SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home How Rick Santorum Could Cost Romney the Presidency

THE STUMP JANUARY 4, 2012

How Rick Santorum Could Cost Romney the Presidency

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

Last night we re-learned an important lesson from 2008: In Iowa, the Republican candidate with momentum way exceeds his final poll numbers; the Republican candidate named Mitt Romney ... doesn’t. In 2008, Mike Huckabee exceeded his final polling average by about five points; Romney actually dropped off by about a point-and-a-half. This time out, Rick Santorum exceeded his final polling average by almost ten points. Romney was up about two-and-a-half. 

In both cases, the explanation was pretty obvious: Romney was well known heading into caucus night and not much loved. People who hadn’t decided to support him beforehand were unlikely to do it on the spot. By contrast, Santorum was positioned to scoop up anyone who showed up thinking they’d support Perry or Gingrich or Bachmann then decided they’d like to back someone who had a chance of winning. Thus it was that Santorum ended up crashing Romney’s coronation. 

For much of 2011, Romney seemed to understand this dilemma. He scrupulously avoided competing in Iowa—or, at least, being seen as competing in Iowa. Then, a few weeks out from the caucuses, he sensed an opportunity and went all-in. This was a strategic mistake. Without the shift, Romney probably wouldn’t have done appreciably worse. In fact, according to the caucus entrance poll, Romney won 28 percent of the voters who made up their minds before December—when he officially wasn’t contesting Iowa—but only 23 percent who made up their minds afterwards, the period when he actively competed. 

For Romney, the upside of neglecting Iowa is that it would have minimized Santorum’s good showing there. The press would have proclaimed it a nice but mostly meaningless accomplishment to win a contest missing its frontrunner. Romney could have then gone about his business of rolling up a 25-point victory in New Hampshire. 

Now, the press will dwell on Romney’s vulnerability. We’ll point out that, despite his best efforts, three-quarters of the Republican primary electorate still won’t give him the time of day. Though he’ll almost certainly still win New Hampshire, the margin will be smaller than it otherwise would have been, perhaps much smaller. Santorum may well come out of New Hampshire with more momentum than Romney, since the bar there is so low for him, and since the boost he gets going in will be much bigger after fighting Romney to a draw in Iowa. That creates real danger for Romney as the two men head into South Carolina, a state where social conservatives predominate and Mormons struggle. 

Can Santorum ultimately deny Romney the nomination? Probably not. As many others have pointed out, he just doesn’t have the resources and organization to go stride-for-stride with Romney over the long-haul. He also has a record of outlandish rhetoric and K-Street sleaze that will surely be picked over in the coming weeks. But even if Santorum can’t stop Romney from becoming the Republican nominee, he can probably stop him from becoming president.  He can do this by prolonging the primary contest by a month or two and deepening the ambivalence toward Romney within the GOP. In the coming weeks, Republican voters will be hearing a lot more about Romney’s intellectual paternity of “Obamacare” and his serial flip-flopping on social issues. 

Improbably, Santorum’s secret weapon in this effort will be Newt Gingrich. Newt made his contempt for Romney glaringly obvious in his concession speech last night, suggesting that bloodying the former Massachusetts governor more than suffices as his rationale for staying in the race. Now Gingrich gives Santorum the great luxury of a Romney hit man for which Santorum can’t be held responsible. (It goes to show that if you’re going to shoot at an unserious candidate, as Romney shot at Newt in Iowa, you’d better kill him.) 

For Santorum, the question is whether he’s savvy enough to capitalize on his post-Iowa opportunities. Can he stay sunny and positive while Newt (and, in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman) rough Romney up? Or will he fall into the shrillness that sometimes gets the better of him, as when he criticized Romney on health care during last year’s debates? Can he appeal to blue-collar Catholics in New Hampshire who might be just as concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs as they are about abortion? Can he fuse together Tea Partiers and social conservatives? 

