Why Santorum Is Stronger Against Obama Than Romney
In a blog post over at NY Mag Frank Rich, who obviously has no interest whatsoever in seeing a Republican president elected this fall, argues the case for why Santorum is stronger against Obama than Romney:
"As the political press tells us constantly, Romney would do far better among independents and moderates. And he would indeed, in places like — shall we say? — Westchester County, Brookline, Bethesda, Greenwich, Grosse Pointe, and Brentwood. But the election isn't going to be decided in blue-state enclaves. This election is about places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. And among working-class white voters whom the Republicans need to win in swing states, who is going to inspire more enthusiasm — a (sort of) working-class Catholic from Pennsylvania or the patrician Mormon venture capitalist from Massachusetts who is now best known for laying off workers? Public Policy Polling surveys have for months consistently showed Mitt doing better than each successive non-Mitt in a face-off with Obama. But this week that pattern was broken when PPP found that Santorum would actually be a slightly stronger candidate than Mitt. (The PPP poll also shows both Romney and Santorum losing to Obama, by the way.) And where it counts most on the electoral map, I agree that Santorum could well be the stronger candidate. Though, for me, that's something of a distinction without a difference, given my conviction that Romney has always been a paper tiger."
Am I the only one who finds such analysis coming from a liberal pundit (who, let us not forget, is writing for an audience of liberals) to be a bit startling?