Romney Faces Trouble in Ohio

For the moment, anyway, it’s Santorum’s state.

Romney trails Rick Santorum by 11 points in the latest Ohio Poll from the University of Cincinnati.

The poll finds Santorum with support from 37 percent of likely GOP voters surveyed. Romney is in second with 26 percent support, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 16 percent and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) at 11 percent. …The Hill

Which, as we all know (we experienced audience members in the Republican stripshow) doesn’t mean a damn thing. Wait until the “keep Santorum on a leash” money hits Ohio. Santorum, at least for the moment, has tea party support in that state. Is that enough?

Santorum’s lead in Ohio is buoyed by his strength with Tea Party supporters. He received the support of 42 percent of the movement’s backers to Gingrich’s 23 percent and Romney’s 22 percent in the survey.

Santorum also holds the edge with evangelical voters, winning 45 percent of their support to Romney’s 20 percent. …The Hill

___

Over at the New Yorker, at least two commentators think Romney will lose if he’s the one chosen to go up against Obama. That said, it’s Amy Davidson who has the best description of the Republican race: “a storm of mendacity.” She also noted that Donald Trump’s short run was particularly awful, setting a standard for the remaining candidates’ rhetoric: “grandiosely petulant; showy and false; gaudy, low, cheap—and, at times, just plain puzzling”!

Romney talked about oil, too. He said he wanted the XL Pipeline built to “get us the oil from Canada we deserve”—is the idea that it would be wasted on Canadians, or that this is crude of a particularly fine vintage? He also, in a prater of giddy, rehearsed denunciations of Obama, told at least one story that was demonstrably untrue, about Obama supposedly saying that he was one of the four best Presidents ever. (He didn’t.)

But then the next week, on the way to Super Tuesday, will be a storm of mendacity covering ten states. (“Ohio is to next week what Michigan was to this week,” John King, of CNN, said.) And what happens, from Alaska to Virginia, won’t stay in those states, but instead set the terms for the general election. Does it matter to us or to the candidates if it’s all mean or tacky or untrue? Trump wouldn’t care. We should. …Amy Davidson, New Yorker

Cross posted from Prarie Weather

Posted on February 29, 2012 at 07:41 AM | Permalink

  

Author: PRAIRIE WEATHER

Share This Post On

10 Comments

  1. I have kinfolk in Ohio. They are all white christian conservatives who think Santorum is a great, sensible guy. He’s going to do well there.

  2. Love the cartoon. Well… Michigan’s excuse for so many Santorum votes is mischief makers (that’s what I’m trying to tell myself) but what is Ohio’s excuse? I guess you just explained it slamfu. Scary stuff.

  3. Oh did I mention Catholics? Lotta Catholics there too. And yea, the cartoon is great, especially Paul’s plan flying upside down and backward.

  4. @Z
    The Dems didn’t turn out in any numbers. Mittens lost badly in rural Michigan. Sanctorum won by 500 votes in Hillsdale. Hillsdale doesn’t even have 200 Democrats.
    http://www.hillsdale.net/livin.....n-GOP-race

  5. It depends where you are in Ohio.

    Cincinnati is a hotbed of racial unrest.
    Southeastern Ohio/WV border is bible belt.
    Columbus is the capitol and under Republican control.
    Cleveland old steel industry rust belt.
    Northeast Ohio cosmopolitan/wealthy.

    Almost all of these except the last are Santorum voters. On the other hand, anywhere you live in Ohio you are within 50 miles of a college and those voters would probably reject Santorum unless they are a religious college, and most of those are in the south.

  6. Actually I looked it up and there are 2 Jewish, 16 Christian (evang. & mainline) and 14 Catholic colleges in Ohio. More than I thought.

  7. Are these the colleges Santorum was talking about where the students lose their faith? I went to a Catholic high school that certainly was capable of putting doubt in anyone’s mind.

  8. merkin

    I’d think it was the evangelical colleges that cause any doubt; :-) they aren’t too comfortable with Catholics – re: Baptists questioning Kennedy.

  9. Rudi, I’m familiar with Hillsdale, MI. It’s a pretty reactionary little burg. Glad it isn’t representative of the state as a whole.

  10. hmm…

    75 yrs ago Evangelicals were openly hostile to Catholics (Catholics weren’t so hostile back; they just matter-of-factly said they were going to hell along with every ohter non-Catholic).

    40 yrs ago Catholics started to warm up to Protestants.

    In the early 70s the two parties were each split over abortion, but by the close of the decade, they polarized on the issue and that polarization continued to harden (slowly more Repubs may be switching in the last 8 yrs or so so it may be softening some now).

    Not only did this set the stage for Catholics to steadily move rightward politically (to my great dismay), but more to the point here, it set the stage for Evangelicals and Catholics to work together on pro-life. They’ve been getting chummier ever since. We are maybe even comfortable with each other by now. My sense is, that if they’re more political than religious, then they’re fine friends.

    And politically, Santorum’s firebrand nuttiness is great for the Evangelicals and abhorent to moderate Catholics.

    Besides, Santorum’s Catholicism is much more comfortable to Evangleicals than Romney’s Mormonism.

Submit a Comment