March 13 Results

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It doesn't actually matter how coming in 3rd might have "embarrassed" Romney, or what the delegate count might be tonight.  That's not actually the bad news for Romney.  The bad news for Romney is that Gingrich failed to win either state, and so now there's actually a chance that he might drop out soon.  Gingrich dropping out soon is the one thing with the potential to shake up the race at all.  If Gingrich stays in, then the status quo prevails, and Romney wins the nomination relatively easily.  But Gingrich dropping out at least has the potential to change the dynamics enough to make it interesting.

Spot on - post of the night right there.

[J. J.]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

[Alcon]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

How do you plan on covering tonight's results for The Mensa Times?

[Keystone Phil]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

Yes, we realize you don't write for them. You also don't accurately predict what outlets will write since no where in that headline is Romney's name even mentioned.

[J. J.]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

How do you plan on covering tonight's results for The Mensa Times?

No, they write about me.

This will be spun as a Gingrich loss more so than a Romney loss, if Romney gets a plurality of the delegates for the day.

[greenforest32]

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Attention Newt: drop out and endorse Santorum

[Alcon]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

How do you plan on covering tonight's results for The Mensa Times?

No, they write about me.

...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Wow, I was eating out with friends and missed all the excitement. Congratulations, Phil.

[Torie]

The interesting thing about MS and Alabama, is that Mittens did quite well, where he usually blows (maybe ironically "the folks" respect more what "their leaders" are saying, mostly for Romney, because that is the culture, rather than the more sharp elbowed culture that most of us enjoy, where we tend to enjoy telling "the establishment" of our individual cohorts to just take a hike - just who the F do they think they are?), and blew where he usually rules. Demographics didn't matter much, where they have been key everywhere else. If Nate did not pick that up, he's missing something. The issue is why Mittens blew among the upper middle class, and whether that portends anything. Probably not, and the LDS thing needs to be touched upon, but it deserves more discussion than it is getting.

Nate, to is credit, actually pointed out that Romney does much more poorly in affluent suburban areas in the South and Midwest than the rest of the country.  Sean Trende really nailed this with his demographic analysis, though.

OK, but why did Mittens do much better with the upper middle class in Georgia and SC?  I don't think the 3 cornered (for some reason Nate didn't get out west with this) regionalism factor in Nate's model explains it all. Unless the upper middle class is unusually Evangelical in AL and MS. Did Nate touch on that?

[Alcon]

The interesting thing about MS and Alabama, is that Mittens did quite well, where he usually blows (maybe ironically "the folks" respect more what "their leaders" are saying, mostly for Romney, because that is the culture, rather than the more sharp elbowed culture that most of us enjoy, where we tend to enjoy telling "the establishment" of our individual cohorts to just take a hike - just who the F do they think they are?), and blew where he usually rules. Demographics didn't matter much, where they have been key everywhere else. If Nate did not pick that up, he's missing something. The issue is why Mittens blew among the upper middle class, and whether that portends anything. Probably not, and the LDS thing needs to be touched upon, but it deserves more discussion than it is getting.

Nate, to is credit, actually pointed out that Romney does much more poorly in affluent suburban areas in the South and Midwest than the rest of the country.  Sean Trende really nailed this with his demographic analysis, though.

OK, but why did Mittens do much better with the upper middle class in Georgia and SC?  I don't think the 3 cornered (for some reason Nate didn't get out west with this) regionalism factor in Nate's model explains it all. Unless the upper middle class is unusually Evangelical in AL and MS. Did Nate touch on that?

I haven't seen anyone write on that.  I don't think any people expected Romney's lackluster performance in places like DeSoto County, MS.  It's a fascinating phenomenon that I wish I knew more about (the religiosity thing I mentioned is only my pet hypothesis.)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I can't speak for Mississippi but the upper middle class is in fact unusually evangelical in Alabama, at least in the area around Birmingham with which I'm familiar. They actually by some subjective measures of what I've encountered there seem somewhat more politically evangelical than poorer whites.

