The two primaries in Alabama and Mississippi were a trap for Rick Santorum because anything but victories for him could have been construed as devastating blows to his campaign. Wins by Mitt Romney would have demonstrated his ability to win in any part of the country including states where conservatives and evangelical voters predominate. Wins by Newt Gingrich would have given him a reason to go on other than his ego. But by sweeping both Deep South states that voted on Tuesday, Santorum added two more triumphs to the already impressive list of states that he has won. The delegate math will not be altered much today due to the proportional allocation system as well as Romney’s expected wins in Hawaii and American Samoa. But though Romney can still have a reasonable expectation of ultimately winning the nomination, Santorum’s momentum places the notion of his inevitability in doubt.
Even if, as I expect, Gingrich stays in the race after losing the last two states where he could have been said to have had a chance to win, Santorum is now in a position to do some real damage to the Romney juggernaut in the upcoming weeks. With polls already showing Romney having only a slight lead over Santorum in a large state like Illinois where he ought to win, Tuesday’s victories allow the Pennsylvanian to hope he can add to his string of upsets. If Santorum ends March by stacking up victories in Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri, then although he will still be trailing badly in the delegate count, his path to the nomination won’t look quite so much of a fantasy as it did a few weeks ago. Though Romney will still have impressive advantages, so long as the votes are still be counted state by state, momentum has a way of overwhelming math.
At the bottom of this equation remain two hard facts that remain the key factors in the GOP race.
One is the undeniable problem that Romney has with conservative voters. Due to his flip-flops on the issues during the years, they neither trust nor particularly like him. Though he has tried hard to demonstrate that his positions are now as conservative as any of his rivals, he simply doesn’t have a way to convince evangelicals or Tea Partiers that he understands and shares their values. Should he become the Republican nominee, I believe most would ultimately back him as the only alternative to four more years of Barack Obama but until then, the majority on the right will always prefer to cast their primary and caucus ballots for someone they can more readily identify with. Though even most conservatives know that Santorum is less electable than Romney, he will be able to count on the votes of conservatives so long as there is any chance he can win the nomination.
The second fact is that Romney continues to benefit from a divided conservative field. Though Gingrich spent most of his speech Tuesday night mocking Romney rather than acknowledging his own defeat, the man he derides as a “Massachusetts moderate” is the prime beneficiary of his decision to stay in the race. Though the Gingrich factor will not be as significant in the upcoming weeks, any votes that he takes away from Santorum could be decisive in handing a crucial state like Illinois to Romney in the same way that his presence helped deliver Michigan and Ohio to the frontrunner.
While Romney must still be considered the likely Republican nominee, Santorum’s victories will make his task far more difficult and ensure that even if he emerges from the gauntlet of hard fought primaries on top, he will be significantly weakened as well as having had his resources depleted. The more primaries Santorum wins, the more time Republicans will spend beating each other up rather than focusing on Obama’s weaknesses.
"including states where conservatives and evangelical voters predominate." n nLet's be blunt. Evangelical voters are probably bigoted against Mormons. Am I a bit too harsh? Well, it's time we have the discussion. It can no longer be ignored.
That's the base; so, what do you want to do about it?
"Evangelical voters are probably bigoted against Mormons." n nUnless you cite research-based evidence, published in peer-reviewed academic journals, to support your claim, there won't be any "discussion" – that is, if anybody even wants to spend time debating your preposterous claim.
Evangelicals like me would support a Mormon (Romney), but indeed feel more comfortable with a conservative Catholic like Santorum. I like Rick Santorum, he is a breath of fresh air, stunningly honest and sincere about his (supposedly) impossible social-ethical convictions. The big challenge for us (neo) conservatives is to convince the middle of America that a Republican candidate is better for America than Obama. There are three issues which concern and unite us: the economy, social issues, and foreign policy, including support for Israel. We can win in November.
