Rick Santorum in Iowa

[JMT]

According to RCP average in Iowa, Santorum is at 0.5% in Iowa. This is very low considering he won the Iowa caucus, and 10 other states, just 4 years ago. Does anyone think that Santorum could surprise us all and perform better in Iowa than what is expected, maybe in the top 5 slots? I don't think he'll win, but I think he may surprise us when Iowa results come in. If you think he'll perform as low as the polls suggest, why do you think that is? This would be a massive drop of support in just 4 years time, conventional wisdom would say that he would at least do better than 0.5%.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

According to RCP average in Iowa, Santorum is at 0.5% in Iowa. This is very low considering he won the Iowa caucus, and 10 other states, just 4 years ago. Does anyone think that Santorum could surprise us all and perform better in Iowa than what is expected, maybe in the top 5 slots? I don't think he'll win, but I think he may surprise us when Iowa results come in. If you think he'll perform as low as the polls suggest, why do you think that is? This would be a massive drop of support in just 4 years time, conventional wisdom would say that he would at least do better than 0.5%.

Well he is irrelevant this time around, maybe at max he'll get 1%-1.5% tops, but 99% of his support has gone to Cruz most likely or back to Huckabee.

[Mike Thick]

In 2016, conventional wisdom seems to have gone out the window

The field in 2012 was very weak, and dissatisfied voters coalesced around him as the "not Romney." This time, the field is much stronger, so he's having a hard time breaking away. Also, only a handful of candidates hold a huge amount of the support both in Iowa and nationally (Trump+Cruz+Rubio+Carson=79.1% in the Iowa RCP average) and this makes it hard to break away from the pack. There are several candidates (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul to an extent) splitting his base of evangelical voters and born-again Christians that make up over 50% of caucusgoers. Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

[JMT]

In 2016, conventional wisdom seems to have gone out the window

The field in 2012 was very weak, and dissatisfied voters coalesced around him as the "not Romney." This time, the field is much stronger, so he's having a hard time breaking away. Also, only a handful of candidates hold a huge amount of the support both in Iowa and nationally (Trump+Cruz+Rubio+Carson=79.1% in the Iowa RCP average) and this makes it hard to break away from the pack. There are several candidates (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul to an extent) splitting his base of evangelical voters and born-again Christians that make up over 50% of caucusgoers. Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

You make a very good point. I don't expect Santorum to do well in Iowa, but perhaps a little better than 0.5%. He's still largely irrelevant this time around, though.  And you're definitely right about conventional wisdom going out the window... not many things about the 2016 election have been "normal" thus far!!

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

In 2016, conventional wisdom seems to have gone out the window

The field in 2012 was very weak, and dissatisfied voters coalesced around him as the "not Romney." This time, the field is much stronger, so he's having a hard time breaking away. Also, only a handful of candidates hold a huge amount of the support both in Iowa and nationally (Trump+Cruz+Rubio+Carson=79.1% in the Iowa RCP average) and this makes it hard to break away from the pack. There are several candidates (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul to an extent) splitting his base of evangelical voters and born-again Christians that make up over 50% of caucusgoers. Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

You make a very good point. I don't expect Santorum to do well in Iowa, but perhaps a little better than 0.5%. He's still largely irrelevant this time around, though.  And you're definitely right about conventional wisdom going out the window... not many things about the 2016 election have been "normal" thus far!!

The way I could see him making a "comeback" in Iowa is if Cruz somehow collapses and Carson/Huckabee don't regain that support and instead it gets to Santorum. He hasn't really been campaigning much in Iowa lately though.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I think he'll surprise us there. If something happens with Cruz, and Huckabee maybe dropping out soon which I highly doubt, Santorum could get their support to a narrow victory over Trump in Iowa, Trump wouldn't see it coming and him and Santorum are somewhat "friendly".