[Lief 🗽]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

So nothing at all like what you predicted. Cool.

[Bacon King]

Well, I'm back after a while away from the computer.

1. Romney has some egg on his face tonight; outspending his opponents by a wide margin, leading in the polls, but still coming in third in both states.
2. Santorum Surge Mark III, commence!

[J. J.]

I can't speak for Mississippi but the upper middle class is in fact unusually evangelical in Alabama, at least in the area around Birmingham with which I'm familiar. They actually by some subjective measures of what I've encountered there seem somewhat more politically evangelical than poorer whites.

From what little I know of it, that seems to be the case.

[memphis]

The interesting thing about MS and Alabama, is that Mittens did quite well, where he usually blows (maybe ironically "the folks" respect more what "their leaders" are saying, mostly for Romney, because that is the culture, rather than the more sharp elbowed culture that most of us enjoy, where we tend to enjoy telling "the establishment" of our individual cohorts to just take a hike - just who the F do they think they are?), and blew where he usually rules. Demographics didn't matter much, where they have been key everywhere else. If Nate did not pick that up, he's missing something. The issue is why Mittens blew among the upper middle class, and whether that portends anything. Probably not, and the LDS thing needs to be touched upon, but it deserves more discussion than it is getting.

Nate, to is credit, actually pointed out that Romney does much more poorly in affluent suburban areas in the South and Midwest than the rest of the country.  Sean Trende really nailed this with his demographic analysis, though.

OK, but why did Mittens do much better with the upper middle class in Georgia and SC?  I don't think the 3 cornered (for some reason Nate didn't get out west with this) regionalism factor in Nate's model explains it all. Unless the upper middle class is unusually Evangelical in AL and MS. Did Nate touch on that?

I haven't seen anyone write on that.  I don't think any people expected Romney's lackluster performance in places like DeSoto County, MS.  It's a fascinating phenomenon that I wish I knew more about (the religiosity thing I mentioned is only my pet hypothesis.)

DeSoto isn't where you find the fancy suburbs of Memphis. Those are all in Shelby County. It's much more of a Wal-Mart kind of place.

[Alcon]

The interesting thing about MS and Alabama, is that Mittens did quite well, where he usually blows (maybe ironically "the folks" respect more what "their leaders" are saying, mostly for Romney, because that is the culture, rather than the more sharp elbowed culture that most of us enjoy, where we tend to enjoy telling "the establishment" of our individual cohorts to just take a hike - just who the F do they think they are?), and blew where he usually rules. Demographics didn't matter much, where they have been key everywhere else. If Nate did not pick that up, he's missing something. The issue is why Mittens blew among the upper middle class, and whether that portends anything. Probably not, and the LDS thing needs to be touched upon, but it deserves more discussion than it is getting.

Nate, to is credit, actually pointed out that Romney does much more poorly in affluent suburban areas in the South and Midwest than the rest of the country.  Sean Trende really nailed this with his demographic analysis, though.

OK, but why did Mittens do much better with the upper middle class in Georgia and SC?  I don't think the 3 cornered (for some reason Nate didn't get out west with this) regionalism factor in Nate's model explains it all. Unless the upper middle class is unusually Evangelical in AL and MS. Did Nate touch on that?

I haven't seen anyone write on that.  I don't think any people expected Romney's lackluster performance in places like DeSoto County, MS.  It's a fascinating phenomenon that I wish I knew more about (the religiosity thing I mentioned is only my pet hypothesis.)

DeSoto isn't where you find the fancy suburbs of Memphis. Those are all in Shelby County. It's much more of a Wal-Mart kind of place.

I believe it has the second-highest incomes in MS behind Madison County though, but maybe the Republicans there are still more downclass than Republicans living in the suburbs of counties with incomes dragged down by urban cores (like Jackson.)

What I avoid knowing about Mississippi could fill a boat.

