A surprising strategic move on Santorum’s part: capitalize on his just-beginning-to-show Iowa momentum by putting money into . . . New Hampshire?
Santorum’s in roughly the same spot in the next two states; he’s at 3.3 percent in New Hampshire and 2.7 percent in South Carolina. Still, Santorum’s agenda is staunch, outspoken social conservatism, a hawkish foreign policy, and a bit of economic populism (eliminate corporate taxes for the manufacturing sector, because it can easily relocate overseas, while the service industries can’t). Doesn’t that sound like a better fit for South Carolina than for more libertarian-minded New Hampshire? Couldn’t he get a jump on Granite State contenders Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney by effectively skipping New Hampshire and spending an extra week campaigning in South Carolina?
Of course, if Santorum can win just 8.3 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, he can come out of the state with a delegate. The winner will probably come out of the state with 4 delegates (if he wins 34 percent of the vote) or 6 delegates (if he wins 50 percent of the vote). So perhaps it’s worth some ad spending to get that 8 or 9 percent fourth- or fifth-place finish . . .
I like Rick Santorum, but the reality is that he has virtually no chance at the nomination, and can only impact the race as a spoiler for someone else. If he wins Iowa we're going to get a few weeks of all the reasons he is unelectable, isn't really conservative, supported some extreme position, etc. He won't have money to respond with campaign commercials, and doesn't have the eloquence to respond with brilliant interviews and debate answers like Gingrich and Cain tried to do. A big showing in Iowa may get him into double figures elsewhere, but it is highly unlikely he'll be able to survive long enough to make a two-man race, and unlikely that he'd win it if he did (though I'll probably be all for him if he does make the final two).
The candidates who have the ability to run a prolonged campaign are Romney, Gingrich, Perry and maybe Huntsman (his ability to self-fund could compensate for lack of other resources). If you want a nominee like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry ought to be your guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "I like Rick Santorum, but the reality is that he has virtually no chance at the nomination, and can only impact the race as a spoiler for someone else."
Which is, of course, the point of all of the posts of breathless anticipation about Santorum over here at NRO.
Really despicable -- and transparently obvious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, Santorum acts and talks like a true conservative, but when he had the chance to show what he's really made of, he blew it. For California's U.S. Senate seat versus Barbara Boxer, Santorum, along with Palin, both endorsed unknown (or as I like to call her--stealth) commodity, Carly Fiorina (I'm-a-conservative-because-I-say-I-am) over proven conservative Chuck DeVore, whose stellar record and commitment to conservative values and commitment should have been a clue to Santorum and Palin, both of whom have lost considerable ground in my opinion because of that endorsement. Oh sure, I've heard all the excuses about electability, but we've all seen how that turned out: we're stuck for another term with Boxer. As long as conservatives continue to vote for people who could win--instead of who SHOULD win, we'll keep getting our behinds kicked in the voting booth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this is incorrect. I believe NH uses a 10% threshold - so Santorum can't win a delegate at 8.3%, he'll need at least 10%. It also means that a candidate winning 50% of the vote may get more than 6 delegates since presumably the total vote for all candidates meeting the threshold (10%) will not equal 100% and therefore there will be "excess" delegates to be distributed to the "qualifying candidates". I suspect that will mean 50% of the vote will get you a max of 8 delegates, but it's not going to be exactly proportional.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I agree, SC is much more wise.
However, I feel Mr. Santorum's hope in the run was to grow his brand Nationally.
He really never had a chance, he doesn't even have a sincere political influence within his Home State.
Santorum lacks essential executive experience, sincere private sector accomplishment, needed economic clout, etc., and like other weak Presidential Candidates he is mostly known for his connection/existence in Washington.
He could develop a greater political role. Of course, he has considerable weaknesses in his political offering as well. His bizarre distortion of MASS law in the Iowa debate was truly embarrassing.
We shall see. But Santorum would be wiser to grow his influence, instead of plotting to game the Primary. He simply is not a strong offering for the Presidency.
Recently, the Rasmussen revealed a poll which has Romney leading Obama by some 6 points. Both Gingrich and Santorum by comparison are losing in the same poll to Obama by some ten percent or so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like that Santorum is a conservative and in the race and I want him to do well. I doubt he can win many states (if any). But the longer he is in, the better it is for conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think New Hampshire is going to be between Romney and Paul. I don't think either one gets more than 38% of the vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn South Carolina, under current rules, a candidate can win 2 delegates for each congressional district they win (there are 7 districts), and 11 delegates for winning the statewide vote. That's it.
Meldim is correct that NH has a 10% threshold to win a proportional share of the statewide delegation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse