(1) A lot of the spin depends on perception and expectation.
Arizona was expected to go to Romney with the outcome never really in doubt, and though he won strongly there, it will be dismissed for the most part as a Mormon thing. But it’s really not; Mormons account for only about 10% of the Republican electorate, and his margin of victory was quite a bit more that that yesterday.
Before Santorum’s surge, Romney was also expected to win in Michigan. But then Santorum came around in the stretch and took the lead, and it seemed as though he would pull it out, which would have been a major upset. Romney won by about 3 percentage points, which would have looked bad just a couple of weeks ago. But after the scare Romney got recently, it looks pretty good, and puts him back in the front runner position again.
(2) Romney’s Michigan victory margin may have actually been bigger among Republicans than it looks because according to exit polls there were a fair number of Democrats coming out to vote for Santorum.
(3) Things have shifted back and forth awfully fast in this particular primary season.
(4) Since Newt did so badly, should Santorum ask him to drop out, the same request Gingrich made to Santorum after Florida?
(5) Will there be a next non-Romney, and if so, whom will it be?
(6) And what’s up with this “winning ugly” business? I’ve seen the term in two articles featured on memeorandum, this and this. I always thought that term (from sports) meant an unusually close race, marked either by weird officiating, or a lot of unforced errors or fouls on the part of the winner, or some or all of the above. Is there something especially close about a 41-38 victory in a primary with four candidates? Did Romney do anything particularly unusual at all in Michigan? Would it not be more accurate to say that Santorum “lost ugly” there (the robocalls, etc.), if you’re going to use the term at all?