-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jonathan Chait makes an interesting point in assessing the electability of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. It is often assumed that Santorum will drive swing voters into the arms of Barack Obama. But what kind of swing voters?
In fact, there are, very roughly speaking, two kinds of swing voters. One kind is economically conservative, socially liberal swing voters. This is the kind of voter you usually read about, because it’s the kind most familiar to political reporters - affluent and college educated. But there’s a second kind of voter at least as numerous - economically populist and socially conservative. Think of disaffected blue-collar workers, downscale white men who love guns, hate welfare, oppose free trade, and want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Romney appeals to the former, but Santorum more to the latter.
Chait goes on to point out that the coverage of Romney’s wealth could hurt his ability to win socially conservative downscale voters. When you move beyond swing voters to look at swing states, it is worth noting that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina loom large on the list (though Virginia and Florida are states where Romney might be stronger).
The Obama campaign will likely portray Santorum as monomaniacally focused on social issues to the exclusion of all other considerations. That could work, especially if Santorum plays into their hands. It could also backfire, like the HHS mandate appears to have backfired up to this point. But the larger problem with Santorum as the nominee would be his need to throw together an organization on the fly rather than his social conservatism.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/14/santorum-social-conservatives
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
RJ| 2.14.12 @ 12:40PM
Yes, Santorum has a challenge to put together an big scale organization. On the other hand, Romney has a track record of losing races where he is the only candidate with money and organization, in both 2008 and 2012.
Bill| 2.14.12 @ 12:40PM
Santorum's record:
1. voted for raising debt ceiling 8 times, adding to the national debt $3 trillion because PA was a blue state
2. voted against "Right-to-Work" law because PA is a pro-union state
3. voted for the Medicare Part D because PA has a large population of retirees
Time and time, santorum surrendered to his liberal constituents and failed to stand up with the majority of people of PA, and that is why he lost his senate bid by 18 points to a "silly" liberal Bob Casey in 2006.
wanna be the President? You wish!
WL| 2.14.12 @ 2:20PM
1. McCain, Boehner, Mcdonnel, Dole, and ilk that all support Romney OWN the debt limit garbage, so don't act like Santorum was some main player in that crap...THEY ALL HAVE BEEN.
2. So Mitt wasn't Pro -Abortion in Massachussetts for any other reason than political? And Mitt didn't give Mass. Romneycare, because he was from a communist state?
3. Medicare Part D? That was your boy Bush...but I guess, Santorum could have single handedly stopped it though, right...?
The "Majority" of people in PA are not "liberal constituents"????? You need to get with the facts...Pennsylvania has done a good thing or two recently...but to say the "majority" voted for a liberal as a result of Rick not standing with conservatives? is a crock of crap. That election was toxic for all Republicans because of the Moderate Bush and Rove and everyone else supporting MITT.
Romney can't even win with all the kings horses and all the kings men on his side...why do you think that is?
Because he is a loser. He was in 2008 and he will be in 2012...in the nomination battle or the general election...one or the other.
Bill| 2.14.12 @ 3:08PM
Santorum is "made in labor unions."
martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 1:07PM
So lets see what Santorum does OK ? If I were to advise him I would suggest highlighting Obama's economic record and how it impacts the average citizen plus his anti Constitutional behaviors and how negates the electoral process and of course his irresponsible foreign policy. The matter of stuff like abortion could go under the Anti-Constitutional behavior in the areas of Freedom of Speech and of Religion.
Ward Bond| 2.14.12 @ 1:26PM
Obama takes Santorum seriously.The switch over from economic matters to the Catholic Church and contaception was no accident. Obama makes no move unless it has a political motive. They now realilize Santorum's threat and will act accordingly. Obama is walking on thin ice with any attack on religion and the first amendment.
Clint| 2.14.12 @ 7:50PM
Apparently, Axelrod & Obama Have Calculated That It Would Be More Advantageous To Stick Romney To This HHS Mandate Tar Baby, Than Be Concerned About Giving Primary Advantage To Ricky Santorum.
"In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.
He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.
Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.
“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Oldefarte| 2.14.12 @ 8:44PM
Wait a minute, you're saying that this Doyle was complaining about Romney's tenure in Massachusetts when the state is overrun with Catholics such as the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Dukakases; when Boston University is located in that state; and when Catholics probably outnumber any other religious denomination there? Give me a GD break, please [oh and TELL THE TRUTH!]. If Doyle and the Catholic Church had a problem in Massachusetts, it certainly wouldn't have come from Republican Romney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 5:44PM
Doyle Didn't Run The Catholic League When Romney Was Governor, Buffoon, Fart.
Aaaand Boston University Isn't A Catholic University, Moron Fart. Boston College Is.
You're Lapsed Catholic Ax Grinder Agenda Is Showing, Fart.
Casey Abell| 2.14.12 @ 1:56PM
"But the larger problem with Santorum as the nominee would be his need to throw together an organization on the fly rather than his social conservatism."
Yeah, right. I know this passes for conventional wisdom at the Spectator. The site has deluded itself that America can't wait to get lectured by the national nanny on the evils of gay people and the Pill.
