While I find Operation Hilarity, the push to have good Democrats cross over and vote for Rick Santorum in the Republican primaries, well, hilarious, there's actually something of a miscalculation going on here.
That Rick Santorum is better for the Democratic Party.
Sure, Santorum is nuts; that's been well-established. And of course he's probably less likely than Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama in the fall, and Santorum chugging along in the race drains the resources of the ultimate Republican nominee. Whether Santorum actually is the nominee, or Romney wins the nomination after forgoing his previous career as a somewhat moderate Republican, the Republicans will be throwing a wounded duck into the fight with President Obama.
But overall, is Rick Santorum really better for the Democratic Party? I don't know.
One of the common themes throughout the Republican primary is that Mitt Romney has consistently done best with Republicans earning more than $100,000 a year -- while consistently doing poorly among those with incomes under $100,000 a year. In fact, support for Romney has generally steadily fallen the lower down you get on the income scale.
Of course, the Republican establishment are all card-carrying members of the 1 percent, hence their love for Romney, the candidate of the 1 percent. But support for Romney among the lower classes has been tepid at best. Those are the Teabaggers, and the religious fundamentalists, and they're the ones who are out there voting for Rick Santorum. They don't particularly like Mr. 1 Percent (see any irony in that?)
Now, Rick Santorum has an entirely different problem -- while downscale Republican voters (and some blue-collar Democrats) love him, Santorum won't get much support from those all-important swing voters, and that's going to put him in an uphill battle against President Obama. But Romney's problems with downscale Republicans will have much greater effects on the Republican Party.
One of the cold, hard truths of American politics is that people with higher income levels and educational achievement are much more likely to vote. If Santorum is the nominee, high-income voters who might have voted for Romney will still come out to vote -- but a considerable number of them will hold their noses and vote for Obama. This obviously will hurt Santorum in the general election. In fact, high-income voters voting for Obama is much better than them staying home, as not only does that bleed support away from Rick, it gives support to Obama.
On the other hand, if downscale Republicans aren't happy with their nominee, they might just stay home. They don't want to vote for Obama, but they don't want to vote for Romney, either, and given that choice, they might not cast a ballot at all. In terms of the Presidential election, Romney might be able to make up for some of this lost support by picking up more swing voters than Santorum would be able to, but even that might not be enough to defeat the President given recent polls and economic indicators.
So if Romney is more likely to beat President Obama, why might Romney be better for the Democratic Party?
Because, in downballot races, Mitt Romney might actually harm Republican candidates more than Santorum would.
See, in the above analysis, while Santorum is bleeding support from swing voters and marginal Republicans, particularly in the upper-income brackets, those voters would still be available for other Republican candidates to win. Particularly if it's clear a couple of months from the election that Santorum is going down in flames, Republican candidates in other races might work to distance themselves from Santorum.
What's more, upper-income Republican voters tend to be concentrated in a relatively small number of districts. Santorum's support among downscale Republicans might actually help Republicans in some districts by turning them out, while in districts with a lot of upscale Republicans, Republican candidates can distance themselves from Santorum. It also helps that upscale Republicans would probably be able to distinguish between Rick Santorum and, say, Bob Dold. A Santorum nomination would probably lead to an Obama win, but also a lot of ticket-splitting, particularly in more upscale areas. Vote Obama to keep Santorum away from your birth control; vote Dold to keep Obama from raising your taxes. Even though Walter Mondale got killed in 1984, Democrats down the ballot weren't hurt a whole lot; Democrats only lost 16 seats in the House in that Reagan landslide.
On the other hand, Romney's problems with downscale Republicans are more likely to hurt Republicans down the ballot. If those voters stay home, well, they're not there to vote for Republican candidates for the Senate, the House, the state legislature, and dog catcher, either. Sure, Romney might pick up more swing voters than Santorum would, but if the Teabaggers and fundies aren't turning out for Romney in significant numbers, they're not turning out for any Republican candidates who depend on those votes.
So, Santorum is only better for the Democratic Party if you think Mitt Romney might beat President Obama. But in terms of other races on the ballot, Romney's lack of support from the Republican base might wind up being an even bigger problem for the Republican Party.