The article you linked doesn't make a case for the better electability of any of the alternatives. The issue isn't whether Mitt Romney has some problems. The issue is whether he's better than the competition, primarily Rick Santorum in this context. I see no reason to think he's not.
Romney has generally done better than Santorum in the polls, both among Republicans and against Obama, and he's done better for a long time.
He's also gotten more votes.
He's more experienced at running a nationwide campaign, and he's run his campaign better than Santorum has run his.
Romney doesn't seem to be as despised by non-conservative voters, which is relevant to how motivated people will be to vote against him, among other things.
Romney doesn't seem to motivate anything as bad as or worse than the frequent raising of social issues that we've seen with Santorum. Even with Santorum widely considered unlikely to get the nomination, his campaign is often framed in terms of social issues, and he's frequently expected to address those subjects. I'd expect that tendency to get even worse if he were to become the nominee.
As I've said before, I think a lot of people dislike Santorum because he's perceived as a better person than the people who are being asked to vote for him. As Steve Hays suggested in a previous thread, Santorum probably gives a lot of Catholics a sense of guilt, because he's a better Catholic than they are, which partly explains why so many Catholics don't vote for him even in Republican circles. Santorum isn't just conservative on social issues. Those issues are prominent in his political career, he speaks confidently and aggressively about them, and he lives consistently with those values, sometimes in ways that exceed what most people do (e.g., how he responded to difficult circumstances with some of his children). In other words, Santorum is a better person than a lot of the voters, and they're often reminded of that fact, and they despise it. In some cases, voters may resent the arrogance, judgmentalism, or some other fault they perceive in Santorum more than they resent something like his conservatism on social issues or his family life. Either way, whether they despise his social conservatism in general or just some particular aspect of the way he lives it out, I think he upsets a lot of voters.
From the perspective of many voters, including the ones Republicans most need to persuade, I'd expect Santorum to come across worse than Romney in debates. The people who didn't like hearing Al Gore sigh in his debate with George Bush, didn't like seeing Rick Lazio walk up to Hillary Clinton's podium, etc. probably aren't going to like Santorum's aggressiveness and his tendency to complain. I suspect that most voters would prefer Romney's appearance and voice, and those kinds of factors are significantly influential to a lot of people. And those factors don't just affect how debates are perceived. They're influential in other contexts as well.
I could go on. And, as I've said before, a lot of these problems shouldn't be so significant or shouldn't be problems at all. Life is often unjust. A lot of voters don't have much discernment, and they often vote with bad motives. Santorum deserves better electability, but the issue is what he has, not what he deserves.
People should ask, why did Santorum stay so low in the polls for so long? Why was he the last choice as a mainstream alternative to Romney? Why did voters go to such weak candidates as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich before resorting to Santorum? The anti-Romney sentiment makes sense to some extent. He has significant weaknesses. But he's not as weak as Santorum. I suspect that most Republicans would rather have Santorum in office, but they think Romney is significantly more likely to get into office in the first place, so they're increasingly lining up behind Romney. Santorum could beat Obama, considering how weak Obama is, but the risk isn't worth it when Romney is available as an alternative.
What bothers people about Romney is that, on the issue that the Republicans want to make a central issue in the campaign, Obamacare, Romney can't make the argument that any other Republican can make, which is the argument that the individual mandate is wrong on principle because it's socialistic. We know that he signed and supported an individual mandate in Massachusetts. He can oppose Obamacare on the grounds that it isn't the sort of thing the federal government should do, as opposed to the states. But he can't say that the individual mandate is wrong on principle, but that is what most Republicans believe. So we know Obama is going to ask Romney what, exactly, is wrong with his health care bill, and then what can Romney say?
Hi Jason -- I don't have much time to respond, but I want to touch on a couple of points.
The article you linked doesn't make a case for the better electability of any of the alternatives. The issue isn't whether Mitt Romney has some problems.
The question is, in a [candidate]-vs-Obama contrast, who is going to be the better candidate? If Romney is able to outspend a "weak" candidate like Santorum 10-1, is able to dredge up all kinds of meaningless dirt about Santorum's senate votes, and he still can't put him away, that's a pretty big problem. Are Santorum's problems [exacerbated his lack of money and status as a relatively unknown candidate] really worse than Romney's?
Romney has generally done better than Santorum in the polls, both among Republicans and against Obama, and he's done better for a long time.
I tend not to put much stock in polls of this type. Six months ago, an Obama vs Santorum poll might have registered 80-20 or worse. All they are is a snapshot in time.
He's more experienced at running a nationwide campaign, and he's run his campaign better than Santorum has run his.
Romney's already run a [losing] presidential campaign. Its certain he would learn something from that. He's much better financed, too. But that hasn't helped him "win". Doing better under these circumstances is not the same as winning (as we've seen lots of other candidates "doing better" at various points). I'd suggest Santorum is still "the last man standing" because he's avoided making the mistakes of other candidates. In the Senate, they say, there are "show horses" and "work horses". It's possible to say that individuals like Cain and even Bachmann were "show horses". Santorum was a work horse, and he spent the maximum amount of time last year where it would generate the maximum benefit: on the ground in Iowa.
Romney doesn't seem to motivate anything as bad as or worse than the frequent raising of social issues that we've seen with Santorum.
Romney doesn't motivate anybody. That's one of his key problems. He has the appearance of being a "safe" candidate, but how safe is that really? McCain was the "safe" candidate last time. Santorum is having trouble because media keep bringing up the "social issues", but he's a quick learner, and he'
Even with Santorum widely considered unlikely to get the nomination, his campaign is often framed in terms of social issues, and he's frequently expected to address those subjects. I'd expect that tendency to get even worse if he were to become the nominee.
Ronald Reagan didn't have an easy time in 1980, and he had more of a "conservative" record than Santorum has. The reason he was able to win was because of the strong contrast he made with Carter. Santorum would make that strong contrast with Obama. Romney would be more like "Obama-lite". I don't think that's a strong position.
As for Santorum being "a better person" than voters, why assume that people won't be attracted to that sort of thing. I don't think that's a reason to reject him. You've recently lamented the state of the country. Why not have someone "better" on the national stage, calling people to be better?
People should ask, why did Santorum stay so low in the polls for so long? Why was he the last choice as a mainstream alternative to Romney?
If Santorum is such a weak candidate, then why is Romney not able to defeat him, even while out-spending him 10-1 and 12-1? Santorum was at the bottom for so long because he was relatively unknown. He spent all his time in Iowa, not out on the media circuit. He was being a workhorse.
"If Romney is able to outspend a 'weak' candidate like Santorum 10-1, is able to dredge up all kinds of meaningless dirt about Santorum's senate votes, and he still can't put him away, that's a pretty big problem."
Money is significant, but it's accompanied by a lot of other factors. A money disadvantage can be overcome, as John McCain demonstrated in 2008. Santorum's problems go well beyond having less money.
It's early March. Romney is well ahead of Santorum, and he's better positioned than Santorum to win most of the upcoming states. Santorum is still in the race, but so are Gingrich and Paul. People stay in races even when their chances are poor. Romney could have put away Santorum better than he has so far, but he's putting him away good enough.
You write:
"Are Santorum's problems [exacerbated his lack of money and status as a relatively unknown candidate] really worse than Romney's?"
Yes, for reasons like the ones I explained in my earlier posts.
You write:
"I tend not to put much stock in polls of this type. Six months ago, an Obama vs Santorum poll might have registered 80-20 or worse. All they are is a snapshot in time."
And we can put a lot of snapshots together after a while. The collective significance is greater than the significance of a single snapshot.
You write:
"I'd suggest Santorum is still 'the last man standing' because he's avoided making the mistakes of other candidates."
He was largely ignored early on, because he was doing so poorly in polling, raising money, and other contexts. He's avoided some of the mistakes made by the likes of Cain and Gingrich, but that isn't saying much. The issue here is whether he has better electability than Romney, not "other candidates".
He's motivated a lot more support than Santorum has. But you're changing the subject. I was addressing the motivating of opposition, not the motivating of support.
You write:
"McCain was the 'safe' candidate last time."
He was also a worse communicator than Romney, was running during a worse year for Republicans, was running against an Obama who didn't yet have the terrible record as president that he now has, etc. I suspect that Santorum would have lost in 2008 by an even wider margin than McCain did.
