The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) — Is Rick Santorum a viable presidential candidate?

Santorum has been making audible presidential noises this week, so it’s time to consider the question. In my view, it’s a worthwhile question, and not just for the vanity of predicting what’s going to happen. Both party actors and the media need to decide how to apportion limited resources. Republicans, in particular, have a lot of viable candidates this time; should Santorum be treated as one of them? Is he a plausible nominee?

The two things I look for in candidate viability are conventional credentials and policy positions within the mainstream of the party. Santorum certainly qualifies on policy. He’s more of a foreign-policy hawk than some in the party right now, and we could get a vigorous national security debate among Republicans in this cycle. It’s possible Santorum’s side will lose, but for now I don’t think anyone would say that his positions disqualify him.

No, the question for Santorum is whether he has conventional credentials. He served two full terms in the Senate, which is more than enough to qualify. However, he was defeated for re-election in 2006. The last presidential nominee to have been defeated in his most recent election bid was Richard Nixon, and he was a two-term vice president (and was running before the modern nomination era, at any rate). But it’s not just that; I don’t believe that anyone similar has come anywhere close to winning a presidential nomination in the modern era. To me, that was why Santorum didn’t qualify as a viable candidate in 2012, though I did go back and forth on that a bit.

Ah, but it’s not 2012 any more. By 2016, Santorum will have been out office for a decade. But he isn’t really a Bateson-class candidate because he hasn’t disappeared; he ran for president and won a few primaries and caucuses in 2012. That clearly makes him a stronger candidate in the invisible primary for 2016 than he was at this stage last time around.

In fact, it’s enough to make him a viable candidate. That doesn’t mean he’s on equal footing with everyone else in the field, of course. There’s every chance that his second effort will fizzle quickly. He presumably needs to monopolize Christian conservatives to have a chance to win, and he’ll most likely have plenty of competition for that constituency. Even if he succeeds at that, there’s no guarantee at all that winning social conservatives is the key to winning Republican nominations.

But I’d say we’re not talking about Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich here. I don’t think Santorum is likely to win, but he probably deserves to be treated as if he’s a plausible nominee.

(Jonathan Bernstein covers U.S. politics for Bloomberg View. He is co-editor of The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2012. Follow him on Twitter at @JBPlainblog.)

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}