My quick piece tonight at FoxNews.com:
In a sketch last weekend following Mitt Romney’s win in Michigan, “Saturday Night Live” had its Romney character boast that it was another instance of voters saying of him, “Eh, I guess.”
“Eh, I guess” looks to be the motto he’ll have to try to ride to the nomination. It was an “eh” night for Romney, although he avoided catastrophe by pulling out a razor-thin win in Ohio where he was trailing most of the night.
Otherwise, he won one state where he used to be governor (Massachusetts), a small Northeastern state (Vermont), an essentially uncontested Southern state (Virginia), and a heavily Mormon state out West (Idaho). In Virginia, he couldn’t get to 60 percent against just Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate seemed so inevitable and so weak at the same time.
Last week Santorum had to win Ohio in order to remain a viable candidate, this week an Ohio loss would have been a catastrophe for Romney. Someone is moving the goal posts here. I know, a lengthened primary battle helps sell magazines, newspapers, .... but really last weeks storyline was correct.
After tonight, a night Romney is going to get more than half of the delegates awarded, if you look at the math for Santorum to win the 1144 delegates, it is just highly unlikely to happen.
Right now he is really fighting for a brokered convention in hopes that a majority of the delegates at the convention will support him, a candidate that lost his last general election campaign by nearly 18 points. It isn't going to go to him if there is a brokered convention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney possesses a delegate count that is (at least) 2.5x his next closest competitor. If Romney is the candidate of "eh", then Santorum is the candidate of "yuck", Gingrich is the candidate of "spit", and Paul is the candidate of "here's your pudding, sir, shuffleboard starts in 15-minutes".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, surely you are not arguing that there is a lot of emotion behind the Romney vote. Surely you aren't comparing the vote totals only as a sign of enthusiasm.
Someone in my family voted today and I asked who he was voting for and he was a textbook "eh" voter for Romney. Figured this had gone on about as long as it needed to be. He was not voting FOR Romney, but for just winding this thing up, and he has serious concerns about November with Romney.
If Romney can't put Santorum away (a highly likely possibility more and more) it will come a time when you need to mentally add Newt's delegates to Rick's total in that proverbial brokered convention...I can't see most of them (especially since they are all from GA and SC) joining up with Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would argue that emotion is over rated in politics.
In fact I think there's a lot of intelligience behind the Romney votes. People are engaging their brains instead. That's a good thing.
If you want someone who can feel your pain Steve go talk to Bill Clinton.
Also, if you want to give Obama what he wants (since your an emotional guy) then vote for Santorum. The Michigan primary clearly displayed who Obama wants to run against and that's Santorum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy the count I've seen, Romney is 36% of the way there, Santorum 15%, Gingrich 95, Paul, 4%. Based on the patterns so far, I would expect Romney to go on to win Oregon, California, Hawaii, Montana, Utah (enough Mormons there, Rich?), New Mexico, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware (though they gave is Christine O'Donnell), Maryland. Romney came surprisingly close in Oklahoma, actually, so Kansas may be interesting. Also Wisconsin.
Santo will win, I would guess, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Kentucky. Don't know whether Newt has a realistic shot at Miss. and Alabama at this point. From what I understand the winner-take-all math favors Romney. But, hey, if a brokered convention produces Paul Ryan, at least I will get the candidate I wanted from the start.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShould be Gingrich 9%.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKansas is caucuses, I see, so that should be an easy win for Santo. I'm sure the Midwest theocons will be the dominant factor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney just won Alaska. That makes him 6 for 10 tonight, in the 4 he lost he came in 2nd in 3 of them. Not a bad night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure Rich now is frenziedly trying to determine the Mormon population of Alaska.
Maybe he should spend some time trying to figure out why Santorum can't win even Republican Catholics (the ones NRO claims to represent)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a guy who uses the term "theocons" unironically, you sure seem touchy that pundits would make the observation that Romney's LDS affiliation helps him in some contests.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm just amused it's always used as an excuse for discounting his support. Santo does well among southern evangelicals, so what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIdaho is only around 23% LDS, not exactly what I'd call "heavily Mormon". It's also 18% Roman Catholic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf desperate Republicans think Romney is "eh", you can imagine what the general populace will think of him. Then again, Santorum is the crazy guy always holding a sign on the corner and Gingrich is the cantankerous old uncle who smells of booze and talks about how he was there when electricity was invented. Over all, "eh" is being optimistic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney may well be "eh," but the other two are "bleh."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is not "eh."