You write:
"Ronald Reagan didn't have an easy time in 1980, and he had more of a 'conservative' record than Santorum has."
Reagan had a lot of advantages that Santorum doesn't have. And I haven't said that "a conservative record" makes Santorum less electable than Romney. Santorum could be more conservative in addition to being more electable, like Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal. The problem is that other factors, like the ones I've mentioned, make him less electable. It's not a conservative record that's doing it.
You write:
"Romney would be more like 'Obama-lite'."
That's an unreasonable characterization. He's running as a conservative, with a vastly different platform than Obama's. See my 2008 post contrasting McCain and Obama here. Much the same could be said of Romney and Obama. Romney is less reliable as a conservative than McCain and Santorum, largely because of his non-conservative past, but he's been running as a conservative during these past two presidential cycles. He would have a lot of factors in place to motivate him to govern conservatively if he were elected. That makes him tremendously different than Obama. Calling Romney "Obama-lite" is absurd. It's reminiscent of Paul supporters claiming that there's no significant difference between Paul's opponents and Obama.
"As for Santorum being 'a better person' than voters, why assume that people won't be attracted to that sort of thing."
Because we've already seen how people have reacted to Santorum in that context, and we know a lot about the character of the American people.
You write:
"Why not have someone 'better' on the national stage, calling people to be better?"
There are tradeoffs involved. Santorum would deliver a better message than Romney in some contexts, but in a setting in which that message probably wouldn't have much of an effect. Romney would be significantly more likely to get elected, and he'd probably implement conservative policies on social issues.
You write:
"Santorum was at the bottom for so long because he was relatively unknown."
So were other candidates who rose in the polls faster than Santorum did. His "relatively unknown" status is only a partial explanation of why he did so poorly. He was on the same stage as the other candidates in the debates, for example, and the audiences repeatedly concluded that somebody other than Santorum won. The donors, commentators, political leaders, and others involved in the early stages of the campaign, who thought so little of Santorum's prospects and offered him so little support, knew him well. He wasn't very unknown to them. Part of what they knew about him was that he has the sort of weaknesses I described earlier. The weaknesses are still there, but now some people want to make less of those weaknesses because he's the last alternative to Romney. But his status as the last alternative to Romney shouldn't prevent us from seeing the weaknesses in Santorum that were widely acknowledged in the early stages of the campaign. The effort to reinvent Santorum is unconvincing.
I don't see any case for an electability advantage for Santorum in the John Fund article you linked. And I don't see much of a case for it in your follow-up posts. Rather, you dismiss Romney's better polling data, better voting results, etc. while appealing to vague comparisons to Reagan and how Santorum might be viewed differently by voters than I've suggested.
Santorum is better than Romney in many ways. Electability isn't one of them.
Jason said: I don't see any case for an electability advantage for Santorum in the John Fund article you linked. And I don't see much of a case for it in your follow-up posts. Rather, you dismiss Romney's better polling data, better voting results, etc. while appealing to vague comparisons to Reagan and how Santorum might be viewed differently by voters than I've suggested.
My purpose in posting this article wasn’t to say there was an electability advantage for Santorum; rather that the notion that Romney is somehow more electable is really just an illusion.
There is plenty of evidence that Republicans are despairing because neither Romney nor Santorum exhibits what they would call “electability”. Romney, too, is acknowledged as a weak candidate.
I do have to concede that Santorum is not operating from a position of strength at the moment. But a political campaign doesn’t reduce to a static analysis; it’s a highly fluid situation. There is motion, momentum, and Romney has not yet demonstrated, with his tepid victories, that a majority of either Republicans or voters in general really cares to see him win the presidency. On the other hand, take a look at this article on Santorum’s ability to speak boldly against Obamacare as at least evidence that he’s able to motivate Republicans.
On some of the issues that you think would “motivate opposition” in Santorum, in those cases he’s asking precisely the right questions. Some of the biggest opposition to him in 2006, when he lost to Casey, were in the form of his “insensitive and offensive comments about homosexuality” and his “record on women’s issues”. That played well in a Pennsylvania market where there was already considerable sentiment against Republicans (the Iraq war was going badly at the time, and the national Democratic committee had focused upon him as one of the key Republicans to beat in that election cycle).
How will those issues play on a national scale? We can’t say, but while you are lamenting his lack of “electability”, he is engaging the political culture in almost exactly the way you would like to have it be engaged. If there are other individuals you’d rather see running, who have decided not to run, how much of that is because they don’t want to expose themselves and their families to the type of media scrutiny and criticism that Santorum is exposing himself to? (Especially from Republicans who do support his message?)
Romney would be significantly more likely to get elected, and he'd probably implement conservative policies on social issues.
I’d much rather see Romney be president than Obama. But “electability” is just such an intangible that can’t be proved based on poll numbers. There is no poll number for “fire in the belly”. But Santorum both has, and inspires it, while Romney neither has, nor inspires this.
Polling data just doesn’t reveal answers to questions in the polls. It reveals other things as well. The fact that Romney has neither polled higher than 40% among Republicans or has not (except in places like Virginia and Massachusetts) drawn more than 40% of the Republican vote is a serious impediment to his “electability”.
There are two aspects to “electability”. One is certainly appealing to the political center. The other, though, is motivating the 40-45% who you ought to be able to count on (i.e., other Republicans). What good will it do for Romney to take a larger portion of the center, if large numbers of Republicans stay home on election day?
Two things might undermine the Republican candidate’s chances of winning: high negative numbers in the center, or a lack of turnout on the right.
The appeal might be made that Romney can capture more of those in the center. But he hasn’t yet even demonstrated he can win a majority of those on the right. Steve noted, if Romney wins the election, he’d tune out the election until November. He’s an exceptional citizen. How many Republicans will not only “tune out”, but stay home?
Regarding Santorum’s own electability, you have noted that he “motivates opposition”. That’s not necessarily a losing thing. Bill Clinton motivated a lot of opposition, especially in 1996, but it wasn’t enough for a weak candidate like Dole to overcome, in spite of all the “extra curricular activities” that Clinton was dealing with.
As weak as Dole was, Romney would be weaker. Just look at his inability to defeat a “weak” candidate like Santorum. Conservatives didn’t like Dole, but he had neither the flip-flop issue that Romney has, nor the issue mentioned here of having his name on “Romneycare”. (You mentioned that he is more well-spoken than Santorum is, and that people in our culture are simple enough that something like that matters. But how many people, really, are going to understand the distinction that “the states have the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance” and “the federal government has the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance”?)
Jason: That's an unreasonable characterization. He's running as a conservative, with a vastly different platform than Obama's.
You yourself mentioned that voters keep only cursory things in mind. All through the general election season, Romney will be tagged with being “the intellectual father of Obamacare”. It’s certainly not an unreasonable characterization, no matter what his other policy proposals are. How are voters going to keep his other policies in mind, in the face of that objection?
Romney would be significantly more likely to get elected,
It is precisely the John Fund type of article I posted that argues against this possibility.
It's early March. Romney is well ahead of Santorum, and he's better positioned than Santorum to win most of the upcoming states.
That’s not necessarily true. The next three states coming up, Missouri (where Santorum has already won the “beauty contest”, Alabama and Mississippi are all very likely to fall into the Santorum column. Even if Santorum were to win all the delegates, it’s true, he’d still be behind. But if Gingrich drops out, that would help add to Santorum’s delegate total, and further reveal Romney’s weakness.
If neither candidate has the required number of delegates, then all bets are off. I’m not sure how many delegates will be allotted by the time of the convention.
Truth Unites... and Divides said... What are the odds/possibilities of a brokered convention and Santorum winning over Romney?
Here's where the numbers are:
Total Delegates: 2286 Needed to nominate: 1144 Allocated: 753 Yet to be allocated: 1533
Romney 421 Santorum 181 Gingrich 107 Paul 47
Source: http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates See also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/primary-tracker/
If Santorum wins in the next week, Kansas, Mississippi, and Alabama (and it is within the realm of possibility), he can pull close to Romney, persuade Gingrich to withdraw, and show "momentum" going into some of the bigger states.
Most of the states have "Proportional" allocation of delegates, but there are some big "winner takes all" states, including California with 172 delegates.
"My purpose in posting this article wasn’t to say there was an electability advantage for Santorum; rather that the notion that Romney is somehow more electable is really just an illusion."
