Gallup has released their 2/21 results of their daily tracking poll. Thanks to their website, we have the following graphical results:

Santorum pushes for the second day to remain at 36%. Where Mitt and Newt had difficulty breaking 37% before him, Rick appears to be having problems breaking 36%.

Mitt Romney also pushes after dropping two points yesterday to end up at 26%, a full ten points behind Santorum.

After spending three days at his lowest level in this poll (13%), Newt Gingrich slides up a point to 14%. This places him 12 points behind Romney and 22 points behind Santorum.

Ron Paul, as has been his habit for the last two weeks, pushes. He remains at 11%. He’s been there for five days now.

Rasmussen 2012 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Barack Obama 46%
• Rick Santorum 44%

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 43%

(more…)

InsiderAdvantage (R) Georgia 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 25.9% (54.1%) {17%} [9%] (12%)
• Mitt Romney 23.9% (12.4%) {10%} [6%] (10%)
• Rick Santorum 22.8% (1.7%)
• Ron Paul 11.7% (5.5%) {5%} [5%] (1%)
• Someone else 4.4% (0.7%) {4%} [4%] (4%)
• No opinion 11.3% (17.4%) {12%} [20%] (22%)

Among Republicans (69.5%)

• Newt Gingrich 29.2% 
• Rick Santorum 25.4%
• Mitt Romney 19.2%
• Ron Paul 9.8%
• Someone else 4.2%
• No opinion 12.2%

Among Independents (27.5%)

• Mitt Romney 37.5%
• Newt Gingrich 17.7%
• Ron Paul 17.3%
• Rick Santorum 15.6%
• Someone else 2.7%
• No opinion 9.1%

Survey of 721 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 20, 2012.  Party ID: 69.5% Republican; 27.5% Independent; 3.1% Democrat.  Results from the poll conducted December 8, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 3, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 18, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted June 2, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

We Ask America (R) Arizona 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 37%
• Rick Santorum 27%
• Newt Gingrich 15%
• Ron Paul 8%
• Undecided 13%

Survey of 1,155 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 19-20, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 2.88 percentage points. 

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

The January fundraising reports have been filed with the FEC, and here’s how our four remaining candidates fared (in order of financial strength, determined by cash on hand less debts owed):

At the end of February, Romney remains in a class all his own when it comes to fundraising. His $2 million advantage in one month would equal a $6 million advantage over the course of a quarter. And his cash on hand totals put him in the strongest position by far moving forward. Santorum and Gingrich, meanwhile, have each added to their debt in what should have been one of the strongest months for their campaigns. This illustrates the massive fundraising advantage Romney jumped out to early on – and how having all that cash on hand comes in quite handy when it comes down to crunch time.

Mitt Romney continues to get air support from his friend and ally Ron Paul:

Momentum:

Mitchell Research & Communication / Rosetta Stone Communications Michigan Primary Survey

• Romney – 32% (24)
• Santorum – 30% (34)
• Gingrich – 9% (5)
• Paul – 7% (11)
• Undecided – 22% (25)

Survey of 420 likely primary voters was conducted Feb 20 and has a margin of error of +/-4.7%. Numbers from the Feb 12 poll are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Romney has made big inroads with conservatives that had gone to Santorum in the last poll. Santorum’s lead among Tea Party voters has been cut from 15% to 5%, his lead with Evangelical Christians has been cut from 16% to 11%, and his huge lead among those that say they are “very conservative” has been cut in half, from 31% to 15%. The strong negative ads being run in Michigan defining Santorum as a big spender have had a huge impact. Romney’s message and resources have put him back into the lead… The campaign in Michigan remains extremely close; however recent polls conducted over the last few days indicate that there has been a fundamental momentum shift back to Mitt Romney.

USA Today/Gallup National General Election Survey

• Romney – 50%
• Obama – 46%

• Obama – 49%
• Santorum – 48%

Survey of 898 registered voters was conducted Feb 16-19 and has a margin of error of +/-4%.

Inside the numbers: 85% of Republicans think Romney will be the eventual nominee; 55% of Republicans wish somebody else was running, but by a margin of 66-29 Republicans overwhelmingly think it would be better for the party if one of the four men currently running got the nomination.

Newt Gingrich today:

It appears to be common knowledge that Senator Rick Santorum is a strong social conservative. Many seem to think he is too far right on those issues and not strong enough on the other issues. Are they correct?