The word for Romney is "meh."
And therein, of course, lies the problem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney is going to win 25 states or more when the smoke clears and he will get significant percentages in many others. Unless Newt drops out after Alabama and Mississippi and most of his vote goes to Santorum, I don't see how Santorum has any plausible path to victory.
Romney has won, among other states, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Massachusetts, Arizona and Nevada. Everything Santorum has won has been confined to the "heartland." Just as Romney performs poorly among the less wealthy and less educated (the anti-snob vote), Santorum performs poorly among the wealthier and the better educated. Across the country today, Romney won teh counties where are located Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Savannah, Atlanta, Nashville, Oklahoma City (he nearly won Shelby county, TN--Memphis--as well). He may perform poorly in less populated, poorer counties, but he does well with suburban voters Santorum repels.
Romney may be an "eh" candidate, but that doesn't mean that Santorum has appeal (or Gingrich or Paul) beyond their diehard supporters (respectively evangelicals, media haters, Libertarians). I voted for Romney today not because he excites me, but because I just don't see the others as realistic options (and I wouldn't vote for Santo even if I thought he had a shot at winning, to be honest--or, unfortunately Paul, because his foreign policy views are too daft).
A Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio or Scott Walker would have been able to unify the GOP factions, but we don't have that, so it's going to be a tough tightrope act. If the nominee can't walk that line, the result will be four more years of Obama.
It's easy to sneer at Romney, but that doesn't make his opponents any more palatable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRyan, Rubio and Walker? You've got to be kidding. Mitt Romney was the only A-list Republican willing to twist himself into a pretzel to please the far right.
Daniels, Christie and Bush are waiting for 2016, when shell-shocked Republicans will be looking for someone to pick up the pieces.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney just won Alaska, so out of the 10 contests today, Mitt won 60% of them.
According to CNN, Romney did get to 60% against Ron Paul in Virginia.
BTW, if the new meme (wait for it.....Lowry will start up any minute) is that Romney doesn't do well in the South....then why did he beat Santorum in Georgia and he beat Gingrich in Oklahoma and Tennesse.
BTW Santorum won that was heavy with evangelicals, plus he did well with Democrats in Ohio, and they probably weren't Reagan Democrats but Obama/Daily Kos/David Axelrod Democrats.
For all of Santorum's pathetic "poor" talk, he forgets to mention the huge advantage he has from his biggest "donor" Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDelegates counts from Oklahoma, Tennessee and Georgia:
Gingrich 67
Santroum 41
Romney 36
As we can see, Romney picked up only five delegates fewer than Santorum (this was because of Romney great strength in urban areas: Oklahoma City, Nashville, Atlanta, Savannah). Losses like this Romney can afford. But, sure, Rich, don't let that interfere with the "eh" narrative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>Last week Santorum had to win Ohio in order to remain a viable candidate, this week an Ohio loss would have been a catastrophe for Romney.
***
Carl Cameron -- in his "reporting" from the campaign trail -- was peddling that rubbish that Mitt had to win Ohio to avoid free-fall. Where did Fox get this clown, Carl Cameron? They seem to respect him (or are just trying to build their brand) so maybe he is decent when he sticks to actual reporting. When he starts with analysis, he shows himself to be a complete fool. Santo's inability to close the deal in his neighboring, rust-belt state -- after having a double-digit lead -- should be a fatal blow to ~his~ candidacy. And it was not just geographical proximity as with Romney and Vermont; the key for Santo in Ohio was convincing blue-collar, heavily Catholic voters exactly matching his own background to vote for him. Even Gingrich can bring in his core Georgia constituency.
Heck, Santorum can't even carry the Catholic vote, except of course in the heavily Catholic National Review precinct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse