-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’m not saying Rick Santorum is the best choice for vice president (although polls should be taken, in order to find out). But it defies all logic for Mitt Romney to fail to strongly consider Santorum. Think about it: When, in modern political history, has the strong runner-up in a presidential primary season failed to be at least on the short list for veep (other than in a case where the party already had an incumbent, as with Jimmy Carter in 1980)?
The only two times I can think of in which a strong runner-up was not short-listed were by Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988 — both resulting in huge losses.
But that’s just history. Why should Romney give Santorum a serious look? Well, this is reading between the lines in a number of polls and in anecdotal evidence — plus, judging from reader mail I get — but…. it seems to me that there are still large numbers of would-be-right-leaning voters who will not vote for Obama but who are still very large risks to stay home out of disgust at both parties. The political class, all wrapped up in the importance of this election, doesn’t seem to comprehend the “pox on both houses” mentality, but it is real, and it is significant. A lot of these would-be voters ted to vote based on factors of cultural identity or, rather, cultural/attitudinal consanguinity. Mitt Romney, the silver-spoon money manager, who also practices a religion they think is suspect (this isn’t religious bigotry: they might still vote for him, but it just makes him seem even less “like” them and thus less to get enthusiastic about), is hardly somebody to make them take the time to go to the polls — especially if they live in hard-scrabble rural areas, such as the Blue Ridge in Virginia or the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina. Indeed, I venture to guess that it is not in the Virginia suburbs of DC where that state will be won or lost, but in the turnout rates in the western half of Virginia.
Likewise, in all those rural areas of Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota where Rick Santorum did well, Romney is noticeably weak. He also, of course, has done a less than stellar job enthusing blue collar workers, especially in the Rust Belt.
Of course, these are areas where Santorum shines. He also enthuses the greatest turnout machine known on the right, namely Christian/Evangelical conservatives. Politicos just don’t understand that Evangelicals swing widely between full participation in elections and bored non-participation. But they do. Yes, they’ll vote more heavily this time if only to stop Obama, but for a lot of them, even that won’t be motivation enough. A lot of people need somebody to vote for, not just a cause to oppose.
Moreover, my observation is that cultural-identiy voters are more ikely than, say, suburban professional “soccer moms” to change voting behavior based on the second half of the ticket. Why? Because what they are looking for — in deciding not WHOM to vote for, but WHETHER to vote at all — are cues (and clues) that somebody on the ticket “gets” them, understands them, cares about them. Soccer moms, on the other hand, are all about the financial standing of their families. In a booming economy, they will vote more on cultural concerns such as abortion, Clintonian small-ball like school crossing guards, and the like. But in troubled economic times, they will look to the top of the ticket and make decisions based almost entirely on the economy. They don’t need cultural cues about whom to vote for, nor do they threaten not to vote if unenamored of both presidential candidates, nor do they care as much about who the running mate is. Instead, if they see better economic times coming with one candidate but not with another, they will vote for that above all else.
Even if the supposition is correct (which it might not be) that Rick Santorum isn’t strong among this class of “swing voter,” that won’t make much difference. They are Romney’s to win or lose based on Romney’s own appeal, not based on the choice of running mate. But blue-collar and rural voters — especially lower-mid income workers — really don’t trust either side when it comes to economics. They want attitudinal solidarity, or they won’t vote at all.
Polls in the weeks after Santorum dropped out of the race showed him to have remarkably high positive-to-negative ratings among Republicans overall; and among the broader electorate, it seemed clear to most observers that he was respected for genuineness even where he was disagreed with on some social issues. Among the borader electorate, Rick Santorum was seen as a well-meaning striver, an overachiever, a loving family man, and a smart and principled guy even among those who don’t like his conservatism. And soccer moms aren’t going to be really turned off, in bad economic times, by a Veep candidate who dotes so much on his wife and family.
So the upside of choosing Santorum is far greater than any perceptable downside. He’s been vetted in public; there aren’t any secrets to hurt the ticket; and he is a proven debater (all but one debate performances were good) and incredibly energetic campaigner.
If Romney doesn’t give a nod to Santorum’s millions of supporters nationwide, it’s like giving them the extended middle finger. Romney’s camp really, really, really ought to do polling in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa and Colorado to see if a Romney-Santorum ticket would fare better than a plain Romney-unknown ticket. I’ll bet they would find the polling impressive. If so, Santorum should rise toward the top of the list.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/06/romney-is-really-dumb-if-he-do
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 7.6.12 @ 3:37PM
OMG here we go again with the Rickster. He would add nothing to the ticket but adversity, since he showed his pee-pee on the Republican Party mentality during the primary. The rural/country vote will be in Romney's camp anyway, sicne they won't be even considering Obama. Ditto, the South which supported Santorum will also vote solidly for Romney. Also blue collar males are already pro-Romney, and if women ever get beyond the OW [or Ellen Degenerate] Syndrome and understand who really will be beneficial to them economically speaking, they should vote Romney/Republican. The Catholic vote you say after what this administration has done to it recently????? Santorum therefore brings little or nothing to this table. No Romney will select some pro-business with a proven record of either private sector accompolishments or state government fiscal management abilities, as a Jindal, a Scott, a Walker etc. Romney's big move if elected will be towards reining in the excesses of the federal government's cost structure in order to get the defecit/debt in a downward direction. Santorum has no credentials in that regard, so should not even be considered by Romney. Maybe as ambassador to the Vatican maybe, but nothing more!!!!!!!!!!
