John,

” Having said that, I think what disturbed me about these primaries is the way a grass roots movement that came so close was so clearly shut down by establishment and money.”

I think the problem is that the Santorum campaign wasn’t ultimately brought down by a conspiracy, or even a consensus of party elites. At the end of the day, the fatal problems of the Santorum campaign were weak organization and an undisciplined candidate.

Santorum has a problematic but potentially popular economic program but, when the pressure was on, he let himself get sucked into a fight with JFK’s Houston speech. And he lost the fight. Toward the end of the campaign, he shot his mouth off about Obama’s family visiting Mexico. It didn’t become a big deal because Santorum’s chances of getting the nomination had shrunk by then, but the longer he stayed in the spotlight, the more of this we would have gotten. He also lost the major debate with Romney when the spotlight was on their exchanges going in. Santorum did well against Romney when Romney’s attention was elsewhere, but when Romney focused on Santorum, he took the guy apart. It was sad watching Romney outsmart him because my sympathies in those exchanges was mostly with Santorum. And even when Santorum won states, his post-Iowa speeches were jumbled messes. At least Romney presents mostly coherent statements most of the time.

I think the reticence of conservative Republicans to back Santorum needs to be seen in light of the flaws that were exposed when the national spotlight shone on the guy. Jindal, Ryan, DeMint, McDonnell, Michael Lee, are all to the right of Romney, but they either endorsed Romney or someone else, or stayed out of the way. Santorum has been a Washington pol for a generation. Maybe these conservative Republican office holders saw something early on regarding Santorum’s abilities.

“It’s hard to understand how Romney’s weakness are less damaging then Santorum’s.” They were damaging enough that even the right-leaning voters who vote in Republican presidential primaries and caucuses voted for Romney over Santorum even though Santorum was probably close to them ideologically. That tells us something about the limits of Santorum’s appeal.

First, thanks for your comments. I enjoy your analysis.

Second, the primaries are over, and I don’t want to give the impression of perpetuating a cult of one candidate the way supporters of Ron Paul in my opinion tend to do. And I concede he (Paul) makes some good points.

Having said that, I think what disturbed me about these primaries is the way a grass roots movement that came so close was so clearly shut down by establishment and money.

You are correct that fundraising, building infrastructure…staying on message and recruiting party elites is part of of being capable.

What is disturbing is that I’m not sure there was any way of recruiting party elites in these primaries. The fix seemed to be in for Romney, a candidate that has flipped on many important issues, lost a senate race, and has played his cards so carefully that in combination with his flip flops its hard to know what he really stands for. That’s not to say I don”t believe he would govern in a much more conservative fashion than the current president, but it takes away from his authenticity index, likability, connectivity … what have you.

Its hard to understand how Romney’s weakness are less damaging then Santorum’s. Indeed, while it may seem paradoxical to the liberal minded, Santorum polled well with women, a group that Romney struggles with..

The particular candidates aside the Republican party needs to decide whether to be brash and conservative, packaging that in an attractive fashion, or moderate and safe.

In broad strokes…

Reagan and George W. Bush.

Or Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush and John McCain.

The first two were 4 for 4 in presidential elections. The second group 1 for 4. And that one arguably on Reagans record.

I don’t have an advanced degree in demographic analysis but it sure seems, whether its because of a “get out the conservative vote” strategy, or whether there are a bunch of closet conservatives amongst declared moderates, that running conservative favors Republican candidates.

Its acknowledged among most that the most important issue this election is the economy.

Yet a huge part of the economy is health care. And I can’t imagine an issue that Americans have been more united on than opposition to Obamacare. I know of one poll that was for Obamacare with dozens of polls showing those polled against it.

How the elites can ignore this and support a candidate who President Obama will thank during a debate for providing him with a blueprint in Obamacare…before asking him why he’s now against it, is beyond me.

I hope they know something I don’t.

Again, thanks for your comments Pete.

“One on one, fair playing field he is simply more capable than Romney.”

Fundraising, building a campaign infrastructure, making filing deadlines, staying on message, and recruiting party elites are all part of being capable. Ignoring all that is like saying that on a fair playing field, Spud Webb was a more capable NBA center than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

I think Romney’s flaws are serious (though the Bureau of Labor Statistics might pull him across), but Santorum might well have presented us with a more dramatic and possibly more serious set of flaws. Since the primaries I have been leaning toward that conclusion even though I don’t forget all that is wrong with Romney.

Renewing a conversation from earlier this year, I would again argue that had he won Michigan or Ohio, and consequently received more than grassroots support, Santorum would have been a formidable candidate. One on one, fair playing field he is simply more capable than Romney. One argument for Romney this spring was that he has a war-chest, ability to raise even more money and infrastructure. Much infrastructure and money would have rolled into Santorum’s campaign had one or two states turned out differently. I believe the occasional slip-up or “blown stack” would have significantly receeded with more recources. At least he would take the fight to Obama and not duck interviews. It remains interesting that Reagan and GW ran the Repubs won, but with GHWB, Bob Dole and John McCain (more moderates) ran the Repubs lost. There’s no historical necessity in that or any other trend continuing but again interesting. There may be better conservatives than Santorum to run for president but they, as you mentioned, didn’t bother to show up. For all his infrastructure, money, connections etc. Romney seems to be too clever for his own good, banking fully on the notion that a businessman who loves his family and helps others will appeal to undecided moderates. Now, when those voters might want to hear his plan, he takes the bait from Obama and dives in to counter arguments about his niceness/goodness/likeability with women voters. What he needs to do is give the undecideds a plan and remember that getting out conservatives to vote cannot be taken for granted. That might be very important in Ohio, Virginia, Florida. Anyway, I hope all these criticisms, mine and others, are wrong and Romney really does know what he’s doing.

Pseudoplotinus, that Romney is tied in the RCP average on the Monday after the Republican convention isn’t encouraging. It is a gain of 1.4% since this time last week, but we’ll see how it shakes out as new polls are added. It moved the numbers in Rasmussen but not in Gallup. Since Obama’s job approval average is still below 50% it isn’t doom either. It does look like an opportunity that Romney didn’t make the most of.