The Lack Of A Rallying Effect And Romney's Electability Argument

Typically in primaries, and certainly Republican primaries, there is a large rallying effect around the frontrunner after the first few states have anointed someone.  In 2008, for example, John McCain, hardly the favorite son of conservatives, broke away from the pack immediately following his New Hampshire victory and was the defacto nominee a few weeks later when he won Florida.

In many ways, this primary follows that playbook.  Romney won Iowa (at least for a few days), won New Hampshire, won Florida, and won Nevada.  The GOP Establishment have all pretty much signed on and Romney rolls out new endorsements daily.  With a record of 3-1-1 in the first 5 primaries, including significant victories in the last two prior to tonight, the race should be over.  Everything seems to be going according to type, except for one thing:  There has not been a rallying effect by the rank and file around Mitt Romney. 

Given all the metrics, GOP primary voters should already be busy attempting to justify Romney's past liberalism while begrudgingly casting their meaningless primary vote for him over the long-shot "purer conservative" in an effort to support party unity.  Not only is this not happening, he is actually losing support.  Tonight's results, with Santorum winning Missouri and Minnesota, cement even further the idea that there is a deep distrust of Romney among the conservative grassroots.  

In some ways I think the lack of a rallying effect around Romney is a reaction to the McCain nomination in 2008.  Despite conservative dislike of McCain for his support of immigration and campaign finance reform, Republicans were able to put aside their differences because they were told over and over again that only he could win in November.  And then he got walloped. 

But at least McCain's electability argument made sense.  He was a likeable warrior, a decorated veteran, and had developed over the course of decades a reputation for "straight talk."  Even his vulnerabilities in the primary would serve him well with key constituencies in a general election: Latinos supportive of his efforts on immigration reform and elites concerned about the influence of money in politics.

Romney's electability argument however makes no sense at all, and seems primarily aimed at  convincing the inside-the-beltway-crowd and political reporters--two groups obsessed with the things voters don't actually care about, like tactics and strategy.  Romney's argument for electability centers primarily on his better-than-the-others fundraising ability and organization.  For example, look at this quote from Romney strategist Eric Ferhnstrom: “The key is who has the organization that’s strong enough to keep going from state to state to state... As you look at the field, the answer to that is obvious. It’s Mitt Romney.”  Shouldn't "the key" be that you have a better candidate with better ideas?  But that's precisely Romney's problem; no one believes that he is a very good candidate and his campaign doesn't even try to convince people of it.  It truly is a testament to their organization that they've convinced the media that press releases with fancy headers and having the most wealthy friends is what truly wins Presidential races; and the candidate just isn't that important.  Unfortunately for them though, that argument hasn't filtered down to actual voters yet.