Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Over at Commentary’s “Contentions” blog, Jonathan Tobin is wondering aloud whether Rick Santorum’s refusal to go quietly into that good night is tied to an ambition to run for president again in 2016 should Mitt Romney falter down the stretch. Here’s Tobin, imagining (though not endorsing, mind you) how such a scenario plays out:
Though it is hard to imagine Santorum becoming polished or organized enough to bridge the gap between being a feisty challenger and a nominee, it must be conceded that in January his name will be prominently mentioned when possible Republican candidates for 2016 are listed. And while his extreme positions on social issues will always be a barrier to winning a general election, should the GOP find itself in opposition next year, those who argued that a more centrist approach was needed in 2012 are not likely to find much of an audience among Republicans.
I have a very hard time seeing how Santorum makes this work. The reflexive analysis is probably to note the long history of the GOP privileging the candidate “next in line,” the one who has already paid his dues on his way to the top of the party hierarchy. And over the past 50 years this has indeed been the Republican Party’s default setting, with Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, John McCain, and now (most likely) Mitt Romney all becoming nominees as a result (Ford is an admittedly different case, but a serious argument can be made that he would not have been the nominee in 1976 without his incumbent status, even if it wasn’t attained via popular election). My old boss, George W. Bush, is the exception that proves the rule. While he hadn’t run for national office prior to 2000, being the eldest son of the most institutionally significant family in the Republican Party hardly qualifies one as an outsider.
Some of the early speculation downplaying Romney’s chances for 2012 emphasized that this trend is not a natural law and that the changing ideological complexion of the party could present barriers significant enough to deny him the nomination. That prediction seems to have been half-true. Indeed, there has been greater resistance to Romney than probably would have been the case in any recent election cycle. That resistance was, in fact, probably large enough to deny Romney the nomination, but only if the conservative opposition was able to settle on a plausible alternative candidate. With a Romney nomination now looking all but inevitable, that project obviously failed.
Therein lies the rub for Santorum. The surge in support he has enjoyed since just before the Iowa Caucuses seems to owe much more to his status as the last-man standing – the sole survivor after the implosions of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich – than any of his inherent virtues (remember that his support was margin-of-error thin as late as December). As much as the rationale of Mitt Romney’s campaign has been that he’s not Barack Obama, the rationale behind Santorum’s campaign has been that he’s not Mitt Romney. Assuming a Romney loss, where does that leave Santorum in 2016, amidst a crop of new candidates and with Romney presumably no longer on the ballot?
Like many conservatives, I’ve discovered virtues in Santorum during this cycle that I previously didn’t know existed (Mike Huckabee is his only rival at the national level for persuasively appealing to blue collar voters, for example). But I’ve also noted that some of his long-standing liabilities (particularly a lack of message discipline that makes him a ripe target for the media) have yet to diminish. In a wide-open 2016 field (where the GOP has a notably deep bench), it’s doubtful that the former traits will outweigh the latter so decisively as to make him a serious candidate for the nomination.
The electoral winds are fickle, of course, and four years is practically geologic time in American politics. Still, the facts at hand would caution Senator Santorum against preparing an acceptance speech anytime soon.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
No he would not contend any better. Probably worse.
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Troy, one never knows. I never imagined that he would get this far. He is dogged, he has grit, and he can be eloquent.
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 10:30pmApr '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Accept for the fact that the Republican party nominates the guy who's next in-line, and having come in second to Romney would make Santorum that guy.
May '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
If Romney wins this year, the odds are slim that anyone will steal the nomination from him (the incumbent) in 2016 when he runs for reelection.
If Romney loses this year, then the 2016 election won't matter.
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 8:29pmFeb '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Please say you mean 2020. And by then, there will be plenty of better candidates.
Jun '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Aaron Miller:
If Romney loses this year, then the 2016 election won't matter. · 9 minutes ago
Oh come now, the republic has survived quite a lot. Surely it can survive even a second Obama term, at least as long as we hold on to the House.
Jun '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Joseph Stanko
Aaron Miller:
If Romney loses this year, then the 2016 election won't matter. · 9 minutes ago
Oh come now, the republic has survived quite a lot. Surely it can survive even a second Obama term, at least as long as we hold on to the House. · 9 minutes ago
It's April 15, 1912, and the RMS Titanic has an opening for Captain. Interested?
