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:
May '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
I DO think it hurts him in the future that he's still draining the goodwill and patience of his party in spite of the odds against him. Reagan and Ford were a special case; Ford was unelected and Watergate/Nixon's pardon damaged him. He almost pulled it off in spite of that. It only took four years of Carter to show voters what a bad idea voting against an unpopular president who would not be on the ballot is...
...one we learned again with Obama.
Again...I hear people quietly talking, who voted for him in 2008. This is not what they thought they were getting. They feel conned. He's toast.
Aug '10
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
As has been stated many times (or, at least I feel this way), all our best candidates sat this one out. I honestly don't see how he'd make it very far if any of those candidates (Ryan, Rubio, Jindal, Daniels, Walker, etc.) decided to run.
The future is a fickle thing and has a nasty habit of being unpredictable so I'll make no predictions. Santorum made it this far because everyone else imploded and he hung on long enough to become the only alternative to Romney in the Primary Election process. In my opinion, It wasn't due to the strength of his campaign or candidacy.
Edited on April 4, 2012 at 5:18amApr '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
If you look at the people who have benefited from non-incumbent "next in line" status, they've mostly built machines during their first run. Reagan, in particular, had a simply huge movement, but Romney, Nixon, and McCain all had large and devoted movements within the establishment. They all had fantastic fundraising abilities.
The exception to this, Bob Dole, didn't make your list, but he also garnered tremendous establishment goodwill; this may be easier from the position of Senate Minority/Majority Leader than from some other positions.
If Santorum's going to build support for an organization that fundraises through means other than religious appeals, purchased mailing lists, and personal pleas to Foster Friess, he's going to have to stop running against the party.
One of the strongest marks against him is the fact that so few people who worked with him have endorsed him, but those who haven't worked with him haven't rushed to do so, either. The Santorum endorsement machine has been terrible. Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Liz Dole, and Dan Quayle (in 2000) all got more, with Lamar Alexander and John Kasich arguably netting better endorsements, and Santorum has won 11 states!
Apr '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
For a measure of the harm that the campaigning choices have done, I'm no longer confident that K.Lo would support him in 2016. He's very good at debating liberals, at crafting legislation, and at getting conservative aims achieved. It turns out he's not so good when it comes to intra-party disputes; his backing of Specter's 1996 Presidential run and 2004 primary turned out to be pretty telling.
I still think that he would have done pretty well in the general, and if he is the 2016 nominee, that wouldn't be such a terrible thing. He does have to learn the art of making friends without paying them off, though, and to be a little less generally caustic about the party.
Aug '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
Mendel: 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. · Apr 3 at 11:55am
Edited on Apr 3 at 12:01pm
I don't think Santorum is thinking that far ahead. If he was, he would have already thrown in the towel and started rebuilding for 2016. He still thinks he is going to win this nomination.
Apr '11
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
HeartofAmerica
I don't think Santorum is thinking that far ahead. If he was, he would have already thrown in the towel and started rebuilding for 2016. He still thinks he is going to win this nomination. · 6 hours ago
If he was thinking that, he'd be focused on New York, Connecticut and Delaware, not on Pennsylvania. Who cares if he wins Pennsylvania? He talks about getting momentum from there, but momentum applied to what? He could win every election after that, Oregon, California, and all the states that he's so strongly slated to lose, except New Jersey and Utah, and still see Romney reach 1144 before the convention. His strategy is a personal enhancement strategy, not a victory strategy. He's aiming for the lower hanging fruit, not taking the long shots he needs for a now very long shot candidacy.
Mar '12
Re: Would Santorum be a Serious Candidate in 2016?
James Of England
HeartofAmerica
I don't think Santorum is thinking that far ahead. If he was, he would have already thrown in the towel and started rebuilding for 2016. He still thinks he is going to win this nomination. · 6 hours ago
If he was thinking that, he'd be focused on New York, Connecticut and Delaware, not on Pennsylvania. Who cares if he wins Pennsylvania? He talks about getting momentum from there, but momentum applied to what? He could win every election after that, Oregon, California, and all the states that he's so strongly slated to lose, except New Jersey and Utah, and still see Romney reach 1144 before the convention. His strategy is a personal enhancement strategy, not a victory strategy. He's aiming for the lower hanging fruit, not taking the long shots he needs for a now very long shot candidacy. · Apr 4 at 10:28pm
It's fun to speculate but, honestly, in 2016 the idea of a Santorum candidacy will be the last thing on anyone's mind.