There's a bunch of new, good stuff out there speculating about Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and exactly where the GOP race is now. I recommend Steve Kornacki, Ed Kilgore, and Nate Silver. I may have more to say about that in a bit, but for now I have a somewhat different question: why now, and not a month ago? That is, why has Santorum had a full, no-doubt-about-it national polling surge after his wins in Colorado and Minnesota, but not after Iowa? And it certainly mattered, in my view; had he had this surge in the first week of January, it's very possible he could have finished second in New Hamsphire and won South Carolina, and right now he'd either have it wrapped up or be close. So why not then?
First possibility: I know what you're all thinking; it's because he didn't actually win Iowa; or, more to the point, because he wasn't the announced winner. And that's certainly possible. But I don't believe it. Gary Hart finished a very weak second in Iowa and then a shocking win in New Hampshire, after all. That's why I predicted in advance that Santorum would get basically the same surge whether he finished first, second, or third (behind Romney and Paul, that is). Santorum would have been the unknown candidate with a surprise placing; that should have been enough to receive a flood of favorable publicity, and all year that's meant a polling surge.
I'm not sure I'll convince anyone, but I believe it, which sends me looking for other options:
Second possibility: Pundits had radically discounted Santorum because of the Huck in 2008, and perhaps others going back to Pat Robertson in 1988.
Third possibility: Santorum was helped last week by how few polls there were; while he was a surprise in the days leading up to Iowa, he wasn't much of a surprise that day. On the other hand, there were very few polls of CO/MN (and Missouri), and so his wins were a big surprise. No surprise, no positive coverage.
Fourth possibility: Three states trump one state. Possible, but seems unlikely to me.
Fifth possibility: Newt wasn't dead yet after Iowa, and the press loves him -- he got some of what Santorum had earned. By CO/MN, the press finally realized that Newt was really dead.
Sixth possibility: Santorum muffed the Iowa spin. He waited until late at night to deliver a victory speech, and then failed (in some way?) to capitalize on it over the next couple of days, including in GOP debates that weekend.
Seventh possibility: Because there were two upcoming debates and a big primary in New Hampshire in only seven days, the press got distracted from Iowa. After CO/MN, there was nothing up next for a while, so those stayed in the news cycle longer.
Eighth possibility: It wasn't a press story; it was a GOP party story. GOP elites were sending strong signals (were they?) after Iowa that Santorum was going nowhere. After CO/MN, they weren't. Note: this one is entirely speculative; I don't know what signals if any were being sent in either case.
Ninth possibility: delayed third-candidate effect. It wasn't about CO/MN at all; it was a result of Romney and Newt spending a couple of weeks attacking each other viciously. Problem: Santorum wasn't running an entirely positive campaign either -- but then again, perhaps no one noticed what he was doing.
And, finally, tenth possibility: Had Santorum won Iowa easily or finished a solid second or solid third, he would have received a bounce. A very, very close second didn't work because it set up a "who's the loser" story that was, for the time, answered with "Santorum." If Romney had won by ten points, the cable nets would have rapidly pivoted off the "who is winning?" story to a "who is this Santorum guy?" story.
So which of these is correct? I have no idea! I like 2, 3, and 10, and perhaps a bit of 6, but I really don't know. I'm not even sure I know what kind of evidence one could use to study this, although I am interested in knowing what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh were saying on January 3-4 and February 7-8. If anyone has any thoughts on all this, or even better any real evidence, I'm very interested.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
How about the possibility that Santorum was just ill-suited to the demographics of New Hampshire, no matter how good his bump? That's one thing about this analysis that you and several other commentators repeatedly overlook, that gets lost in all the discussion about money, momentum, and party influence. While Romney has outperformed many people's expectations, all his victories so far have been in states that were demographically suited to him, with high proportions of moderates, libertarians, and/or Mormons. He has faced the biggest hurdle in states dominated by evangelicals and the most conservative members of his party. Iowa may be an exception to that rule, but even his virtual win there was just 24%, at a time when he had more rivals in the race to cancel each other out.