Reggie Love| 7.6.12 @ 4:02PM
Mr.Hillyer. Did it ever occur to you the ONLY reason Santorum did what he did was the pathetic GOP field? I mean if the Cain rumors hadn't started he would probably be the nominee. Or if Romney hadn't firebombed Iowa and Florida with negative attacks on Gingrich he may have been the guy. While all this was happening Santorum sat back and noone paid him any mind. Once Romney went on his attacks,with help from Ron Paul,Santorum was done. So,to say Santorum is anything but a fad or a fluke is being too generous.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.6.12 @ 4:07PM
Rick is a nice man. Should be elected to mayor ...of Mayberry.
political_proxy| 7.6.12 @ 6:16PM
The strong runner up is Paul he is still in the race and has a far larger base than Santorum.
Neither of them are very favorable for a POTUS/VP position but this is a limited multiple choice situation not a write scenario.
It seems you are still confused these days.
spike59| 7.9.12 @ 6:13AM
oh, give it a rest...DrEarmark is a vague memory
RCV| 7.6.12 @ 6:55PM
After what Santorum had to say about Romney after losing? Quinn, you must be joking!
Jake| 7.6.12 @ 9:12PM
Romney would be dumb if he considered Santorum.
Santorum was a sore loser and a petulant whiner who still hasn't properly endorsed Romney.
He would drive voters away from the ticket.
His mercurial behavior destroyed any chance he might have had to be Ambassador to
the Holy See , which was a better fit for him than wasting political capital running for POTUS.
Cpm| 7.6.12 @ 9:37PM
Santorum has seemingly been in a coma since he withdrew. Nary a word. Maybe Hillyer can check and see if he has a pulse.
bluecollarbytes| 7.6.12 @ 9:42PM
Santorum was last on the list of 'not-Romneys'. He was the 'last resort' but in the end was done in by himself. If you want to motivate former Santorum supporters, start with comprehensive attack on obamagenda.
Bob S| 7.7.12 @ 2:43AM
Was Romney on McCain's shortlist in 2008?
Teflon93 | 7.7.12 @ 9:18AM
Romney is stupid. Which is why Obama will crush him in November despite his godawful record.
It's also why he's the standard bearer of The Stupid Party---the perfect person to carry that flag, in fact. Only an idiot thinks rerunning the 2008 campaign without the war hero makes any sense.
Oldefarte| 7.7.12 @ 11:29AM
No YOU are not only STUPID but you're DUMB besides. Go collect your paycheck from Eric at the USJD and then go blog at the NYT where your friends do!!!!!!!
Teflon93 | 7.9.12 @ 9:11PM
My, Olde Liberal's off his meds again.
You'd better double the dose given how quickly it's become apparent what a RINO moron your candidate is.
spike59| 7.9.12 @ 6:15AM
It's also why he's the standard bearer of The Stupid Party---the perfect person to carry that flag, in fact.
--------------------------
you are referring, of course to ObaMao and the Democrat Party?
Teflon93 | 7.9.12 @ 9:13PM
The only benefit of running a lib like Willard this time is it confirms to conservatives the GOP is dead and The Tea Party is rising.
Occam's Tool| 7.8.12 @ 1:43AM
I think what we are missing, guys, is that Barack Obama has been disastrous for our country, both overseas and at home. Faced with an alternative, even one as flawed as Mitt, I choose Mitt.
Again, the economy wasn't bad in 2004, was it?
Bob S| 7.8.12 @ 2:00AM
That thinking is what got us in this mess in the first place. The Democrats were giving away houses left and right, forcing banks to give high-risk mortgages to people who had no hope of paying them off. In 2004, everything seemed to work smoothly, but the eggheads at the Fed and the Treasury couldn't see even 4 years into the future when all the easy money was going to be called in and suddenly everyone was losing their house because they couldn't pay for them.
Oldefarte| 7.8.12 @ 10:30AM
OT, you're being way too generous by using the word 'disasterous' IMHO. I, not being so, would use the wording DOMESTIC TERRORISM instead....oh well, hopefully it [whatever it is] will be all over in November!!!!
Occam's Tool| 7.8.12 @ 1:43AM
However, Quin, I think The Weekly Standard's parody page on Santorum's endorsement of Mitt says it all.
spike59| 7.9.12 @ 6:18AM
Santorum brings nothing to the ticket except a target-rich environment for ObaMao and his MSM-there's a reason he got trounced in the primaries, and it doesn't go away by putting him in the VP slot
Dwimby| 7.9.12 @ 8:54AM
Notwithstanding Santorum's good points, this is nonsense.
Dai Alanye | 7.9.12 @ 2:51PM
Mitt hasn't the self-confidence to choose someone with Santorum's dominant personality. The smart money will bet on Portman or Pawlenty, quiet well-behaved boys who'll know their place.