1. Pete and Olson’s thought about the Santorum strategy being too decades too late with his economic/manufacturing focus is what I thought when he announced for the nomination. A rich guy asked me if he should give significant bucks to Rick’s campaign, and I said he won’t last past Iowa.

2. The reason he has, Ross Douthat is right to say, is that he’s the candidate the Republicans have who’s both most authentic and most substantial. It probably isn’t the right substance for victory this year. But still…

3. Of all the antiestablishment candidates who might have enduringly overachieved (beginning with Bachmann), he’s the one who actually did.

4. The religion/conscience issue that helps Santorum now in Republican primaries and especially caucuses would probably do him in in November. It’s the opinion of both establishment Republicans and Democrats that he wouldn’t have much of a chance to even come close to whipping the president. It is possible, of course, that they’re wrong. But for now Rick has fewer endorsements than even Newt. It’s worth noting that Romney is in no position to exploit Rick’s weakness of this front. One more thing: Remember that the MSM has decided, for now, to lay off Rick as the “religious bigot.” That delayed “vetting” could commence at any moment.

5. If Santorum wins in Michigan (and especially if he goes on to win in Ohio), John P. is perfectly right to say that only God knows what would happen next.

6. Some say it helps Romney that Gingrich and Santorum both stay in the race as long as possible. The opposite is true under the proportional representation regime. If both guys remain “viable,” then Romney will consistently come up well short of winning a majority of the delegates. That means, of course, that Newt and Rick should lay off each other and fire together at Romney from different positions. It’s above my pay grade to advise Mitt on how to fight that two front war.

7. If either Gingrich or Santorum drop out, studies show about half of the candidate’s support goes to Romney.

I could go back through the history of my comments on this blog in regard to the Republican presidential campaign, and I could count how many times I have said that this or that is “not gonna happen” and have been proven wrong. Wishful thinking (even if against my own wishes), coupled with the charm of competence, led me to speak such in a manner ex cathedra.

Of course, I exaggerate about this.

Nonetheless, I have said “not gonna happen” about Santorum’s campaign and its implication of actually winning the Republican nomination let alone the office of the presidency itself. I have said it about Mitch Daniels returning to candidacy and actually winning the presidency under such circumstances of late entry. I have said it about a “brokered” Republican convention whereby a candidate emerges who is actually electable. I have even said it in exasperation of defeating the personally and eminently likable—even after three years—President, given his outstanding campaigning skills and despite his easily pilloried record on the job. The president may ignore the looming crisis of sovereign bankruptcy, but his rhetoric in terms of pathos and ethos is powerful. Yes, he’s missing out on the logos element.

Looking back, all of my campaign prognostication has been based on unscientific intuition, although it does occasionally reference polls or, on occasion, policy arguments.

So whenever I say that it’s “not gonna happen” be sure to put your money against me. The Irish odds makers are probably as scientific (if not more so) as my own “not gonna happen” statements. The odds makers have at least calculated the numbers of such a topsy-turvy race as this current one.

But numbers miss the importance of persuasion.

Still, all of the above scenarios of what could actually happen—everything from a Santorum win to a brokered convention—are open to the probability of actions, events, and accident, but I think my instinctual “not gonna happen” is not the necessarily best bet.

So as a political scientist, all this only shows my personal stupidity, or at least the weakness of the science to which I am an ironic professor and practitioner. I would be engaged in professional malpractice if I did not mention the bias (an enemy of truth) in my poor judgments.

The partisan in me still hopes for Mitch to be the nominee, the realistic partisan hopes for Rick, the even more realistic partisan recognizes the power of Mitt, and the defeatist partisan sees a re-election for Obama at the end of the day.

Going against everything I teach, I’m too lazy and too ignorant to give a case for my own partisan preferences regarding the common good. Perhaps this is a problem regarding representation simply.

I can certainly say that with auxiliary precautions even the worst of these electoral scenarios does not mean the end of the world. That’s not gonna happen even with legalistic and institutional protections. It’s not gonna happen. Bet against it, even if you wish you need not do so.

HERE–more big thoughts by ME.

I’ve fixed the link!

1. Here are some BIG THOUGHTS on liberal education.

2. That Santorum victory in CO was really unexpected. Is it true that his huge surge over the last several days is connected, most of all, to the Obamacare attack on the institutional church?

As it is said, Santorum won the beauty contest in Missouri, and perhaps those votes were protest votes with regard to the available alternatives. I am not wholeheartedly behind Rick, and I think he has his issues. In the general election, I think Rick will be castigated as some sort of backward, troglodyte theocrat when it comes to issues of personal choice. This Daily Show, SNL, etc. liberal irony will become an immovable force. Despite its evident slander, its power will be immovable–especially with those persuadable, independent voters that both Republicans and Democrats need to win the election.

