, because the others stand with him.
Now here's the rub, we know the GOP is not conservative. Any doubt of that was erased by the legislative actions of last year. We know Romney embodies the Republican Liberal, and just like Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and the rest of the GOP leadership - will relegate Conservatives to the black hole for opposing opinions that has served them so well in the past.
Conservatives won't vote for Romney, just as we won't vote for Obama; and save your whines of "not supporting Mitt is supporting Obama", that is not true, not supporting Romney, is not supporting Liberalism.
The fact that the general elections have devolved into no more than a primary for liberals - is not lost on us. Is Santorum, or Gingrich, or Paul, et alia the solution? Probably not, but they would be a better standard-bearer for Conservatism - and THAT's what it is all about.
I would suggest the GOP, should they want their Chairmanships and Majority status in Washington, find a better way to garner Conservative votes than flouting Liberals in our faces. You see, many of us are done supporting Liberalism whether the R's or the D's promote it because Conservatism loses either way.
Geoph, you wrap yourself in your own extreme right mantra and convince yourself of your own "right-eouness" but fortunately America does not havenot an extreme-embracing electorate. Angle and O'Donnel were soundly defeated in 2010, not swept into office by the some mythical deep conservative tide. General elections for President are won in the middle. Had Barack Obama run like he governs he would have lost - and we would probably have President Hillary.
Republicans, unless you want four years of an exponentially more liberal Obama - select a nominee that can attract moderates and independents. Let folks like Geoph continue to muttter with his head in the sand.
Ah Michael, you offer us the choice to pull the trigger ourselves or to let someone else have the honor of shooting us. Gee thanks.
You have conveniently neglected to refute my statements, even if only denying my premis is valid via an opinion.
Did O'Donnell and Angle win? Nope. Did Perot? Nope. Did I say Cons would have a majority? Nope.
What I DID say was the GOP is assuring themselves minority status by flipping us the bird. Afterall, last I checked - those two Senate seats are still being held by Dems.
Your right on, Michie. It's true. America is like a bad marriage. We have to have compromise, i.e., a centrist government, to succeed and thus a center-leaning leader. Santorum is too right-- he would be divisive like he was in the senate. He comes off as self-righteous (New Hampshire incident) and would turn into the Pastor-in-chief. Gingrich would be good in a lot of ways but he lacks the steadiness we need. Romney is stiff and plain, but he would work with what he's got (people from the left and right) and would manage at a genius level (there's a reason his organization is the best by far of the whole lot).
If you look at opinion polls (which may be a bad idea, as they seem designed to manipulate, not inform, long-term public opinion) Ron Paul (I know, I know) is the only one who attracts young, liberal-leaning independent voters. Because of that, he runs closer to Obama than I would have predicted.
Fred Thompson would be pretty awesome, but it only works if Fred Thompson is willing to actually run. In 2008 he strolled around a bit and then dropped out. That is not going to cut it.
I have a lot of doubts about Romney and Gingrich. I want to like Rick Santorum. I urge Rick Santorum not to go down that road of a social conservative nanny scold. We need a conservative leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who made the GOP tent big and inclusive. External Link I do not want him to compromise on core right to life principles, but saying he is going to drive libertarians out of the GOP and conservative movement is frankly unhelpful and a non starter for him having a viable chance at the White House.
