Santorum's Post-Iowa Strategy

To understand Santorum's post-Iowa strategy, it is key to understand Romney's precarious position. First, Romney spent five years and $5+ million in Iowa, but actually received fewer votes in yesterday's Caucuses than he did in 2008. He has plateaued. Secondly, polling data indicate that supporters of Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann are less likely to switch their allegiance to Romney should their preferred candidate suspend. Thirdly, the most significant reason for not supporting Santorum was the perception of his unelectability, an obstacle that has suddenly been removed; this point is reinforced by Santorum's remarkable million dollar fund raising one-day feat today. These factors all suggest that Santorum has an intensity of momentum going into New Hampshire that Huckabee lacked in 2008.

Nonetheless, some pundits are claiming that Santorum's win in Iowa is nothing but a flash in a pan. Such analysis depends upon the unlikely meteoric recovery of Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry which would suck the air away from Santorum. However, Gingrich and Perry were so far removed from the top tier winners of Iowa that their campaigns are no longer legitimate, especially since both of them spent so much time and effort at scoring in Iowa. Their poor performances in Iowa are likely to send a good portion of their supporters scurrying to the Santorum campaign next Tuesday on election day. Meanwhile, Gingrich and Perry are most likely to focus their negative ads against Romney, as Gingrich has made clear. Santorum will benefit from all this at Romney's expense.

A key mistake of pundits who anticipate Santorum's eventual demise is that they underestimate Santorum's campaign organization in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. Indeed, pundits probably view Santorum's prospects in light of Huckabee's demise who did not have sufficient time to build a campaign presence in New Hampshire or in South Carolina after his Iowa win.

What makes Santorum's situation different from Huckabee's is that he has already invested much into both states. He has made 30+ visits to New Hampshire in the past year, more than anyone else but Huntsman (who lives there). Santorum has garnered 23 endorsements from New Hampshire state representatives. In South Carolina, Santorum won the state's most significant straw poll this summer. For the Dec 10 debate, Santorum supporters sported 20 debate parties for their candidate in South Carolina. Support for Santorum in these two states are intense.

So, I think a reasonable expectation is that Santorum will perform respectably in New Hampshire. Romney is expected to win significantly, with Huntsman coming in second--understandably since both candidates have strong ties there. However, Santorum's Made-in-America plan will appeal to Reagan Democrats and to those in the manufacturing sector. Santorum hopes to join these blue collar voters with New Hampshire's 23% Evangelical Republicans and considerable Catholic population in a viable voting block.

If Santorum outperforms expectations in New Hampshire, he will be able to move on to South Carolina to wage a campaign where Huckabee faltered.

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Here are my talking points for those who will be speaking in favor of Sen. Santorum during the caucuses. It is important to note that these have not been approved by the campaign, and that they reflect only my own personal suggestions. Any suggestions from the campaign should take priority over mine. I should also note that I have never been to an Iowa caucus, and that I've only been to Iowa twice; thus, your own gut instinct should take precedent over any of my ideas.

PUBLIC SPEAKING BASICS

Consider a personal narrative: "this is my story of how I came to support Sen. Santorum" might work better than "these are the reasons why you should vote for Sen. Santorum." For an example, see my narrative on my blog theo-politico.blogspot.com (although it is too long for the caucus speeches): http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-justification-for-endorsing-rick.html.

Speeches usually have an introduction, an attention-getter. Some Santorum supporters have already made the good suggestion of starting with the Rush Limbaugh quote where he says he'd never have to wonder if Santorum would do the right thing as president (or some such). (You don't need to waste words by indicating that Rush is a talk show host, since every one knows this already.)

Reduce your speech down to the time limit not by eliminating content, but by saying things more concisely. Ultimately, you may have to cut out content, but look for ways of restructuring syntax to eliminate unecessary words, etc.

Don't rush your speech. Vary your tempo with fast and slow moments. Vary your dynamics: saying something almost in a whisper can be as effective as shouting it. Practice your speech, timing it, over and over again. If you must read it, do so while maintaining eye contact with your audience. Be passionate.