[Mike Thick]

In 2016, conventional wisdom seems to have gone out the window

The field in 2012 was very weak, and dissatisfied voters coalesced around him as the "not Romney." This time, the field is much stronger, so he's having a hard time breaking away. Also, only a handful of candidates hold a huge amount of the support both in Iowa and nationally (Trump+Cruz+Rubio+Carson=79.1% in the Iowa RCP average) and this makes it hard to break away from the pack. There are several candidates (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul to an extent) splitting his base of evangelical voters and born-again Christians that make up over 50% of caucusgoers. Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

You make a very good point. I don't expect Santorum to do well in Iowa, but perhaps a little better than 0.5%. He's still largely irrelevant this time around, though.  And you're definitely right about conventional wisdom going out the window... not many things about the 2016 election have been "normal" thus far!!

The way I could see him making a "comeback" in Iowa is if Cruz somehow collapses and Carson/Huckabee don't regain that support and instead it gets to Santorum. He hasn't really been campaigning much in Iowa lately though.

I suppose it's possible, but that's a pretty big "if." If that were to happen I think Cruz's support would go mostly back to Carson and Trump, with some scattered to Huckabee and Santorum.

[Andrew1]

Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

That was on the eve of the caucus. This year there's still a month to go. A month before the 2012 caucus, Santorum was only around 5%.

Still I don't think he'll surge this time. If anyone from the kiddie table is going to make a late surge in Iowa it's Huckabee, though still very unlikely.

[Mike Thick]

Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

That was on the eve of the caucus. This year there's still a month to go. A month before the 2012 caucus, Santorum was only around 5%.

Still I don't think he'll surge this time. If anyone from the kiddie table is going to make a late surge in Iowa it's Huckabee, though still very unlikely.

I stand corrected. I incorrectly believed that the 2012 caucuses were on the same day as the 2016 caucuses. Thanks for pointing that out!

[Senator Cris]

I think an Huckabee surge is more likely than a Santorum one.

[Tender Branson]

I think a Huckabee "surge" is more likely than a Santorum one.

[pbrower2a]

Santorum entered the fray too late this time, as he did in 2012.

 

[wolfsblood07]

The evangelical Christians in Iowa are, at this very moment, reading the article where Santorum has made his case against SSM in powerful terms! 
Maybe, just maybe, those good folks who stood up for this man 4 years ago will decide to stand up for him again!  And if they do, they will send a very powerful message that we're not all embracing the cultural sewer of Rolling Stone magazine and network TV.

[Torie]

The evangelical Christians in Iowa are, at this very moment, reading the article where Santorum has made his case against SSM in powerful terms! 
Maybe, just maybe, those good folks who stood up for this man 4 years ago will decide to stand up for him again!  And if they do, they will send a very powerful message that we're not all embracing the cultural sewer of Rolling Stone magazine and network TV.

My morals going down the sewer had nothing to do with Rolling Stone or network TV, neither of which I expose myself to much at all. I did it all by myself! Thank you.

[wolfsblood07]

The evangelical Christians in Iowa are, at this very moment, reading the article where Santorum has made his case against SSM in powerful terms!  
Maybe, just maybe, those good folks who stood up for this man 4 years ago will decide to stand up for him again!  And if they do, they will send a very powerful message that we're not all embracing the cultural sewer of Rolling Stone magazine and network TV.

My morals going down the sewer had nothing to do with Rolling Stone or network TV, neither of which I expose myself to much at all. I did it all by myself! Thank you.

I watch almost no network TV anymore.  But I subscribe to that rag Rolling Stone.  Many years ago they had at least one conservative writer, P.J. O'Rourke, believe it or not.  Now I can't even look at any politics in it.  They assume every reader is pro-marijuana legalization and pro-gay agenda and a liberal Dem.  No dissenting views at all.  They should stick with music.
You will never see praise for Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum in that rag.  The hatred they have for them rages with the intensity of 1000 suns!