Sanctimony Santorum's overwhelming problem isn't organization. That's technical stuff which be fixed easy. He didn't lose by 18 in Pennsylvania because of organizational troubles.
Santorum's problem is...himself. He's a "a sullen, sanctimonious, scolding sourpuss" on social issues like homosexuality and birth control, as Aaron Goldstein wrote in a rare moment of Spectator candor about the national nanny.
That may not hurt him in Republican primaries, at least in states where there are enough fellow-nannies around. But it will kill him in the general. The Spectator doesn't want to see the obvious, but the obvious is still there.
teflon93| 2.14.12 @ 2:09PM
No, the American people would prefer instead to get lectured on the evils of traditional values, religious freedom, and how reforming the welfare state would be too dangerous by Your Man Mitt.
Casey Abell| 2.14.12 @ 4:27PM
"No, the American people would prefer instead to get lectured on the evils of traditional values, religious freedom, and how reforming the welfare state would be too dangerous by Your Man Mitt."
Yeah, that's exactly what's Mitt's been lecturing about. The evils of traditional values. Jeepers, the guy himself is traditional values incarnate (and he hasn't been shy about pointing it out).
W. James Antle III | 2.14.12 @ 2:42PM
Organization isn't "technical stuff that can be fixed easily." John McCain never caught up to Obama organizationally and while he probably would have lost even if he did, it did hurt him.
And I haven't deluded myself "that America can't wait to get lectured by the national nanny on the evils of gay people and the Pill." I explicitly say in this post that a strategy of running against him as a monomaniac social conservative could work and I've said so before. See, for example, the first paragraph of this post:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....e-calendar
But that presumes Santorum will run as the national scold you envision. He didn't magically turn into a social conservative in 2006. He was one during his two winning Senate races too.
Finally, the two issues are related. If Obama has $700 million to spend and a sophisticated campaign operation, he can devote those resources to painting Santorum -- who is still not well known -- as an aspiring theocrat. If Santorum's operation is noticeably inferior, he will struggle to rebut those charges.
LC Jackboot | 2.14.12 @ 3:31PM
Mr Antle- You're on the right track here. I suspect OZero's mandate regarding the Roman Catholic (and to be sure, all) churches viewpoints on birth control and abortion, as bait for Santorum and to a lesser extent perhaps Romney. What better bait than something directly related to his faith? This would fit quite nicely into the Theocrat narrative, should he take the bait and come out too strongly against the mandate. Santorum really, really needs to expand his organization for a strong national presence. Today's poll results place him ahead of Romney and now he'll be in everyone's cross-hairs. I think Rick is up to the task of gearing-up his organization and moreover this is a good time to accomplish that. It's early enough AND he isn't already in a full-out defense mode for gaffes, that are sure to come.
Casey Abell| 2.14.12 @ 4:25PM
Political reporters are always overimpressed by the backroom stuff. Gingrich came out of nowhere with no organization and won SC big with TV appearances in the debates. The backroom is just not that big of a deal.
"But that presumes Santorum will run as the national scold you envision."
Like he's suddenly going to change? What do you think everybody will talk about if he gets the nom? His tax plan, whatever it is?
Come on. It'll be all man-on-dog and the evils of contraception. You know that as well as I do.
W. James Antle III | 2.14.12 @ 5:19PM
"Gingrich came out of nowhere with no organization and won SC big with TV appearances in the debates."
And he hasn't been competitive in any other state. His cash and organizational disadvantages contributed to him blowing a lead in Florida. It also allowed Santorum to hang around to emerge as a possible Romney alternative.
"Like he's suddenly going to change?"
You are the one whose argument presupposes a change in Santorum's tone and handling of social issues in 2006 as opposed to 1994 and 2000.
Could Obama succeed in making the 2012 election a referendum on contraception and "man on dog?" Sure. And maybe Santorum will play right into his hands. But if Romney is the nominee they will make it an election about rich businessmen laying off working families, if Gingrich is the nominee he has no shortage of baggage, etc. All of them have obvious political liabilities.
The idea that social conservatism can't be framed in more artful ways or that Santorum has never campaigned in any other way is grounded more in your prejudices than the actual political history.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 1:46AM
The Media, establishment, and Obamney all did a smear campaign towards Gingrich to the likes of which that has never been seen in a primary.
That's probably the only reason Romney won Florida, and that's assuming we didn't have shannigans in Florida that we are now seeing in Maine.
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:57AM
Sigh... James, his issue stances are not the problem. We libertarians get it. Rick's a social conservative. Okay. We're used to backing you social conservatives. Nothing new for us.
That's not the problem. Problem is Ricky boy's a LOSER! social conservative.
He lost his PA Senate race by 19 friggin' points. I'll spell that out for you - N-I-N-E-T-E-E-N points.
Now look at it this way. Someone runs for dog catcher in their small town and loses, they don't turn around and run for mayor two years later.
Yoh Rick. We luv ya man. Now go back to PA and win that Senate seat back for Team GOP before you start talking about running for the highest office in the land.
