On Tuesday night, Rick Santorum swept, winning all three contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, and pulling ahead of Mitt Romney in the number of states won. But will it do him much good moving forward?
Last month, Santorum surged to a surprise tie with Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses. But instead of coming out of that strong, he faded to the back of the pack for the next four contests. Even when, just before the South Carolina primary, it was announced that he had in fact won the caucuses, Santorum finished in third place with just 17 percent of the vote.
“I think we’ve got to be careful not to read too much into [Tuesday’s wins],” Trey Hardin, a Republican strategist, told The Daily Caller.
“The turnout was so low. So little money was spent in all those states. And yes, Rick Santorum deserved the win, but …what does that win really say? That win says that he competed stronger in a state that other people didn’t really compete in,” Hardin said.
However, the wins should help him in terms of fundraising, Hardin added. Indeed, Santorum advisor Hogan Gidley told MSNBC on Wednesday that they were seeing three-times the amount of money rolling in as they did after the Iowa caucus. The influx of donors increased especially right after Santorum delivered his victory speech, he said.
The challenge for Santorum now is to go up against the Romney machine, which already has operations in most states —something that will require a lot of money. The Romney campaign has already begun to attack Santorum, and now that he more of a threat, that is likely to continue, and he may have to deal with an onslaught of attack ads like what Gingrich saw in Iowa and Florida.
If Santorum cannot raise enough money to counter that, emailed Trey Grayson, director of the Harvard University Institute of Politics, “voters will only hear what Romney wants them to hear, i.e. Santorum is an earmarker, Washington insider.”
In part, that is because Santorum has yet to be fully defined as a candidate to the voting public, Republican consultant Alex Castellanos suggested to TheDC.
Voters, Castellanos argued on Monday, are not necessarily looking for the anti-Romney in Gingrich or Santorum: They’re looking for “‘none of the above.’ And that’s who Santorum is right now: ‘none-of-the-above.’”
“Republicans don’t know much about him other than that ‘he’s not one of those other guys covered in mud.’ If Gingrich dropped out today, Santorum would eclipse Romney in a few states, not because he’s loved, but because he is undefined — a blank slate on which Republicans can project their dream candidate,” Castellanos said.
That leaves the Romney campaign with the ability to “define Santorum before Santorum gets a chance to define himself.”
But “the attack itself will create credibility,” Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center, told TheDC.
Last night’s hat trick was “a much bigger boost than Iowa was,” Arlinghaus argued, pointing out that he has now won more states than any other candidate in the race, including Romney. “It’s not just huge momentum and a giant kick in the teeth for both Romney and Gingrich,” Arlinghaus went on, but it also indicates some longevity for the former Pennsylvania senator, and puts Newt Gingrich in a very tough position to pitch himself as the anti-Romney.
“Missouri suggests that Romney is particularly vulnerable to Santorum one on one… Santorum is now in through June. Gingrich’s only hope is to emerge as the Southern candidate on Super Tuesday and make the convention actually matter,” Arlinghaus said. “I can’t believe that’s possible but everything is weird this year and none of the rules seem to apply. It’s like gravity has been temporarily repealed.”
Gingrich, who has said that he will not, under any circumstances, drop out before the convention, creates another problem for Santorum
“[Santorum] needs to create the perception that this is a two-man race with Romney. That he is the anti-Romney,” Grayson emailed TheDC. “Getting Newt to drop out is a tall order. But framing Newt as irrelevant and a wasted vote for conservatives may be achievable.”
Hardin argued that Gingrich’s political career was “on a decline that will not be corrected,” but said that Santorum’s ability to take his place as the anti-Romney was limited.
“Newt Gingrich gets a microphone because he’s Newt Gingrich,” Hardin pointed out. “I’m not saying the media won’t follow Santorum or give him as much media as Gingrich, but he’s just not as much of a media star as Gingrich. He’ll fill a place that Gingrich once filled, but I don’t think it will be at a profile level Gingrich had.”
Even if he can do that, the relative lack of money and campaign infrastructure, when compared to Romney, is still a major obstacle.
“The problem for Santorum is that there is not a lot of time between now and Super Tuesday to get funded and organized in a lot of states at once,” Grayson said. “And Newt doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. As long as Newt stays in the race, he will peel off votes (and delegates) that Santorum needs from the South, which is Romney’s worst region of the country.”
Ultimately, that organization makes a Romney nomination all but inevitable, Stutts said.
“The bottom line is only one candidate has the organization and money to push forward — in the end, Romney will probably prevail. It may not be sexy or inspirational, but it’s true. Romney’s team will use their substantial money to shine the light on Santorum’s record. When it happens, primary voters will most likely default back to Romney,” he emailed.
The Santorum campaign did not immediately respond to request for comment.
