Super Tuesday: Romney scrapes a win in Ohio. Where next for his campaign?

The frontrunner-by-default has just about got through this crucial test. But he is still failing to

Super Tuesday isn't super because it's exciting. American voters have been less than enthusiastic about this crop of White House contenders (OK, they're bored, but I'm trying to be nice). It is super for the big stakes involved -- 10 states holding primaries or caucuses with 419 delegates in play.

But it all hinged on Ohio. Romney and Santorum were neck-and-neck in that state by late Tuesday night. Romney eventually won with a tiny majority. Ohio is important in the general election, because it's a so-called swing, which means that voters are evenly split and could swing Republican or Democratic on any given election. Romney outspent Santorum three to one there. If he couldn't win in Ohio, it's likely Romney would face yet more criticism that he's just not conservative enough.

After a nail-biting vote count, Romney won Ohio with 38 per cent. Santorum was right behind him at 37 per cent.

But it gets worse. Romney has been burning through cash at a historic rate and almost all of it is coming from big-time donors. He outspent Santorum nine to one in Tennessee and 50 to one in Oklahoma, and yet he lost both plus North Dakota. Santorum won 37.3 percent to Romney's 28 in Tennessee and 33.7 percent to Romney's 28.2 in Oklahoma. Santorum took 40 percent of the votes in North Dakota (Ron Paul came in second with 27 percent).

Fortunately for Romney, he won Virginia, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Idaho, but those were expected. He is the former governor of the Bay State. Santorum wasn't on the ballot in Virginia. Romney beat his rivals for Vermont's neighbor, New Hampshire. And Idaho, like Nevada, has a sizable Mormon population loyal to Romney, a Mormon.

Also expected was Newt Gingrich's win in Georgia, which he represented as the Speaker of the House in the 1990s. He crushed it with 47.5 percent of votes. Gingrich's only other win was in South Carolina, which gave him hope of being the conservative alternative to Moderate Mitt. But this was before Santorum swept Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri in early February, which made him the official alternative. There has been some speculation that Gingrich might be able to make up a lot of ground on Super Tuesday given the number of Southern states up for grabs. That hasn't materialized and we'll see if Gingrich honors his vow to remain in contention all the way to the convention.

Romney still has the most money. Any time a rival has threatened him, Romney just spends more on attack ads (which work no matter how people complain about negative ads). That means this is a numbers game. In some states, delegates are proportionally awarded. In others, it's winner-takes-all. Romney only needs to achieve a certain number and then spend the rest of the nominating process in a rear-guard posture. When that happens and what that number will be, of course, are the big questions.

John Stoehr teaches writing at Yale. His essays and journalism have appeared in The American Prospect, Reuters Opinion, the Guardian, and Dissent, among other publications. He is a political blogger for The Washington Spectator and a frequent contributor to Al Jazeera English.

 

Getty
Show Hide image

Chuka Umunna: Why tolerance is not enough

Against the Trumpification of politics.

It’s still spring, yet 2016 already stands out as one of the ugliest years in modern British political history. It was fantastic to see Londoners choosing hope over fear in May, electing Sadiq Khan as our first Muslim mayor. But David Cameron, having shamelessly endorsed Zac Goldsmith’s dog-whistle campaign tactics, owes those young Muslims who have been put off politics by the slurs hurled at Khan an explanation. How does racial profiling and sectarian scaremongering fit into his One Nation vision for Britain?

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, one of the best bets to succeed Cameron as our next prime minister, embarrassed Britain on the world stage with a racially charged allusion to Barack Obama’s Kenyan heritage. And my own party has been grappling with a swath of deeply disturbing revelations regarding the attitudes held by some on the left towards Israel and Jewish people. Sowing discord by stigmatising or scapegoating a single faith group or community is profoundly at odds with the British tradition of “tolerance”, but we can’t ignore that this year’s events are part of a rising trend of friction and factionalism.

Last year’s general election should have been a wake-up call. The political and cultural divides between people living in the north and south and urban and rural areas – as well as between working-class and metropolitan sensibilities – appear starker than ever. In May’s devolved elections, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish politics became yet more distinct – giving the impression of a kingdom coming apart at the seams. All the while, more and more voices in our national politics seek to pin the blame for the challenges facing our country on a single section of society, whether immigrants, Muslims or another group.

This trend stretches beyond our borders. From Ukip, the French Front National and Austria’s Freedom Party to Podemos in Spain and Italy’s Five Star Movement, new populist parties of the right and left are on the rise across Europe. In the United States, Bernie Sanders is tapping into the energy of Occupy Wall Street, while Donald Trump has emerged as the heir to the Tea Party: a poster boy for division and recrimination.

Trump’s rise should be a warning for us Brits. The New York Times commentator David Brooks has described his success as less indicative of the emergence of a new school of thought, or movement, and more of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Trump’s campaign has tapped into a complex cocktail of grievances, from the loss of manufacturing jobs in a globalised economy to rising inequality and raw anger felt by many white working-class Americans at demographic and cultural changes.

In the run-up to last year’s general election, as I travelled around the country, I was confronted time and time again with the reality that in the UK – just like in the US – people are afraid and angry because the world is changing in ways they fear are beyond their control. Where once they had believed that, if they worked hard, they would get ahead, too many Britons now feel that the system is rigged in favour of those born into opportunity and that those in power have abandoned them to a broken future. What it means to be British seems to have shifted around them, triggering a crisis of solidarity.

We are at a crossroads and may face nothing less than the Trumpification of British politics. In an uncertain and changing world, it is all too easy to imagine that our problems are caused by those who are different from us.

If we wish to follow the fine example set by Londoners on 5 May and choose unity and empathy over division and blame, we must accept that simply “tolerating” one another will no longer do. There is an accusation built into the very word: what you are doing is “other” or “wrong”. As Britain has become more diverse, we have come to know each other less. This makes it harder to understand how people from different walks of life feel about the big issues.

I am a Labour member because I believe, as it says on our membership cards, that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more together than we do alone. In order to develop the bonds of trust required for this to become a reality, and for our communities to flourish and our democracy to deliver for everyone, we must build a society in which people from all backgrounds actually get to know one another and lead interconnected lives. In this sense, “One Nation” – the land over which all parties seek purchase – should become more than a platitude. It should become a way of life.

Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad