Mitt Romney, winner. He won five of the ten contests—the primaries in Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia and (whew! close call) Ohio and the caucuses in Idaho—and this is written awaiting the results of the Alaska caucuses which perhaps he might win. He was the big, big winner in delegates, winning (according to the Real Clear Politics count, sans Alaska) 181 delegates to 71 for Rick Santorum, 54 for Newt Gingrich and 14 for Ron Paul. By this count he more than doubled his number of delegates on a single day of voting. This kind of delegate lead, amassed by Barack Obama in the single month of February 2008, enabled him to defeat Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she won more votes and more delegates in primaries than Obama did. Romney was a winner too because he won the crucial contest, Ohio, if only by a 38%-37% margin, reminiscent of his 41%-38% margin in demographically and personally slightly more favorable Michigan a week before. Once again, as he did in 2008 when he was cast as a hard-shell conservative and as he has earlier this year when he was cast as a squish moderate, he won his biggest percentage margins in affluent areas. As I’ve argued, Romney’s appeal to high-income, high-education suburban voters could be an asset in the general election; Republicans did pretty well in holding non-college whites even in 2008 (John McCain carried them 58%-40%), but they have been losing ground among college-graduate whites in major non-Southern metro areas since the middle 1990s and a nominee with appeal to that demographic might be able to turn that around and to win states which George H. W. Bush carried in 1988 but where Republican presidential candidates have been at a disadvantage ever since.
An additional point which I haven’t seen anyone in the press pick up on. Many did foresee Romney’s victory in the caucuses in Idaho, the eastern part of which has a higher percentage of Mormon residents than anywhere in the nation except Utah. But no one seems to have noticed, while reporting fairly on the enthusiastic crowd he roused on his recent appearance there, that it was in Idaho Falls, which has a large (perhaps a majority) Mormon population. Shrewd to schedule it there rather than the more populous but less Mormon Boise.
UPDATE: It looks like Romney has won a sixth victory, in the Alaska caucuses, in which as this is written he is reported to have 33% of the vote, with 29% for Rick Santorum and 24% for Ron Paul. My guess is folks in greater Anchorage—the most affluent part of the state, and almost half of it by population—went his way. I’m sure I’ll learn more later.
Mitt Romney, loser. He carried Ohio by only 1%. He lost Tennessee, where polls showed him within range of winning, to Rick Santorum by the unambiguous margin of 37%-28%. He lost metro Nashville, which he carried in 2008. He managed to finish second in Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma, demonstrating that he was not without some appeal in the South. But the fact that he was finished well out of first place casts doubt on his ability to win primaries in the South outside of Florida, where only half of Republican primary voters say they are from the South, and Virginia, where a survey might show similar results and where in a one-on-one contest with Ron Paul he was able to win 60%-40% (reaching the 60%, with Romney luck, by rounding: the Virginia authorities say his percentage was 59.52%). The results mean that Santorum and Gingrich will go on campaigning, which means that Romney is a loser because he’ll have to keep competing rather than be handed the nomination—but that’s a better result for him than one of them leaving the race, leaving the other to have a better chance of defeating him in one-on-one(-plus-Ron-Paul) contests.
Rick Santorum, winner. Santorum continues to marvel that he is still in the race and that he is doing as well as he is. Given where he stood in the polls after a year of hard campaigning, and given his record of having been defeated for reelection in Pennsylvania in 2006 by a 59%-41% margin, he is showing appropriate humility. Santorum won the primaries in Tennessee and Oklahoma, two solidly Republican states in 2008 and 2010, and the caucuses in North Dakota. Were his roots in the German-speaking Italian Tyrol communicated to North Dakota’s many German-Americans? I kinda doubt it, but it’s as good an explanation of his win there as any I’ve seen. He did make appearances in the state
Rick Santorum, loser. But Santorum did not show a sense of command in his primary night speech, which sounded defensive and even sad. In Ohio as in Michigan, despite leading in polls not too many days out from primary day, he still did not manage to win. Thunk. He had his election night party in Steubenville, in Jefferson County, which he carried by an impressive margin—but with not all that many votes. Working class folk in the industrial cities of northeast Ohio tend to be registered Democrats, and few voted in the Republican primary (though Santorum did carry the 5% who self-identified as Democrats by a 45%-25% margin). Turns out he’s aiming at a declining demographic, which we won’t see in such numbers again until we get to Pennsylvania (where surely everyone will discount a Santorum win) and West Virginia. Romney was aiming at the demographically vibrant upscale demographic, which even in low-population-growth Ohio produced surging turnout and Romney margins in the exurban counties around Cincinnati (Warren, Clermont), Columbus (Delaware) and Cleveland (Medina, Geauga).
Newt Gingrich, winner. In Georgia. Gingrich gave a speech, the longest election night speech in Brit Hume’s memory from someone who had won two of the last 18 contests, reflecting on his long career and plugging his latest promise to cut gas prices to $2.50 (not, as he noted his friend and endorser Herman Cain recommended, $2.4-9-9-9). Those of us with nostalgia, an affection for Newt and a memory that encompasses his amazing success at converting a supine Republican minority to a dominant Republican majority that engineered serious and enduring public policy successes could enjoy the moment. He promised us more such triumphs in Alabama and Mississippi.
Newt Gingrich, loser. But his political map is starting to look like a map of the states carried by Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968. Not that there’s any resemblance between the pro-segregation policies Thurmond and Wallace championed at points in their careers and anything Gingrich has expounded. It’s just that the man who forged a national Republican majority is aiming his message at a rather small part of the nation. Aside from Georgia, Gingrich finished third or fourth in every contest: not a good omen.
Ron Paul, winner. He won some delegates. His people will try to finagle the process to get more in state conventions, etc. They may do so. More seriously, Paul has had some significant influence on the public dialogue, and may have more as things go on.
Ron Paul, loser. Not very many delegates, it seems, even if his people finagle more in later stages in the process of states that have already voted. The Federal Reserve is not going to be abolished. And does it really matter whether Paul gets a prominent speaking spot at the Republican National Convention? He’s already been getting more attention than he ever could at a convention.
UPDATE: Ron Paul’s apparent third place finish in Alaska has to be a disappointment—in a state instinctively liberation on guns, God and dope.
