A conversation with Salon political writer Steve Kornacki about the ongoing trials of Mitt Romney.

Josh: Let’s say Romney doesn’t melt down today, and manages to win in Michigan and Arizona, but not convincingly enough to make Santorum (or Gingrich!) think about going away or to make his donors feel good about what he’s been doing with all this money the whole time. When does this get really bad, in terms of the condition he’ll be in if and when he finally locks up the nomination?

Steve: It’s obviously not good, but I’m a still a little hesitant to say it’s become irredeemably awful for them. I’m very curious what the tone of the coverage will be if (and it’s a big if) Romney manages to win by a good margin in Michigan. It won’t end the process and he’s still a good bet to lose a bunch of southern states in March, but maybe the political world’s sense of the race changes to: Newt and Santorum have both proven they’re totally and completely incapable of handling the spotlight and even if one of them rises again, Romney is going to get this eventually.

Maybe if that’s the prevailing sense again, he can ignore debate invitations and maybe some of the money to the others dries up and there’s just less attention paid to the G.O.P. nominating process. I guess we won’t reach that point this week, especially with the South coming up a week later, but maybe in the near future? I’m still just hesitant to say this is definitely going to the convention or anything like that.

Josh: How useful have these contests been as a preview of what the super PACs are going to be able to do for Romney in the general election? Because obviously their ability to highlight the weaknesses of the not-Romneys has been an incredibly useful backstop for him in the primary. But what happens when he (and his super PAC) are running against someone with the means to throw those attack ads right back at him?

Steve: Yeah, I don’t think we’re seeing a preview of the fall at all, in that in a Romney/Obama general there won’t be a meaningful financial disparity, the attack ads will come in roughly equal numbers and intensity from each side, and the effect will be a wash—I doubt the ads will win or lose the election. Mainly, each candidate will be spending on them to prevent the other one from gaining an advantage. And I think that’s true even if the pro-Romney super PAC ends up with, say, tens of millions more than Obama’s. As long as each side reaches a basic threshold, my sense is there’s not going to be a direct relationship between how many more dollars one raises and how many more votes that candidate gets. It reaches a saturation point.

Josh: There was an idea heading into these last couple of weeks that Santorum would be a slightly harder target to for Romney’s allies than Gingrich had been, if only because the Republican establishment was less frightened of Santorum and therefore more likely to object to Romney just mugging him. Has it turned out that way?

Steve: I guess not quite. I haven’t heard many cries of “unfair!” over Mitt’s attacks. But at the same time, I’ve seen very few new Santorum endorsements in the past few weeks. There was Mike DeWine in Ohio and a congressman from —maybe one or two others like that I’m forgetting, but that’s basically it. So there hasn’t been a loud chorus of influential Republican voices urging Republicans voters to go ahead and finish Romney off. I think that’s hurt Santorum, and helps explain why what was a 10-point lead in national polls and a high single-digit lead in Michigan polling last week disappeared.

But at the same time, I don’t get the sense he’s melting down as dramatically as Gingrich did before Florida; some of the late polling shows him up slightly. Maybe that’s a function of Romney just having less material to attack Santorum with than he had with Newt. And I guess that pro-Mitt forces haven’t had quite the same ridiculous spending advantage in Michigan that they had in Florida.

Josh: I haven’t seen any polling recently on John F. Kennedy, but: Has Santorum’s decision to up the ante on the religious rhetoric hurt him at all? Or is this one of those cases where something that complicates the general helps in the primary?

Steve: I guess the latest Michigan numbers suggest that his culture-war stuff is actually helping. He’s made real gains among evangelicals and other very conservative types in the past few days. So if you think that’s what’s going on, then yeah, J.F.K.-bashing is probably a good primary-season tactic. But my own guess is that the Michigan shift over the last week is more a result of Romney stepping in it and generating all sorts of negative/mocking news coverage—the empty stadium, the convenient Paul alliance, the new rich-guy gaffes. I’d say the tone of all of it just reinforces what a lot that people don’t like about Romney, and (my guess) probably scared back a chunk of his most hesitant supporters in Michigan—the social conservatives who are now apparently moving back Santorum’s way.