Quote from Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift? (Emphasis mine)

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.

Let’s use the Club for Growth’s information available by clicking on the individual presidential candidates’ pictures at the CFG website.

Santorum:

Rick Santorum spent sixteen years in Congress – four years in the House followed by 12 years in the Senate – before losing to Democrat Bob Casey in 2006. In the last two years of his Senate career, he had an average Club for Growth rating of 77%, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate Republicans over that same time period. In the previous thirteen years before the Club had a scorecard, Santorum accumulated an average score of 76% on the National Taxpayers Union scorecard. This compares to a 71% average among all Republicans. NTU is a non-partisan group that advocates for limited government.

Romney:

The Club for Growth wrote a white paper on Governor Mitt Romney back in 2007. Most of the information below is from that report, but since Romney has been outspoken on several issues since then, we’ve updated his record to reflect those positions. The Cato Institute, a free market think tank rates the country’s governors on a biennial basis. In both their 2004 and 2006 reports, they gave then-Governor Romney a “C” on tax and spending issues.

Gingrich:

The Club for Growth did not have its own scorecard for members of Congress during Gingrich’s tenure from 1979-98, but the non-partisan and pro-free market National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been issuing a congressional scorecard for decades and Gingrich’s record on economic issues, as provided by NTU, is worth analyzing. From 1979-98, Gingrich had an average score of 61% (with 100% being a perfect score on supporting lower taxes and limited government). The average Republican score over this time period was slightly lower at 56%.

Summary from the information in the presidential candidates’ introductions at CFG:

Sen. Santorum received a rating of 4 points above the Republicans’ average during his “last two years” in the Senate and 5 points above average during his previous 13 years in the House and Senate.

Gov. Romney earned a “C” during his years as Governor. I don’t know if that “C” is among only Republican governors or if it is among governors from both parties.

Rep. Gingrich received a rating of 5 points above the Republican’s average.

It is really hard to compare their records using this. IMO Santorum’s fiscal conservative record doesn’t look all that bad.

________________________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Donna’s personal site. 

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Rick Santorum 36% [36%] (35%) {34%} [32%] (31%) {30%} [30%] (27%) {24%} [22%] (20%) {17%} [16%] (16%) {16%} [17%] (16%) {17%} [16%] (15%) {13%} [13%] (13%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {12%} [12%] (13%) {13%} [14%] (15%) {14%} [14%] (14%) {14%} [15%] (15%) {17%} [18%] (18%) {16%} [15%] (11%) {8%} [6%] (5%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (4%) {4%} [4%] (3%) {2%} [3%] (2%) {2%} [3%] (3%)    
  
• Mitt Romney 26% [28%] (29%) {30%} [31%] (33%) {32%} [32%] (34%) {34%} [34%] (36%) {37%} [37%] (35%) {33%} [31%] (31%) {27%} [27%] (26%) {26%} [24%] (25%) {28%} [27%](29%) {30%} [31%] (30%) {33%} [33%] (34%) {37%} [37%] (35%) {34%} [34%] (31%) {30%} [30%] (31%) {29%} [27%] (27%) {26%} [24%] (26%) {27%} [25%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (21%) {23%} [23%] (24%) {24%} [24%] (24%) {23%} [22%] (23%) {23%} [23%] (23%) {25%} [23%] (22%)
• Newt Gingrich 13% [13%] (13%) {14%} [14%] (15%) {16%} [16%] (16%) {17%} [18%] (20%) {21%} [22%] (24%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (28%) {32%} [32%] (31%) {31%} [31%](28%) {25%} [23%] (20%) {17%} [16%] (15%) {14%} [13%] (13%) {15%} [14%] (16%) {18%} [17%] (16%) {17%} [19%] (19%) {22%} [23%] (24%) {23%} [25%] (25%) {26%} [26%] (27%) {25%} [25%] (26%) {28%} [28%] (29%) {31%} [31%] (33%) {33%} [35%] (37%) {34%} [36%] (37%)
• Ron Paul 11% [11%] (11%) {11%} [10%] (8%) {8%} [8%] (8%) {8%} [10%] (10%) {12%} [11%] (12%) {11%} [12%] (11%) {13%} [13%] (14%) {13%} [14%] (13%) {12%} [12%] (13%) {13%} [14%] (13%) {13%} [12%] (12%) {12%} [12%] (13%) {12%} [13%] (13%) {12%} [13%] (13%) {12%} [12%] (13%) {13%} [13%] (11%) {11%} [11%] (11%) {12%} [13%] (12%) {12%} [12%] (11%) {10%} [10%] (10%) {9%} [8%] (8%) {9%} [9%] (9%) {10%} [9%] (8%)

