In Ohio suburbs, a reluctant vote of confidence for Mitt Romney

The Ohio primary Tuesday could be a bellwether for the rest of the Republican primary campaign. If so, it gives a glimpse of who is supporting Mitt Romney – and why they're not excited. 

Gerald Herbert/AP
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at a campaign rally at Gregory Industries in Canton, Ohio, Monday.

In this quintessential American community, where church steeples and white picket fences neatly line the landscape, many Republicans say they're not choosing a presidential nominee based on candidates' convictions or policy proposals. Instead, they say, they'll vote for the candidate they feel is best suited to accomplish one task in November: topple President Obama.

“Yeah, I voted for [Mitt] Romney,” sighs Roberta, a receptionist who gave only her first name. The decision tormented her for months, and she remained undecided even when entering the voting booth at the local high school Tuesday. “My heart is really with [Rick] Santorum, but I really don’t think he can win [against Obama]. It’s a shame.”

The Ohio primary Tuesday is seen as a key bellwether in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, not so much because of its 66 delegates, but because Ohio is a microcosm for the rest of the country. What happens here could be predictive of how the race will play out going forward.

“Every part of the national economy is found here in some significant way: agriculture to industry to low tech to high tech, from rural to industrial to urban – it’s all here,” says James Brock, an economist at Miami University’s Farmer School of Business in Oxford, Ohio.

Generally speaking, the northern half of the state swings for Democrats, while southern half leans Republican. But even within those broad strokes are other subdivisions that could determine how Tuesday's primary plays out. 

To Republican voters, Mr. Romney "plays better in suburban Ohio than rural Ohio, and vice versa for Santorum,” says Justin Vaughn, a political scientist at Cleveland State University.

Populism and social issues – the hallmarks of Mr. Santorum’s campaign – resonate with voters far afield of major cities, while the economy and job creation – issues Romney hits hardest – are tailored for urban areas and suburban communities surrounding them.

To Austin Morrow of Chagrin Falls, Santorum is the “theoretical” best choice to beat Obama and Romney is the most “realistic.”

“He’s been an entrepreneur and has created jobs. Ohio needs that,” Mr. Morrow says of Romney.

In Shaker Heights, a traditional stronghold for Democrats east of Cleveland, Muriel Weber says she would have voted for any of the Republican contenders, but worries that if Santorum ended up in a national campaign against Obama, “all you’re going to hear for six months is birth control, abortion, and social issues.”

She worries that those will not be winning issues when the nation is struggling to recover from a recession.

She voted for Romney.

But John, a voter who declined to give his last name and also voted in Shaker Heights, says he decided at the last moment to send a message with his vote. Even though he knows Santorum won’t win, John voted for him anyway. He wants Romney to work harder to convince his fellow Republicans he understands middle-class hardships, especially the continuing foreclosure crisis.

“The sooner Romney locks this up, the sooner the dialogue ends, and I think it’s important that the dialogue continues, because I don’t think [Romney] gets it,” he says. 

 

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

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.