Santorum Surge II

If there is anything I've learned regarding politics, it's to expect the unexpected.  Actually that's not just politics but in life in general.  Obviously the unexpected doesn't happen all the time - then it wouldn't be unexpected.  But think about seminal events in recent history - or just your own personal history.  At the moment that said event was occurring, often we find ourselves saying, "If you would have told me 3 months ago that X - I wouldn't have believed you. "  If you would have told me that a Freshman Senator named Barack Obama (rhymes with Osama) would be our first black President elected in 2008, in 2004 - I would have laughed in your face.  But by that time the events had been set in motion.  Grant it, a lot still had to happen for the pieces to fall into place but the big ones, the structural ones, were already set (namely Clinton scaring other serious contenders away except for Edwards, Obama being extremely capable at organizing and building an organization around him, a core of Democratic support - possibly the most engaged 10-20% that would not settle, Bush winning re-election forcing him to account for his shitty tenure- had Kerry won he would have gotten blamed and would have lost bad in 2008, probably) . 

This sort of realization of how events unfold led me to predict, WRONGLY, that we would see marijuana legalization in four years (right after Obama was elected).  But you can see how it could have happened - Obama is elected and leaves states to their own devices, Schwarzenegger had publicly stated he was in favor of it as a tax generating project, a sagging economy and growing deficit, Ron Paul had bolstered the libertarian republicans about freedom in general, public opinion was moving in the right direction and as of right now support for medical marijuana is above 50%), the media was increasingly addressing the issue as a serious topic to discuss as opposed to a joke or as some way to deride "stoners"- this is important as key mover of public opinion.  Despite all this, and that for some inexplicable reason, Obama has gone back on his "leave it to the states policy"- legalization has not happened (although that was probably  50-50 bet anyway).  Hey, you win some, you lose some.  A few pockets of the country have legalized but unlike gay marriage, a wave of change has not followed it yet. 

My point is, is that despite Romney being the clear front runner early  (Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean anyone) and still by delegate count - you never saw him catch fire.  Obama actually faced this as well being the insurgent 4 years ago, but eventually Edwards attacked Hillary causing her to sling mud, making her look dirty. Obama talked about hope and change. And he snuck Iowa out of his back pocket (unbeknownst to us at the time he actually had an advantage over Clinton because of his superior ground game) lending him some immediate legitimacy.  The difference between Romney and Obama though, is that Romney is/was a known quantity.  Obama was not.  And despite being the conservative's conservative 4 years ago, nobody trusts him now.  The base is LOOKING for a reason to not vote for this guy. 

I don't know about historical precedents in this sort of situation - but the republicans have a nominating process where , depending on MI, AZ, and Super Tuesday, any one of the possible nominees, won't be able to secure the nomination (w/o super delegates).  Brokered convention?  Establishment pick that won't piss off the base? Christie, Palin, Jindal…. This much is certain, someone must be nominated.  But the establishment, despite the weak economy, already didn't think they could beat Obama (evidenced by the weak field) and now the economy may be improving.  LITERALLY anything is possible, Paul, Santorum, CHENEY, even Pawlenty (who should be kicking himself).  Whatever happens, I won't be surprised.

Romney as nominee - 50/50

The Santorum Surge

Given the tumult in the Republican primary race, it seemed remiss not to take a closer look both at the surging Rick Santorum and at the race as a whole.

First off, a mea culpa. Last summer I attended a dinner, and found myself at a table with a self-important, egotistical, and downright demeaning investment professional. Needless to say we agreed on little. At one point in the evening, this individual explained that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, and would then defeat the socialist incumbent in the fall. I replied by questioning Romney's acceptability to the party base, and suggested that a movement Conservative had a better than even chance of upsetting the forthcoming coronation.

Fast forward six months, and, while I certainly wasn't willing to call the November election, I was fairly confident that Romney had the nomination in hand. All the signs were moving in his favor, and his opponents were self-destructing one by one. So, I made a mistake, and shouldn't have discarded my original opinion quite so quickly. Now, an addendum is in order. I never, be it this past June or three weeks ago, never believed that Rick Santorum had so much as in iota of a chance. Truthfully, I might not even have been aware that he was running last summer.

I still believe that Romney is the most likely nominee, however, all the same, I can't help but wonder if that belief is simply a regurgitation of popular opinion. Santorum is surging and, while such surges have come and gone in the past (see Cain, Herman, Gingrich, Newt, Ginrich, Newt Again, Perry, Rick), and while Michigan is noticeably tightening, we're but a week out from the Arizona and Michigan primaries. If Romney doesn't hold Michigan, then a compelling narrative is established for Super Tuesday a mere week later. I've seen not a word printed on the forthcoming Washington caucus, so can't judge how, or if, that might impact the race.

I'm curious as to what others think of this state of affairs. Can Santorum sustain his surge? Will the all-important South swing to him in force, and would such a swing presage a tsunami...or a contested convention?

On a related topic, I'd like to hear some thoughts on the possible underlying causes of this electoral shift, be it temporary or lasting. My gut tells me that we're looking at a combination of Santorum being the last not-Romney standing, combined with the unusual characteristics of the voting population.

As Timothy Egan of the NYT points out, the primaries (and, though he doesn't explicitly make the distinction, the caucuses especially) haven't exactly inspired the country; turnout has ranged from abysmal to, in Maine, a level so low as to be a statistical rounding error. The turnout has also accenuated the historical problem of primaries being decided by the most fervent, ideologically strident voters, given that they're the ones who get out to vote, creating a Republican electorate this season that is "old, white, (and) uniformly Christiam".

This voting bloc provides one possible explanation for the positions taken by the field; they're not appealing to the nation; they're not even appealing to their party. They're attempting to appeal to their party's crazies or, as they're known on both the left and right the "activists".

So, what's causing this? And, in a related vein, could Santorum actually stand a chance in the general? The easy answer is "no, of course not". The man is a walking stereotype of all of the smug and sanctimonious pricks who know that they are right and that you are not only wrong, but, because you disagree with them, are fundametally evil. His positions on the issues of the day (both this day and those issues issues whose last day of note was in 1912 rather than 2012) are so extreme or bizarre that I have trouble conceiving of a Republican path to anything approaching victory. And yet...party identification has taken an increasing hold over the electorate of both sides. I have to wonder how close the race could actually become.