What's your alternative, then? That they're equally electable? That an electability advantage for either is undiscernable? That you don't know whether Santorum has equal or better electability, but you do somehow know that Romney's isn't better? None of those positions seem justified to me. Or did you have something else in mind?
You write:
"There is plenty of evidence that Republicans are despairing because neither Romney nor Santorum exhibits what they would call 'electability'. Romney, too, is acknowledged as a weak candidate."
Romney has been getting significantly better polling and voting results than Santorum, among other advantages. The fact that they both are perceived as weak in some sense doesn't tell us to what degree it's the case with each one. Romney is widely perceived as more electable, and he is more electable, for reasons like the ones I mentioned earlier.
You write:
"There is motion, momentum, and Romney has not yet demonstrated, with his tepid victories, that a majority of either Republicans or voters in general really cares to see him win the presidency."
Some of his victories have been by double digits, and he's gotten more delegates than all of his competitors combined. That's not "tepid".
Again, it's only early March, and it's a four-person race. Romney doesn't have to have "a majority of either Republicans or voters in general" at this point in order to have an electability advantage. That's the topic of the thread. Every Republican candidate this year fails the standard you're setting up. But Romney doesn't fail it as badly as his competitors do.
"On the other hand, take a look at this article on Santorum’s ability to speak boldly against Obamacare as at least evidence that he’s able to motivate Republicans."
Santorum is better than Romney on healthcare. That's a significant advantage.
You write:
"How will those issues play on a national scale? We can’t say"
Yes, we can. Social issues tend to trail other issues by a wide margin when voters are asked what they're most concerned about. And most voters disagree with conservative Catholicism and conservative Evangelicalism on some of the social issues in question, so the prominence of Santorum's positions on such matters will be doubly objectionable to them.
You write:
"But 'electability' is just such an intangible that can’t be proved based on poll numbers."
Let's say that candidate A consistently gets 55% in the polls against the sitting president. Candidate B consistently gets 35%. That's "intangible" and doesn't "prove" enough? Yes, the numbers could change, and polling isn't all that's involved. I've repeatedly acknowledged both of those points, and I've cited some of the non-polling factors already in my earlier posts in this thread. But polling is part of the equation. So are primary voting results, endorsements, and other factors I've mentioned. The fact that polling results aren't exhaustive or conclusive doesn't prove that they have no significance.
You write:
"There is no poll number for 'fire in the belly'. But Santorum both has, and inspires it, while Romney neither has, nor inspires this."
Earlier in the same paragraph, you said that you'd "much rather" see Romney as president than Obama. If there's that much of a difference between them, yet Romney doesn't inspire you with a "fire in the belly", then there are some significant factors that commend Romney that aren't producing the fire in the belly you're looking for. Santorum is more inspirational for a conservative Evangelical voter, like you, but that doesn't tell us much about his overall electability. He inspires an inordinately negative reaction among other types of voters.
"The fact that Romney has neither polled higher than 40% among Republicans or has not (except in places like Virginia and Massachusetts) drawn more than 40% of the Republican vote is a serious impediment to his 'electability'."
Is 40% the standard now? I remember when Romney was criticized for not getting above the low twenties or so. Then it was something in the thirties. Now you've set the bar at 40%. Like I said before, every candidate this year fails your standard. But Romney doesn't fail it as badly.
I don't know why you'd refer to "places like Virginia and Massachusetts". Some of the states where Romney has done best are among the most important, like Florida and Virginia.
You write:
"What good will it do for Romney to take a larger portion of the center, if large numbers of Republicans stay home on election day?"
Why are we supposed to think that will happen? Current dissatisfaction with Romney doesn't tell us much about what people will think of him after several months of seeing him run against Obama, being the focus of media opposition, etc. Just as Santorum would become more popular among Republicans if he were to become the nominee, so would Romney. And defeating Obama will likely be a major motivation for Republicans to vote this year, regardless of who the nominee is. I doubt that Republican turnout would be significantly low under either candidate.
"But he hasn’t yet even demonstrated he can win a majority of those on the right."
The notion that we can't tell whether most conservative voters are likely to support Romney if he's the nominee is ridiculous. I don't know of anybody who specializes in any relevant field - a pollster, political scientist, or anybody else - who thinks any Republican candidate this year won't get the support of a majority of Republicans. Romney wouldn't keep getting forty-some percent in polling against Obama if he only had the potential support of less than a majority of Republicans. If so many Republicans are willing to support him, I suspect a sufficiently high percentage of conservative non-Republicans would be willing as well.
And, again, you're setting up a standard that reflects even worse on Santorum than it does on Romney. Romney's gotten better polling and more votes among Republicans and nationwide than Santorum has, by far.
You write:
"Bill Clinton motivated a lot of opposition, especially in 1996, but it wasn’t enough for a weak candidate like Dole to overcome, in spite of all the 'extra curricular activities' that Clinton was dealing with."
The fact that a disadvantage can be overcome doesn't change the fact that it's a disadvantage. It would be better to not have the problem to overcome in the first place.
You write:
"As weak as Dole was, Romney would be weaker. Just look at his inability to defeat a 'weak' candidate like Santorum."
Again, the standard you're applying carries even more negative implications for Santorum than it does for Romney. Santorum is losing to Romney, and he's losing by a wide margin.
How is Romney supposed to have "defeated" Santorum already? There hasn't been enough voting yet to mathematically eliminate him. Even if there had been, it would be ridiculous to expect Romney to defeat every opponent as soon as it becomes mathematically possible to do so. And the fact that Santorum is staying in the race doesn't tell us much. Gingrich and Paul are staying in as well. Their chances are poor, yet they remain in the race.
As for your Dole comparison, Obama is much weaker than Clinton was in 1996. Romney has some significant advantages over Dole. He's a better communicator and a better debater, and he doesn't have close ties with an unpopular Congress, among other differences. Romney would be significantly better off than Dole was.
"But how many people, really, are going to understand the distinction that 'the states have the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance' and 'the federal government has the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance'?"
I agree that the healthcare issue is an advantage for Santorum. But it's not as disadvantageous to Romney as you're suggesting. Voters don't have to understand the distinction you refer to above in order to understand Romney when he says that he'll overturn Obamacare. Whether and how that position is consistent with his actions in Massachusetts are different issues, and they're ones voters will be less concerned about.
You write:
"All through the general election season, Romney will be tagged with being 'the intellectual father of Obamacare'. It’s certainly not an unreasonable characterization, no matter what his other policy proposals are. How are voters going to keep his other policies in mind, in the face of that objection?"
If he says he wants to overturn Obamacare, then associating him with the historical origins of the legislation will be a secondary issue. Any voter concerned enough to pursue that sort of secondary issue should also be able to follow the distinctions Romney will make between his position and Obama's.
And healthcare isn't the subject of most interest to voters this year. It's important, but it's not likely to be the primary criterion by which voters judge the candidates. See, for example, here and here.
You write:
"It is precisely the John Fund type of article I posted that argues against this possibility."
The Fund article doesn't argue for an advantage for Santorum or any other alternative to Romney. Mentioning problems with Romney isn't equivalent to denying that he has an advantage over his opposition.
You write:
"The next three states coming up, Missouri (where Santorum has already won the 'beauty contest', Alabama and Mississippi are all very likely to fall into the Santorum column."
The remainder of March is somewhat favorable to Santorum. But he's already far behind, and the advantage shifts more to Romney's direction in April.
The latest poll I've seen in Alabama has Romney ahead. See the March 8 poll from the Alabama Education Association here. And Romney continues to lead nationally.
Again, the standard you're applying carries even more negative implications for Santorum than it does for Romney. Santorum is losing to Romney, and he's losing by a wide margin.
Don't you think it says something about Santorum that he's doing as well as he is, with nowhere near the funding or manpower that Romney has?
Or, if you prefer, does it say something about Romney?
I don't think it works to compare Santorum to all the other candidates who had brief surges and then immediately came crashing down, if only because Santorum has lasted longer than they have even in terms of polling.
Not that I think Santorum is a sure winner. I just think the argument that Romney's electability is miles ahead of Santorum's is weak.
"Don't you think it says something about Santorum that he's doing as well as he is, with nowhere near the funding or manpower that Romney has? Or, if you prefer, does it say something about Romney?"
