Supporters of Rick Santorum claim that Newt Gingrich's continued presence in the GOP race is undermining the ability of Republican voters to nominate a "conservative" alternative to Mitt Romney. The former House speaker should bow out, they say.
Gingrich supporters dispute that argument. Santorum and Gingrich aren't head-to-head competitors, but allies, they say, keeping the GOP race wide open while denying the nomination outright to the former Massachusetts governor.
Who's right? Apparently, the Gingrich camp is.
In two just-released polls, one conducted by Gallup, the other by Fox, Gingrich supporters were asked who they would vote for if their preferred candidate were no longer in the race. In the Gallup poll, 39 percent said Santorum but an equal number, 40 percent, said Romney. In the Fox poll, the results were broadly the same.
In theory, this means a Gingrich withdrawal would boost Santorum and Romney equally, nullifying an advantage for either man.
But given Romney's current lead in delegates, and growing concerns over whether he can obtain a delegate majority, the Georgian's early withdrawal would likely make Romney's job that much easier.
At first glance, Gallup's finding may seem surprising. After all, Gingrich, according to exit polls, is drawing strong support from some of the party's most conservative voters, especially those with lower incomes, and those closely identified with the Tea Party. Aren't these the same voters that Santorum is appealing to?
Yes, but the two candidates' support bases don't completely overlap. Santorum, according to polls, is much stronger with social issues conservatives, especially abortion opponents, than Gingrich is. Gingrich is also drawing support from older voters, especially seniors, a group that tends to favor Romney over Santorum.
And Gingrich is also the candidate deemed most trustworthy on national security issues, and the strongest potential commander-in-chief. Romney, meanwhile, is seen as the most effective in managing the economy. Santorum, at 53, the youngest of the three men, is seen as the most consistent and principled, but also the least experienced.
What this suggests, in part, is fairly obvious: despite the contrasting rhetoric of the candidates, ideology alone is not driving GOP voter preferences. Santorum and Gingrich may sound more
"conservative" than Romney, but Romney has succeeded in portraying both men as Washington "insiders" who've been compromised by their long association with the "liberal establishment."
And even many hardcore conservatives who don't especially like Romney still think he's the most "electable" -- and therefore, supportable -- candidate.
The situation facing Republicans in 2012 is a lot like the one that confronted the party in 2008 when the GOP field was divided between John McCain, Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
McCain, like Romney today, was perceived as the candidate of the GOP establishment and the undisputed party "heir apparent," while Romney and Huckabee both positioned themselves as conservative "upstarts."
The difference? There was even less overlap between candidate voter bases in 2008 than there is now.
Support for Huckabee, a former religious pastor, was confined almost exclusively to social issues conservatives, who deeply distrusted the "pro-life" credentials of the other two candidates. Romney, meanwhile, had the backing of free-market conservatives and immigration critics who saw both McCain and Huckabee as apologists for "Big Government."
In theory, had Romney and Huckabee found a way to join forces, especially in South Carolina, they might have eliminated McCain, who was overwhelmingly supported by party moderates. However, ideological conflicts, combined with strong personality differences, kept the two candidates fiercely divided.
How divided? Even after eliminating Romney and Huckabee, McCain never seriously considered asking either one of them -- especially Huckabee -- to join him on the GOP ticket, despite calls from GOP svengali Karl Rove and other party poo-bahs to do just that.
In this respect, the 2012 race could turn out quite differently. Calls for party unity -- and concerns -- over electability -- are stronger than they were in 2008, in part because the stakes of losing are perceived as so high.
And while many observers doubt that a Romney-Santorum ticket is feasible -- and Romney himself seems to have ruled it out -- the Santorum and Gingrich camps have been flirting with the idea that their respective candidates might end up running together.
In fact, as these latest polls suggest, maybe they already are.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Right now we're back top all the talk about Mitt's "inevitability" - for what the umpteenth time.
Supposedly, with Illinois, a "tipping point" has been reached
Here's the problem, if you can't win in the South, you won't get the nod. The GOP is dedicated to the South in a Faulkner-like way. If McCain hadn't won South Carolina - by a mere 3 points - in 2008, he wouldn't have gotten the nod.
Romeny is still looking at defeats in Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas.
And here's Newt, continuing the "me" policy that eventually led to his demise in congress. Instead of considering the future of a crumbling Republican party and realizing he is a significant contributor to the disarray, he's going to continue to divide (and not conquer) just to satisfy his ego. A man with real leadership qualities would stop acting like a crybaby and consider the greater good. Of course, if he had real leadership qualities, he might be leading right now.
On of the "problems" of "American society" today is the ability of super-rich candidates like Romney to buy a party nomination with negative advertising without offering any real positive vision or ideas of their own.
Romney picked this fight in this way, and he is paying the price. If Romney had any real leadership qualities - and wasn't the proverbial stuffed suit - he would have won the nomination by now.
The evangelical vote was really strong in Alabama and Mississippi, and of course earlier in Iowa and South Carolina, Other places, not so much, though.
What do you make of the polls then, since you seem to disagree so strongly?
I actually think they may be underestimating what's likely to happen. If Newt drops out, it will send a signal to many people that this race is effectively over.
Over time, I think not only half - as the polls show - but even more of Newt's supporters would end up with Romney actually. I also think some would gravitate to Paul, as a protest vote.
Santorum and Gingrich just don't have that much in common, in fact, once you look at them as real leaders, and not just ideological standard-bearers.
Finally, consider how much easier it will be on Romney to just focus on Santorum, with all his vulnerabilities - which are many - rather than always worrying about Gingrich also.
With Romney's lead, Santorum is NOT going to win 50% of the delegates in any case, but he needs Gingrich (and Paul) splitting up the delegates to keep Romney from doing so.
A brokered convention is the only hope for the non-Romney faction.
That is simply hilarious.
Good grief - give me a break; I do not FRIGGING want the President to waste one second on trying to take porn off the Internet; it's true, there is some nasty stuff out there, but I don't have to watch it and Its my job to miniver what my children access on the Internet; I believe President has enough to deal with, like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, unemployment, gas prices, economy, deficit, debt, education, infrastructure, tax reform, immigration reform, health care. Well I guess in his free time he can work on getting some porn sites taken down. OMG
However, pornography is a big big issue with Catholics of all political persuasions, and with the same women who might see contraception as a personal freedom and sexual health issue but who find pornography immoral and degrading to women.
They would trade their first born child for a chance to see Gingrich debate Obama!
The latest I have heard is that leaders of the Christian right wants Newt in a top post and will back Romney fairly soon, certainly before the convention, if certain people are guaranteed posts in a new Romney administration. Such as:
Newt as UN Ambassador, Santorum as Attorney General, Bolton at State, and maybe even Palin at Energy - though that last one, I suspect, is a deal breaker for Mitt's establishment backers.
I'm a former moderate Republican, turned Independent since GWBs first term. I've been voting Democratic since 2004. I hate the way Republicans have been dividing the country by trying to legislate their personal opinions on social issues. It's destroying the ability of politicians to work together and it's irresponsible of Republican politicians to waste time on these things.