Mar '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
If Santorum is hoping to ride the next-guy-in-line wind, the question remains whether it would be better for him to bow out gracefully or fight Romney tooth and nail to the end.
In the races they lost, both McCain and Romney politely dropped out as soon as it became clear they could not win, and thus maintained the good graces of the party for the next election. Contrast this with Reagan, who ignored chivalry and chased Ford all the way to the convention.
I imagine Santorum (and perhaps even Gingrich) are looking at history and deciding that the only way to win in 2016 is to hurt their party today.
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 9:01pmFeb '12
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Think of Reagan and Ford in 1976.
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
The real question is whether Santorum is capable of learning from the mistakes that he made in 2012. He would start out with an organization of sorts in virtually every state and with name recognition within the party.
Jan '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
I feel like politely writing in capital letters "for heaven's sake no". Santorum may be a nice enough guy and a great family man and the rest, but as a candidate he's a non-starter. His position on social issues puts him out of synch with a large number of Americans, and the longer he lasts in this current race the more damage he does to the Republicans. Right now, the country needs a moderate (RINO or whatever) to get in office, and to slowly incrementally drag the country rightwards. Jarring candidates who are easily painted as "extremists" make the blood drain from my face. Romney is going to have to not only fight Obama, but courtesy of the MSM will now have to also distance himself from Santorum's positions, further causing fragmentation of the RW vote. I wish Peter Robinson would just concede. :)
May '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
We barely wanted any of these guys for this cycle. Why would we want any of them for the next one?
Mar '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Joseph Stanko
Aaron Miller:
If Romney loses this year, then the 2016 election won't matter. · 9 minutes ago
Oh come now, the republic has survived quite a lot. Surely it can survive even a second Obama term, at least as long as we hold on to the House. · 3 hours ago
We survived four FDR victories. We'll survive four more years of Obama.
Mar '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
That's precisely what comes to mind for me.
Nov '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Aaron Miller:
If Romney loses this year, then the 2016 election won't matter. · 4 hours ago
We've survived a civil war, two world wars and Jimmy Carter. The Republic will survive a second term of Obama.
Mar '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Santorum’s main appeal is his “authenticity.” He believes in what he says. His problem is many of his beliefs are not broadly shared by voting public and may well not even be held by majority of Republican voters. (We’ll never know how many votes he lost from like-minded primary voters who just consider him unelectable.)
Mar '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Troy,
You are making this analysis more complicating than it needs to be. One, does this hurt his chance in 2016, I don't think there is any way you can say it does. Secondly, one can make a good argument that it will most likely help him some, to a small probability it could help him a lot. So no down side mostly likely a small upside with a small potential of a huge advantage because of being next guy in line. If Vegas gave me toughs odds, I would go all in.
One can argue that is might also be a justification why Newt is staying in the race.
May '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
No, the republic has not survived those trials wholly intact. The America of today bears little resemblance to the America of 1900 or before.
FDR fundamentally changed the relationship of American government to citizens. Our government is exponentially larger, more powerful and more centralized than it was during America's first century. Citizens now surrender huge portions of their incomes to politicians and rely on political favors for even their daily business. We are governed as much by unelected bureaucrats as by Congress. Rule of law has been supplanted by the political whims of judges and oppression by frivolous lawsuits. And so on.
Obama is FDR minus patriotism. We have already seen him wreak havoc on America without need of Congressional support. He doesn't need Congress to destroy the coal industry or to block oil drilling. He doesn't need Congress to terrorize every industry through executive agencies or to undermine our freedoms. The HHS mandate slipped right past Congress, didn't it? How's the economy doing?
Meanwhile, "trillions" has become common. The deeper into debt we go, the harder to dig out. Four more years?
Our government might endure more Obama, but not in any desirable form.
Jun '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
I don't take him seriously now, so for me...
Probably not.
Mar '12
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
With over half a dozen non-candidates making GOP voters wish list for "savior candidate" this year? Nah, the bench is too deep. Imagine half of these folks with another four years of experience - Rubio, Christie, Jindal, Haley, etc. Fuggetaboutit, Ricky.