Byron York has written an excellent article asking a really good question. Why isn’t Santorum considered the (or at least a) frontrunner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination? Santorum’s 2012 performance is very similar to Romney’s 2008 performance in both total popular vote and in the number of states won. Since 1980, Republicans have a history of usually nominating the fellow who finished second in the last seriously contested presidential nominating contest.
Reagan finished second in 1976 and won the nomination in 1980. George H. W. Bush finished second in 1980 and won the next serious nomination contest in 1988. Bob Dole finished second in 1988 and won the next wide open contest in 1996. John McCain finished second in 2000 and won the nomination in 2008. Romney finished second in 2008 and won in 2012.
The 1996 and 2000 contests stand out as exceptions. Pat Buchanan ran a protest candidacy against President Bush in 1992, but there was no serious question of Buchanan winning the nomination and he didn’t even win the plurality of the popular vote anywhere. Buchanan and publisher Steve Forbes actually won some contests in 1996. Both guys ran in 2000 but they were blips in the Republican nominating contest.
Why are people treating Santorum more like Buchanan than second place finishers like Romney, Dole, and McCain? Based on resume, Santorum is a much more plausible presidential candidate and potential president than Buchanan or Forbes. Unlike Buchanan and Forbes, Santorum has won statewide general election races in a large state. He was an active federal legislator involved in welfare reform and banning partial-birth abortions. He really isn’t getting the respect he deserves.
Here are some reasons why Santorum, even with his increased name recognition, might have hit his ceiling as a presidential contender. The list is not exhaustive:
1. Santorum seems to have organizational issues. His campaign couldn’t even sign up enough convention delegates for his home state. The problem showed up in his time management. He sometimes would not organize his primary night remarks so that he was rambling about lifting weights while the cable networks were carrying his speech live. These problem could probably be mitigated with more money and staffing to take care of the nuts and bolts and help him prepare remarks.
2. Santorum seems to both love and get flustered by the cut and thrust of debate. He can’t seem to stay on message while under pressure. It isn’t as much of a problem when he is at the back of the pack and he isn’t being hit with a lot of hostile questions, but when the pressure is on, he can’t seem to avoid getting into self-destructive arguments. I remember one of the later debates where Romney hit Santorum over earmarks. Santorum went into this complicated defense of his earmark record that just did not work in the debate format with a general audience. Romney had this smirk on his face as Santorum started getting lost in his own explanation. Santorum couldn’t sidestep the attack and move on to bigger issues like health care and abortion. Who was Romney to question anybody’s principles? But Santorum had to be right even if winning the battle meant losing the war - and he didn’t even win that battle. Maybe Santorum would be better rested and better prepared for hostile questions if he had a better funded campaign in 2016. I’m just not sure he can keep control of his temper long enough to go the distance in a presidential campaign.
Updated for grammar.
You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
