Post-primary: Alabama and Mississippi
Let’s take a look at the results from yesterday’s primaries in the South:
Mississippi:
Santorum: 32.8%
Gingrich: 31.2%
Romney: 30.6%
Alabama:
Santorum: 34.5%
Gingrich: 29.3%
Romney: 29.0%
Ron Paul got between 4% and 5% in both states.
For three-way races, those are incredibly close, especially the Mississippi results.
If these were winner-take-all states, Santorum would be flying high. But they’re not (although, understandably, he’s feeling pretty good). Therefore the strongest message I take from yesterday’s primary results is how little has changed as a result of them (the Hawaii caucuses, which Romney won 45% to Santorum’s 25.3%, Paul’s 18.3% and Gingrich’s 11%, have hardly been mentioned). Because the Alabama and Mississippi delegates are awarded proportionately, and because both states were roughly split 3-ways among Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney, these primaries end up acting more or less as placeholders in terms of delegate counts.
That’s odd, isn’t it? But no odder than this entire primary season has been.
Here are the counts at present:
The partial allocation of delegates from Tuesday’s voting states left Mr. Romney with 495 in an Associated Press count, out of the 1,144 needed to win the nomination. Mr. Santorum had 252, Mr. Gingrich 131 and Ron Paul 48.
What’s more, there are only 4 winner-take-all states left: “Washington, D.C., on April 3; Delaware on April 24; New Jersey on June 5; and Utah on June 26.” Santorum isn’t on the ballot in DC, and we all know who will win Utah. New Jersey would seem to be Romney country, and perhaps Delaware also (can’t find a poll on that right now). If you look at the other states with future primaries that are proportional, you’ll see that the larger states with the most delegates (New York, Texas, California) show Romney in the lead as well (at least so far), with Santorum leading in Pennsylvania (his home state) and some of the remaining southern states as well as Wisconsin.
In Mississippi and Alabama last night, almost anything that could be said about one candidate’s failure to seal the deal could also be said about the failure of the other two to do the same. It is clear that—despite Santorum’s post-primary ebullience—no single candidate has caught on, and that each represents a separate and distinct faction of the Republican Party. It does no good to speculate how the results would have differed if one of the candidates had dropped out, either, because (a) that didn’t happen (b) it seems unlikely to happen during the next few primaries; and (c) even if it did, that person’s votes might be split fairly evenly between the two remaining candidates.
But a Gingrich dropout is clearly Santorum’s hope, and he evidently believes that if that were to happen he would be the clear beneficiary. I’m not so certain, but it certainly could happen, although I don’t see Gingrich going that route in time to save Santorum. And if Romney somehow fails to gather the requisite number of votes for a nomination by the time the convention rolls around, the wheeling and dealing can go any of several ways; Santorum can’t count on Gingrich’s delegates to be ceded to him because of his supposedly superior conservatism.
As for specific things I could note about each candidate as a result of yesterday’s vote, I observe that if the South is supposed to be Gingrich’s strength, then he was the biggest loser. Santorum is from Pennsylvania, but his positions—and especially his social con tendencies—make him a natural in the South, and these results show it. I think he will continue to be strong there, unless he does something really foolish. But even so, although Santorum did better than the polls predicted and won both states, he didn’t do all that well; his margins were small. Neither, of course, did Romney. But the fact that he did almost as well as the other two indicates that he’s not anathema in the deep South, either.
Let’s tackle the elephant in the room: the preponderance of evangelicals in this part of the country. Large numbers of voters in both states identify themselves that way (for example, 80% in Mississippi), among the largest percentages of any states:
In both states, the vast majority of voters identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, and about three-quarters said it mattered at least somewhat that a candidate share their religious beliefs. In both Alabama and Mississippi, Santorum held near-20 point advantages among those evangelicals who said shared beliefs mattered “a great deal” to their choice. Romney and Gingrich were more competitive among evangelical voters less focused on common religious beliefs.
There is very little question that Romney’s Mormonism hurt him with these voters. The bigger question is whether that would matter in a matchup with Obama. I tend to doubt they would prefer Obama in numbers large enough to turn these red states blue.
Both primaries were open ones. It’s hard to say whether that affected the results, or how, because we don’t know how many “real” Democrats voted, and whether they voted to gum up the works, and if so who they voted for.