Clint| 2.14.12 @ 7:56PM
" As Rachel Maddow explains in this report, the Ron Paul strategy is to let the caucus results fall where they may, and then ensure Ron Paul delegates are elected to the convention. Because these caucus results are non-binding, it ensures that the votes matter less than the delegates sent to the convention. And right now, the Iowa, Minnesota, and likely Maine delegates will be attending not for Mitt Romney, but Ron Paul. Not for Gingrich or Santorum, but Ron Paul.
The strategy is pretty simple and not secret, as explained by Ron Paul strategist Doug Wead:
WEAD: I watch television and I see them saying Romney has this many delegates and Santorum this many, and as you know, not a single delegate has been awarded from Iowa or Minnesota or Missouri or Colorado or Nevada, and as you point out, we're tracking this at the precinct level, we think we have the majority of them, we think we've won in Iowa, we won in Minnesota, we won in Colorado, and Missouri is yet to be seen. And we think we probably won in Nevada, because we're counting the precinct votes. The only thing that I might add there is nothing wrong or deceptive about this, anybody can stay. Woody Allen says 80% of success is showing up. Our people show up. and they have a right to do that, and they are committed, and so they are running as delegates at the precinct level to the county convention where they will again run as delegates from the county convention to the state convention."
Oldefarte| 2.14.12 @ 8:48PM
Shazam, Rachel Maddow is your quoted source. That Bulldyke fits right into Ronnie's libertarian political philosophy, huh? Why don't you indicate a report by Chris Matthews or Barney Frank next, that will really be a authoritative source!!!!
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:53AM
Hey Wead, great that you guys "show up" to GOP caucuses and such. Now how 'bout showing up to our worldwide fight against Islamism? You Paulists claim to be all about individual liberty. Well, tell me Sir, what's so "libertarian" about our wives/girlfriends being forced to wear black bukas from head to toe? What's so "libertarian" about gay guys being hung by the neck in Tehran for the "crime" of being homosexual? What's so "libertarian" about outlawing booze and gambling under Sharia Law? What's so "libertarian" about banning all free speech in Islamic societies?
You wanna fight for liberty? Really??? Than prove it to us. Stand up against Islamo-Fascism, the biggest threat to our liberties in the history of our Republic.
You guys have been completely AWOL. Hell, you don't even acknowledge that Islamo-Fascism exists. Buck up and join the fight! If you don't we true libertarians can only surmise that you all are a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards.
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:59AM
You mentioned his "Senate races." Yeah, James, HE LOST HIS LAST SENATE RACE.
I have not heard a single Santorum supporter ever answer the question as to why we should support some guy who lost the very last race he ran, and lost very, very badly.
Please James. Can you be the first to address that issue?
WL| 2.14.12 @ 2:10PM
Mr. Goldstein...you are forgetting the real swing voters. They are the ones who vote for Perot etc...because they are tired of squish Republicans who act like Democrats, so they have no faith in either party, and end up going back and forth.
Well...you would think the RNC and Republican party as a whole would help whoever the nominee is...
Instead of Santorum being on his own to "throw together an organization on the fly"...
But that doesn't happen does it...the big money pick their guy that we have to vote for...
And we are on our own if we don't like their guy...
I see...
No Romney for me. I'd rather take my chances with Santorum.
WL| 2.14.12 @ 2:23PM
Mr. Antle, that is...
MEK| 2.14.12 @ 6:27PM
I was a huge supporter of Mitt Romney when he ran for Governor in Massachusetts. Once he was elected, he was a terrible governor. Halfway through his term, he just gave up running the state and started focusing on a presidential run. He did not Republican Party building in the state and was only concerned about himself. He is distant, aloof and a terrible politician. The night he won the governor's seat, I was actually choked up. By the time his term was over, I was thinking "don't let the door hit you on the way out". He is a DISASTER as a politician!!!
WL| 2.15.12 @ 4:22AM
Have no fear MEK...if you tune out the Republican Nomination...and the fear of him getting elected...you have nothing to worry about...
Because he will NEVER be president...EVER...
His boy McCain was a loser, his boy Dole was a loser, His boy H.W. Bush was a loser once he has a full term to jack around Reagan's legacy and people found out he was weak, His boy G.W. Bush helped McCain lose...
And he will LOSE. See our party leadership doesn't want to win...they want us to lose.
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:48AM
And a Santorum nomination will have the effect of pushing libertarian Republican voters into the welcoming arms of the Libertarian Party.
Ain't a single libertarian Republican out there who would support Ricky "I lost my US Senate race" Santorum.
I'm about as squishy as they get in the libertarian movement. And I'm not even willing to support him.
Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states. (He might miss 1?). The Libertarian Party is poised for its greatest year ever if Santorum is the nominee.
For me, it's either fiscally conservative/socially moderate Mitt Romney, or I'm going full-force for Johnson for President.
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 8:46AM
And they will get what 2 percent of the vote rather than 1 percent?
Bo Darville| 2.15.12 @ 1:34PM
Making this election on a national referendum on birth control is a pretty dumb idea. Do we really want to give Dear Leader Obama a landslide mandate?