The prominence of opposition to Romney, with Santorum being the latest example, reflects poorly on Romney. We've written a lot about Romney's weaknesses over the years, going back to the 2008 campaign. The issue here is how he compares to other candidates, namely whether others' problems are even worse.
I'll give you a brief history of my view of this campaign. My first choice was Bobby Jindal, who didn't run. Among those who ran, my first choice was Tim Pawlenty. I still think he would have been the best choice among those who ran, and Republicans who are upset with having Romney as the nominee can largely blame themselves for that outcome, since they didn't support Pawlenty as much as they should have. Instead, they wasted their early support on candidates who were far weaker. After Pawlenty dropped out, I supported Perry. I did so without knowing much about his weaknesses. He seemed better on paper than he turned out to be. He had repeatedly been elected governor to a large state that was doing well economically, he had a lot of financial backing and backing by big names within the party, and he quickly took a strong lead in the primary polls. However, he had three weaknesses I was unaware of. I hadn't heard him speak much, if at all, so I wasn't aware of his communication problems. On a related note, I didn't realize how much he'd remind people of George Bush. And, third, I didn't know how poorly he'd be prepared to address national issues (in contrast to his experience with issues in Texas, where he's highly experienced). After Perry, I went with Romney. In retrospect, my support of Perry was a mistake, but I stand by my other three choices (Jindal, Pawlenty, and Romney).
As far as funding is concerned, it's not as though a random drawing was held and Romney came out the winner. Rather, people donate money based partially on electability. The two go together to some extent. People were more interested in funding Romney than Santorum based partly on their perceived electability. And the effective use of money is related to electability. Much the same can be said of manpower. People seek to work for a campaign based partly on the perceived electability of a candidate. Furthermore, there are other major factors involved, like age, appearance, communication skills, who's supporting you, and what positions you take. Those factors also influence how much support a candidate gets. Romney has had money and manpower advantages, but Santorum has had an advantage in some other contexts. For instance, he's had a lot of support from talk radio. What if people like Rush Limbaugh had been supporting Romney and opposing Santorum to a larger extent rather than doing the opposite as much as they have? Some hosts, like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved, have (rightly) supported Romney over Santorum, but my sense is that Santorum's gotten more support overall. It's misleading, then, to refer to how much more money Romney has spent on advertising, for example, without also taking into account the advantages Santorum has had from talk radio and from being the last remaining mainstream alternative to Romney, for instance. There are advantages going in both directions. Santorum hasn't been as much of an underdog as he's sometimes been made out to be. And, as I said above, even where he has been such an underdog, it's often because of weaknesses on his part. There are reasons why he didn't get as much money or manpower as other candidates. Again, it's not as though a random drawing was held to determine these things. And my criticisms of Santorum's electability haven't depended on his lack of money.
You write:
"I don't think it works to compare Santorum to all the other candidates who had brief surges and then immediately came crashing down, if only because Santorum has lasted longer than they have even in terms of polling."
Santorum is the last mainstream alternative left. (I'm using "mainstream" to distinguish between Ron Paul and the other alternatives to Romney.) If Perry, Gingrich, or somebody else had been the last choice, he probably would have remained high for a longer period as well. As I said earlier, you have to ask why it is that Republicans chose Santorum last.
You write:
"I just think the argument that Romney's electability is miles ahead of Santorum's is weak."
He is well ahead of Santorum in terms of electability, and in multiple ways. Whether that lead qualifies as "miles ahead" by your standards is another issue. But he is ahead, and not just by a small amount.
As far as funding is concerned, it's not as though a random drawing was held and Romney came out the winner. Rather, people donate money based partially on electability.
My understanding, and it may be flawed, is that Romney's funding has a lot to do with his business connections. Which I suppose you can say just makes him all the more electable - look at him, able to pull all this money into his campaign, surely that enhances his ability to be elected, right?
But I bring it up to point out that he's got Santorum beaten on money, and I also believe organization and manpower. And still Santorum has been doing pretty well. You can argue, "Right, but everyone did well against Romney for a little while. It's just that Santorum is doing well for a longer period." And I'd say again, that seems to suggest something about Romney.
It's misleading, then, to refer to how much more money Romney has spent on advertising, for example, without also taking into account the advantages Santorum has had from talk radio and from being the last remaining mainstream alternative to Romney, for instance.
Sure, take them into account. They just don't seem to add up to much in comparison. I think it's at the least noteworthy to point out the difference in money and manpower the two have, and the performance of the two.
As I said earlier, you have to ask why it is that Republicans chose Santorum last.
If you want to suggest that, wouldn't Romney himself be the absolute last choice? Santorum is second to last.
He is well ahead of Santorum in terms of electability, and in multiple ways. Whether that lead qualifies as "miles ahead" by your standards is another issue. But he is ahead, and not just by a small amount.
Let me put it another way. If Santorum has a 40% shot at winning should he be nominated, and Romney has a 43% shot at winning should he be nominated, I don't think Romney's 3% advantage is some deal-clincher for why he should be supported over Santorum. If those were the numbers (let's imagine we could quantify this), would you agree?
"But I bring it up to point out that he's got Santorum beaten on money, and I also believe organization and manpower. And still Santorum has been doing pretty well. You can argue, 'Right, but everyone did well against Romney for a little while. It's just that Santorum is doing well for a longer period.' And I'd say again, that seems to suggest something about Romney."
The issue isn't whether Santorum's done "pretty well" or whether Romney is flawed. This thread is about whether Romney has an electability advantage. However well Santorum has done, Romney's done better. However flawed Romney is, Santorum is more flawed.
You write:
"They just don't seem to add up to much in comparison."
You're just telling us what you think without arguing for it. Where's your argument?
Santorum has spent more time in politics, has spent more time working and communicating with the Republican base, has most of conservative talk radio siding with him over Romney, hasn't had to respond to as much opposition from the other Republican candidates as Romney has, hasn't received as much opposition from the Obama campaign and its allies, etc. Romney has money and manpower advantages, which are highly significant. But it's misleading to make so much of factors like Romney's money and manpower advantages while making so little of Santorum's advantages.
And my arguments for Romney and against Santorum don't depend on current levels of money and manpower. Even if Santorum were to have more money and manpower as the Republican nominee, the bulk of my criticisms would still apply. You're assuming a particular amount of influence that money and manpower have, without arguing for it, and you aren't saying much about the portions of my argument that don't depend on Romney's money and manpower advantages.
"I think it's at the least noteworthy to point out the difference in money and manpower the two have, and the performance of the two."
If Santorum is so much worse at raising money and so much worse at getting people to work for him, those problems don't reflect well on his electability.
You write:
"If you want to suggest that, wouldn't Romney himself be the absolute last choice? Santorum is second to last."
I was referring to the last choice among alternatives to Romney. Romney isn't part of that category.
Santorum was in the low single digits for a long time, followed by a recent surge born out of desperation, a surge that's still left him well behind Romney. The factors that have caused problems for Romney among Republicans won't be as significant in the general election as the factors that have caused problems for Santorum. In other words, the people who chose Santorum as a last alternative to Romney have rightly perceived significant problems with both men, but are wrong in the priority they assign to those problems. General election voters won't have the same priorities. The independents and Democrats most likely to vote for a Republican candidate probably would be much less concerned about Romney's non-conservative past and his Mormonism than they would be about Santorum's close ties to social conservatism and his demeanor. Meanwhile, I suspect that the vast majority of Republicans voting against Romney in the primaries will vote for him in the general election if he becomes the nominee. As far as electability is concerned, Santorum's current problems have worse long term implications than Romney's.
Though Romney is the last choice of some Republicans, he does better than Santorum among Republicans as a whole. See, for example, the article by Nate Silver that I linked in another thread. As Silver argues there, even if Gingrich were out of the race, thus leaving Romney and Santorum as the only mainstream candidates in the field, it looks like Romney would still get more votes.
You write:
"If Santorum has a 40% shot at winning should he be nominated, and Romney has a 43% shot at winning should he be nominated, I don't think Romney's 3% advantage is some deal-clincher for why he should be supported over Santorum. If those were the numbers (let's imagine we could quantify this), would you agree?"
Yes, I'd agree, but that isn't the situation we're facing.
The article you linked doesn't make a case for the better electability of any of the alternatives. The issue isn't whether Mitt Romney has some problems. The issue is whether he's better than the competition, primarily Rick Santorum in this context. I see no reason to think he's not.
