The superficial popularity contest that affects us all

The latest polls in South Carolina ^[1] and Florida ^[2] show that Mitt Romney is poised to win those respective primaries. It will be close in South Carolina, but even if Governor Romney comes in second in the Palmetto State, he is the clear favorite right now to win the GOP nomination.

At the same time, President Obama is doing some campaigning of his own. On Wednesday night he was at a fundraiser ^[3] in Chicago reminding everyone how evil the rich are, and how nothing is his fault because there was a crisis when he took office a full three years ago.

Going back to Romney, how is he doing so well in the Republican primaries? He does not have a conservative record as governor. He doesn’t necessarily wow anyone in the debates or campaign events. He is full of political rhetoric and clichés. Some say that he is an attractive candidate because he could beat President Obama in a general election. But he couldn’t beat John McCain four years ago. I don’t get it. He is poised and presidential, but that is about it. I think, quite simply, what helps him most is that people have heard of him, and he has a lot of money.

Ever since I first voted in 1992, general and primary presidential elections have basically been popularity contests sustained by dollars. Most Americans really don’t know the issues or the policies.  From Jay Leno ^[4] to Jesse Watters ^[5] to Howard Stern ^[6], street interviews reveal that many Americans barely know who is running, let alone what the candidate believes in. People support, and subsequently vote for, the candidate they have heard of before, and one or two things that they believe to be true about the candidate, even if it is not true at all.

I think if someone as well spoken, experienced, and even tempered as Rick Santorum had better name recognition he would be much more competitive. The problem with Rick is the media. In this cycle the right has not given him much attention, because he is not a big GOP name. The little exposure he does get is from the left, which identifies him as a religious nut. Yet on the fronts of gay marriage and abortion, he has the exact same policy as his running mates.

Even people like me, who know the records and basic platforms of the candidates, barely know the context of those records, nor how much the candidate actually had to do with each individual accomplishment. Remember, just because a candidate believes something, doesn’t mean he can get it done. Once a candidate becomes President there is little he can do on his own authority. In this regard, I imagine the most important thing to look for in a candidate is substantive achievement.  I give this advantage to Gingrich. He was a major player in the 90’s, worked with Clinton, worked with the democrats and the republicans, and got a lot done. Also, look for a candidate who acknowledges this fact. One that says not only, “Here is what I’ll do,” but also, “I know it will be difficult, but this is how I will do it.”

So, I would like to make an official Coliseum endorsement to the Santorum/Gingrich survivor. These are two guys who do what they say, and say what they mean. They can both win. Santorum can carry rust belt swing states, and Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama in the debates.

But again, it seems early on it will be Obama versus Romney. A guy who has spent 3 years turning a housing crisis and financial crisis into a debt crisis and recession, versus a guy who has been running for president for 5 years and will say anything to get elected. If both Santorum and Gingrich fall, look for my next blog endorsing Donald Trump. Hopefully one will bow out and endorse the other, and give Romney and Obama a run for their (endless supply of) money.