Was Tuesday Night Really So Terrible for Mitt Romney?

I’m wondering if Tuesday night’s results in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri really were so atrocious for Mitt Romney. As Alex Altman noted last night, there’s one obvious upside: Rick Santorum’s big night complicates the anti-Mitt movement, ensuring that conservative opposition to Romney remains divided. Tuesday night’s results might have made Romney look weak and unloved, but his path to the nomination doesn’t appear to be in real danger as long as Santorum and Gingrich each hang around, trading mini-surges and splitting a pool of voters who can’t stomach a formerly pro-choice ex-Massachusetts governor leading their party.

(MORE: With Tuesday Caucuses, Santorum Gets a Second Chance to Shine)

It’s also worth thinking about the psychology behind last night’s vote. The turnout for Romney was pathetic, with particularly embarrassing results in Colorado and Minnesota, states where he prevailed over John McCain in 2008. But there’s a reason Romney would have won those states then and lost them now. In 2008, as in 2012, you had a frontrunner who, though he may face lingering opposition within the party, has achieved a strategic position of overwhelming superiority. People willing to accept Romney as the nominee didn’t have much incentive to turn out and vote on Tuesday; they understand that he’s basically a lock. The same held for McCain in 2008.

The people with a greater incentive to vote on Tuesday were those with a high preference intensity, probably based around issues like abortion, or an extreme distaste for Romney. That vote was surely easier to capture, and Santorum did it. Sure, at some point, if a front runner looks strong enough, you’d expect holdouts to give up. But in this case, you’ve got a front runner who is an unusually bad fit for his party’s base, which keeps kicking at his shins. To put it another way: I’m not sure that Tuesday night told us anything we didn’t already know, either about Romney or the party.

(VIDEO: What Comes Next After Mitt Romney’s Florida Primary Victory?)

Hence I don’t see how this amounts to a crisis for Romney. His money, his (admittedly dented) aura of inevitability, and both Santorum and Gingrich’s own severe political limitations make them unlikely to derail Mitt’s path to the nomination. The more interesting question remains Romney’s strengths and weaknesses once he gets there.

MORE: Election 2012: Can Anyone Stop Romney?

Related Topics: 2012 Election, Campaigns, Election Results, Elections, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Primaries, Republican Party, Rick Santorum, Tea Party
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

blog comments powered by Disqus