Rick Santorum's Michigan Primary Gambit: A Potential Apocalypse for the Republican Party

Some rights reserved by DonkeyHoteyOn February 28th yet another step in the long 2012 presidential campaign looms, but this time the fate of both the Republican frontrunner and his challenger could be flipped upside down faster than the American auto industry in 2008.

At first glance the Michigan primary seems like it will go easier than collecting government bailout cash. All Romney has to do is play up his Detroit upbringing and robotically deliver rehearsed comments about blue collar jobs and counteracting urban decay. Instead of following along with the expected political script on jobs, Rick Santorum appears to be focusing on his far right social stances, an interesting gambit that could make or break Mitt Romney's chances for the White House. With so much conservative red meat served alongside his opponent's dry, tasteless chicken, the sweater vested Santorum is gaining nearly enough speed to force a devastating Mitt Romney crash and nothing short of a doomsday scenario for the Republican party.

On paper, Mitt Romney has many advantages in a state like Michigan. It is considered his home state, a place where his father once held strong political sway as Governer and a top auto executive. Also, Mitt can easily outspend Santorum, which could derail his campaign just like Romney's dollars knocked out Gingrich in Florida. History too is on Romney's side. Back in 2008 Michigan went to Romney even while the rest of the country's Republican primary voters were coalescing behind McCain. So why does recent polling in Michigan, once a lock for Romney, show a tightening race between Rick and Mitt?

Thanks to some of the Obama Administration's recent ill-timed decisions on contraception mandates, Rick Santorum is looking to make his dramatic stand on social issues in Michigan, one of the last primaries before Super Tuesday. So in typical Santorum fashion, the former Senator from Pennsylvania is resurrecting the early 90s culture wars of Pat Buchanan. Despite evidence that shows this message won't resonate with the wider public (it didn't help Santorum win his last Senate race in PA, alienates independent voters focused on the economy, and proved unsuccessful for Buchanan), Rick is betting that his far right social views will help him capitalize on the distrust that many conservative voters harbor about Romney's lack of strong principled convictions (and more subtly, their doubt about his Mormonism).

Ironically, Santorum's ill-advised gambit of social conservatism may help him win Michigan, but it will most likely eliminate any chances either he or Romney had of winning the nomination. Up until now pundits have mentioned the phrase "brokered convention" in the context of a far-fetched, but interesting thought experiment. However, if Romney suffers defeat in his home state, essentially shattering his momentum into Super Tuesday and anything left of his electability argument, Republican insiders will no doubt discuss the possibility of a brokered convention in much more realistic terms.

The party establishment knows that Santorum's penchant to deliver socially conservative brain dumps questioning the morality of contraception and the Christian theology of President Obama ring alarm bells with ninety percent of the voting electorate. With Romney's candidacy severely in question and the Obama team giddy over the chance of facing Rick Santorum in the general election, a new Republican presidential candidate will almost have to be hashed out at a brokered convention.

Before contemplating the implications of this doomsday scenario, some mention of the other two candidates in this race should be made. Newt Gingrich has vowed to continue despite recent poor showings and a lack of events in Michigan up to this point. While a long shot for the nomination, Newt could very well use his remaining dollars and public persona to deliver more blows to Mitt Romney. Or Newt could squash Romney in this week's final debate before Super Tuesday and rise again like he did in South Carolina.

As for Ron Paul, his solid base of supporters will probably deliver him at least fifteen percent of the Michigan primary vote, just enough to ensure that he will get at least two delegates. Although barely mentioned by the news media, the Paul campaign has quite an underdog strategy which could end up more successful than the pundits will admit. Taking advantage of a rule change for this year's primary in which many state delegates are now awarded proportionately rather than in a winner-take-all format, Dr. Paul is slowly picking up delegates in each state rather than placing an inordinate amount of effort into any one place in particular. Paul's long-term delegate-centric strategy, coupled with his strong organization and a fundraising style reminiscent of the 2008 Obama campaign, could bring him enough clout come convention time to warrant that his candidacy or at least his issues deserve serious consideration as the Mitt Romney alternative.

Of course, right now these are just hypotheticals, but one thing is certain. Republicans already know what kind of candidate will defeat Barack Obama; they're just not sure this person is currently in the race. Since the Republican landslide victories of 2010, the winning message hasn't changed, and it doesn't involve church or what goes on in people's bedrooms. It's the economy, stupid. The phrase is just as politically powerful today as it was when Bill Clinton unseated the last incumbent presidential candidate twenty years ago. Yet, amazingly Obama's challengers are taking a different tack in Michigan, even if it means ripping their party apart. 