What we do know is that this thing seems poised to go on without clarity or resolution for quite some time. And that’s a disappointment, because (as I indicated yesterday) the longer it goes on the more the Republicans tear each other up, and the less time there is to focus like a laser on the real opponent, Obama.
What is a really good word for the primaries, the following of the primaries, and the meditation on the primaries? Does “Tiresome” even begin to cover it this year?
And if, having become, 100% Tiresome can the process indeed become even more so? Yes it can. It would seem we are going to be tired by this tiresome triumverate well into the summer. It will be a case of the Republicans doing the impossible: Cramming 296% of tiresomeness into a 100% bag.
One can only marvel at the extent to which the tiresomeness of the whole thing will project a searing beam of boredom into the eyes of everyone not strung out on the crack cocaine of this tedium.
Watching the Republicans pound away at this limpening blood sausage only confirms two things:
1) Republicans. They thirst for death.
2) If they don’t stop it, they’ll go blind.
It’s no surprise that conservatives did well in two of the most socially conservative states. Obama is going to lose those states in the general election, no matter who the Republican is. The question is which Republican can win in moderate states. The answer is not Santorum or Gingrich. It may or may not be Romney.
Chiming in again from the Heart of Dixie: I think it’s probably true that Romney’s Mormonism hurt him somewhat with evangelicals. But I think that’s less important than the fact that people don’t really trust his social-conservative credentials (or any-other-conservative credentials, for that matter). Santorum is much more convincing on that count.
Related to that is Romney’s rich-guy vibe. It adds up to a perception that he would be a Bush I type Republican in office. (A concern I share, I might add.) Santorum is obviously no Southerner but he comes across as a more familiar type than Romney.
“I tend to doubt they would prefer Obama in numbers large enough to turn these red states blue.” Understatement. They will certainly not vote for Obama. At worst they might stay home in November.
To a certainty, I say evangelical voters consider Romney to be more serious about Christianity than is Obama. The issue is not Latter Day Saints vs Protestants. Rather, the issues are:
1. depth and sincerity of faith
2. willingness of a candidate to stand up for faith having a place in the public conversation – including a candidate’s easy and unapologetic recognition that Constitutional rights come from God.
By these 2 measures, Romney is the easy choice over Obama. To whatever extent a Southern evangelical uses religion to influence his or her vote, Romney would benefit over Obama. That is a certainty. Do not doubt it.
Everyone, with eyes to see, can see that Pres. Obama is a religious phony; uses religion as a prop. If Pres. Obama were sincere, he would desire to worship in church services amongst other believers. He does not.
Maybe Santorum is more palatable to evangelicals, but he’s more of a social conservative than a policy conservative. That’s true of the others, too, but the dichotomy between Santorum’s social positions and his governance tendencies is jarring to me, and it seems like a stronger contrast because he’s so strident on the social side. I can’t buy a statist hiding behind social conservativism. That’s completely backwards on conservative priorities I’m looking for.
Some points:
First: Delegate counts at this point are very speculative. The rules on how delegates are awarded differ vastly from state to state, but do share a byzantine complexity and, in some states, a pliability to post primary/caucus meddling by state party officials. While Romney clearly has more bound delegates that anyone else, assigning a number to any of them is fuzzy at best.
Second: This process, which everyone proclaims they are sick of, was put in place to address the outrage, from these same people, in 2008 that the nominee was effectively decided before half of the party had a chance to cast a ballot.
Third: While this has been a more negative primary than in 2008, note that the media has spent great deal more effort focusing on party divisions and the negativity this cycle, than they did with the drawn out Democrat battle in 2008. You have to wonder if all those Republicans would have demanded that the later states matter more if they had foreseen the way the media would cover a well contested Republican primary process.
Fourth: The winner take all contests in past primaries dod a lot to hide the simple fact that Republican primaries are contentious. From Dole stating in a new conference “Tell Bush to stop lying about my record” to H W’s “voodoo economics” to Buchanan’s “peasants with pitchforks”, Republicans have always been a fractious lot. The notion that “the Republican is alway the next guy in line” was only true to the extent that the establishment could engineer early wins in critical winner take all states.