ReplyDeleteThe Romney-friendly-demographic states acted as buffers against the insurgent candidates who were just coming off victories of their own. So Santorum's Iowa surge was stymied from the beginning by NH, and Gingrich's SC win was similarly so by Florida and Nevada. I'm still waiting for that moment when Romney finally breaks through and picks up a state that looks more Santorum- or Gingrich-friendly. If that doesn't happen pretty soon, it's going to be a long race.
#5, and definitely someone with the stomach to monitor talk radio on a daily basis might be able to shed some light. Also simple disbelief: Santorum is, far more than Pawlenty would have been, Republican Dukakis, dutifully echoing the worldview of the base but both ideologically and personally devoid of any crossover appeal.
ReplyDelete#1, #2, #4, #7, #11 (Kylopod's argument)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think 7 is the correct answer. If you look at the polling, Newt was dead in the water leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire. It was during this pre-Iowa collapse that Santorum surged from the rear. But, his momentum stopped because there were too many other stories leading up to New Hampshire, such as: Michelle Bachmann dropping out; was there going to be a Huntsman surge; Rick Perry goes to Texas to ponder his future.
ReplyDeleteThen Santorum could have picked up on his momentum following the South Carolina debates were it not for the fact that he didn't do very well, and Newt's John King moment. All of these things just left Santorum behind. But now that the press is counting Newt out, all the conservatives uneasy about Romney have to coalesce around someone. And the only serious alternative left is Santorum.
The obvious answer is right in front of us.
ReplyDeleteThat is, all of these factors came into play, to various extents. (#8 only if it's true, of course)
This blog post could really be titled, "Ten Reasons Why Santorum's Surge Has Come Now Instead Of After Iowa"
Perhaps his success in the Midwest is based in differences in the Republican primary electorate in those states -- different emphasis on issues, different expectations in terms of the personal characteristics they want in a candidate -- vs. the Republican electorate in New England and the South. In seems unremarkable that culture conservative Santorum would do less well with a more libertarian and Independent Yankee electorate (New Hampshire). As for the electorate in Southern states, perhaps Obama hatred is simply more intense -- making issues of electability (Romney) and a candidate's ability to reflect their own angry intensity (Gingrich) more important than consistency in terms of conservative cultural issues. Also, Southern voters are likely to see economic issues very differntly, and perhaps be looking for greater emphasis on the extremes of economic conservatism, than voters in the Midwest (where older, blue collar Republicans are more likely to have been union members, for instance).
ReplyDeleteWhile Western Pennsylvania was famously compared to Alabama by James Carville, in terms of culture and economic history it really has more in common with the states Santorum has, so far, won. Bottom line; perhaps he just better reflects the Midwest's most dominant form of conservatism, and, as Romney's various compromises and flip flops become more familiar, he appears as the more trustworthy candidate to represent that conservatism.
Note that it can't be just NH and demographics; Santorum had a much higher national polling surge last week than after Iowa.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a factor, you'd admit?
DeleteNo, it can't just be demographics. But greater regional compatability between the candidate and the base of voters probably explains why he's had success WHERE he's had success. And success creates its own bandwagon. (Some, or many, or all of the factors you listed probably come into play too.)
DeleteAnd here's another one that might go on the list; over time, as Romney's claim to greater electability has eroded, perhaps for conservative voters electability has become a less valued criteria, and media and/or leadership opinions on electability carry less weight. Given a choice between a candidate they distrust, who looks increasingly damaged and less electable, and a candidate dismissed by the media (and perhaps party leaders) as too far from the centrist "mainstream" to be electable, conservative voters may be deciding to take a chance with the candidate who, IF elected, they better trust to represent them.
But, of course, Santorum's boomlet may not be sustainable in the weeks ahead. In a campaign season in which no one has really generated broad excitement, everyone, apparently, has an opportunity to generate a little bit of excitement for at least some brief amount of time.
I keep thinking about the moment in the Florida debate where Rick went on about RomneyCare/ObamaCare; and he made the impassioned plea to conservatives about not ceding this point by nominating Romney or Newt.