Fasten your seatbelts, America, because as Detroit goes, so goes the nation...

Comments

[Martin Roche]

I feel that the mystery of Santorum's success is found in the devolution of the Republican Party itself, from a movement that valued fiscal conservatism, limited government, law and order, and a strong military to a political mixed with odd religious superstition, conspiracy theorists, and political hysteria. Rick Santorum is this transformation made manifest.

My father was a conservative. He voted for Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon. Their moderate interpretation of conservatism (and yes, those two terms can co-exist in a sentence) was attractive to middle America. Yet both men would be viewed as out of step with the modern party, just as Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman have been. By pointing to Santorum as their candidate, many of the leaders of the so-called Christian Right - who have consolidated the greatest power within the party - have painted the party into a corner. He is suddenly the only "true conservative," which, in the historical interpretation of the term is absurd. The many years of changes within the Republican Party, dating back to the mid-1960's, have lead to this moment, and those changes turned my father off so much that now he votes Democrat.

[Nick Carraway]

I agree that the Republicans have made a real mistake pandering to the extreme right throughout this primary season at the expense of moderates and independents who are interested in restoring fiscal sanity to the country. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we've had 20 debates, and the morality issues make for the best tv soundbytes. I can think of no other explanation why Rick Santorum is a viable candidate on the national stage. However, I think the Republican establishment knows it, and as a political junky, I'm actually excited for the prospect of a brokered convention. Historically, it's not that unheard of, but who knows what it will mean for an election in the modern age?

Thanks for the comment.

[Patrick Edmonds]

Santorum's ascent to relevancy and possibly the Republican nominee is a genuinely scary thing.

I know Santorum from his Senatorial years in PA, and while I admired his commitment to the poor, his religious zeal always got in the way of pragmatic realities and values. He had no concern for public education, jobs, or environment. He seemed almost oblivious to these issues. This is the reason he was ousted in such a landslide from PA by Bob Casey Jr. in 2007. This was before the severe concerns of economy, education, environment really existed in PA, so I can't imagine him in this state right now.

You guys said it all, but I still can't help but be incredulous to the fact that this man has a real shot at being the Republican nominee for president. I consider myself independent with a lean towards Republican ideals of Roche's father, which seem all but lost; however, what I desire more than anything is a real campaign between Obama and the Republican contender. I believe Romney is the only one who has a legitimate shot and Paul is the best shot to make for a sincere debate on real issues and not just well-endowed candidate.

Good post and I look forward to see this play out, even if it's in our worst interest.

[James Dugan]

God this and God that -- well it was PA tax payers who paid for your kids private school education though you had residence in Viriginia. I thought we had heard the last of him when PA no longer wanted him.

I think Gingrinch will be the man. This smoke with the morman and the facist is just protecting a sly fox who has his eyes set on the White House. Gingrinch is the smartest man in the room for a brokerage as you say and can raise money in a heart beat.

Interesting lunch -- I thought democrats were split on being liberal -- the republicans can't even agree on what is conservative any longer.

[Lady Godiva]

I just went to The Daily Show and the majority of the show centered around poking fun of the Republican candidates. I don't blame them (Jon and his writers) because the candidates have made it incredibly easy to do just that. Alterations and editing aside, I can't believe some of the things that come out of their mouths. I am truly incredulous. They are all experienced politicans, business men, have had tons of interviews in their tenure, are "qualified" to RUN for PRESIDENT and they sound like morons half the time. They need to stop the word vomit and start discussing truly essential isses. I swear, I could have(and have had) a more eloquent, educated, relevant conversation about the well-being of our country than half these nitwits. And I'm not a Democrat, but I couldn't believe that Santorum was interviewed speaking openly and with conviction about how a rape-baby is a blessing. I just don't get it. A)Why, WHY why would you say that? B) How does that relate to whether or not you're qualified to run our beloved and fragile country???? (I shame the interviewer as well; set up or not, it was just all in very poor taste).

I'm all for everyone having their own views and I'm glad in America we are free to discuss and debate our views openly. However, when running for PRESIDENT of the US, there are just some things one should not say! He should be talking about how to fix education, how to LOWER gas and food prices, how to lower dependance on foreign oil, how to boost jobs, how to fix the housing mess, how to keep us safe and best utilize our military,healthcare, etc.....He should NOT get caught up in the rhetoric of religious values, pro-choice vs. pro-life issues or anything else of the sort. Those are fine issues to discuss, yes, but they should NOT be the foundation on which people listen to stupid interviews, and base their votes on the next President! WHEN are people in politics REALLY going to start addresssing middle and lower economic issues and stop with the minor, non-life changing bs?