ReplyDeleteRomney has generally done better than Santorum in the polls, both among Republicans and against Obama, and he's done better for a long time.
He's also gotten more votes.
He's more experienced at running a nationwide campaign, and he's run his campaign better than Santorum has run his.
Romney doesn't seem to be as despised by non-conservative voters, which is relevant to how motivated people will be to vote against him, among other things.
Romney doesn't seem to motivate anything as bad as or worse than the frequent raising of social issues that we've seen with Santorum. Even with Santorum widely considered unlikely to get the nomination, his campaign is often framed in terms of social issues, and he's frequently expected to address those subjects. I'd expect that tendency to get even worse if he were to become the nominee.
As I've said before, I think a lot of people dislike Santorum because he's perceived as a better person than the people who are being asked to vote for him. As Steve Hays suggested in a previous thread, Santorum probably gives a lot of Catholics a sense of guilt, because he's a better Catholic than they are, which partly explains why so many Catholics don't vote for him even in Republican circles. Santorum isn't just conservative on social issues. Those issues are prominent in his political career, he speaks confidently and aggressively about them, and he lives consistently with those values, sometimes in ways that exceed what most people do (e.g., how he responded to difficult circumstances with some of his children). In other words, Santorum is a better person than a lot of the voters, and they're often reminded of that fact, and they despise it. In some cases, voters may resent the arrogance, judgmentalism, or some other fault they perceive in Santorum more than they resent something like his conservatism on social issues or his family life. Either way, whether they despise his social conservatism in general or just some particular aspect of the way he lives it out, I think he upsets a lot of voters.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of many voters, including the ones Republicans most need to persuade, I'd expect Santorum to come across worse than Romney in debates. The people who didn't like hearing Al Gore sigh in his debate with George Bush, didn't like seeing Rick Lazio walk up to Hillary Clinton's podium, etc. probably aren't going to like Santorum's aggressiveness and his tendency to complain. I suspect that most voters would prefer Romney's appearance and voice, and those kinds of factors are significantly influential to a lot of people. And those factors don't just affect how debates are perceived. They're influential in other contexts as well.
I could go on. And, as I've said before, a lot of these problems shouldn't be so significant or shouldn't be problems at all. Life is often unjust. A lot of voters don't have much discernment, and they often vote with bad motives. Santorum deserves better electability, but the issue is what he has, not what he deserves.
People should ask, why did Santorum stay so low in the polls for so long? Why was he the last choice as a mainstream alternative to Romney? Why did voters go to such weak candidates as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich before resorting to Santorum? The anti-Romney sentiment makes sense to some extent. He has significant weaknesses. But he's not as weak as Santorum. I suspect that most Republicans would rather have Santorum in office, but they think Romney is significantly more likely to get into office in the first place, so they're increasingly lining up behind Romney. Santorum could beat Obama, considering how weak Obama is, but the risk isn't worth it when Romney is available as an alternative.
What bothers people about Romney is that, on the issue that the Republicans want to make a central issue in the campaign, Obamacare, Romney can't make the argument that any other Republican can make, which is the argument that the individual mandate is wrong on principle because it's socialistic. We know that he signed and supported an individual mandate in Massachusetts. He can oppose Obamacare on the grounds that it isn't the sort of thing the federal government should do, as opposed to the states. But he can't say that the individual mandate is wrong on principle, but that is what most Republicans believe. So we know Obama is going to ask Romney what, exactly, is wrong with his health care bill, and then what can Romney say?
ReplyDeleteHi Jason -- I don't have much time to respond, but I want to touch on a couple of points.
ReplyDeleteThe article you linked doesn't make a case for the better electability of any of the alternatives. The issue isn't whether Mitt Romney has some problems.
The question is, in a [candidate]-vs-Obama contrast, who is going to be the better candidate? If Romney is able to outspend a "weak" candidate like Santorum 10-1, is able to dredge up all kinds of meaningless dirt about Santorum's senate votes, and he still can't put him away, that's a pretty big problem. Are Santorum's problems [exacerbated his lack of money and status as a relatively unknown candidate] really worse than Romney's?
Romney has generally done better than Santorum in the polls, both among Republicans and against Obama, and he's done better for a long time.
I tend not to put much stock in polls of this type. Six months ago, an Obama vs Santorum poll might have registered 80-20 or worse. All they are is a snapshot in time.
He's more experienced at running a nationwide campaign, and he's run his campaign better than Santorum has run his.
Romney's already run a [losing] presidential campaign. Its certain he would learn something from that. He's much better financed, too. But that hasn't helped him "win". Doing better under these circumstances is not the same as winning (as we've seen lots of other candidates "doing better" at various points). I'd suggest Santorum is still "the last man standing" because he's avoided making the mistakes of other candidates. In the Senate, they say, there are "show horses" and "work horses". It's possible to say that individuals like Cain and even Bachmann were "show horses". Santorum was a work horse, and he spent the maximum amount of time last year where it would generate the maximum benefit: on the ground in Iowa.
Romney doesn't seem to motivate anything as bad as or worse than the frequent raising of social issues that we've seen with Santorum.
ReplyDeleteRomney doesn't motivate anybody. That's one of his key problems. He has the appearance of being a "safe" candidate, but how safe is that really? McCain was the "safe" candidate last time. Santorum is having trouble because media keep bringing up the "social issues", but he's a quick learner, and he'
Even with Santorum widely considered unlikely to get the nomination, his campaign is often framed in terms of social issues, and he's frequently expected to address those subjects. I'd expect that tendency to get even worse if he were to become the nominee.
Ronald Reagan didn't have an easy time in 1980, and he had more of a "conservative" record than Santorum has. The reason he was able to win was because of the strong contrast he made with Carter. Santorum would make that strong contrast with Obama. Romney would be more like "Obama-lite". I don't think that's a strong position.
As for Santorum being "a better person" than voters, why assume that people won't be attracted to that sort of thing. I don't think that's a reason to reject him. You've recently lamented the state of the country. Why not have someone "better" on the national stage, calling people to be better?
People should ask, why did Santorum stay so low in the polls for so long? Why was he the last choice as a mainstream alternative to Romney?
If Santorum is such a weak candidate, then why is Romney not able to defeat him, even while out-spending him 10-1 and 12-1? Santorum was at the bottom for so long because he was relatively unknown. He spent all his time in Iowa, not out on the media circuit. He was being a workhorse.
John Bugay wrote:
ReplyDelete"If Romney is able to outspend a 'weak' candidate like Santorum 10-1, is able to dredge up all kinds of meaningless dirt about Santorum's senate votes, and he still can't put him away, that's a pretty big problem."
Money is significant, but it's accompanied by a lot of other factors. A money disadvantage can be overcome, as John McCain demonstrated in 2008. Santorum's problems go well beyond having less money.
It's early March. Romney is well ahead of Santorum, and he's better positioned than Santorum to win most of the upcoming states. Santorum is still in the race, but so are Gingrich and Paul. People stay in races even when their chances are poor. Romney could have put away Santorum better than he has so far, but he's putting him away good enough.
You write:
"Are Santorum's problems [exacerbated his lack of money and status as a relatively unknown candidate] really worse than Romney's?"
Yes, for reasons like the ones I explained in my earlier posts.
You write:
"I tend not to put much stock in polls of this type. Six months ago, an Obama vs Santorum poll might have registered 80-20 or worse. All they are is a snapshot in time."
And we can put a lot of snapshots together after a while. The collective significance is greater than the significance of a single snapshot.
You write:
"I'd suggest Santorum is still 'the last man standing' because he's avoided making the mistakes of other candidates."
He was largely ignored early on, because he was doing so poorly in polling, raising money, and other contexts. He's avoided some of the mistakes made by the likes of Cain and Gingrich, but that isn't saying much. The issue here is whether he has better electability than Romney, not "other candidates".
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Romney doesn't motivate anybody."
He's motivated a lot more support than Santorum has. But you're changing the subject. I was addressing the motivating of opposition, not the motivating of support.
You write:
"McCain was the 'safe' candidate last time."
He was also a worse communicator than Romney, was running during a worse year for Republicans, was running against an Obama who didn't yet have the terrible record as president that he now has, etc. I suspect that Santorum would have lost in 2008 by an even wider margin than McCain did.
You write:
"Ronald Reagan didn't have an easy time in 1980, and he had more of a 'conservative' record than Santorum has."