Consider producing a handout. Make sure it is pleasant to the eyes. Proof it carefully and have someone else proof it too: typos and bad English can produce a negative reaction in some people. Pass them out quickly and efficiently so that you don't waste speech time.

Conclude with an appeal. "Because of all of these urgencies (etc.), I'm asking you, would you please vote for Sen. Santorum" (or some other similarly worded appeal).


TALKING POINTS

Spell out Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism: free markets (less intrusive government), national security, and social issues. Invoking Reagan's name is always good, especially if you show how Santorum leads on these three issues and scores the highest points on all three:

free markets (less intrusive government): Rick has led on balanced budget amendment and line item veto, fought against TARP and the second stimulus, etc. He authored and managed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was the first time ever a federal entitlement has been eliminated. Etc.

national security: Rick is the acknowledged expert on the MIddle East; he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and is the author of 217 articles dealing with Islamic extremism in the series The Gathering Storm.

social issues: Sen. Santorum has authored every pro-life legislation that has passed the Senate in the last 20 years (you could list all his pro-life legislation specifically).


Explain why Santorum can win:

Primary strategy: 1) score big in Iowa and establish himself as a top tier candidate; 2) do respectably well in New Hampshire (where he has a strong organization and key endorsements); and 3) win in South Carolina (where he has a strong organization, key endorsements, and won the most important SC caucus of the year).

General Election strategy: any Republican who can keep the red states (including Florida) and swing both Ohio and Pennsylvania will win the election. Santorum's Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing will appeal to the rustbelt states of the Midwest better than any of the other candidates' economic plan. Santorum is more likely to pick up Ohio and Pennsylvania moreso than any other candidate, and will be viable in the blue states of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Since she has never ran in a state-wide election, Bachmann may not win her own state, let alone Ohio and Pennsylvania. Romney won't deliver Massachusetts. And although Perry and Gingrich could carry Texas and Georgia, any Republican could do so.


ONE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE:
Emphasize that conservatives must get behind one single conservative candidate, otherwise the conservative of convenience, Mitt Romney, will be the de facto winner. You might want to cite Bob Vander Plaats as having made this argument.

Before criticizing any of the other candidates, emphasize that the goal is to defeat Obama and that you will support the nominee whoever it is. Also, emphasize that each of the candidates has his or her own strengths, and that they would all make reasonably good presidents (I have my own reservations about Paul). For an analysis of each candidate's weaknesses, see my forthcoming blog artice (it will probably be posted tomorrow, Tuesday). It might be a good strategy to mention a candidate's weakness in passing while discussing Rick's strengths, rather than giving a list of negatives for each candidate.

MADE IN AMERICA
Be sure to point out Rick's unique emphasis on the revitalization of manufacturing in the US. Repeatedly use the phrase "Made in America plan." Talk about how this will impact specific towns near your precinct--towns which have closed down due to the loss of manufacturing. Be passionate about bringing back manufacturing jobs for the sake of small Iowa towns such as (???).

Please leave any further suggestions in the comment section.

Beating Obama--Which Republican Can Deliver the Electoral Votes?

Republicans want to nominate a candidate who can beat Barak Obama. Few pundits, however, have considered the electoral college map. On this issue, the clear advantage goes to Sen. Rick Santorum. Here's why.

First, we should note that some swing states can be won by any of the Republican candidates. These include Florida, and some pinkish states that have been Republican strongholds in the past but where Obama did well in 2008, such as North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. None of the Republican candidates will have an advantage over the others in winning these states. I suppose Romney could claim an advantage in appealing to moderate voters in these states, but such a claim would also undermine his assertion that he is the most consistent conservative. But in the end, I doubt that any one of the candidates (now--only Gingrich, Romney, Santorum) has a special appeal to any of these states.

In the past, candidates pushed their case by claiming they can deliver their home state. But for 2012, any Republican can deliver Newt's Georgia, but not Romney probably cannot deliver Massachusetts. But what about Santorum's state of Pennsylvania?