The early indications from Santorum’s victory speech last night were encouraging in this respect. Santorum mostly struck an optimistic posture and only made oblique mentions of Romney. He explicitly nodded at blue-collar workers and the decline of manufacturing, but still stressed his credentials as a tax-cutter and government-capper. He thanked his Creator profusely. 

None of this will much matter to the chances of a Santorum presidency, the prospects for which are basically nil outside the former senator’s head. But it could matter quite a bit to the future of an Obama presidency. As one Obama consultant emailed me last night, “How bout Rick!?” The difference between a primary campaign that lasts two weeks and one that lasts two months could make all the difference in the world for Barack Obama. And Rick Santorum now has the power to make it happen. 

follow me on @noamscheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 28 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

28 comments

If the Republican establishment panics over Iowa, then Huntsman is their logical choice. And Obama's most formidable opponent. Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, they are all the same, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more" kind of candidates. Mad at foreigners, mad at Muslims, mad at immigrants, mad at secularists, mad at space aliens (well, Gingrich has to be mad at somebody besides Romney), mad at the "other" (Obama included). Yesterday a conservative wrote that Aaron Burr was the only candidate for president who actually posed a threat to the country. It was a lame effort to reassure readers that the Republican candidates may not be Jefferson (or Reagan), but none would actually pose a threat to the country if elected. Even for Republicans (Nixon!), that's a low bar. My point is that the Republican establishment cannot simply stand to the side while the party potentially nominates somebody whose major qualification for office is that he/she will not pose a threat to the country if elected. Romney and Huntsman, those are the alternatives. Expect a Huntsman surge.

- rayward

January 4, 2012 at 7:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm forward to a playground fight from the kicking, pinching, petty Gingrich.

- Nusholtz

January 4, 2012 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There will be no Huntsman surge. He has virtually no appeal to the Republican primary voters regardless of what the "elites" say. Huntsman will, however, join Gingrich in pounding on Romney, with the result that Romney's margin of victory in New Hampshire will be seen effectively as a loss because so far below the earlier poll predictions. Beyond New Hampshire, Romney may well lose South Carolina to Santorum, who will quickly build resources ($ and people) via the Internet. The most significant events will be the reactions of Perry and Bachmann -- who by the way has already cancelled her trip to South Carolina and is planning a press conference. If one or even both of them support Santorum, he will be a formidable candidate in the remaining primary states and may well win the nomination. The key point that the pundits, including those in the TNR, constantly overlook is that 75% of the Republican primary voters do not like Romney and thus will eventually unite around an alternative candidate.

- PeteBeck

January 4, 2012 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PeteBeck hits many nails on their many heads. And his key point really is key: Most Republicans don't like Romney, and it's not just ideological. The guy comes across as a patronizing elitist, and may well actually be that way to a good extent. The Republican version of John Kerry. Now, Romney may still be the favorite to get the nomination. But he is a lot weaker than Noam and others are acknowledging. The next media meme will be, If Romney is so electable, why is he having so much trouble getting votes against a supposedly weak field?

- Thunderroad

January 4, 2012 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to agree with Pete. I still think Romney is slightly more likely to get the nom than santorum or anybody else, but is by no means a lock. Not when 75% of the gop electorate have (see Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Santurum surges) basically said they'd rather eat glass than get behind Mitt as their contender against Obama. And if Romeny does squeak it out? How many of these social uberconservatives and tea party fanatics will stay home? I can recall no other election that so glaringly highlighed the psychic battle between a complete lack of interest in one's own candidate vs a visceral bottomless hatred in the opponent. It's going to be fascinating to see if the latter is strong enough to get them to stand in line at their town halls and high school gyms after work to pull a lever. If unemployment continues to improve, I'm guessing the answer will be no.