Reagan had a lot of advantages that Santorum doesn't have. And I haven't said that "a conservative record" makes Santorum less electable than Romney. Santorum could be more conservative in addition to being more electable, like Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal. The problem is that other factors, like the ones I've mentioned, make him less electable. It's not a conservative record that's doing it.
You write:
"Romney would be more like 'Obama-lite'."
That's an unreasonable characterization. He's running as a conservative, with a vastly different platform than Obama's. See my 2008 post contrasting McCain and Obama here. Much the same could be said of Romney and Obama. Romney is less reliable as a conservative than McCain and Santorum, largely because of his non-conservative past, but he's been running as a conservative during these past two presidential cycles. He would have a lot of factors in place to motivate him to govern conservatively if he were elected. That makes him tremendously different than Obama. Calling Romney "Obama-lite" is absurd. It's reminiscent of Paul supporters claiming that there's no significant difference between Paul's opponents and Obama.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"As for Santorum being 'a better person' than voters, why assume that people won't be attracted to that sort of thing."
Because we've already seen how people have reacted to Santorum in that context, and we know a lot about the character of the American people.
You write:
"Why not have someone 'better' on the national stage, calling people to be better?"
There are tradeoffs involved. Santorum would deliver a better message than Romney in some contexts, but in a setting in which that message probably wouldn't have much of an effect. Romney would be significantly more likely to get elected, and he'd probably implement conservative policies on social issues.
You write:
"Santorum was at the bottom for so long because he was relatively unknown."
So were other candidates who rose in the polls faster than Santorum did. His "relatively unknown" status is only a partial explanation of why he did so poorly. He was on the same stage as the other candidates in the debates, for example, and the audiences repeatedly concluded that somebody other than Santorum won. The donors, commentators, political leaders, and others involved in the early stages of the campaign, who thought so little of Santorum's prospects and offered him so little support, knew him well. He wasn't very unknown to them. Part of what they knew about him was that he has the sort of weaknesses I described earlier. The weaknesses are still there, but now some people want to make less of those weaknesses because he's the last alternative to Romney. But his status as the last alternative to Romney shouldn't prevent us from seeing the weaknesses in Santorum that were widely acknowledged in the early stages of the campaign. The effort to reinvent Santorum is unconvincing.
I don't see any case for an electability advantage for Santorum in the John Fund article you linked. And I don't see much of a case for it in your follow-up posts. Rather, you dismiss Romney's better polling data, better voting results, etc. while appealing to vague comparisons to Reagan and how Santorum might be viewed differently by voters than I've suggested.
Santorum is better than Romney in many ways. Electability isn't one of them.
What are the odds/possibilities of a brokered convention and Santorum winning over Romney?
ReplyDeleteJason said: I don't see any case for an electability advantage for Santorum in the John Fund article you linked. And I don't see much of a case for it in your follow-up posts. Rather, you dismiss Romney's better polling data, better voting results, etc. while appealing to vague comparisons to Reagan and how Santorum might be viewed differently by voters than I've suggested.
ReplyDeleteMy purpose in posting this article wasn’t to say there was an electability advantage for Santorum; rather that the notion that Romney is somehow more electable is really just an illusion.
There is plenty of evidence that Republicans are despairing because neither Romney nor Santorum exhibits what they would call “electability”. Romney, too, is acknowledged as a weak candidate.
I do have to concede that Santorum is not operating from a position of strength at the moment. But a political campaign doesn’t reduce to a static analysis; it’s a highly fluid situation. There is motion, momentum, and Romney has not yet demonstrated, with his tepid victories, that a majority of either Republicans or voters in general really cares to see him win the presidency. On the other hand, take a look at this article on Santorum’s ability to speak boldly against Obamacare as at least evidence that he’s able to motivate Republicans.
On some of the issues that you think would “motivate opposition” in Santorum, in those cases he’s asking precisely the right questions. Some of the biggest opposition to him in 2006, when he lost to Casey, were in the form of his “insensitive and offensive comments about homosexuality” and his “record on women’s issues”. That played well in a Pennsylvania market where there was already considerable sentiment against Republicans (the Iraq war was going badly at the time, and the national Democratic committee had focused upon him as one of the key Republicans to beat in that election cycle).
How will those issues play on a national scale? We can’t say, but while you are lamenting his lack of “electability”, he is engaging the political culture in almost exactly the way you would like to have it be engaged. If there are other individuals you’d rather see running, who have decided not to run, how much of that is because they don’t want to expose themselves and their families to the type of media scrutiny and criticism that Santorum is exposing himself to? (Especially from Republicans who do support his message?)
Romney would be significantly more likely to get elected, and he'd probably implement conservative policies on social issues.
ReplyDeleteI’d much rather see Romney be president than Obama. But “electability” is just such an intangible that can’t be proved based on poll numbers. There is no poll number for “fire in the belly”. But Santorum both has, and inspires it, while Romney neither has, nor inspires this.
Polling data just doesn’t reveal answers to questions in the polls. It reveals other things as well. The fact that Romney has neither polled higher than 40% among Republicans or has not (except in places like Virginia and Massachusetts) drawn more than 40% of the Republican vote is a serious impediment to his “electability”.
There are two aspects to “electability”. One is certainly appealing to the political center. The other, though, is motivating the 40-45% who you ought to be able to count on (i.e., other Republicans). What good will it do for Romney to take a larger portion of the center, if large numbers of Republicans stay home on election day?
Two things might undermine the Republican candidate’s chances of winning: high negative numbers in the center, or a lack of turnout on the right.
The appeal might be made that Romney can capture more of those in the center. But he hasn’t yet even demonstrated he can win a majority of those on the right. Steve noted, if Romney wins the election, he’d tune out the election until November. He’s an exceptional citizen. How many Republicans will not only “tune out”, but stay home?
Regarding Santorum’s own electability, you have noted that he “motivates opposition”. That’s not necessarily a losing thing. Bill Clinton motivated a lot of opposition, especially in 1996, but it wasn’t enough for a weak candidate like Dole to overcome, in spite of all the “extra curricular activities” that Clinton was dealing with.
As weak as Dole was, Romney would be weaker. Just look at his inability to defeat a “weak” candidate like Santorum. Conservatives didn’t like Dole, but he had neither the flip-flop issue that Romney has, nor the issue mentioned here of having his name on “Romneycare”. (You mentioned that he is more well-spoken than Santorum is, and that people in our culture are simple enough that something like that matters. But how many people, really, are going to understand the distinction that “the states have the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance” and “the federal government has the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance”?)
JB: "Romney would be more like 'Obama-lite'."
ReplyDeleteJason: That's an unreasonable characterization. He's running as a conservative, with a vastly different platform than Obama's.
You yourself mentioned that voters keep only cursory things in mind. All through the general election season, Romney will be tagged with being “the intellectual father of Obamacare”. It’s certainly not an unreasonable characterization, no matter what his other policy proposals are. How are voters going to keep his other policies in mind, in the face of that objection?
Romney would be significantly more likely to get elected,
It is precisely the John Fund type of article I posted that argues against this possibility.
It's early March. Romney is well ahead of Santorum, and he's better positioned than Santorum to win most of the upcoming states.
That’s not necessarily true. The next three states coming up, Missouri (where Santorum has already won the “beauty contest”, Alabama and Mississippi are all very likely to fall into the Santorum column. Even if Santorum were to win all the delegates, it’s true, he’d still be behind. But if Gingrich drops out, that would help add to Santorum’s delegate total, and further reveal Romney’s weakness.
If neither candidate has the required number of delegates, then all bets are off. I’m not sure how many delegates will be allotted by the time of the convention.
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
ReplyDeleteWhat are the odds/possibilities of a brokered convention and Santorum winning over Romney?
Here's where the numbers are:
Total Delegates: 2286
Needed to nominate: 1144
Allocated: 753
Yet to be allocated: 1533
Romney 421
Santorum 181
Gingrich 107
Paul 47
Source: http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates
See also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/primary-tracker/
If Santorum wins in the next week, Kansas, Mississippi, and Alabama (and it is within the realm of possibility), he can pull close to Romney, persuade Gingrich to withdraw, and show "momentum" going into some of the bigger states.
Most of the states have "Proportional" allocation of delegates, but there are some big "winner takes all" states, including California with 172 delegates.
