Skip to footer

Super Tuesday: Six things to watch for as results come in

Ten states vote on Super Tuesday, with 419 delegates at stake. It looks as if it may be a good night for Mitt Romney, but there are many unknowns. Aside from the biggest question – who wins Ohio – here are six things to watch for as the results come in.

2. Watch Gingrich's delegate count compared with Santorum's

AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks in Duluth, Ga., Tuesday, March 6.

  • By Amanda Paulson Staff writer

New York Times polling expert Nate Silver is currently predicting that Gingrich will win more delegates than Santorum on Super Tuesday.

Conventional wisdom has it that Gingrich has been out of the running for some time (though his strongest state, Georgia, votes on Super Tuesday), while Santorum has emerged as the most viable conservative option to Romney.

But after his trifecta of victories on Feb. 7, Santorum has slumped in recent weeks. His losses in Arizona, Michigan, and Washington haven’t helped.

Recent polls indicate that momentum is not in his favor, and Super Tuesday could be a tough night for him.

Gingrich, meanwhile, seems to be gaining momentum in the Southern states – not just in Georgia, which he is all but certain to win, but also in Tennessee and Oklahoma, where he could come in second to Romney.

Such a strong result would certainly give Gingrich (who has already declared he’s in it for the long haul) motivation to stay in the race – especially since the next states to vote are in the South.

Most likely, Santorum will stay in as well, even if it's a disappointing finish, but if he’s unable to win a single Super Tuesday state beyond Oklahoma (which is expected) he may have a hard time justifying his run much longer.

 

2 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.