[bigedlb]

The problem with Santorum this time is that he never got started and it's too late now.  Santorum is a good guy, but he is overwhelmed by the current people, and will probably withdraw when either Trump or Cruz wins Iowa

In 2016, conventional wisdom seems to have gone out the window

The field in 2012 was very weak, and dissatisfied voters coalesced around him as the "not Romney." This time, the field is much stronger, so he's having a hard time breaking away. Also, only a handful of candidates hold a huge amount of the support both in Iowa and nationally (Trump+Cruz+Rubio+Carson=79.1% in the Iowa RCP average) and this makes it hard to break away from the pack. There are several candidates (Huckabee, Cruz, Paul to an extent) splitting his base of evangelical voters and born-again Christians that make up over 50% of caucusgoers. Finally, at this time in 2012 Santorum had 18% support in Iowa and still only squeaked out a victory; now he has 0.5%. A Santorum surprise, whether a win or just placing in the top five, is unlikely.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The evangelical Christians in Iowa are, at this very moment, reading the article where Santorum has made his case against SSM in powerful terms!  
Maybe, just maybe, those good folks who stood up for this man 4 years ago will decide to stand up for him again!  And if they do, they will send a very powerful message that we're not all embracing the cultural sewer of Rolling Stone magazine and network TV.

My morals going down the sewer had nothing to do with Rolling Stone or network TV, neither of which I expose myself to much at all. I did it all by myself! Thank you.

I watch almost no network TV anymore.  But I subscribe to that rag Rolling Stone.  Many years ago they had at least one conservative writer, P.J. O'Rourke, believe it or not.  Now I can't even look at any politics in it.  They assume every reader is pro-marijuana legalization and pro-gay agenda and a liberal Dem.  No dissenting views at all.  They should stick with music.
You will never see praise for Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum in that rag.  The hatred they have for them rages with the intensity of 1000 suns!

Santorum is not the leader of the "Religious Conservative" faction of the GOP in the way that, say, Ted Cruz is the leader of the "Tea Party" faction, or where Jeb Bush is the leader of the "Estabishment" faction.  It's not like the folks who voted for Santorum in IA were pining for him all these years; it's more like he emphasized their issues and they voted their appreciation.  There other choices were Mitt Romney (soft on social issues and a Mormon to boot) and Newt Gingrich (serial adulterer whom religious conservatives know places limited interest in advancing social issues).  This year, they have Ted Cruz, whose father is a pastor, who leads campaign rally attendees in prayer, and who is an unabashed social conservative.  Not to mention, he's a guy who's got a great chance at actually being nominated.  If you're a religious conservative, the case for Ted Cruz is pretty strong.  That's not even mentioning Ben Carson, who's been a folk hero in religious conservative circles for decades.

Religious conservatives really don't believe that Santorum, or anyone else, is going to repeal SSM just by virtue of caring about the issue more than the next guy.  They've been disappointed and marginalized before, but they keep voting Republican because (A) the GOP is the lesser of 2 evils for them and (B) lip service is better than active opposition to the issues you care about.

[publicunofficial]

The evangelical Christians in Iowa are, at this very moment, reading the article where Santorum has made his case against SSM in powerful terms!  
Maybe, just maybe, those good folks who stood up for this man 4 years ago will decide to stand up for him again!  And if they do, they will send a very powerful message that we're not all embracing the cultural sewer of Rolling Stone magazine and network TV.

My morals going down the sewer had nothing to do with Rolling Stone or network TV, neither of which I expose myself to much at all. I did it all by myself! Thank you.

I watch almost no network TV anymore.  But I subscribe to that rag Rolling Stone.  Many years ago they had at least one conservative writer, P.J. O'Rourke, believe it or not.  Now I can't even look at any politics in it.  They assume every reader is pro-marijuana legalization and pro-gay agenda and a liberal Dem.  No dissenting views at all.  They should stick with music.
You will never see praise for Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum in that rag.  The hatred they have for them rages with the intensity of 1000 suns!

It's funny, I hate Rolling Stone because I consider it a bunch of old men desperately chasing cultural relevancy.