fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Is Santorum Electable After All?

Final Michigan polling shows the state is a toss-up, if enough Democrats turn out to vote for Santorum in today’s open primary. Nate Silver says it could go either way. Michigan Democrats are being urged by liberal activists to turn out for Santorum today, for the sake of throwing the GOP nomination to the most […]

Final Michigan polling shows the state is a toss-up, if enough Democrats turn out to vote for Santorum in today’s open primary. Nate Silver says it could go either way. Michigan Democrats are being urged by liberal activists to turn out for Santorum today, for the sake of throwing the GOP nomination to the most unelectable candidate.

But what if they are wrong? James Taranto makes that case. Excerpt:

The survey, conducted by Gallup, included two samples of registered voters: 1,137 from a dozen “swing states,” all of which Obama carried in 2008, and another 881 nationwide. The swing states included six that George W. Bush carried twice (Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia), three that Bush carried once (Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico), and three that last went Republican in 1988 or earlier (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

The findings: Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%. This gives him an edge of three percentage points over Romney, whose swing-state lead is 48% to 46% and who ties the president nationally at 47%.

To be sure, this is only one poll, and the election is still more than eight months off. One possible explanation is that voters are less unfavorably disposed toward Santorum because they don’t know him as well as they know Romney, and that once they learn how hard-core the former senator is on social issues, they’d bolt for Obama if Santorum becomes the nominee.

Taranto contends that liberals are wrong if they believe most Americans are, or will be, as horrified by Santorum’s social-issues stands as they are:

The liberal left is disdainful, both culturally and ideologically, of Middle America, and that is why the Democratic Party keeps nominating meritocratic toffs like Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

He cites this sarcastic line from a Clive Crook column that sums up my entire complaint with the “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” thesis (= Middle Americans vote Republican, against their economic interests, because they’ve been bamboozled by the culture war):

“When prosperous liberals vote their values, not their interests, that’s enlightened. When poor conservatives do it, it’s dumb.”

Precisely. Nobody writes books with titles like, “What’s The Matter With Manhattan?” or “What’s The Matter With Malibu?”, analyzing why wealthy liberals vote Democratic, against their economic interests. It’s assumed — correctly — that certain things matter more to them than money. They too are “values voters.” Taranto’s basic argument is that Santorum has gotten close to a sweet spot of cultural conservatism married with a more blue-collar-ish stance on economics than Romney has — and that that stance is a lot more potent electorally than many realize.

Advertisement

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now