- Tristan

January 4, 2012 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am friends with Huntsman's uncle and aunt who speak very, very highly of him although they are Democrats. If Huntsman were the Republican nominee, I could actually sleep at night without high anxiety about the future of the country. He is the one Republican who is not nuts or in thrall to the nuts. In fact, if it were possible, I would rather see Huntsman as president and a very heavily Democratic Congress than Obama as president and the Republicans and blue-dog Democrats with 40 or more votes in the Senate. I think the country would make more progress than with a Democratic president and a fanatically obstructionist, wacko Republican party, as we have today. Still, it ain't going to happen. I agree with PeteBeck. There will not be a Huntsman surge because the nuts who dominate the Republican party won't have him, much as the monied elite might like otherwise. (So difficult to control the brownshirts with which right-wing elites must surround themselves because their own numbers are so few. Hitler needed the Night of the Long Knives to do it.) I wouldn't bet on it for a moment, but PeteBeck's scenario is very plausible. The story of the Republican race has been the nuts casting about for an alternative to Romney whom they distrust or even detest, trying on one candidate after another to see if they can carry the water as front-runner. How else to explain even a brief moment in the sun for such ludicrous candidates as Cain and Bachmann? It may turn out in the end that Gingrich's role will have been as pace-horse for Santorum, preventing Romney from locking up the nomination while Santorum avoided prematurely the dangerous role of champion of the nutcases. If Romney cannot knock off Santorum quickly in South Carolina, then all of the nuts will finally abandon the rest of the kook candidates in his favor. Santorum might then pull it off.

- roidubouloi

January 4, 2012 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Huntsman has put almost all of his effort into a strong showing in New Hampshire. If he does surge there and makes a good showing, or even wins, in Florida (forget South Carolina), he could gain the support of the establishment, become the odds-on favorite, build lots of momentum, and win the nomination as we move to more moderate territory. That's his strategy, anyway, a strategy that has been criticised by the experts at TNR. I agree that Republican primary voters are seeking an alternative to Romney, but an alternative who can beat Obama. Santorum is not that alternative. He can win in South Carolina but that's about it. Which leaves Huntsman as the only alternative, an alternative who has lots of money to spend and who, as Roi points out, can beat Obama. It's a two Mormon race.

- rayward

January 4, 2012 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the very same nuts who cannot stomach Romney think even less of Huntsman who has not even attempted to pander to them. Even if Huntsman drains all of Romney's support, he just becomes the new Romney for which the nutcases are seeking an alternative. How can Huntsman possibly win the votes of the wingnuts who are withholding their support from Romney?

- roidubouloi

January 4, 2012 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No history of pandering. No Massachusetts. No Bain Capital. Three attractive daughters. Forget that last one.