My sense is still that Santorum doesn’t have to be doing culture-war stuff too much to beat Romney, and that part of the reason he slipped in polling last week was because he was using his time in the spotlight to behave in a way that made R’s (even those who generally agree with him) see him as a niche candidate.

Remember, Romney made his initial gains among social conservatives in Michigan while Santorum was talking about “phony theology” and prenatal care. Everyone knows that Santorum is the social conservative guy; his challenge was, and I think still is, to show Republicans that he could be something broader.

That said, it’s true that this stuff will probably help him with some evangelicals, particularly in the South, where there’s still some question whether anti-Romney Christians will back Santorum or Gingrich.

Josh: So I guess what it boils down to (still) is that Romney needs help. When does that event finally happen, where the party establishment decides it has seen enough of Santorum and Gingrich (and a fantastical brokered scenario) and closes ranks around the guy who is going to be the nominee? Will it happen if he wins these next three?

Steve: I guess what complicates it is Oklahoma, Tennessee and Georgia next week and Mississippi and Alabama after that. No matter what, I really think Romney will have serious trouble in all of those places. Not only could he lose them all, he might lose some of them big. So I’m figuring that could kick off another round of panic, and prevent everyone from closing ranks.

I suspect there are a lot of G.O.P. leaders who would just as soon get behind him now but who are terrified of seeming like sellouts to the Tea Party base. They don’t want to be called RINOs or be accused of trying to force the establishment guy down their throats. Basically, I think this is more of the fallout of the 2010 primary season, which was a wake-up call to veteran Republicans about how easy it is to offend the Obama-era G.O.P. base, even from within the party. So they’re just sort of sitting around and waiting for the time when it’s safe to endorse Romney. Which doesn’t help Romney, obviously. The key, which sort of tells the story of this whole primary, is that almost none of them are endorsing Santorum.

• Twitter
• RSS
• Email

More by this author:

USA Network

Matt Bomer, left, stars as Neal Caffrey, with Tim DeKay as Peter Burke, in ‘White Collar.’

Jean Dujardin

After his best-actor Oscar win as a silent-film star, the man referred to as the George Clooney of France will find his voice again as he begins filming the French romantic thriller Möbius in April. Dujardin also will appear in the French comedy Les Infidèles (The Players), which has been picked up by The Weinstein Co. for distribution in the USA this year.

Meryl Streep

The best-actress winner jumps into comedy, playing a wife trying to spice things up with her husband (Tommy Lee Jones) by visiting a relationship guru (Steve Carell) in Great Hope Springs (due Aug. 10). This fall, she’ll start filming a role as Julia Roberts‘ mother in the movie adaptation of August: Osage County (2013).

84th Annual Academy Awards

• PHOTOS: Scenes from the red carpet
• STORY: Scoop from backstage
• REVIEW: How did Billy Crystal do?
• RESULTS: Complete winners list
• MORE: Awards Central

Christopher Plummer

Don’t expect the 82-year-old Plummer to slow down. After winning his first Oscar for his supporting role in Beginners, he will star in the HBO film Muhammad Ali’s Greatest Fight as Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II (no airdate yet). Plummer also will appear in a one-man play he wrote, A Word or Two, this summer at the Stratford (Ontario) Shakespeare Festival in Canada.

Octavia Spencer

With her award for best supporting actress in hand, she’s starting work for a role as a Vegas card dealer in writer/director Diablo Cody‘s still-untitled film. After that, she’ll appear in the indie film Smashed (due this year)

and in the futuristic Snow Piercer (2013).

Viola Davis

She lost out on the actress award, but Davis’ next movie might foretell her response: Won’t Back Down (Sept. 28), in which she’ll star with Maggie Gyllenhaal as crusading parents working to transform their children’s failing school. Davis soon starts to shoot Ender’s Game (2013) in New Orleans, playing a military psychologist.