Delivering Pennsylvania would be huge. Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican president since 1988, but combining Pennsylvania with the traditional red-leaning states is a winning formula for Republicans.

The other swing states are in the midwest. These include Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. All the candidates have an economic plan, but only Santorum has one that appeals to the manufacturing sector. Santorum would likely deliver Ohio, but may very well steal two or three of the other manufacturing states from Obama. Because of his Made in America economic plan, Santorum will have a stronger appeal to Reagan Democrats than any of the other candidates http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/santorums-made-in-america-economic-plan.html

Santorum's appeal to Reagan Democrats and the manufacturing sector in Ohio and the blue states of PA, MI, IL, and WI is a scenario that Democrats most fear, as reflected in Obama's 10 minute emphasis on manufacturing in his State of the Union speech. Any other Republican would have to scramble hither and yon to eek out a victory in 2012. But for Santorum, the roadmap to the White House is very clear: OH and PA, with MI and WI also in play as a security net.

Santorum's Made-in-America Plan and Small Town USA

Santorum's Made in America economic plan reveals his profound insight into the intersection of economic dynamics and America's social fiber. It is a workable plan which not only will be effective in promoting the nation's economic health, but will also impact society where it needs it the most.

I am amazed at how easily politicians have given up on America's manufacturing base. The various economic proposals of other candidates do little to address manufacturing. Rather, they all emphasize service sector and high tech opportunities, and private enterprise. All these are good, but do nothing for manufacturing. In contrast, the centerpiece of Santorum's economic plan is his Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing. It does so by eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers - from 35% to 0, and eliminating the tax on repatriated taxable corporate income - from 35% from 0% - when manufacturers invest in plant and equipment here in the U.S.

While manufacturing jobs are a major part of many larger cities, they are the absolute heartline for many of the smaller towns in middle America. When a manufacturing plant shuts down in smaller towns like Greensburg Indiana, Pottstown Pennsylvania, or Urbana Ohio, the effects can be crippling.

I watched the movie Madison this week, and it details the kinds of things which are at the core of Santorum's concern over the disproportionate impact that the loss of manufacturing has on small towns. Madison is a small town in Indiana on the Ohio River. When one plant after another shuts down, people move to the cities, home values drop, the town is no longer able to provide services, downtown stores and offices get boarded up, and the town dies. No one is left except those who are dependent upon Welfare.

The importance of manufacturing jobs is also seen in that the typical blue collar worker makes $20,000 more annually than an equally educated person in the service sector. A high school graduate can make a good wage working in a factory, while a high school graduate stuck in the service sector will hardly surpass minimum wage. Manufacturing jobs offer significant income opportunities for those who do not go to college. Without manufacturing jobs, only those who can get advanced degrees in technology or administration are likely to achieve a good income.

When manufacturing plants shut down in Small Town, America, another negative social effect is that people resort to moving to the big city. They leave behind safer neighborhoods where kids have big yards to play in and everyone knows everyone else, and end up living in neighborhoods full of crime, where gangs are rampant, schools are violent, and community hardly exists. The move from Small Town, America also entails going from a place where traditional values such as faith and family and hard work are cherished to a place where elitism, political correctness, and entitlementism abounds. The loss of manufacturing jobs affects much more than a person's income; it impacts the very social fiber of America.

This is why I assert that Santorum's Made in America plan is not only smart, but profound. By revitalizing manufacturing, Santorum will help revitalize America's social fabric.

Santorum's Made in America also has its political benefits. It attracts blue collar workers and Reagan Democrats to him. It makes him politically viable in the Midwest. Any Republican can win Texas or Florida or New Mexico. But a Romney or a Gingrich probably will not win Pennsylvania, a purplish state that hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1988. A Perry is not likely to win Ohio or Michigan. Michele Bachmann may not even deliver her own state of Minnesota. But Santorum's Made in America plan will probably deliver Pennsylvania to him, and the combination of Ohio and Pennsylvania is formulaic for a Republican win. To this combination, Santorum could also add Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and even Minnesota.

Santorum's Made in America plan is a recipe for success in every way.