- rayward

January 4, 2012 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Economy. Would jobs be a factor? Will see.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 4, 2012 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is funny Romney is unattractive as a candidate. Lots of money. Joe Scarborough said that Rick perry paid $500. A vote in Iowa, and he lost. Romney spent a lot of money and he won by 7 votes. Rick Santorum had very little money and came 2nd , but travelled Iowa with his pick up truck back and forth. Joe Scarborough was taken with Santorum speach after the Iowa vote. Santorum talked about his grandfather that was a coal miner in Western PA. Real and true connections with the common people. Joe Scarborough is the half anchor of Morning Joe in MSNBC. Myra Breszinski is the other half, I like her except when she brings her father to talk about the Middle East, and says nonsense . Will see if 2012 will be the election about the economy. Foreign policy is out, unless we have a big fight with Iran. Then Obama will win big. Trust my words.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 4, 2012 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is funny Romney is unattractive as a candidate. Lots of money. Joe Scarborough said that Rick perry paid $500. A vote in Iowa, and he lost. Romney spent a lot of money and he won by 7 votes. Rick Santorum had very little money and came 2nd , but travelled Iowa with his pick up truck back and forth. Joe Scarborough was taken with Santorum speach after the Iowa vote. Santorum talked about his grandfather that was a coal miner in Western PA. Real and true connections with the common people. Joe Scarborough is the half anchor of Morning Joe in MSNBC. Myra Breszinski is the other half, I like her except when she brings her father to talk about the Middle East, and says nonsense . Will see if 2012 will be the election about the economy. Foreign policy is out, unless we have a big fight with Iran. Then Obama will win big. Trust my words.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 4, 2012 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is funny Romney is unattractive as a candidate. Lots of money. Joe Scarborough said that Rick perry paid $500. A vote in Iowa, and he lost. Romney spent a lot of money and he won by 7 votes. Rick Santorum had very little money and came 2nd , but travelled Iowa with his pick up truck back and forth. Joe Scarborough was taken with Santorum speach after the Iowa vote. Santorum talked about his grandfather that was a coal miner in Western PA. Real and true connections with the common people. Joe Scarborough is the half anchor of Morning Joe in MSNBC. Myra Breszinski is the other half, I like her except when she brings her father to talk about the Middle East, and says nonsense . Will see if 2012 will be the election about the economy. Foreign policy is out, unless we have a big fight with Iran. Then Obama will win big. Trust my words.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 4, 2012 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Something wrong TNR published my blog 3 times. No harm done. Go and vote in 2012, even one vote counts.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 4, 2012 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Kerry is not a good analogy for Mitt Romney in any way. Despite the long-winded statements Kerry was generally not seen as a patronizing elitist by Democratic voters (the 'patronizing' laurels go to Al Gore). He was/is a popular senator and possessed an actual war record as well as a principled anti-war record. I agree he lost largely through his own fault (although Ohio remains an ominous case) but that fault wasn't the kind of false bonhomie and shameless gymnastics which are the markers of the Mittster.

- ironyroad

January 4, 2012 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i hope you are right ray.

- blackton

January 4, 2012 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: Despite the long-winded statements Kerry was generally not seen as a patronizing elitist by Democratic voters what? years back Gary Trudeau started mocking Kerry for just that. I think a lot of Democrats viewed him as a windsurfing elitist. And it was Kerry who set the standard for gymnastics with his I voted for it before I voted against it which alone probably lost him the election.

- blackton

January 4, 2012 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll put this out there for the TNR commenters to chew on. Even though it's rainbows and unicorn dust thinking. Huntsman has a good showing in NH, his policy positions get some attention (finally and because he's the only one that any with some thought and realism to them) and the he does a slow fade the remainder of the primaries. Obama looking to garner the left and center votes for a second term, taps Hustman for VP. Why not? Biden probably wants to retire and live the good life now. Hillary, while I love her, makes for a better Sec. of State. I think Huntsman would bring a lot to the table as a bona fide centrist within the GOP party. It would also give people pause to think about what it would mean to have an election with a bi-partisan ticket on the Dem side and a 'gives me a sleazy-feeling' Romney on the GOP side. Romney won't be able to muster support from the 75% of the GOP that hate him. He would have to tap a Santorum or Cantor or Paul Ryan for his VP choice to ignite a big enough fire under the GOP to get behind a Mittens POTUS campaign.

- singlspeed

January 4, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@singlspeed: Setting aside all other questions, what's in it for Huntsman? He gets to be Vice President, but in and of itself the Vice Presidency is, in John Nance Gardner's memorable phrase, "not worth a bucket of warm p***." Normally, people want it because it's a stepping stone to run for the Presidency. I can't see how you do that as a cross-party veep. Is Huntsman going to run to succeed Obama on the Democratic ticket in 2016? "Obama's Vice President" is not going to do him any favors in the 2016 Republican primary, that's for sure. Obama knocked him out of the running in 2012 just by making him ambassador to China.

