Rick Santorum in Minnesota (Photo: AP / Washington Times)

Conventional wisdom has long held that the 2012 election would be about fiscal and economic issues, not social issues such as abortion or gay marriage. The Tea Party movement seemed to have put limited-government issues ahead of social issues on the Republican agenda. And controversy over the religious views of presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann seemed an obstacle to their success in the general election.

But social conservatism may be due for a revival, for three reasons. First, the Obama administration and the left in general have provoked fights with religious communities. Catholic voters are upset by Obama’s decision to force religious institutions to offer contraceptives and abortifacients under ObamaCare; opponents of gay marriage are upset by (largely) liberal efforts to overturn Proposition 8, California’s 2008 referendum.

Second, fiscal conservatism has proved insufficient, by itself, to sustain opposition to the Obama agenda. The nation’s leading fiscal conservative governors and legislators all declined to run for president; the Tea Party has been unable to settle on a single candidate; and Republicans’ limited-government agenda has stalled in Congress in the face of Democrat stonewalling in the Senate and infighting among House leaders.

Third, the Republican frontrunner, Gov. Mitt Romney, has the resources and the resumé to take the fight to Obama, but has struggled to draw clear contrasts with the President. Both Republicans and Democrats seem unsure what Romney’s core convictions really are. Though charges that he is a “flip-flopper” are somewhat exaggerated, the one shift Romney readily acknowledges is on the abortion issue (he became pro-life in office).

Santorum’s (belated) victory in the Iowa caucuses owed much to his campaign’s explicit appeals to evangelical voters on social issues. Yet even voters who disagree with him on those issues may be attracted by the fact that he has a set of values that he is not willing to sacrifice under any circumstances. After a year of frustrating compromises in Congress–for both sides–Santorum’s strong stances on social issues may be a plus.

Tactically, the former Pennsylvania senator has taken a lesson from rival Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who shares Santorum’s pro-life views but emphasizes his other positions. On yesterday’s Mark Levin Show, for example, Santorum spoke emphatically about individual liberty and economic freedom, but did not spend much time on social issues.

It also remains unclear whether Santorum will pose a serious threat to Romney. But the broader truth indicated by Santorum’s resurgence may be that fiscal and social issues are inseparable–not just because Republicans depend on social conservative votes, but also because economic freedom has often drawn strength from religious freedom.

The church is an imperfect guardian of individual liberty, but Obama’s expansive state is liberty’s clear enemy. That is why 2012 could see a social conservative revival after all.

Let’s dispense with the obvious losers first:

• Michele Bachmann: Hometown girl did not make good. Bachmann made much of her Iowa roots on the campaign trail and won the Ames Straw poll, but in the end she won barely five percent of the vote. Part of the problem was that she was prone to gaffe and conspiracies. Her argument that vaccines cause autism didn’t wash. Her supporters are now politically homeless, though she might still have some residual effect on the presidential race. She has a choice to make now when it comes to endorsements. Expect her to wait though if she waits too long she risks becoming irrelevant.

• Rick Perry: I’m not prepared to join John Carville in calling him the worse presidential candidate in history, but it’s pretty bad.  He placed fifth after spending over $300 per vote in TV ad buys. Conventional wisdom suggests that Perry made a tactical error in ignoring the power of the presidential debates which tuned off many voters. Perhaps. But his biggest error seems to have been waiting too long to join the presidential field. Between the dates of announcing for president on August 13, 2011 and the Iowa caucuses barely 144 days have passed, compared to say, nearly five years for Mitt Romney. Remember, Governor Perry is also governor of Texas at that same time. As it stands, with the exception of Ron Paul who isn’t running for election to the House, Perry is the only candidate running who has a day job other than running for president. He might have to return to it especially as he is costing the state of Texas some $400,000 a month in security costs. The Governor could argue that this is cheap advertising for the Texas economy, which he heralds wherever he goes, but that might not wash with Texans. Nevertheless, Perry can still make a stand, arguing that he is only credible limited government candidate left in the race. Look to South Carolina, which will be his Alamo. If he succeeds there, he could very well win the nomination, but he’ll have to stop running ads advertising himself and start advertising his opponent’s flaws. If Perry can secure the endorsement of Jim DeMint who has refused to endorse or some of the other conservative South Carolinians, it’s over for Romney and Gingrich.

• Newt Gingrich: Grinch has allowed Mitt Romney to get his goat and distract him from his one talent: spinning off ideas. He bemoans the negative ads that Mitt Romney’s Super PAC is churning out against him, so much so that he has vowed that he will begin going after Mitt Romney. This isn’t Romney’s fault. Thanks to the inanities of campaign finance law, the Wall Street Journal editorial page points out that Romney is legally prohibited from admitting what everyone knows: his allies and former aides are behind the ads. He refused to congratulate Romney on his win and is running fourth in New Hampshire. He may well make a stand in South Carolina or Florida, where he is still the presumptive front runner, but then again he was the front runner of Iowa just two weeks ago.  Gingrich has vowed an alliance with Santorum to take out Romney, who has thus far been something of a teflon candidate, and for all Gingrich’s disapproval of Super PACs, he seems to have forgotten that he has one, too.

