Heading into Saturday’s South Carolina primary, we’re hearing a lot of chatter about how Mitt Romney may win because conservatives are splitting their votes among multiple candidates.
“Any vote for [Rick] Santorum or [Rick] Perry, in effect, is a vote to allow Romney to become the nominee, because we’ve got to bring conservatives together in order to stop him,” Newt Gingrich said at a town hall event in Florence, S.C., on Tuesday, according to Huffington Post’s Jon Ward.
Gingrich told reporters afterward that “from the standpoint of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would in fact virtually guarantee victory on Saturday, and I’d be delighted if either Perry or Santorum would [drop out].”
Conservative author and radio host Laura Ingraham bluntly wrote on Twitter on Wednesday that “it’s time for Rick Perry to drop out of the race — he is only helping Romney by splitting the vote.”
In reality, a survey by Public Policy Polling found that, although 58 percent of likely primary voters in South Carolina would theoretically want to vote for somebody other than Romney, the former Massachusetts governor defeats all of his rivals in head-to-head matchups. But there’s a broader point.
If Gingrich had a consistently conservative record without personal baggage, he wouldn’t have so many problems staving off conservative challengers in South Carolina and leapfrogging over Romney.
But because he’s behaved erratically during his public career, shown a predilection toward ideological promiscuity, and lived a tabloid-friendly life, a lot of conservatives prefer to go with somebody else.
In all elections, it’s the job of candidates to win the plurality of the vote by convincing voters that they’re the best choices. If they have trouble consolidating support, it’s a direct result of their underlying weaknesses as a candidate.
The same was true in South Carolina in 2008, when, according to recent political lore, Fred Thompson’s decision to stay in the race secured victory for John McCain.
This myth neglects the fact that the whole reason why Thompson was in the race in the first place was that none of the other conservative choices was deemed satisfactory. And it’s been true throughout history.
George H.W. Bush did not lose the presidency in 1992 because Ross Perot ran as a third-party candidate. He lost because the economy was faltering, he alienated conservatives by breaking his “no new taxes” pledge and Bill Clinton was an effective campaigner.
Compare this to when Ronald Reagan challenged President Carter in 1980. Reagan not only faced a threat from moderate Republican Rep. John Anderson, who siphoned off 7 percent of the vote running as an independent, but Ed Clark, who had the strongest showing ever by a Libertarian Party candidate with nearly a million votes.
Yet Reagan won with a 51 percent majority (representing a 10-point margin) and beat Carter in 44 states.
A lot of Democrats blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore losing the presidency in 2000. But it was Gore’s own fault for not locking down the liberal vote. Nader also ran in 1996, but barely represented a blip on the radar as Clinton cruised toward reelection.
Should Romney emerge as the nominee, we’ll hear a lot of bellyaching about conservative vote-splitting. And if Ron Paul runs third party, or Libertarian Gary Johnson (who still has some strength in his home state of New Mexico) has a strong showing in a general election, we’ll hear complaints about how he handed the election to President Obama.
But that’s nonsense. At the end of the day, electoral politics is about winning the most votes. When candidates can’t do that, they have nobody but themselves to blame.
Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at [email protected].