ReplyDeleteI know, I know... A bit of a reach. But, considering how negative things were between Mitt/Newt... I don't know, it just strikes me that that was Rick's moment that he got people to pay attention to him.
Let's put it the way. Mitt & Newt were spending SO MUCH that everyone was paying attention but in a very Clockwork Orange sort of way, where they were just forced to look at it all. Then Rick has this moment of literally asked people to stop and take a second... I know it's not logical, but it just seems like that was the real point where things started shifting. Even though he didn't win, he got people to start looking.
What do you think? Seriously... Am I talking complete nonsense, or is there something there?
I agree with this assessment somewhat. I think post-Iowa and all the confusion over who won, plus media discounting the strong showing by a social conservative there, combined with a barrage of Super PAC spending between SC and FL overshadowed any chance Santorum had to make his case. It was brilliant strategy for a campaign low on cash to move on to caucus states like MN and CO that he could do well in without much money, and MO where Newt wasn't on the ballot. Santorum has four wins...three in low turnout caucus states and the other in a three man race all but ignored by the Romney camp. Quick on the heels of NV where Romney's blowout win was supposed to seal the deal for the Mittster also helped. The increased media attention has given Santorum the name recognition he didn't have before that. I'm in Mississippi, and most of my students had never heard of Rick Santorum before Iowa and didn't consider him seriously until last Tuesday. Now many of them think he can win.
DeleteThe first question is how did Santorum get that triple win? Isn't the surge that lead to those wins more curious that the surge that followed them?
ReplyDeleteSo far as I know, he didn't have much money, media, or ground game. In three different states conservatives wake up on the same day and decide they are all going to vote for a guy who has basically been counted out already...
What happened there?
Eleventh possibility: Romney is faltering. As time goes on, it becomes clearer what a wasting asset he really is. The difference between Iowa and last week is that he hadn't wasted as much yet as of early January. The recent surge isn't about Santorum at all, it's about the fact that Santorum is the only not-Romney who hasn't been destroyed yet and therefore is still available. As Woody Allen famously said, 80 percent of success is just showing up. Whichever (undestroyed) not-Romney showed up last week would have swept the three states. Santorum just accidentally happened to be the guy.
ReplyDeleteIt's because this is the first time the narrative has been disrupted. Iowa and SC were always tough gets for Mitt so it wasn't the sky is falling when he lost those. In Iowa, Santorum was playing the Pat Robertson, Mike Huckagee, "nothing to see here, move along" role. This is different. Mitt was supposed to have this in the bag after Florida. Now he doesn't. Santorum's success in the recent caucus states is an interesting twist in the narrative. That's why it gets so much attention.
ReplyDeleteI think it comes down in part to the consistent collapse of the various other anti-Romneys, culminating in Santorum as the last man standing, coupled with the fact that the media haven't really been taking Santorum seriously up to this point. So far, the GOP base hasn't really heard about Ricky the K Street Lobbyist or his disastrous election loss by 17 points to Bob Not Exactly Charismatic Casey. These things will change rapidly in the near future. I doubt very much that Mr Man on Dog will beat Mr Man On Car over the long haul, but I can see some intensely embarrassing moments for Romney in the next two months. I am fairly sure though that the commentariat has understated the visceral aversion a large part of the GOP base has to Romney as a politician without any obvious principles or any credibility as a campaigner. People aren't talking enough about what a prize jackass Romney made of himself in 2008. Committed voters tend to remember these things and I really believe we should price in a bit more disdain and mockery from 2008 to Romney's profile. I think this may be a major part of what is stopping him from getting his "turn" at the nomination with relative ease.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I should have said Mr Dog on Car not Man on Car. Ah, the joys of cold medication. Why does the stuff taste so bad and work so poorly? It's really the medical equivalent of Romney, now I come to think about it.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder though whether anyone has studied the topic of how much voters retain of their previous negative impression of losing candidates from the primary season four years before. I really do believe that Romney's waffling, evasive, dishonest spinelessness in 2008 set the stage for his unimpressive performance thus far with the GOP base.