• Jon Huntsman, Jr.: By refusing to debate in Iowa and by repeatedly insulting the Iowa electorate, there simply is no path to victory in Iowa that excludes New Hampshire. Governor Huntsman even suggested that nobody cares about the Iowa results. He presumably forgot that Iowans–who live in a swing state–do care.  That wouldn’t be so bad if he were leading in the New Hampshire primary, another swing state, but he isn’t despite effectively having moved there.

• Ron Paul: Representative Paul expected to win Iowa, predicting that he would come in first or second. He came in third. This proves what I had been saying about Ron Paul and the problems of polling him.  Independents may like Paul, but they don’t vote for him enough to win. Fortunately, Paul was decisively in third place. The Paul fans would have assuredly seen foul play had he narrowly lost to Mitt Romney.

• Rick Santorum: He should have outright won the Iowa caucuses, but lost it narrowly. If anything, the state is tailor-made for him: evangelical, white, working class, and post-industrial. He ought to have won it in a cake walk.  Sure, the evangelicals came too late in the game, but he ought to have had more appeal outside of their ranks. If Santorum can’t win decisively in Iowa, where he went door to door, where can he win? His big government credentials–he voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere”, supports anti-free trade legislation, voted for the new Prescription D Medicare entitlement–make it hard to see him winning in a post-Tea Party electorate. One of the lessons of the 2012 primary is that the voters seem to get over a candidate almost as quickly as they get to know him. Santorum was lucky. We didn’t get to know him before the Iowa caucus. The other candidates will see to it that we know him now. Santorum’s model of going door-to-door doesn’t scale well and unlike Huckabee, he is not a son of the South. It’s hard to see him hitting the pavement all throughout the country on Super Tuesday. He needs a cash infusion to be competitive, but it seems doubtful that he will get it fast enough.

• Mitt Romney: Governor Romney got exactly the percentage of the vote he got in 2008. This ought to worry him. After all, he has been running for president for nearly five years. To be sure, there was a record turnout this time– 122, 255 votes cast– but Romney was unable to grow his coalition. Could it be that there is a ceiling of 25% in Iowa? David Axelrod, Obama’s strategist, seems to think so, calling Romney “Mr. 25 percent.” Romney spent a lot of money in 2008 in Iowa, only to lose it to Governor Huckabee. He spent a lot less in 2012 and parachuted in, narrowly beating Santorum who had campaigned in all of Iowa’s 99 counties. Romney  seems assured to win New Hampshire where he owns a home and has spent a lot of time, but he will have a tough time in the South.

Of course the biggest loser of the 2012 election is the Tea Party. With the exception of Rick Perry, who seeks to make Washington as “inconsequential in your life as possible,” there is no credible limited government, pro-American defense candidate.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Matt Lewis to discuss last night’s vote in Iowa, the potential departure of Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, and how the race looks now with New Hampshire and South Carolina next on the primary calendar.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Mitt Romney celebrates GOP win; 2 rivals flounder
Quitters: Why a conservative exodus is bad for Romney
To fend off Iowa attacks, historian Newt Gingrich turns to ‘passive resistance’
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller
Matt K Lewis.com

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Matt on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

After a disappointing sixth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses over night, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., will hold a news conference at 11 a.m. EST on Wednesday, the campaign announced on Wednesday morning.

Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll in August, won only 5 percent of the votes in Tuesday’s caucus. After the results, she cancelled her trip to South Carolina, where she would have campaigned to win the state’s primary on Jan. 21, Fox News reported.

Bachmann insisted as recently as last night that she is the Republican “who can and who will” defeat President Obama.

Read more here.

UPDATE from National Journal:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is suspending her presidential campaign, said a senior Republican official with direct knowledge of the lawmaker’s plans. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Minnesota lawmaker, a favorite of the tea party wing of the party and a harsh critic of President Obama, realized after her sixth-place finish in Iowa’s caucuses that “there was no viable way forward.” By suspending her campaign, Bachmann is effectively dropping out.

Caucuses are very different animals than primaries. Having participated in one years ago, I can say there is much to recommend about them. But the demands of the caucus mean that relatively few people will participate and those who do participate are very different than other voters. To participate, voters assemble at a set time–tonight’s is 7pm CST. They hear speeches from other voters arguing for each individual candidate and then voting begins. The entire process can take up to two hours. If you’re sick, working, don’t have child-care or simply look upon a two hour voting process with dread, you can’t take part–only around a quarter of the active, registered Republicans will likely vote tonight.

Only the most dedicated and motivated voters, whether for a candidate or an issue, will participate. Moreover, Democrat and Independent voters can show up and register as a Republican on the spot and cast a ballot. This can skew the results; just ask famous caucus losers John McCain, Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Mike Dukakis or Ronald Reagan, among others.

The key to performing well in Iowa is to either become the chosen candidate of highly motivated issue voters or have a very strong field organization to turn out your supporters. Remember, only about 150,000 voters will take part tonight, so a strong ground game is critical.