John Bugay wrote:
ReplyDelete"My purpose in posting this article wasn’t to say there was an electability advantage for Santorum; rather that the notion that Romney is somehow more electable is really just an illusion."
What's your alternative, then? That they're equally electable? That an electability advantage for either is undiscernable? That you don't know whether Santorum has equal or better electability, but you do somehow know that Romney's isn't better? None of those positions seem justified to me. Or did you have something else in mind?
You write:
"There is plenty of evidence that Republicans are despairing because neither Romney nor Santorum exhibits what they would call 'electability'. Romney, too, is acknowledged as a weak candidate."
Romney has been getting significantly better polling and voting results than Santorum, among other advantages. The fact that they both are perceived as weak in some sense doesn't tell us to what degree it's the case with each one. Romney is widely perceived as more electable, and he is more electable, for reasons like the ones I mentioned earlier.
You write:
"There is motion, momentum, and Romney has not yet demonstrated, with his tepid victories, that a majority of either Republicans or voters in general really cares to see him win the presidency."
Some of his victories have been by double digits, and he's gotten more delegates than all of his competitors combined. That's not "tepid".
Again, it's only early March, and it's a four-person race. Romney doesn't have to have "a majority of either Republicans or voters in general" at this point in order to have an electability advantage. That's the topic of the thread. Every Republican candidate this year fails the standard you're setting up. But Romney doesn't fail it as badly as his competitors do.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"On the other hand, take a look at this article on Santorum’s ability to speak boldly against Obamacare as at least evidence that he’s able to motivate Republicans."
Santorum is better than Romney on healthcare. That's a significant advantage.
You write:
"How will those issues play on a national scale? We can’t say"
Yes, we can. Social issues tend to trail other issues by a wide margin when voters are asked what they're most concerned about. And most voters disagree with conservative Catholicism and conservative Evangelicalism on some of the social issues in question, so the prominence of Santorum's positions on such matters will be doubly objectionable to them.
You write:
"But 'electability' is just such an intangible that can’t be proved based on poll numbers."
Let's say that candidate A consistently gets 55% in the polls against the sitting president. Candidate B consistently gets 35%. That's "intangible" and doesn't "prove" enough? Yes, the numbers could change, and polling isn't all that's involved. I've repeatedly acknowledged both of those points, and I've cited some of the non-polling factors already in my earlier posts in this thread. But polling is part of the equation. So are primary voting results, endorsements, and other factors I've mentioned. The fact that polling results aren't exhaustive or conclusive doesn't prove that they have no significance.
You write:
"There is no poll number for 'fire in the belly'. But Santorum both has, and inspires it, while Romney neither has, nor inspires this."
Earlier in the same paragraph, you said that you'd "much rather" see Romney as president than Obama. If there's that much of a difference between them, yet Romney doesn't inspire you with a "fire in the belly", then there are some significant factors that commend Romney that aren't producing the fire in the belly you're looking for. Santorum is more inspirational for a conservative Evangelical voter, like you, but that doesn't tell us much about his overall electability. He inspires an inordinately negative reaction among other types of voters.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"The fact that Romney has neither polled higher than 40% among Republicans or has not (except in places like Virginia and Massachusetts) drawn more than 40% of the Republican vote is a serious impediment to his 'electability'."
Is 40% the standard now? I remember when Romney was criticized for not getting above the low twenties or so. Then it was something in the thirties. Now you've set the bar at 40%. Like I said before, every candidate this year fails your standard. But Romney doesn't fail it as badly.
I don't know why you'd refer to "places like Virginia and Massachusetts". Some of the states where Romney has done best are among the most important, like Florida and Virginia.
You write:
"What good will it do for Romney to take a larger portion of the center, if large numbers of Republicans stay home on election day?"
Why are we supposed to think that will happen? Current dissatisfaction with Romney doesn't tell us much about what people will think of him after several months of seeing him run against Obama, being the focus of media opposition, etc. Just as Santorum would become more popular among Republicans if he were to become the nominee, so would Romney. And defeating Obama will likely be a major motivation for Republicans to vote this year, regardless of who the nominee is. I doubt that Republican turnout would be significantly low under either candidate.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"But he hasn’t yet even demonstrated he can win a majority of those on the right."
The notion that we can't tell whether most conservative voters are likely to support Romney if he's the nominee is ridiculous. I don't know of anybody who specializes in any relevant field - a pollster, political scientist, or anybody else - who thinks any Republican candidate this year won't get the support of a majority of Republicans. Romney wouldn't keep getting forty-some percent in polling against Obama if he only had the potential support of less than a majority of Republicans. If so many Republicans are willing to support him, I suspect a sufficiently high percentage of conservative non-Republicans would be willing as well.
And, again, you're setting up a standard that reflects even worse on Santorum than it does on Romney. Romney's gotten better polling and more votes among Republicans and nationwide than Santorum has, by far.
You write:
"Bill Clinton motivated a lot of opposition, especially in 1996, but it wasn’t enough for a weak candidate like Dole to overcome, in spite of all the 'extra curricular activities' that Clinton was dealing with."
The fact that a disadvantage can be overcome doesn't change the fact that it's a disadvantage. It would be better to not have the problem to overcome in the first place.
You write:
"As weak as Dole was, Romney would be weaker. Just look at his inability to defeat a 'weak' candidate like Santorum."
Again, the standard you're applying carries even more negative implications for Santorum than it does for Romney. Santorum is losing to Romney, and he's losing by a wide margin.
How is Romney supposed to have "defeated" Santorum already? There hasn't been enough voting yet to mathematically eliminate him. Even if there had been, it would be ridiculous to expect Romney to defeat every opponent as soon as it becomes mathematically possible to do so. And the fact that Santorum is staying in the race doesn't tell us much. Gingrich and Paul are staying in as well. Their chances are poor, yet they remain in the race.
As for your Dole comparison, Obama is much weaker than Clinton was in 1996. Romney has some significant advantages over Dole. He's a better communicator and a better debater, and he doesn't have close ties with an unpopular Congress, among other differences. Romney would be significantly better off than Dole was.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"But how many people, really, are going to understand the distinction that 'the states have the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance' and 'the federal government has the constitutional right to individually mandate the purchase of health insurance'?"
I agree that the healthcare issue is an advantage for Santorum. But it's not as disadvantageous to Romney as you're suggesting. Voters don't have to understand the distinction you refer to above in order to understand Romney when he says that he'll overturn Obamacare. Whether and how that position is consistent with his actions in Massachusetts are different issues, and they're ones voters will be less concerned about.
You write:
"All through the general election season, Romney will be tagged with being 'the intellectual father of Obamacare'. It’s certainly not an unreasonable characterization, no matter what his other policy proposals are. How are voters going to keep his other policies in mind, in the face of that objection?"
If he says he wants to overturn Obamacare, then associating him with the historical origins of the legislation will be a secondary issue. Any voter concerned enough to pursue that sort of secondary issue should also be able to follow the distinctions Romney will make between his position and Obama's.
And healthcare isn't the subject of most interest to voters this year. It's important, but it's not likely to be the primary criterion by which voters judge the candidates. See, for example, here and here.
You write:
"It is precisely the John Fund type of article I posted that argues against this possibility."
The Fund article doesn't argue for an advantage for Santorum or any other alternative to Romney. Mentioning problems with Romney isn't equivalent to denying that he has an advantage over his opposition.
You write:
"The next three states coming up, Missouri (where Santorum has already won the 'beauty contest', Alabama and Mississippi are all very likely to fall into the Santorum column."
The remainder of March is somewhat favorable to Santorum. But he's already far behind, and the advantage shifts more to Romney's direction in April.
The latest poll I've seen in Alabama has Romney ahead. See the March 8 poll from the Alabama Education Association here. And Romney continues to lead nationally.
Again, the standard you're applying carries even more negative implications for Santorum than it does for Romney. Santorum is losing to Romney, and he's losing by a wide margin.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think it says something about Santorum that he's doing as well as he is, with nowhere near the funding or manpower that Romney has?
Or, if you prefer, does it say something about Romney?
I don't think it works to compare Santorum to all the other candidates who had brief surges and then immediately came crashing down, if only because Santorum has lasted longer than they have even in terms of polling.
Not that I think Santorum is a sure winner. I just think the argument that Romney's electability is miles ahead of Santorum's is weak.