George Clooney

He’ll follow his best-actor nomination by getting stuck in space with Sandra Bullock in Gravity (Nov. 21). The two play astronauts tethered together in peril after a routine space mission goes awry. He also plans to star in and direct The Monuments Men (no release date), about art experts chasing down the works stolen in World War II.

Jessica Chastain

Chastain was everywhere in 2011, during which she became a supporting-actress nominee, but she’ll slow it down in 2012 with a voice appearance in Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted (June 8). She’ll also star as a gun moll in Wettest County (also starring Oscar nominee Gary Oldman; due in August), and she’ll continue to shoot director Kathryn Bigelow‘s secretive next film, believed to be about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Glenn Close

The best-actress nominee is already at work on the fifth season of Damages, which will air this summer on DirectTV’s Audience Network. She’s expected to shoot the murder thriller Therese Raquin alongside Elizabeth Olsen in Eastern Europe this summer.

Brad Pitt

Look for the best-actor nominee to go on a violent tear in Cogan’s Trade (Sept. 21), where he stars as a Mob enforcer. In December, Pitt will play United Nations researcher Gerry Lane, who tries to stop the outbreak of a deadly zombie pandemic in World War Z (Dec. 21). And he’ll produce Twelve Years a Slave (no release date), in which he’ll take on a small role.

• MORE: Recently published letters

However, reducing deaths from prescription drugs is more difficult than your piece suggests. Certainly, use of the databases that monitor prescriptions can help. But they need to be extended across state lines to be completely effective.

I believe that each individual involved in dispensing and policing prescription drugs has important information to help address this problem. However, the pharmacist has the most complete knowledge of these drugs and the best chance of being aware of all of the medications the patient is taking. More direct involvement by the community pharmacist in the care of patients as a member of the health care team is key to improving this situation.

All members of the medical team working together have a better chance of successfully caring for the patient than any individual acting alone. Clearly, to make this happen, patient information must flow freely among the parties.

USATODAY OPINION

Letters to the editor

USA TODAY receives about 300 letters each day. Most arrive via e-mail, but we also receive submissions by postal mail and fax. We publish about 35 letters each week.

We often select comments that respond directly to USA TODAY articles or opinion pieces. Letters that are concise and make one or two good points have the best chance of being selected, as do letters that reflect the vibrant debate around the nation on a particular subject.

We aim to make the letters platform a place where readers, not just writers representing institutions or interest groups, have their say.

• How to submit letters

Donald W. Stansloski; Dean for the College of Pharmacy; The University of Findlay (Ohio)

Limits of two-party system

In his column on the record low approval rating of Congress, Al Neuharth criticizes Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Harry Reid (“You rate Congress worst ever. … Why?”).

He implies that both parties are found wanting. Then he concludes: “If members of Congress get it, they’ll be around after the next election. If they don’t, they won’t.” Perhaps Neuharth doesn’t get it. In our two-party system, it’s out with one bunch of rascals and in with the other.

Norm Vance; Grand Rapids, Mich.

Social Security worries

Your editorial “Tax cut extension trumps fiscal responsibility,” about the deal to extend the payroll tax cut, was absolutely on target (Feb. 16).

As a conservative Republican, I am equally disappointed with President Obama and both political parties. Polls have shown that the majority of people, when asked, were in favor of extending the payroll tax holiday. But if you polled the same people and instead asked: Knowing that Social Security payments exceeded Social Security tax revenues in 2010 and 2011, and knowing that even more Baby Boomers will be applying for Social Security, do you think we should continue to underfund it, increasing the national debt? Likely a majority of these people would say no.

Extending the Social Security tax cut and not cutting spending elsewhere to make up the difference is financially irresponsible. The president is playing election-year politics. Republicans caved in because they didn’t want Obama to keep playing the class warfare game, saying Republicans don’t care about the poor or middle class.

It appears neither the president nor Congress cares about the poor or middle-income people who are depending on the financial stability of Social Security.

Dennis W. Miller; Louisville