Another Tuesday, another set of primaries
Today’s most-watched primaries—Alabama and Mississippi—are in the deep South, and they are toss-ups in the polls. So tonight it may take quite a while for the networks to declare the winner.
Today’s primaries are the first time that Romney doesn’t have a state that’s labeled “absolutely-must-win” for him. Rather, it’s Santorum and/or Gingrich who desperately need at least one of these two southern states, since any successful nomination strategy for either would almost certainly rely on winning much of the South.
Today I noticed that this year’s Republican field is odd in a way I hadn’t thought about before (we all know it’s odd in other ways): the two leading candidates are from the Northeast. One of them is even from New England, an area of the country that hasn’t provided a credible Republican candidate on the national level since George H.W. Bush, who was from New England only in the same way that Romney is “from” Michigan: that is, he was born and raised there but left early to make his political career in a far-away and very different place (Texas). Before that, the only one I can think of is Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., and that goes back to the early 60s.
Santorum is from Pennsylvania, another state not known for nurturing a crop of Republican presidential hopefuls. Santorum has the advantage of not having had to win on a statewide level there, and of course we know that he lost in 2006 and hasn’t held office since. But the fact that both men are from blue or blueish states indicates that they know how to appeal to independents and democrats. You may think it’s a bug, but I think it’s a feature.
The other somewhat odd demographic fact about the leading Republican candidates (and here I’ll include Gingrich) is that all of them are adherents of religions that have never or seldom provided a US president. There’s never been a Mormon, and there has only been one Catholic—JFK—elected to the office. Whether this will matter in November I don’t know, but I don’t think it will be a huge factor.
One wonders what would be happening in today’s primaries if either Santorum or Gingrich had dropped out already, and there was only Romney vs. the Last Non-Romney Standing. Conventional wisdom is that Romney would lose the contest, but I’ve seen nothing that indicates the dropout’s vote wouldn’t be split rather evenly between the remaining candidate and Romney. After all, Gingrich and Santorum are very different people who appeal to voters in very different ways. But the question is moot, because neither man seems to be dropping out any time soon.
I’m rooting for Romney for a number of reasons. First, as any regular reader of this blog knows, I think he’s the best candidate. Second, I think at this point the internecine battles for the nomination are hurting the Republican chances of winning the whole thing in the fall, and the sooner a candidate becomes truly inevitable, the better.
I’m in Alabama, and voted this morning. When I sat down to mark my ballot I was literally still undecided between Santorum and Romney. I finally went for Romney, not because I like him any better as a potential president, but because I do think he’s more likely to beat Obama–at least marginally more likely–and secondarily because I think the bloodshed needs to stop.
Neoneocon,
You write: “the internecine battles for the nomination are hurting the Republican chances of winning the whole thing in the fall, and the sooner a candidate becomes truly inevitable, the better.”
I agree. Karl Rove made the point that going into the Republican convention (September?) without a certain candidate would give the Republican very little time to campaign against Obama.
As you well know, I’ve been pulling for Newt, but so far he has shown that he can not develop any staying power, and it’s now even questionable as to whether he can conclusively carry Southern states (which should be “gimmies” for him).
In PA, our primary is late (April 24th). I must say if the landscape between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum still looks then the way it does now, I’ll probably be casting a vote for Romney to be consistent with my ABO philosophy.
Good on you (as they say in Australia-at least according to a movie I watched), Neo, Mac, and T–it’s time for the internecine battles among the candidates and among the bloggers to come to an end. Blogged about this previously — http://goo.gl/GzVkE — http://goo.gl/XQZNj — that each of the remaining candidates is flawed and virtually all politicians are full of it. So keeping the November ABO endgame in mind, it’s time to unify around the best available candidate at this particular time.
igc,
Understand that I still support Newt, however, more tepidly than in the past because he has not demonstrated “staying power” as I noted above. If the PA primary were today, I’d still vote “Newt.” If “Newt is able to stage a third resurrection and hold a lead I’d still vote “Newt” on April 24th.
However reality beckons and I don’t expect a third and lasting resurrection. You say it’s time for the internecine battles to come to an end, but IMO it’s not a matter of literal chronological time, it’s a matter of figurative time (i.e., circumstances on the ground) which appears to be inexorably moving in a particular direction for a particular “A” in that ABO.
Wow. Just wow.
Romney, according to WaPo el guapo Richard Cohen, isn’t a fool or a knave like Sarah Palin, but, he has other problems.
http://tinyurl.com/6rqo4rx
How could any example exist that better shows projection? Cohen says, “Experience, knowledge, accomplishment – these no longer may matter.”
Romney’s exclusion makes me insecure here. I’d rather he didn’t find any approbation at all from Mr. Cohen. But, on the other hand, if he recognizes Romney has presidential knowledge then surely people with less cells in their brain that have been washed with political ideology may too.
It appears Romney won Miss and is close on Al. Here’s something that many have not considered, or at least I haven’t heard it (probably because it would be a progressive’s worst nightmare): Romney begins to win, more and more, and, more and more, people begin to put aside semi minor differences because they all want to be about uniting to save our country and kick the bums out. Here’s a slogan that might work for Romney: No more free ride(r)s.