One interesting thing about impressions (in my opinion, anyway) is that they do linger. Once you form a negative opinion about someone, you retain it long after you've forgotten whatever it was that he did, or what it was that you learned about him, to give rise to that opinion. (In just exactly the same way, I have forgotten where I learned that, but it is definitely based in academic psychology.)
DeleteAgree. Impressions linger and then occasional news stories reinforce the impressions. I think it's called confirmation bias.
Delete@Morzer, LOL at the cough medicine comments. Also, in what way was Romney spineless in 2008? My impression was that the right overlooked his earlier non-conservative positions and thought he WAS the conservative alternative to McCain (see the Romney section here).
Though Perry's name was mentioned above, I'm surprised that jb, who has always thought Perry had a chance to make good on his advance notices, fails to take him into account. Also, though the joint So Con endorsement of Santorum was scoffed at at the time, and seemed to have no effect in S Carolina, its impact may simply have needed more time to sink in. There was even some perceived uncertainty about Ron Paul's true ceiling.
ReplyDeleteSo, it was necessary for Gingrich to be exposed fully, for Perry to disappear, and for Paul to settle in to his pre-ordained path, before Santorum could be awarded the role of Anti-Romney.
Forgot Huntsman, but, then again, so did/does everyone else. Still, he was also making noise and attracting even some So Con opinion leaders up through NH.
DeleteNo one has mentioned the positive economic news of January, which came out just prior to the Santorum surge. Take away the premise that Romney is the most suitable candidate because the economy is in the tank, and conservatives just lose their taste for him. At the same time, the Catholic bishops suddenly discovered that they had been paying for birth control in New York and California, and soon would pay for it in all 50 states. Their subsequent tantrum required all good conservatives to exclaim the evils of contraception, and Santorum just adores that sort of thing. Both bumps to Santorum.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I think that the real answer is that 55-65% of Republicans have just never liked Romney since he stopped running in 2008. He quit because running for president wasn't worth the money. Normally the Republican #2 increases his vote share during his second try. Romney is the exception to this rule. I do believe a fair number of Republican primary voters look at Romney and think that he threw in the towel and left them with McCain. Because the money mattered more to Romney than the chance to lead the country.
I sincerely hope they don't think that, and realize that Romney quit because he had already lost.
DeleteI mean, I'm no fan of Romney in the slightest, but I don't think Republicans somehow blame him for McCain, and I don't think many of them are at all inclined to "blame" ANYONE for McCain.
No argument with that on its face; however, Romney's withdrawal was utterly cringe-worthy. Most people, realizing that they can't win, talk about how giving up at this point is best for the party and they thank their supporters for the money and time they used up. They talk about how everybody has to unite for their common purpose. Romney's withdrawal was all about his own fortune being squandered. It's consistent with the "good money manager" approach of cutting your losses, but it's fingernails on the chalkboard party unity optics.
DeleteSantorum did have a post-Iowa surge, almost as big as his current one:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
YMMV, but surging from 5 to a high of 15 and a fleeting tie for a distant 2nd place in early January isn't the same as a surge to the 30s and 1st place in mid Feb, even if in retrospect Iowa looks even more significant than it may have at the time in establishing Santorum as plausible, or maybe plausibly plausible. (If Mitt collapses, then all of the talk about the political obsolescence of Iowa may have to be put aside for a few more cycles.)
ReplyDelete#1 thru #5 have merit and also #9.
ReplyDeletemore to the point regarding #2, since Santorum -- winner or not -- significantly underperformed Huck's Iowa numbers from 2008, there was every reason for the media to assume that he was weak, even as a factional candidate.
and regarding #4, it wasn't just the number of states (though that was certainly significant and i'm not sure why you'd dismiss it), it was also the variety of states: western, midwestern, southern.
but the most important factor by far is not on your list:
Santorum *crushed* Romney in some states that Romney had won easily in 2008 and in another state where Romney had only narrowly lost.