Fifth: The overwhelming majority of the 20%-25% of swing state voters who are going to decide this election are either ignoring this of paying only casual attention, to the Republicans. They won’t even begin to focus until July at the earliest. In the meantime they are worried about gas prices, food prices, their jobs, and the economy. Obama suffers much more from his failure to improve those things, than any hyped up media circus about Republican policies on contraception.
Lastly: As ugly as this process is, it is helpful. To “close the deal” one of these men is going to have to craft a message and vision behind which the base and the middle can unite. That needs to be tested now, not in September.
Santorum and Gingrich are trying to frame this race as a pitched battle between grassroots Republicans, on the one hand, and the “establishment” on the other. That may suit their strategic interests, but I don’t think it’s accurate. Exit polling seems to show that the paramount concern of primary voters is electability. IOW, they simply want whichever candidate is most likely to take down Obama. That suggests that they don’t think the substantive/ideological differences amongst candidates are that great, or that those differences matter very much in relation to the prospect of a second Obama term. Therefore, while there are clearly some very VOCAL “Romney haters” out there, I don’t think most of the people voting against Romney are that strongly opposed to him. They just PREFER Santorum or Gingrich (or Paul, I guess, although I question how many of his voters really consider themselves Republicans).
If it’s true the GOP electorate is mainly focusing on electability, then it seems like he is exceptionally well positioned to come out on top. The fact that he keeps bouncing back, and often does so by pouring money and resources into states where he “needs” a win, and getting down and dirty with negative ads, shows how tough he would be against Obama. Santorum seems to be telegraphing almost the opposite trait. He continually finds ways to remind the voters how “principled” and consistent he is, even to the point that these noble qualities COST HIM REELECTION in Pennsylvania. Moreover, he is (apparently; according to him) the bane of the “establishment.” I would question whether voters who are mainly looking for a candidate who is electable really want a candidate who is willing to fall on his sword on “principle,” or whom the party insiders don’t even WANT to see win, if his own interpretation of the race is to be given credence.
I am with UncleFred on his points.
re
Some of the Repub sentiment, to get a candidate chosen!, stems from a Repub desire to avoid negative media.
That desire is misguided: Repubs will not be able to avoid negative media. Ever. Repubs must go directly through negative media. Always. The longer campaign is an advantage: allows Repubs more time to fight their way directly through negative media. Repubs need the extra time. The extra time is a blessing, not a curse.
re:
I no longer believe Romney will “have to” craft a vision (i.e. embrace first principles) around which the base can and would rally. Romney would be better off if he did so: Romney would have a better chance at winning both the nomination and the general election. However, it now appears as if Romney might win .. in spite of never having embraced a vision around which voters could have united. It is more difficult for Romney win this way. But he might win, anyway: money and influence might carry Romney to the nomination; Obama has spent 3 years defeating himself as a 2012 candidate; Romney, thus, might win, in spite of himself.
Last note re the benefit of a long nomination process:
A long process will reveal truth: will hone a good candidate into a better candidate; will reveal the flaws of a weak candidate.
If Repubs are trying to hide weak candidates, i.e. are trying to end the process in order to fool the voters, then Repubs do not deserve to have their candidate in office. Let the process play out, and let truth be revealed. All Repub candidates enjoy multiple opportunities to sharpen themselves and to be better.
As usual, I agree with Mr. Frank.
Something that has concerned me all along about Santorum is the fact that he was crushed by double digits in his last bid for the Senate. What was his problem?
I don’t understand the concern that there will be too little time to focus on Obama. Aren’t we all already convinced that he’s a despicable scoundrel? I take it as given that Obama stinks. All that matters is getting the best available alternative in place.
Do we really think that there are that many general elections voters who are undecided about Obama? His approvals have fluttered around the 50s and below. There aren’t many still persuadable who might vote for Barry over the GOP dude.
We’re past the stage of fundamental persuasion. What matters is who turns out for whom on election day. All the Republican indecisiveness also takes away from the Democrats’ ability to pick a target to freeze and polarize. As much as the right doesn’t have time to attack Barry, the left has to split their faux rage between 3 or four targets.