I think there’s a little deprecatory humour in that one.
Congrats to Santorum in Alabama and Mississippi.
Although I’m Romney supporter, I’ve repeatedly said that I’ll gladly vote for whomever is the eventual GOP nominee. Obama has to go.
J.L.: It’s my understanding that both states award delegates proportionately, so since the 3 leading candidates got approximately the same percentage of votes each (Santorum leading, but only by a bit), I don’t think this changes anything.
Isn’t Santorum’s home turf western Pennsylvania? I see how that’s northeast on a map, but it isn’t northeast in temperament. And it is a different world from either New England or the Eastern Seaboard.
Santorum doesn’t present like any stereotypical Northeaster.
Foxmarks,
Yes you are correct about PA; it isn’t northeast in temprament. James Carville was accurate (altho intending to be deprecatory) when he said that PA was Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in the middle. Phila is essentially part of the DC-Phila-New York-Boston corridor (Democrat). Pittsburgh and Western PA is more of a mid-western mentality (but still overtly union blue Democrat—former steel mills and mining). In between the two, the state is preodominantly small-town rural and Republican.
Philadelphia is essentially deep blue for voting and the surrounding counties tend blue but can go Republican from time to time. Pittsburgh proper is deep blue for voting, but western PA and surrounding counties in general are less strongly blue than the Eastern counties. When Western PA goes blue, the state (anchored by the Phila area) goes blue. When Western PA goes red, it, along with the remainder of the state can cancel out the Phila blue vote.
We have a history of both Repub and Dem governors. In the 2010 election, statewide, the state went predominantly red (Toomey rather than Specter, Repub gov and a Repub takeover of the second state house).
For the upcoming, keep in mind that Western Pa and Eastern Ohio, like W VA are coal mining territory and do not take kindly to Obama’s war on fossil fuels or shutting down coal-fired power plants.
You are correct about Santorum, too. He does not, indeed, present like a typical Northeaster, more like a more rural Pennsylvanian, Ohioan or West Virginian.
Give some smarts to Santorum, he learned. He apologized. He won. If Obama can totally be absolved his former statements, why not any Republican? And if not, as in the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy, an accusation is only useful if it is more accurate against the accused than the accuser.
Still, let’s be accurate here. Romney almost won the South! Who would have thought that possible. It’s probably time to acknowledge what an extraodinary achievement that is.
I don’t like Santorum’s playing of the class war theme that Romney is outspending him. I also don’t like his complaints that Romney has outorganized him. Shouldn’t the POTUS have some organizing skills?
Santorum is a bit like the eco-romantics except that he only wants to take us back to the 40s and 50s. While I agree that we have a values and class problem in the US, the solution has to be forward looking. We can’t recreate the past, we have to take the best of it and fit it into a changing world. I think Romney sees that world pretty clearly, whereas Santorum is confused by it. Sadly, he seems to be confusing voters as well.
expat, I don’t know if Romney sees the world that clearly, but I do agree with your assesessment about the solution needing to be being forward looking.
If you haven’t read Walter Russell Mead’s essays on the failure of the blue social model (and especially his series “Beyond Blue”) you would find sympathetic essays. I’ve mentioned him at Neoneocon’s site before; this is precisely the point that he makes.
T,
Your probably right to question Romney’s total picture of the changing world. I guess I was thinking mostly about the gobalized economic side of the change. I think he gets that we will have to adapt to worldwide innovations and pressures.
On social issues and the effects of instantaneous info transmission, I’m not so sure. Maybe we are all a bit like parents who get their kids a computer without themselves understanding what the kids will find on the web. It’s hard to know what kinds of values and comprehension skills we need to transmit so the kids don’t get overwhelmed and screwed up.
expat,
“It’s hard to know what kinds of values and comprehension skills we need to transmit so the kids don’t get overwhelmed and screwed up.”
Actually, as the parent of 3, I disagree with that. Teach children honesty, integrity, a sense of self-responsibility. Let them make their mistakes on the smaller issues and don’t patronize them; let them KNOW they made a mistake (as opposed to covering for them) and let them know that you both expect and hope that they will do better next time. Most importantly, do as much of this as possible by the example of one’s own behavior.
Neo:
Understood. I didn’t mean to imply that I felt the race was over. Far from it. There is a long way to go, and I still am rooting for Romney.
But, for someone who was thought to be out of it, Santorum has come back to make it 3-way race.
J.L,
Santorum’s rise in the South doesn’t surprise me.
He comes off as a very inflexible Catholic (of the 1950’s and 1960’s variety) and that resonates with Southern Evangelicals. Such an approach did not in the ’50s and ’60s because the Evangelicals worried that it would be like having the pope in the White House, but in today’s world, with the secular/progressive culture war, he appears more LIKE Evangelicals than in opposition to them.
What surprises me is that he’s able to match Newt, for whom these Southern primaries should have been home-field advantage.
Mr. Liar, I mean Mr. Community Organizer, I mean Mr. Apologizer, I mean, Mr. President, why did you call your health care act a Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when you meant to charge more for less and remove our basic constitutional freedoms. Shouldn’t you have called it something more appropriate like Government Unbound and Installed by Lawless Tactics?