The final Des Moines Register poll, released Saturday, provides the last, best snapshot of the state of the field: Romney 24%, Paul 22%, Santorum 15%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Perry 11% and Bachmann 7%. So, what to expect tonight?

Essentially, Romney and Paul are tied for first, Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are tied for third. I don’t expect Bachmann to be much of a factor, other than shaving a bit of support from Santorum and Perry. Historically, conventional wisdom held that there were three tickets out of the Iowa caucuses. I think this year there are four and, if the margins are very slim, possibly five tickets out. (McCain came in 4th in 2008, but by a very slim 0.4% margin.) Keep in mind, almost as important as how the candidates performed is how, tomorrow, people think they performed. To the candidates:

Mitt Romney

Romney has defined this primary campaign, but not in a way ultimately favorable for him. The race’s volatility, with candidates rising and falling is succession, is due to the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of GOP voters don’t want him as the nominee.  Romney has rarely ever inched above 25% in any national poll. He ran a very competitive campaign in 2008, so he is well known to the rank and file. They know him and three-quarters of them don’t want him to be the GOP candidate. Fortunately for Romney there have been enough both credible and, at the same time, flawed other candidates to prevent the 75% from coalescing around the Anti-Romney.

I believe a large part of his support is simply resigned to it, rather than fervently supportive. But, he has a well-funded and organized ground game to get these supporters to the caucus. He may hold onto the lead, but I expect he will under perform tonight.

Ron Paul

I expect Ron Paul will do well tonight and has a very good chance of winning. He has highly motivated supporters and a very good ground operation, the two critical things needed to prevail in Iowa. Paul’s supporters are not going to miss the caucus. His economic views are much more aligned with the electorate than they were in 2008 and his foreign policy views seem less dangerous than they were when the Iraq and Afghan wars were still engaged. Mind you, these foreign policy views will keep him from the nomination, but, in a six candidate field, its less of a liability.

Rick Santorum

It almost defies belief, but some conservatives have decided that Rick Santorum is this week’s chosen Anti-Romney. In a race that has been dominated by debate performance, he was, at best, uneven. But, he staked his entire campaign on Iowa and has centered it on social issues. Evangelicals make up the largest block of caucus goers and he has received the endorsement of well-known social conservatives in the state. Also, his surge has come too late for the other campaigns to fully vet his record. That will begin in earnest tomorrow if he does as well as expected. Preview: in 2004 he vigorously campaigned for Arlen Specter against Pat Tommey in the GOP primary for Senate.

He will not be the nominee. He has no organization outside of Iowa and hasn’t faced any real scrutiny. His appeals on social issues won’t play as well in other states. I also don’t think he will win tonight. In 2008, when Mike Huckabee shook up the race with a surprise win, he was the single pick for evangelicals. This year, while a large number may be breaking towards Santorum, their support is still split with Perry and Bachmann. And, his rise and its attendant surge in donations came too late to build the robust ground game the caucus demands. Unless evangelicals defect wholesale from Perry and Bachmann, Santorum will likely fall short of winning.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich has sustained withering fire from the other campaigns and it has had a dramatic affect on his support. He is fading at exactly the wrong moment. His support was premised on his ability to defeat Romney. He doesn’t look like that candidate any longer. He also doesn’t have a ground game and isn’t the obvious choice of any issue-motivated voters. I expect he will under perform tonight. The only question is whether he finishes fourth or fifth. If he places fifth, this campaign will probably continue to fade.

Rick Perry

Perry is perhaps the unluckiest candidate in recent memory. Over the past several weeks he has retooled his campaign and become a much more effective candidate. He has built up a very strong ground operation and heavily courted Evangelicals with millions in advertising. Newt’s fade created the perfect opening for Perry to reemerge as a front runner. And, then…Rick Santorum.

That said, I think Perry will over perform tonight. The central question is whether he beats Gingrich. If Perry comes in fourth, his campaign is in good shape. I suspect, though, his ground organization gives him a good shot at a surprising third place finish. Were that to happen, he would again have a turn at being the Anti-Romney.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann is a very good member of Congress. Her state chair’s betrayal of her should be long remembered by Iowa voters when he runs for reelection.

Final

It is important to remember that this is the beginning of the nomination process, not the end. This year, delegates in Iowa are awarded proportionally, so all top finishers will have a similar number of delegates. The race is very volatile and still unfolding. I can’t over stress the importance of the pre-voting speeches from each campaign. If the campaign’s have effective surrogates, these speeches can shift voters. This is why a good ground organization is so critical and why, if I had to wager, I’d put my money on the best ground games. Paul, Romney and Perry to Win, Place and Show.

It is just the beginning, but it has begun.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in his state’s presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

Meanwhile, four GOP candidates on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry’s lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia primary, a contest with 49 delegates up for grabs. Perry and the four candidates joining the lawsuit — Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman — did not.

The failure of other candidates to qualify led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.

Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns and plans to take them to the legislature while the candidates work through the courts.

“Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” he said in a statement Saturday. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

Read more here.

The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.

Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.

Full article and poll here.