Survey of at least 1,000 registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was conducted February 15-19, 2012.  The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 14-18, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 13-17, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 12-16, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 11-15, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 10-14, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 9-13, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 8-12, 2012are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 7-11, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 4-10, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedFebruary 3-9, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 2-8, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 1-7, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 31 – February 6, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 30 – February 3, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 29 – February 2, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 28 – February 1, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 27-31, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 26-30, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 25-29, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 24-28, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 23-27, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 22-26, 2012are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 21-25, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 20-24, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedJanuary 19-23, 2012 are in Results from the poll conducted January 18-22, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conductedJanuary 17-21, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 16-20, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 15-19, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 14-18, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 13-17, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 12-16, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 11-15, 2012are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 10-14, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 9-13, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 8-12, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 7-11, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 6-10, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 5-9, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 4-8, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 3-7, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 2-6, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 29, 2011 – January 5, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 28, 2011 – January 4, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 27, 2011 – January 3, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 26, 2011 – January 2, 2012 are in Results from the poll conducted December 23-29, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 22-28, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 21-27, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 20-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 19-23, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 18-22, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 17-21, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 15-20, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 14-19, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 13-18, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 12-17, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-16, 2011 are in Results from the poll conducted December 10-14, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 9-13, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 8-12, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 7-11, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 6-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 5-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-8, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted December 3-7, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 2-6, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 1-5, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Dave Gaultier, Chris Lars and I exchanged a series of emails a few days ago on the subject of a brokered convention. I was about to post my thoughts on the subject, just when Anthony Dalke beat me to it. Now Chris has added some additional thoughts, so I will limit myself to a slightly different slant on it.

First, however, I should note that in the course of the conversation, Dave and I took a stab at projecting final delegate totals for the four current entrants, using Sean Trende’s calculator. We came up with very similar numbers.

Dave’s guess:

Romney – 1021
Santorum – 733
Gingrich – 291
Paul – 77

My guess:

Romney – 1011
Santorum – 657
Gingrich – 270
Paul – 180

Both of us put Romney at a point where he’d be close enough that a few deals could put him over. But there would be no room for error. If a loss in Michigan or Arizona led to further slippage in other states, he would probably be in a hopeless situation.

Which leads to the conclusion that a contested convention (to use the currently popular term), once considered a long-shot (I posted about the idea a couple months ago, using the header ‘Weird Scenario’), is now a very real possibility. The speculation, fueled by reports of comments by an anonymous ‘prominent’ Republican Senator, that a new entrant should be found if Romney continues to stumble, leads me therefore to put together a ranking of the leading possibilities to play the role of White Knight (is that a racist term?).

1. Chris Christie
2. Paul Ryan
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Mitch Daniels
5. Tim Pawlenty
6. John Thune
7. Mike Huckabee
8. Jeb Bush
9. Sarah Palin
10. The Unknown Unknown

Christie: His endorsement of Romney is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it might antagonize other factions; on the other, given that he is popular with Tea Partiers, it makes him an ideal compromise.  Christie recently vetoed a gay marriage bill in New Jersey, which should please SoCons. He could get in, obviously, only if Romney withdrew.

Ryan: If this blog is any indicator (often a dubious proposition), Ryan has a considerable amount of support. Like Christie, he appeared to come close to stepping in a few times. He is young, attractive, and has gained wider renown than is normal for House members because of his economic proposals. His nomination would mean the Republicans are betting all their chips on the economy.

Jindal: Not hobbled by an endorsement, since his horse is out of the race. Like Ryan, very young, but also very accomplished. Completed a successful term as governor and re-elected overwhelmingly; also confronted Obama on the oil spill. He might be the best Establishment candidate to add strength in the south, which would undercut the delegate totals Santorum and Gingrich look likely to roll up there. Acceptable to both social and fiscal conservatives.