"Evangelicals like me would support a Mormon (Romney), but indeed feel more comfortable with a conservative Catholic like Santorum" n nSupposing Romney had been the Mormon governor of Utah with an immaculate record on social issues (admittedly this requires much less moral fortitude in Utah than in Massachusetts), no RomneyCare and a genuinely superior fiscal record to that of Santorum (I loath Romney's attack on Santorum's record in Congress not so much because that record is that of an across the board free market supply sider – my preference – but because its actually quite excellent in that Santorum represented a much more liberal constituency and yet managed to do better on these issues than most Republicans, including those from more much more conservative states). n nI think both men are very good (at least in prospect) on foreign policy. n nI'm just trying to understand if fact of Romney's Mormonism is the problem or rather concern for his possible lack of sincerity (a sincerity so abundantly evident in Santorum and flawed record.
I don't want a guy who conceives it his job to lecture married people that they shouldn't use birth control, opposes prenatal screening and wants to prohibit women impregnated by rape from getting abortions. If this puppet of Reverend Dobson and Richard Viguerie is the GOP nominee I will be voting Libertarian.
And help Obama get elected?
I think Romney will be the nominee, although, Santorum will make it harder for him. Gingrich will stay in because of his massive ego and his animus toward Mitt Romney. Obama is weak and getting weaker. He must be defeated or the economy will never recover. Not to sound dramatic, but capitalism is at stake.
I'm an Ohio voter who voted for Gingrich. If he would have been out of the race, I would have voted for Romney — meaning not all Gingrich voters would go for Santorum (social issues would be the deciding factor for me comparing Santorum to any of the others). If it was Santorum against only Paul, then I would vote for Santorum over Paul on foreign policy (or over Obama — any of the 4 Republicans over Obama because Paul and Obama are almost identical, not on their rhetoric, but on the substance of their foreign policy … and I haven't heard Paul say he wants to give the Russians all of our military secrets, which Obama wants to right now). I just mean it isn't "conservative" and "moderate" for me and maybe not for others either.
I don't think Romney really has much of a problem with Republican conservatives. He may not be preferred by those furthest to the right, especially those with limited edcuation and incomes, but he does well enough with most conservatives to be fine. n nHis real problem is with evangelicals, and I think the problem there is evangelical bigotry about his being a Mormon. This is the problem that he needs to get some evangelical leaders to address so that he begins to make inroads with that group. n nSantorum would so clearly be a disastrous presidential candidate, losing both the House and the Senate for Republicans, that you would think some sensible evangelical leaders would get on board the Romney campaign.
I don't think conservative evangelicals as a whole are bigots (if I may defend myself a bit). This kind of inflated (or rather insulting) language infecting the comment sites on the internet is not appropriate in talking about friends, let alone enemies. Tone it down.
I think it is very hard to explain why Romney does better among very conservative voters than he does among evangelicals without understanding the low evangelical vote for Romney as based in religious bigotry about Mormans. While this of course may not be true about you, I think it is fairly clear that many evangelicals are charity-challenged and tolerance-challenged. Just look at the paltry sums the millionaire Santorum has given to charity, going back for many years.
Evangelicals as a whole give a lot to charity: their percentage of charity giving is very high compared to most Americans. World Vision is one of the largest NGO's in the world. Santorum has changed in the course of the years. He has room to improve in this area too. I still refuse to let evangelicals be called bigots.
When Santorum (almost) ties on delegate counts his supporters spin it as a tie . . when Romney wins the day on delegate counts . . crickets. n nSantorum on Hugh Hewitt bemoans Romney winning in the West because he says he is at a disproportionate disadvantage . . when he plays the evangelical vote against Romney . . crickets, or rather . . hypocrisy.
The funny thing is, I see Huckabee the evangelical as much less divisive than Rick Santorum. Santorum is a theocrat, backed by theocrats (Dobson, Viguerie, Bauer, Perkins). No way am I voting for this man, even against Obama. I had to laugh when it was said that all conservatives were untied on social issues. If that person thinks all conservatives (or all Republicans) agree with the social views of Rick Santorum and Dobson think again.