Santorum is not the most quick with his speech, and sometimes gets whiny or even surly. As Pete reminds us, his proposed economic and taxation plans may  even end up hurting the very same ordinary Americans he claims to espouse.

But as Peter says, at least he is at least fluent in conservative speak–and fluency indicates sincerity if not authenticity.

So I am glad that Santorum has at least raised a question of challenge against Romney–Santorum offers a better question against Romney than Gingrich’s opportunistic, devil take the hindmost sloganeering.

Nonetheless, I see in polls generic candidates beating President Obama, but none of these particular candidates win.

That said I think I will put my support behind Santorum. A brokered convention with Mitch Daniels is not gonna happen.

So I must admit, Romney in 2012.

There are all kinds of reasons to discount tonight’s results. And Santorum’s speech wasn’t great, although it contained a promising theme about Obama’s schoolmarmish snobbery that’s full of contempt for even the conscience of the ordinary believer. But Santorum’s still the conservative alternative now, and, as one of the commentators says, he speaks authentic and fluent conservative. Maybe Santorum’s best point was that it’s stupid to nominate Romney because he’s the richest and best organized candidate. No Republican will be either against Obama. The Republican will have to count on other attributes. Romney’s still the overwhelming favorite (although he had a wretched night), Newt is toast (unless he really is Freddie), and for Santorum it’s on to Michigan, which I think he can win. Mitch Daniels’ chances improved considerably, maybe to one in twenty. Santorum’s chances of going all the way to convention may now be one in four, but improving rapidly.

The main economic challenges facing conservatives in the next ten years are bringing down federal spending so that we can have a sustainable budget without large, economy damaging tax increases and reforming health care policy so that we get more quality health care for the dollars we spend.  Mitch Daniels is the guy to deal with both of these challenges.

Cutting spending down to a sustainable level will be huge political problem. The scale of spending cuts required runs in the trillions of dollars over the next ten years.  The raw numbers will seem scary.  The Democrats and their media allies will try to make it seem like conservatives want to tear the government down.  And the voters we need don’t want the government torn down (nor should they.)  Conservatives need avoid being seen as the party of anti-government.  They need to be seen as the party of effective government at a reasonable price.  Daniels’ record as governor is a huge edge here.  He sharply cut spending in his first term as governor of Indiana while maintaining and even improving key government services.  This makes for quite a contrast with Obama.  Daniels would be in an excellent position to campaign as the candidate of balanced budgets and good government services against an incumbent whose record includes epic deficits, slow economic growth and Solyndra.

Reforming health care policy is just as big a political problem as reducing spending.  Actually since so much government spending is on Medicare and Medicaid, cutting spending and reforming health care policy are closely linked.  The biggest problem with reforming health care policy is that people like everything about their health care except how much it costs.  This means that any major health policy change of Left or Right is going to be met with intense skepticism.  The key swing constituency is afraid of a government single-payer system where the government is the only game in town whenever a non-wealthy person wants health care.  This same swing constituency would probably be afraid of conservative reformist policies like Health Savings Accounts/Catastrophic Coverage plans and premium support Medicare.  Most swing voters have never heard a conservative make an extended argument for any kind of market-oriented health care reform.  The conservative health care message most of these voters have heard can be summarized as “socialized medicine is bad + tort reform is good + so anyway, back to more important things like capital gains tax cuts.” 

And since most swing voters (and many right-leaning voters) are unfamiliar with the arguments for conservative alternatives to government-run health care, it is tough for conservative politicians to make the case for right-leaning health care reform is any detail.  The audience lacks context.  Remember when Romney said he liked it that he can fire people who provide him services?  He was trying (and mostly failing) to make the point that people would be better of owning their own health insurance and being able to choose between providers.  Even when Romney is isn’t putting his foot in his mouth, he is still terrible at explaining how the right-leaning health care reforms he allegedly favors would improve anybody’s life.  Romney is much better at explaining why he thinks (pretends to think?) the Massachusetts health insurance purchase mandate was a good idea.  

 I can think of several advantages that Mitch Daniels has over Mitt Romney when it comes to health care, but I’ll stick to one for now.  Daniels has already instituted an optional Health Savings Account/Catastrophic Coverage plan for Indiana state workers.  This program has saved Indiana money, and maintained the health care security of Indiana state workers while increasing their take home pay.  I strongly suspect that Daniels would be much better than Romney at talking about health care policy, but Daniels would have an advantage that went beyond talk.  He would have record.  He would be able to contrast his program with the Obamacare’s tax hikes and premium increases. 

Run Mitch Run.