Santorum is the choice of GOP social values voters, and they've turned to this now. Romney has been shown vulnerable on this dimension, and his selling point (fixing the economy) has been undermined by economic news. His other selling point (electability) has been damaged by both of the above changes. Add in the endorsement by social conservatives in mid-January, and you have magic?
ReplyDeleteAlso, in addition to palerobber' and CSH's observations, which could be expanded upon further, it took time for cumulative effect of Romney's own stumbles and the full recollection of his weakness as a candiate to take hold. So, again, there is no explaining the timing and course of this current/second Santorum surge apart from the other candidates and the overall political-economic conjuncture.
ReplyDeleteSorry, meant palerobber's and *Couves'*... and anon @2:08's (and wondrin why CSH hasn't chimed in, as a matter of fact).
DeleteIt didn't happen a month ago because then people like you who got their smug on two weeks ago wouldn't have to be eating crow now. It didn't happen a month ago because of karma, baby.
ReplyDelete@CK MacLeod, I'll take your last comment as some sort of flattery; if it isn't, I don't want to know. I don't have all that much to add, but that's never stopped me in the past. My vote is for #8, but I think it may work in the opposite direction Jonathan posited: that is, a candidate like Santorum fills essentially a placeholder role in a contest like this, no one really wants him but they're constantly aware they may want their alternatives less. Therefore, the motivation from the elites is to keep him alive, keep him around as an insurance policy, so while the open of the thread suggested that lack of elite endorsement post-Iowa was a negative for Santorum, perhaps the voters of Iowa saved the elites the trouble by keeping Santorum alive by their caucus result.
ReplyDeleteI also think Kylopod made a great observation in the first post about Romney and unfavorable demographics, and I've been wondering lately how many conservative elites might lately regret their patented winnowing process. Its long been discussed that the GOP handles a primary with more ruthless efficiency than the Dems, who tend to get into extended navel-gazing contests. Perhaps the GOP could have used one of those this time, and in the spirit of keeping candidates alive, maybe the elites should have worked harder to keep Huntsman alive, setting up a semifinal bracket of Romney v. Huntsman in the West Region and maybe Gingrich v. Huckabee in the South Region.
In this peculiar circumstance, the GOP might really have benefitted from a knock-down, drag-em-out ideological primary, because the inevitable damage done to all candidates makes it much easier to winnow later - whose gonna complain that you're throwing out their damaged goods?
As it is...if we assume that the party really doesn't want Romney, how in the world do they get rid of him, now, without costing themselves a handful of pivotal states? There's too many key conservative constituencies within which Romney's halo remains untarnished. I bet the elites realize that, perhaps they regret it, and maybe for once they are envious of the Democrats, who are pretty good at tarnishing each others' halos in a rough primary.
I don't think it is the case that the party (the elites) don't want Romney....they clearly do as evidenced by the flow of endorsements and money. They still see Romney as their best hope for victory in November and steering government policy toward their interest groups and core constituencies. The rank and file conservatives, however, have seen through this and have begun to recognize that Romney is simply Obama-lite, rhetoric notwithstanding, and they are searching for a viable alternative to the party's choice. We may be witnessing the beginning (culmination?) of a revolution against party elites by the conservative core who have been fed a bland diet of 'big government' moderates for the last two decades.
DeleteOh, as opposed to small-government crusaders like Santorum and Gingrich? Give me a break!
DeleteIf the rank-and-file really cared about shrinking government, they'd back Ron Paul. The key demographic that Romney has had the most problems with have been evangelicals, partly because of his Mormonism, and partly because of his questionable cred on social issues. What they've been seeking is an effective culture warrior. "Big government" has got nothing to do with it other than as a code word for their racial and religious resentments.
@Rob Mellen Jr: my own hunch is that you're probably right about the elites privately preferring Romney; however, I'm not sure they see Romney as the most electable. Don't know the probability, but there's gotta be a real chance that a more vicious version of Gary Bauer awaits in the confederate states for the Rominee. The crazy South Carolina primary, where Romney got blown out late, in spite of the endorsement of hottie Governor Haley, tells us that Romney's not particularly electable in that conservative stronghold. Does that mean a Gary Bauer-type is waiting? Don't know, but if he is, the Rominee might face a world of hurt.
