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.

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.