Focusing on 0bama won’t be a problem. The more the American people see and hear from him, the less they like him. Attacking his policies is what they call a “target rich environment”.
with this kind of stink in the air, i tend not to believe the kabuki show i get presented…
right now a similar election just came together in another country…
Vladimir Putin fears U.S. wants him out
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/14/3094849/vladimir-putin-fears-us-wants.html
in case you haven’t noticed the paranoiac commentary has been ratcheted up a whole lot recently…
“Nobody can impose their policy on us,” he proclaimed to a cheering crowd at his victory rally near the Kremlin. “Our people could recognize the provocation from those who want to destroy the country. The Orange scenario will never work here.”
pray tell, what is the “orange scenario” he is referring to that would be common knowledge there, but not here?
United Russia issues anti-‘orange scenario’ statement
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/121974/
IS THE “ORANGE” SCENARIO REALISTIC IN RUSSIA?
http://www.russianintelligencer.com/articles/orange-scenario.html
Kind of looks like they wont let happen what we are letting happen…
is an orange scenario realistic in the US?
would people know it if they saw it?
it refers to the Ukraine..
anybody familiar? see any sit ins and disobedience, how about occupying places?
any voter fraud, like dead people voting, out of party voters, etc?
fraud.. election? didn’t Arpaio have something to add on that? what about the now missing entry records? selective service?
What if Mr Obama is actually being used himself? would he know it? that’s actually scarier than some other things…
last thing to feul the thinkers. they mention that there was a rose revolution…
here is the wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution
you wont find that one on brietbart, fox or beck… its old news forgotten…
Former Georgian Foreign Minister Salomé Zourabichvili wrote:
These institutions were the cradle of democratization, notably the Soros Foundation … all the NGO’s which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. However, one cannot end one’s analysis with the revolution and one clearly sees that, afterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.
Why So Many Whites Vote Against Themselves
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/why-so-many-whites-vote-a_b_1342425.html
Obama is going to need a pole because he’s getting stripped:
http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/03/soledad-obriens-expert-on-critical-race-theory-lied/
As progressives and progressive pundits increasingly lose their self-control and reveal their inner thinking, America, may, like, you know, find herself again? Valley girls will be cool. Shah. We may trade in our plastic boobs (we’ve learned, damn those things schwang, plus the guys are going for the Asians anyway and by Asians I don’t mean Muslims. Damn, have I been reading lately? Shah.) for natural law and parades that don’t feature burning of the American flag and queers who steal our dresses. You know? Because without conservatism we are so uncool. Please come back. We love meat!
**This ad subsidized by valley girls (and their Dads) against Obama bankrupting our allowances.
BIGOTS WONT VOTE ROMNEY
Yes, rp, they won’t. Precisely why we are hiding behind Romney. And then, when the time comes, we can go back to the good years, yes the years of white men ruling over women and blacks and all others, heh, heh, heh!
Don’t give it away.
I’d love to get your opinions on what I’m going to write. You have all night to think about it:
I’ve come to the conclusion that Americans are overly focused on sexual matters in their political opinions. I’m a granny, so that of course makes a difference. When I was a randy 20-year-old my political opinions were quite the opposite of what I have now.
Anyway…..I’ve decided to vote for Rick Santorum in the Illinois primary next Tuesday. My reasons: Romney is just a weak fish; Gingrich is a temperamental unknown (I hated his attack on Romney for being rich); Ron Paul is an antisemitic, idiotic, no-nothing nutcase.
I checked Santorum on Wikipedia and see that his negatives are (1) doesn’t believe in birth control, and (2) has voted in various ways that may get criticism. Who hasn’t??????
So, since birth control is not a big issue with me, and I don’t think Santorum can doing anything about it one way or another, I’m going to vote for him. He seems to dislike Islamists as much as I do. He seems to be for a strong national defense. He seems to have a caring heart and to be a good Christian. He seems to be a supporter of Israel and for the Bill of Right and the Constitution.
Have I missed anything? I believe that my vote will be the deciding vote in this election. So, why should I vote for or against Santorum. Please advise.
Thank you.
Santorum has no credible plan to reduce the Federal deficit. He wants to tinker with the economy just like Obama, but by picking different winners (smokestacks instead of solar panels).
Santorum is a good choice you don’t mind big government, as long as it the right kind of big government. It’s more than that his votes get criticized. Why do they get criticized? Is he a tool or does he cling to a flawed model?
“Strong national defense” is a content-free goal. He’s probably for apple pie and motherhood, too.
In addition to Wikipedia, look at his site. Lots of attention to the social/sexual issues you don’t care much about.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/how-romney-gave-rick-santorum-an-opening-in-illino
Not sure how I feel about this whether it is fair play or lack of political acumen.
One thing is for sure, Romney is sure of his strategy–a strategy which is a page out of the opposition’s playbook. Count on your base and court the undecideds.
And one huge difference. While the Democrat strategy divides into haves and have nots, Romney’s strategy really seems to try an appeal to unity.
That this strategy hasn’t worked in the past may not be important this time around because Obama has such a resistance and hate factor against him.
“So do not tell me that we’re not drilling. We’re drilling all over this country. There are a few spots we’re not drilling. We’re not drilling in the national mall. We’re not drilling at your house. ”
bit snippy the prols dont accept blindly
I’m with foxmarks on Santorum. I think Romney should say 1) that he is personally conservative on social matters but he doesn’t think they are the big issue for a presidential candidate right now, 2) that he thinks family and social values need to be discussed in a much wider and less polarized forum than a campaign, 3) that he will defend religious rights, 4) that he will oppose changes that force citizens to act against their religious beliefs and 5) that his belief in smaller government means that social issues can be discussed in forums where the people know one another and can more easily change legislation that doesn’t work. He could also say that he is under no illusions that a president can fundamentally transform America into the utopian dream of many on the left, and that most people he knows call such dreams nightmares.
Poll analysis shows that evangelical opposition to Romney IS NOT rooted in anti-Mormon sentiment.
http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/03/12/evangelical-opposition-romney-not-rooted-anti-morm/
I could have told you this. And did, above. 🙂
What will be interesting: if Romney becomes the nominee, watch how the tolerant Dems (and complicit media) will slash and burn the Church of Latter Day Saints, in hopes of turning voters against Romney. The Dem/media War on Mormons will focus on allegations of racism, and of voodoo-like weirdness, as in: who knows the agenda of those weird Mormons?! Be very afraid!
gcotharn: I don’t know whether you’re addressing me, but I never said it was anti-Mormon sentiment. But religious considerations are indeed part of it for the subgroup of evangelicals that I mention in the post—the ones who say it is important that a candidate share their religious beliefs. I don’t think they’re necessarily anti-Moron specifically. And of course they’re not anti-Catholic, because Santorum (the candidate they prefer above the others) is Catholic and not evangelical Protestant. But religious beliefs are definitely part of it; they say so themselves in answer to the poll questions. With that subgroup, Romney’s Mormonism hurt him, apparently because they feel he doesn’t share their religious beliefs, which Santorum is closer to. I wouldn’t call that “anti-Mormon,” exactly. It’s more “pro-Christian.”
Thanks for your thoughts. The poll analysis at my link shows that, for about 5% of evangelicals, religious belief makes them more likely to vote for Santorum. So, Santorum does benefit to some degree.
Separately: in a general election contest of Romney v Obama, I argue that many of this same 5% of evangelicals would say that their religious belief makes them more likely to vote for Romney. Their issues will be:
1. depth and sincerity of faith
2. willingness of a candidate to stand up for faith having a place in the public conversation — including a candidate’s easy and unapologetic recognition that Constitutional rights come from God.
Everything being equal, I guess they would place value on Obama’s Protestantism over Romney’s Church of Latter Day Saints. Yet, everything is not equal: Obama is a religious phony, and most evangelicals know it. They will embrace Romney’s sincere faith, and the effect his faith has on his personal morality.
IMO, Romney must be careful to display that his personal morality informs his public actions. I have been infuriated by his lack of morality in his public campaign. Romney must be careful that evangelicals do not perceive his public campaign as lacking morality. If he is careful of that, then evangelicals will believe his faith informs his own moral action*, and the evangelical vote will flock to Romney.
*Evangelicals do not perceive that Obama’s faith informs his own moral actions. BTW, in this context, when I speak of “moral”, I am not speaking of sexual matters, but rather of classic moral choices which exist in all areas of life.
gcotharn: I agree that if Romney were the nominee, these same voters would probably vote for him over Obama, because he is probably seen as more sincerely religious at this point than Obama is.