Conversations / Live Q&A

You may be right--but momentum and narrative do count for something in these races. All along, what Santorum has sought is the chance to go head-to-head with Romney. Yesterday might have helped him get a chance at edging ahead of Gingrich, regardless of the impact on delegates.

That is one story--Felicia Sonmez has a good piece on our election 2012 blog about how turnout has dipped in most of the Republican races since 2008 and what problems that might portend for the RNC.

Of course, it hasn't dipped all that much. The truth is that these early state primaries tend to have very very low turnout and to draw largely the most committed party activists. Whether that makes for a good nominating process is an open question.

We'll see, won't we? This was the big question after Santorum's win in Iowa and it became quickly apparent that he didn't have enough money--or, more importantly, time to convert newly raised dollars into organization and ads--to make it count. But the dynamic is different now. The race is entering a quiet period. If he truly starts bringing in larger donations, he could pull something together to at least make life interesting for Romney.

Thanks for the perspective. Poll after poll lately has shown Romney and Gingrich with big negatives. Santorum's the only top candidate who people generally seem to like, and I think the reasons you cite are likely why. Of course, he's also not been subjected to a barrage of negative ads from either Romney or Gingrich yet. It will be interesting to see if his favorable poll numbers hold up against the stream of ads to come.

It would seem to be a huge long shot. But this year's race as turned all conventional wisdom on its head, so I'm not counting anything out. The key issue here seems to be, as it has been for months, that Romney is still having trouble sealing the deal with the most conservative part of the Republican base. And as long as that vulnerability remains, it's hard to predict with certainty how the race will go.

That is certainly one way to look at it. Santorum and Gingrich have been trying to get one another out of the way since Iowa now. And neither has succeeded. Of course, if Gingrich were to drop from the race--and he shows absolutely no signs of doing so--his voters would likely migrate to Santorum. I'm not sure the same is true of Santorum voters.

In reporters' dreams. We would all love to cover a deadlocked brokered convention--the drama! But I think for all the excitement over the topsy-turvy race, that remains distinctly unlikely.

And an obvious answer: Probably yes.

He has an active super PAC that's been carefully husbanding money--it skipped Florida, for instance, to save money for yesterday's races. And it's got at least deep pocketed supporter--Utah investor Foster Friess, most recently seen standing behind Santorum at his victory party last night.

That said, he will be hugely outspent in the weeks to come. For success, he'll have to pick a few states on which to concentrate and do very well there. His goal will be to prove viability over time, picking up donors along the way.

Thanks for making this point. Yesterday was non-binding--but it wasn't without meaning, in part for the reason you cite. Of course, if Romney has trounced Santorum et al by the time the conventions are held, there could still be an effort to rally around the nominee. That's the kind of situation where delegates sometimes jump ship and support a candidate different than the one they said they would on election day.

Michigan would seem a particular challenge for Santorum, since it's Romney's original home state. His people say he'll be playing there. But he's spending today in Texas and tomorrow in Oklahoma--both Super Tuesday states, so that tells you something.

An interesting question. But likely a moot one--Newt shows no signs of throwing in the towell, especially before March 6.

Thanks for the thoughts.

What would I do? Personally? You Washington Post chatters are a tough crowd! I'll leave this challenge to smarter and more powerful people than I.