Crude wrote:
ReplyDelete"Don't you think it says something about Santorum that he's doing as well as he is, with nowhere near the funding or manpower that Romney has? Or, if you prefer, does it say something about Romney?"
The prominence of opposition to Romney, with Santorum being the latest example, reflects poorly on Romney. We've written a lot about Romney's weaknesses over the years, going back to the 2008 campaign. The issue here is how he compares to other candidates, namely whether others' problems are even worse.
I'll give you a brief history of my view of this campaign. My first choice was Bobby Jindal, who didn't run. Among those who ran, my first choice was Tim Pawlenty. I still think he would have been the best choice among those who ran, and Republicans who are upset with having Romney as the nominee can largely blame themselves for that outcome, since they didn't support Pawlenty as much as they should have. Instead, they wasted their early support on candidates who were far weaker. After Pawlenty dropped out, I supported Perry. I did so without knowing much about his weaknesses. He seemed better on paper than he turned out to be. He had repeatedly been elected governor to a large state that was doing well economically, he had a lot of financial backing and backing by big names within the party, and he quickly took a strong lead in the primary polls. However, he had three weaknesses I was unaware of. I hadn't heard him speak much, if at all, so I wasn't aware of his communication problems. On a related note, I didn't realize how much he'd remind people of George Bush. And, third, I didn't know how poorly he'd be prepared to address national issues (in contrast to his experience with issues in Texas, where he's highly experienced). After Perry, I went with Romney. In retrospect, my support of Perry was a mistake, but I stand by my other three choices (Jindal, Pawlenty, and Romney).
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteAs far as funding is concerned, it's not as though a random drawing was held and Romney came out the winner. Rather, people donate money based partially on electability. The two go together to some extent. People were more interested in funding Romney than Santorum based partly on their perceived electability. And the effective use of money is related to electability. Much the same can be said of manpower. People seek to work for a campaign based partly on the perceived electability of a candidate. Furthermore, there are other major factors involved, like age, appearance, communication skills, who's supporting you, and what positions you take. Those factors also influence how much support a candidate gets. Romney has had money and manpower advantages, but Santorum has had an advantage in some other contexts. For instance, he's had a lot of support from talk radio. What if people like Rush Limbaugh had been supporting Romney and opposing Santorum to a larger extent rather than doing the opposite as much as they have? Some hosts, like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved, have (rightly) supported Romney over Santorum, but my sense is that Santorum's gotten more support overall. It's misleading, then, to refer to how much more money Romney has spent on advertising, for example, without also taking into account the advantages Santorum has had from talk radio and from being the last remaining mainstream alternative to Romney, for instance. There are advantages going in both directions. Santorum hasn't been as much of an underdog as he's sometimes been made out to be. And, as I said above, even where he has been such an underdog, it's often because of weaknesses on his part. There are reasons why he didn't get as much money or manpower as other candidates. Again, it's not as though a random drawing was held to determine these things. And my criticisms of Santorum's electability haven't depended on his lack of money.
You write:
"I don't think it works to compare Santorum to all the other candidates who had brief surges and then immediately came crashing down, if only because Santorum has lasted longer than they have even in terms of polling."
Santorum is the last mainstream alternative left. (I'm using "mainstream" to distinguish between Ron Paul and the other alternatives to Romney.) If Perry, Gingrich, or somebody else had been the last choice, he probably would have remained high for a longer period as well. As I said earlier, you have to ask why it is that Republicans chose Santorum last.
You write:
"I just think the argument that Romney's electability is miles ahead of Santorum's is weak."
He is well ahead of Santorum in terms of electability, and in multiple ways. Whether that lead qualifies as "miles ahead" by your standards is another issue. But he is ahead, and not just by a small amount.
As far as funding is concerned, it's not as though a random drawing was held and Romney came out the winner. Rather, people donate money based partially on electability.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding, and it may be flawed, is that Romney's funding has a lot to do with his business connections. Which I suppose you can say just makes him all the more electable - look at him, able to pull all this money into his campaign, surely that enhances his ability to be elected, right?
But I bring it up to point out that he's got Santorum beaten on money, and I also believe organization and manpower. And still Santorum has been doing pretty well. You can argue, "Right, but everyone did well against Romney for a little while. It's just that Santorum is doing well for a longer period." And I'd say again, that seems to suggest something about Romney.
It's misleading, then, to refer to how much more money Romney has spent on advertising, for example, without also taking into account the advantages Santorum has had from talk radio and from being the last remaining mainstream alternative to Romney, for instance.
Sure, take them into account. They just don't seem to add up to much in comparison. I think it's at the least noteworthy to point out the difference in money and manpower the two have, and the performance of the two.
As I said earlier, you have to ask why it is that Republicans chose Santorum last.
If you want to suggest that, wouldn't Romney himself be the absolute last choice? Santorum is second to last.
He is well ahead of Santorum in terms of electability, and in multiple ways. Whether that lead qualifies as "miles ahead" by your standards is another issue. But he is ahead, and not just by a small amount.
Let me put it another way. If Santorum has a 40% shot at winning should he be nominated, and Romney has a 43% shot at winning should he be nominated, I don't think Romney's 3% advantage is some deal-clincher for why he should be supported over Santorum. If those were the numbers (let's imagine we could quantify this), would you agree?
Crude wrote:
ReplyDelete"But I bring it up to point out that he's got Santorum beaten on money, and I also believe organization and manpower. And still Santorum has been doing pretty well. You can argue, 'Right, but everyone did well against Romney for a little while. It's just that Santorum is doing well for a longer period.' And I'd say again, that seems to suggest something about Romney."
The issue isn't whether Santorum's done "pretty well" or whether Romney is flawed. This thread is about whether Romney has an electability advantage. However well Santorum has done, Romney's done better. However flawed Romney is, Santorum is more flawed.
You write:
"They just don't seem to add up to much in comparison."
You're just telling us what you think without arguing for it. Where's your argument?
Santorum has spent more time in politics, has spent more time working and communicating with the Republican base, has most of conservative talk radio siding with him over Romney, hasn't had to respond to as much opposition from the other Republican candidates as Romney has, hasn't received as much opposition from the Obama campaign and its allies, etc. Romney has money and manpower advantages, which are highly significant. But it's misleading to make so much of factors like Romney's money and manpower advantages while making so little of Santorum's advantages.
And my arguments for Romney and against Santorum don't depend on current levels of money and manpower. Even if Santorum were to have more money and manpower as the Republican nominee, the bulk of my criticisms would still apply. You're assuming a particular amount of influence that money and manpower have, without arguing for it, and you aren't saying much about the portions of my argument that don't depend on Romney's money and manpower advantages.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"I think it's at the least noteworthy to point out the difference in money and manpower the two have, and the performance of the two."
If Santorum is so much worse at raising money and so much worse at getting people to work for him, those problems don't reflect well on his electability.
You write:
"If you want to suggest that, wouldn't Romney himself be the absolute last choice? Santorum is second to last."
I was referring to the last choice among alternatives to Romney. Romney isn't part of that category.
Santorum was in the low single digits for a long time, followed by a recent surge born out of desperation, a surge that's still left him well behind Romney. The factors that have caused problems for Romney among Republicans won't be as significant in the general election as the factors that have caused problems for Santorum. In other words, the people who chose Santorum as a last alternative to Romney have rightly perceived significant problems with both men, but are wrong in the priority they assign to those problems. General election voters won't have the same priorities. The independents and Democrats most likely to vote for a Republican candidate probably would be much less concerned about Romney's non-conservative past and his Mormonism than they would be about Santorum's close ties to social conservatism and his demeanor. Meanwhile, I suspect that the vast majority of Republicans voting against Romney in the primaries will vote for him in the general election if he becomes the nominee. As far as electability is concerned, Santorum's current problems have worse long term implications than Romney's.
Though Romney is the last choice of some Republicans, he does better than Santorum among Republicans as a whole. See, for example, the article by Nate Silver that I linked in another thread. As Silver argues there, even if Gingrich were out of the race, thus leaving Romney and Santorum as the only mainstream candidates in the field, it looks like Romney would still get more votes.
You write:
"If Santorum has a 40% shot at winning should he be nominated, and Romney has a 43% shot at winning should he be nominated, I don't think Romney's 3% advantage is some deal-clincher for why he should be supported over Santorum. If those were the numbers (let's imagine we could quantify this), would you agree?"
Yes, I'd agree, but that isn't the situation we're facing.