What does Rick Santorum's rise say about Republicans?
Shana Pearlman doesn't think we should pay too much attention to the Iowa vote.
4 Jan 2012, 09:00
Romney vs Santorum
Last night Iowans took to their local gyms, church basements, and school libraries to caucus in the first meaningful contest in the presidential election of 2012, and which many political junkies like to describe as a fight for the future of the United States of America. And in this portentous moment, Iowans chose…a neck and neck photo finish between former Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, and former Governor from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, with gadfly Ron Paul coming in a respectable third.
The bien-pensants of Twitter are going to say today that the rise of Santorum represents the rise of racism and intolerance in the Republican Party, that this proves that the vaunted conservative Tea Party power was nothing more than thinly veiled Christianism. They’ll be less sure what to say about Romney; the talking points against the former Massachusetts governor, who resists the usual prejudice against working-class Americans, haven’t coalesced yet, but give it time.
First of all, anyone who thinks Santorum’s come-from-behind victory is due to racism or hatred of diversity…well, doesn’t know very much about politics. Santorum ran a very smart campaign using tried-and-true retail politicking – he basically lived in Iowa for the past year, visiting all 99 counties – which Iowans respond to very well. You have to remember that 30% of Iowans went into last night’s caucuses undecided; they cast ballots for their preferred candidates after being persuaded by speeches from their neighbors and the candidates’ surrogates. Since Santorum had reached out to so many people, and so many voters had personally met him, the undecided voters could be persuaded by people who were willing to speak out on his behalf.
Santorum also ran an clever Internet and mobile search campaign, which allowed voters searching for his name to find out not only about his policy positions, but where their local caucus was. People remember that kind of thing. It used to be that Googling “Santorum” first brought up an X-rated neologism coined by sex columnist Dan Savage; not anymore. Santorum’s won the Google wars. And considering that the former Senator spent just over a thousand dollars on broadcast advertising, and 53 thousand on “internet media” (according to opensecrets.org), which presumably includes search, he invested his money very well.
So will Santorum’s neck and neck finish with Romney stop the Romney juggernaut? Probably not. Santorum’s campaign was tailor-made to win Iowa, a small state where people love to talk about politics with their neighbors. Charismatic social conservatives, of which Santorum is one, often win Iowa, but their message doesn’t translate as well in other states. Romney is leading by double digits in New Hampshire and even with the extra fundraising boost Santorum will get from his Iowa finish, it’s difficult to see how he would crack that, particularly since he’ll get quite a lot of extra media scrutiny from journalists who’ve never liked his policy positions. Santorum’s retail politicking style also won’t work very well in a big state like Florida, which just has too large of a population to be effective.
And what about Ron Paul? Paul finds himself in a unique position in that his paleo-libertarian positions appeal to enough people that his ceiling hits about 24-30% of the vote. Which is great when diluted among six to eight candidates, he’ll always prevail. But in a two or three man contest, he’ll most likely lose. He’s unlikely to gain the Republican nomination, but it’s clear his low-spending, isolationist policies have garnered a fair amount of support as a protest vote. It’s difficult to see, however, how he can overcome the Romney money and organization behemoth.
Finally, the real significance of Iowa is not who wins the caucuses, but who loses. If a candidate is unable to garner significant support in this first contest of the primary, it becomes difficult for them to raise money and get staff for their campaigns. This is why Iowa’s often called “a winnower”; the field generally narrows afterwards. Observers are expecting Michele Bachmann, who didn’t perform very well, to drop out of the race, and Rick Perry has announced he’s going to “reassess” his campaign, though he has the money to stick around for a few more states.
Bottom line? This is great news for Santorum today, and a vindication of smart campaign thinking, but Romney is still the man to beat for the nomination, and it’s going to be tough to do so. It’s all about electability in this contest; Republicans are hungry to beat Obama, and large numbers of them see Romney as the man to do it.
The author
Shana Pearlman
Shane Pearlman is the author of the forthcoming
book "The Palin Effect: Money, Sex, and Class in American Politics".
Full profile →
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Santorum has not 'won the Google wars' - try searching Google again - the top result is still:
"Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum"
Like most posts about Santorum, this post is pretty santorum...
04/01/2012 12:33"irst of all, anyone who thinks Santorum’s come-from-behind victory is due to racism or hatred of diversity…well, doesn’t know very much about politics. Santorum ran a very smart campaign using tried-and-true retail politicking – he basically lived in Iowa for the past year, visiting all 99 counties – which Iowans respond to very well. "
So you are saying the guy lived in Iowa for a year before the poll and only just won it?
And you think that's good?
Pull the other one...
04/01/2012 17:32