- Dausuul

January 4, 2012 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not Santorum or Gingrich who will cost Romney the general election, it's Romney who will cost himself the election. He is a terrible candidate. The eerie parallels with John Kerry (even if imperfect) will be catnip to the media: filthy rich blueblood who is personally awkward and has a record of mealy-mouthed equivocations; a trail of offended people in his supposed area of strength (Swiftly Laid-off Workers for Truth?); and a relatively unenthusiastic and conflicted base deeply opposed to a likable President who faced down a severe crisis early in his term. And the Huntsman speculations are pure fantasy. That man is deeply unlikable, dripping with sarcasm and irony. Not to mention that his message is muddled and the Republican base has romanced every other candidate, including much less serious ones.

- polcereal

January 4, 2012 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Swiftly Laid-off Workers for Truth" I love it.

- Vekert

January 4, 2012 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brilliant; print up some posters!

- Sophia

January 4, 2012 at 2:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dausuul....I can see where you're coming from. Huntsman's one shot for running as a GOP candidate is now. I don't see the GOP moving back to the center ever again unless it splits. Maybe Huntsman drops out of the GOP and runs as a third party but I don't see that happening either. What he would get out of the VP would be something close to being POTUS without the baggage. He can use the office in a much more proactive way than Biden has and he's proven that he and Obama can work together. Obama and Huntsman could actually work to getting things done by allowing those remaining, somewhat normal Republicans to actually, you know, pass some meaningful legislature that moves America forward. I think Huntsman could be an excellent cross-party veep. He would clearly illustrate that he seeks to serve for the bettering of the country (he already illustrated that as ambassador to China) and while the GOP left him, he hasn't yet left the GOP..yet. As for the GOP primaries in 2016, perhaps Huntsman runs as third-party candidate. In 2016 Obama retires to Hawaii and builds a library. Who knows what will happen in 2016? I don't but I feel moderately confident that the GOP will continue it's march ever-rightward.

- singlspeed

January 4, 2012 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant to say I DO feel moderately confident that the GOP will continue to march rightward.

- singlspeed

January 4, 2012 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who talks for the unemployed? Who talks for the 10 million homes under foreclosure? On this site nobody but me. The republican bunch only Santorum mentions the working folks. For the others they have plenty of money. And when push comes to shove they dwell in banality after banality. Goes to show , they are the only ones that can afford a TNR subscription. There goes 2012. And I don't have a relative of a relative that knows a relative of a relative of Santorum. Superficiality of banality and mediocrity.

- JAIMECHUCH

January 4, 2012 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iowa rewarded Santorum for being there more than anyone else, for denting Ron Paul, and for being so ignored that it is only now that the 75% NOT-Romneys now credit Santorum for Obamacare, because he endorsed Arlen Spector Hysteria abounds. Scheiber over-estimates the length of time it will take to take down what one blogger calls the 'Big Government earmarxist statist', and that did not include the late-breaking 'consultant' to K-Street. and that Google dilemma. The 2012 election will be driven by Senate contests. Could be the first time in US history where the presidential candidates get fewer votes than the U.S. Senate. Huntsman wants to save the GOP. If he can keep Romney below 40% in NH, wait for the Huntsman surge. btw, the Huntsmans and the Perrys (yup, those texas perrys) are very close friends from when they served as governors. I am fairly certain Huntsman is more of an Episcopalian (like his wife) with a touch of Confucianism these days. Y'all need to settle in for another thirteen+ weeks.

- K2K

January 5, 2012 at 2:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, I still don't think Kerry is a good analogy for the other reasons I mentioned. The "I voted for before I voted against" was not a Romney-type squirming but rather a typically ham-handed Kerry way of trying to honestly explain a tactical voting move -- the complete opposite of Romney's smooth cheery airbrushing of his past.

- ironyroad

January 6, 2012 at 1:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney is the wrong man for this season. There is a sense in the land that our system is unfair and becoming more so. Capital is privileged over labor, corporate interests trump individual rights and the middle class is sinking. And here comes a fellow who can't publish his tax returns because people will see how great his income is and how relatively small is his tax bill. He will win the nomination and lose the election by a wide margin. Santorum is a joke. Oppose contraception? Boy, that's a winner.

- paskunac

January 6, 2012 at 7:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close