1. Romney came in on the very low side of what the polls predicted—and in third (if barely) twice. He remains stuck in the very high 20s. The late-deciders broke for Santorum, and the turnout in the pro-Romney affluent suburbs in both AL and MS was low.
2. Newt’s showing was ambiguous enough to have caused him to have lost all remaining credibility as a candidate, but it wasn’t quite bad enough to drop out. He won’t do anywhere near this well again, even in LA.
3. Romney carried voters over 65 easily, but lost every other “age category.” He lost young voters rather badly to Santorum. The biggest source of his strength remains the “electability” issue.
4. Santorum’s speech was about ordinary guys doing extraordinary things, and about why Obama can only be beaten by a conservative who can challenge him on all issues. The latter claim could be right.
5. Paul Rahe has a instant-classic of an essay on RICOCHET about how Romney is a mere technician or manager who would mend—not end—Obamacare. That’s because he’s completely ignorant of political philosophy and so of the pressing need to get on with the business of dismantling our entitlement regime. Paul also says the other candidates are fatally flawed, and so the Republicans are stuck with Mitt.
6. My view in reading Paul’s essay is that he remains somewhat on the extreme and alarmist side, and mending—not ending—Social Security, Medicare, and so forth is what most Americans really want. So Paul might have unwittingly made the case that managerial Mitt might end up being the strongest candidate after all.
7. Obviously Romney has the organizational, financial, and so forth advantages that are so important for delegate gathering. He will almost surely get the nomination. But it’s not really true that Santorum and especially “Non-Romney” (also known as Not-Romney) are anywhere near spent forces.