DeleteOne of the interesting things about this cycle is how, net of guys like Kylopod in communities like this, people seem very unwilling to discuss the weird way that demography is destiny in this race. I guess folks are hesitant to discuss religion, or more generally, cultural differences, for fear of offending.
The other day I caught Frank Rich on the Maddow show, and he diagnosed Romney's problem as "not connecting with the voters", which could be fixed by being more open, particularly on his religion. Romney should talk more about his religion, Rich opined, since its so important in his life.
That seemed a fine idea. Maybe he can make a guest appearance at First Baptist in Tuscaloosa this Sunday, where he can start with the organizational stuff like the stakes, and the elders, and then move to theology with the 144,000, and then personal stories like his patriotic great-grandfather fleeing the US rather than dump his many wives. Oh, and then for good measure, he can throw in the posthumous baptism of Jews, which will cause half of the congregation to think Romney's a total kook, and the other half to think even worse about him cause First Baptist takes an evangelical back seat to no one!
Hearts and minds, Frank Rich. Hearts and minds.
I don't know that demography is destiny in this race. It's possible it will turn out to be less important as the race progresses. What I do think is that analysts have repeatedly been premature in calling the race over without considering the impact of demographics.
DeleteTake what happened in South Carolina. The conventional wisdom was that Gingrich scored a couple of good debate performances and launched a good ad war courtesy of Mr. Adelson's generous donations. Then, after he won the state, Romney quickly flexed his own financial muscle to crush Gingrich in Florida. Romney followed this up with a strong victory in Nevada, making him "the inevitable nominee" and mortally crippling Gingrich's campaign.
Of course, the fact that SC's electorate is majority evangelical, that Gingrich continued to beat Romney among that demographic in Florida, and that Nevada was practically a shoo-in for Romney due to its high percentage of Mormons, had nothing to do with it.
Demography is the elephant in the room. It's like analysts are pledged to pretend it doesn't exist or to downplay its influence. That's the only way you can explain why they'd think Romney's defeat in SC, his comeback in Florida and Nevada, and his subsequent difficulties in the Midwest, were all major twists in the narrative, as opposed to largely predictable consequences of which electorates play to his strengths and which don't.
One thing I've been curious about is whether anyone has made a mathematical estimate of how many delegates Romney would amass, total, if he won only the states with demographics friendly to him. Would it be enough to win the nomination alone? Or would he have to broaden his victories into at least some of the heavily evangelical and heavily conservative areas that have posed so much of a problem for him so far? (Keep in mind that many of the states aren't winner-take-all, so that, for example, he could lose Georgia and still acquire a good chunk of delegates.) I don't have enough facts at hand to perform the analysis myself, but I'd be interested if someone does.
I think Jeff and Anonymous above are on the right track with focusing more on Romney's decline than Santorum's surge. I think it was the ABC poll that came out last week that found that by a 2-1 margin the more people hear about Romney, the less they like him. Combine that with the positive economic news undermining the premise of Romney's campaign, and the already very real anti-Romney resentment among the evangelical base and you've got a decent explaination for Santorum's rise - Romney still looked inevitable after Iowa, I remember thinking about Santorum's near victory something like "that's adorable, but irrelevant." Romney no longer looks inevitable, in fact, as head to head polls show, electability - his greatest asset - is a push with Santorum. They're both loosing to Obama by about the same amount.
ReplyDeleteThere's also another point.
DeleteRomney is a rich kid. His dad made buckets of money, had lots of influence, and these two facts provided Romney with opportunities most RedState voters only dream they have. Romney himself does not understand that other young adults don't get that push upwards. This distinguishes him from Bush II, who was able to use his natural frat-house chummy to convince regular folks that he was one of them.
I think that this separation from the common folk is killing Romney's chances.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete