SANTORUM: PREEMPTIVE FAVORITE FOR THE GOP IN 2016?

I think Dave Weigel has a point:

A true-sounding aside from Alex Pareene: "Rick Santorum is the 2016 GOP nomination frontrunner." It's true because the runner-up of the last Republican primary always starts off with an advantage. McCain 2008. Dole 1996. Bush 1988. Reagan 1976. Romney looked like the candidate most likely to break the trend, but no longer.

It's also true because of what would happen if Romney won the nomination and lost. A Romney defeat would come after countless evangelical leaders endorsed a credible candidate and watched him lose to someone the "elites" called electable. Again. It would be the second time they'd been blown off by the party, nominated a moderate, and gone down to defeat. No matter how and why Romney actually lost, the storyline -- as it was in 2008 -- would be that the party lost its way, and needed to nominate a real conservative next time....

The difference is that all the previous guys-whose-turn-it-was, up to and including Romney, were acceptable to Establishment pragmatists. Santorum doesn't qualify on that score. So maybe this time is different.

Or is it? By 2016, will there even be a group of Establishment pragmatists who can control these things? There's barely one now, because the Establishment is split between people who want the party to rally around Romney and people (Murdoch/Ailes, Friess, Adelson) who are having the same trouble as rank-and-file crazy-base voters in reconciling themselves to Romney. If Obama wins, Congress goes more Democratic, and liberal activists continue their newfound resurgence, the Establishment might be more crazed next time, and thus even less pragmatic.

In any case, I think it's safe to say that the GOP will take exactly the wrong lesson away from a Romney defeat, if he loses -- never nominate a RINO. So if we don't get Santorum, we'll get someone who's a stronger campaigner, but just as extreme. I don't know when these guys will ever learn.