by Patrick Appel
Nate Silver anticipates a long race:
These are not the hallmarks of a race with a dominant candidate. Nor, even, of a race with a candidate like John Kerry, the best of a somewhat weak lot of Democrats in 2004, but one whom the party settled upon fairly quickly. Instead, this race bears more resemblance to something like the 1984 Democratic contest or the 1976 Republican race. There was a favorite in each of those contests — Walter Mondale in 1984 and Gerald Ford in 1976 — and they were ahead in the delegate count more or less from start to finish. But both contests progressed through all 50 states and were not that far from going to the convention.
Rod Dreher questions Romney's electability:
Until last night, I would have pegged Romney as by far the most electable in the GOP field. Now I’m not at all sure. Obviously he has more appeal to the independent swing voters than Santorum does. But who gets excited about the prospect of voting for Romney? If Romney is the next president, he’s going to get no respect from Congressional Republicans, who will know how weak he is, even with his own base.
Michael Tomasky's related thoughts:
At this point, it’s fair to start questioning how Romney can really unite this party behind him eventually and make people enthusiastic about him. It sure doesn’t look, on the evidence of last night, like he’ll seriously be able to compete with Obama in Colorado or Minnesota. Even Missouri, which Obama lost by .1 percent last time, looks problematic for him right now. But the Romney contests to watch in some ways aren’t against Obama or Santorum or Newt Gingrich, but against himself and against history—his numbers, and the overall turnout numbers, from last time. If he doesn’t show impressively in Arizona and Michigan on Feb. 28, GOP power brokers are really going to start wondering what they’ve bought into.
Josh Marshall points out that Romney is now polling fairly poorly against Obama. Ezra Klein considers Romney's money advantage:
Mitt Romney has money. Mitt Romney has lots of money. Between the resources of the Romney campaign and the Romney-allied SuperPACs, Santorum isn't even competitive. And since Romney also gets more free media, Santorum, by this point, should pretty much be out of the game. But he's not. And that's because money — and even media — ain't everything.
Chait, on the other hand, expects Romney to "resume his proven strategy of burying opponents under gigantic piles of money." But:
[W]hat can Santorum accomplish, in the absence of a miracle fund-raising windfall? He can delay Romney’s pivot to the center. Yesterday Romney issued a fierce and even vicious response to the federal court ruling in California overturning the gay marriage ban, implying the judge was biased because he is gay. (On the question of whether two gay people can marry each other, only heterosexuals are impartial.) Santorum can likewise delay the stream of party officials endorsing Romney – none of them want to risk aggravating the right-wing base in the service of associating themselves with a possible loser.
Peter Lawler summarizes Santorum's argument against money deciding the election:
Maybe Santorum’s best point was that it’s stupid to nominate Romney because he’s the richest and best organized candidate. No Republican will be either against Obama. The Republican will have to count on other attributes.
Alex Massie reminds everyone that Santorum would be an awful nominee:
This, remember, is a man who, as an incumbent, lost Pennsylvania by 18 points last time he ran for office. Nor is it easy to think of a major contender for either party's nomination in recent years more hostile to individual liberty than Santorum. He makes Hillary Clinton, circa 1988, seem a libertarian wet dream. His conservatism is not the kind of conservatism that has generally fared well at the national level.
Ed Morrissey notes Gingrich's poor showing:
Gingrich’s third-place finish in Colorado barely beat Paul to stay out of the cellar, and Gingrich did finish dead last in Minnesota. There isn’t even a fig leaf of spin from these results to which Gingrich can cling; Gingrich was entirely irrelevant in all three contests, except to the extent that he got beat.
John Cassidy looks at the regional divisions:
The race now appears to be turning into a regionally based contest, with Santorum as the heartland candidate, Gingrich as the southern candidate, and the Mittster as Mr. Everywhere Else—or so he hopes. “You know it’s bad,” Joe Trippi noted on Fox, “when the Romney people are putting out a memo saying McCain lost nineteen states last time.”
And Jonathan Bernstein isn't taking Santorum too seriously, yet:
[I]t’s a long, long, way from a very good night to actually becoming a plausible nominee. Much less the actual nominee.
The Dish 