[Smash255]

The interesting thing about MS and Alabama, is that Mittens did quite well, where he usually blows (maybe ironically "the folks" respect more what "their leaders" are saying, mostly for Romney, because that is the culture, rather than the more sharp elbowed culture that most of us enjoy, where we tend to enjoy telling "the establishment" of our individual cohorts to just take a hike - just who the F do they think they are?), and blew where he usually rules. Demographics didn't matter much, where they have been key everywhere else. If Nate did not pick that up, he's missing something. The issue is why Mittens blew among the upper middle class, and whether that portends anything. Probably not, and the LDS thing needs to be touched upon, but it deserves more discussion than it is getting.

Nate, to is credit, actually pointed out that Romney does much more poorly in affluent suburban areas in the South and Midwest than the rest of the country.  Sean Trende really nailed this with his demographic analysis, though.

OK, but why did Mittens do much better with the upper middle class in Georgia and SC?  I don't think the 3 cornered (for some reason Nate didn't get out west with this) regionalism factor in Nate's model explains it all. Unless the upper middle class is unusually Evangelical in AL and MS. Did Nate touch on that?

Many more northern transplants in the upper middle class areas SC & GA.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

What strategy will Newt conceive now?  Will he attempt to gain delegates by blackmailing them?  

[J. J.]

The lead from Reuters:

Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, staking a claim to leadership of the party's conservative wing and dealing a severe setback to presidential rival Newt Gingrich.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE8230GE20120314

I don't write for Reuters either.

So nothing at all like what you predicted. Cool.

Right Lief, I was at least waiting to see what happened in HI and AS.

If it is reported like KS, they'll wake up to the headline:

Santorum Wins AL and MS; Romney Gains Delegates

It might even be:

Gingrich Loses AL & MS; Romney Gains Delegates

Oh, and they used a different typeface too.

[Del Tachi]

Does someone who knows MS/AL demographics want to explain these county maps?

In Mississippi, it appears that the voting results can be best described in terms of race.

In the areas of the state with the highest % of AA's, Romney won.
In the areas of the state with the lowest % of AA's, Santorum won.
In the areas of the state with medium % of AA's, Gingrich won.

Compare these maps:


https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

They match up pretty well. 

[cinyc]

I haven't seen anyone write on that.  I don't think any people expected Romney's lackluster performance in places like DeSoto County, MS.  It's a fascinating phenomenon that I wish I knew more about (the religiosity thing I mentioned is only my pet hypothesis.)

Given Romney's lackluster performance in Shelby County, Tennessee, I don't understand why he was expected to win Memphis-exurban DeSoto County, Mississippi.  The Memphis area is just not into Mitt.

In Mississippi, Romney won the two big college counties, Lafayette (Ole Miss) and Oktibbeha (Mississippi State), the Jackson metro, the Biloxi-Gulfport area and the Mississippi Delta - save the Delta, all areas demographically favorable to Romney.   He is winning the urban/suburban areas and college towns.

[Torie]

When is Hawaii coming up? I am really burned out on the South at the moment.

[Alcon]

When is Hawaii coming up? I am really burned out on the South at the moment.

Polls close in an hour, I think.  Twitterverse reports very high turnout in Mormonland.

[memphis]

Does someone who knows MS/AL demographics want to explain these county maps?

In Mississippi, it appears that the voting results can be best described in terms of race.

In the areas of the state with the highest % of AA's, Romney won.
In the areas of the state with the lowest % of AA's, Santorum won.
In the areas of the state with medium % of AA's, Gingrich won.

Compare these maps:


https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

They match up pretty well. 

That the planter aristocracy of the Delta would identify with Romney is no big shock if you think about it. As others have pointed out, Santorum is doing well among the hillbillies.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm back after a while away from the computer.

1. Romney has some egg on his face tonight; outspending his opponents by a wide margin, leading in the polls, but still coming in third in both states.
2. Santorum Surge Mark III, commence!

Gingrich has more egg than Romney.  Santorum had the best night by far... not many people saw him winning both of these.