1.) He spent all his time there. The Santorum strategy has been focused almost entirely on Iowa. As a bottom-tier candidate, Santorum lacked the resources for big ad buys and spent just over $600,000 (approx. $21 per vote), in comparison to the millions spent by Romney, Paul and Perry; not to mention the Super PACs. The Santorum campaign claims to have visited every county in Iowa and obviously assembled broad support in most areas of the state (see map).
2.) He actually connected with voters on economic issues. Santorum's success in Iowa may, in large part, be due to his ability to connect with real people on economic issues in plainspoken terms they understand. While Romney tends to talk about the economy in the terms of corporate growth and Paul in terms of free-market theory (Paul has connected on spending), neither approach is particularly relatable to the average voter, even in a GOP primary. Santorum touts his ability to win over blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" as his greatest strength; as well as an economic platform focused on incentivizing domestic manufacturing. Whoever becomes the GOP nominee in 2012, connecting with "Joe Six Packs", particularly in industrial states like Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will be an essential component of any electoral victory.
3.) Iowa voters care about personal, social values. Romney's flips on the social issues, Paul's "hands-off" approach to social matters and Newt's failed marriages left a vacuum for a candidate, such as Santorum, to surge with so-called "values voters" (usually meaning Evangelical Christians). Santorum, Perry and Bachmann were all seen as viable options for the high number of these voters, yet the only non-Evangelical candidate (Santorum is Roman Catholic) is the one who captured the vote. While the media will likely portray this movement as "putting aside concerns about the economy," it just may be that voters see economic concerns as simply more than matter of material outcomes.
*I genuinely take issue with marginalizing a portion of the electorate as "values voters." All voters, on the right and on the left, vote base on their values. Whether those values focus on social welfare, protecting the unborn or opposing government intervention; those who care about the way our nation conducts public policy are voting their values.
4.) He was not a victim of attack ads. Time was one the side of Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich's spike in the polls came a month before the Iowa Caucus, giving Romney (and his SuperPACs) and the Ron Paul campaign the opportunity to sling mud at Newt. It worked. Despite Newt's mostly conservative record in his 20 years in Congress (90% ACU rating), his primary opponents were able to use sound bites to cast him as a flip-flopping, big-government moderate. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum criss-crossed the state, under-the-radar of the media, until a final poll was released days before the election. Retail politics works in the Iowa Caucus. Apparently, so does escaping the media.
5.) GOP voters still are not sold on any one candidate. Despite Mitt Romney's eight vote victory in the Iowa Caucus, there remains 75% of Republican voters who did not cast their ballot for Romney; despite efforts to consolidate support behind him. Ron Paul has a loyal constituency of voters, but while his message on government spending resonates with the GOP base, his views on national security and foreign relations do not. Gingrich draws high numbers in national polls, but must show a strong showing in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, if he wishes to stay competitive. Michele Bachmann has bowed out and her voters are up for grabs. Rick Perry headed back to Texas to regroup and focus all his efforts on South Carolina. Rick Santorum is going into New Hampshire with lots of momentum and Jon Huntsman has focused his entire campaign on the Granite State. While Romney is viewed as the clear favorite in New Hampshire, there will be another debate and non-stop campaigning until next Tuesday. While New Hampshire likes to believe they "pick the President," let's not forget that John McCain won this state in 2000 and Pat Buchanan in 1996.
So what does it mean?
First, it means it's Rick Santorum's turn to be put through the wringer. Santorum critics will attempt to point out that his rhetoric does not always match his record and that he's a big-government Republican who voted to increase entitlement spending and expand the Department of Education (votes he says he now regrets). It's difficult to say if Romney spends any time attacking Santorum or just continues to attempt to build on his lead in New Hampshire. Regardless of how the primaries pan out, it is difficult to ignore the lessons of Iowa.
Santorum can now make the case that his message on the economy resonates better with average voters, and particularly blue-collar workers, than a Wall Street financier like Mitt Romney. The media will be busy highlighting Santorum's views on abortion and gay marriage as being "too extreame" for the general electorate. The real lesson of Iowa is not about one candidate or another, but about greater worries plaguing Americans in all pockets of the country. The electorate is genuinely disgusted with Washington, Wall Street and all the major institutions they view as having contributed to the meltdown of 2008.
This election is essentially about the concerns of Main Street America and their dwindling faith in the American Dream. The President has offered them an easy way out; blame the wealthy, tax them more and expand government. After all, elections are decided primarily by undecided voters who do not hold strong philosophical views and are easily persuaded by crafty television commercials. A Republican candidate must not only articulate a contrasting, conservative message about economic growth and free-markets, but actually speak about the economy in terms of creating opportunity, the ability to provide for families and improve communities, in tangible ways.
0 comments:
Post a Comment