Daniels: Was a popular choice early on, and many supporters have continued to dream. Has an outstanding two-term record to run on, including huge tax cuts, school choice and the recent right-to-work bill that attracted much notice on the right. His SOTU response got positive reviews. Like Ryan, his nomination would mean the Republicans are going all-out on the economy (although he has a strong SoCon record, his call for a ‘truce’ alienated some). Biggest drawback may be that he is seen by some as too much like Romney. Bias acknowledgement – Daniels would be my choice. Note: Said ‘no’ again today, for what it’s worth.

Pawlenty: Has endorsed Romney, so could get in, like Christie, only if Romney withdrew. Like Daniels, has two successful terms to run on. Also like Daniels, may be seen as too much like Romney. Pawlenty has a great back-story and blue collar appeal, but his biggest weakness is that he got in and went nowhere.

Thune: We’re scraping bottom here. I can’t think of much to say about the guy, which is an indicator of how fascinating he is. He did garner some interest in early 2011, however, and might be the choice if none of the above wanted in. He’d be a decent placeholder candidate if the goal was simply to avoid embarrassment and losses of congressional seats.

Huckabee: FiCons and social moderates would scream bloody murder, but might reluctantly accept him as more palatable (or at least less offensive) than Santorum, if things come down to a stop-Santorum movement. His strengths and weaknesses are well-known, so no need to review them.

Bush: He’d be a great candidate if he could run under an alias. A brokered convention would cause enough cries of fraud without nominating a Bush.

Palin: Has a strong and vocal core of supporters and a wide sea of detractors. Virtually no chance.

Unknown Unknown: In memory of Secretary Rumsfeld (who is not a likely candidate, as far as I know), and in the interests of having a number ten, we’ll throw in the possibility of somebody else.

PPP 2012 Arizona Republican Nomination Survey

If the Republican candidates for President
were Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney,
and Rick Santorum, who would you vote for?

• Mitt Romney 36%
• Rick Santorum 33%
• Newt Gingrich 16%
• Ron Paul 9%

Would you say you are strongly committed to
that candidate, or might you end up supporting
someone else?

Strongly committed to that candidate………….. 56%
Might end up supporting someone else ………. 44%

Who is your second choice for President?

Newt Gingrich …………………………………………. 16%
Ron Paul ………………………………………………… 9%
Mitt Romney……………………………………………. 21%
Rick Santorum………………………………………… 25%
Someone else/Not sure ……………………………. 29%

If the Republican candidates for President
were just Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick
Santorum, who would you vote for?

Ron Paul ………………………………………………… 9%
Mitt Romney……………………………………………. 41%
Rick Santorum………………………………………… 43%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 8%

PPP surveyed 412 likely Republican primary voters between February 17th and 19th. The
margin of error for the survey is +/-4.8%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any
campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated
telephone interviews. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate
Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight
bias toward Republican candidates.

The current trajectory of the GOP nomination contest is inspiring more and more discussion about a brokered or contested Convention, including the feasibility of a new “white knight” candidate.  As for the possibility of a contested Convention, meaning no candidate having a clear majority of committed first ballot delegates going into the Convention, I have now moved into the “maybe” category.  Of course, the pump and dump pattern of this contest could continue and in another month we could be on a new trajectory once again.  Regarding the feasibility of some new entrant, that elusive white knight, I remain skeptical unless it is done real, real soon and is someone acceptable to most flavors of Republican voters and someone who is recognized as having candidate qualities superior to those currently running.  Washington Post political writer/blogger, Jennifer Rubin, was out with a blog article discussing the current state of angst among the GOP Congressional leadership and specifically the implications (as they see them) of a Santorum nomination.

Ms. Rubin draws heavily from some reporting by Mike Allen of Politico and Jim Pethokoukis of AEI blog, but she offers a gem of an observation of what distinguishes Rick Santorum from Marco Rubio, both social conservatives and both favorites of the Tea Party:

But, but — you say — these people [Party leadership] were the ones who wanted Charlie Crist instead of now-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). But, really, Santorum is no Marco Rubio. Whereas Rubio expands the party’s base of support, Santorum shrinks it. Whereas women, independents and young people see Rubio as a forward-looking reformer, Santorum seems stuck in a time warp from a different era, someone chasing issues that were “lost” decades ago.

The emphasis in the above quote is mine.  Read the full article here.

University of Texas/Texas Tribune 2012 Texas Primary Poll

• Rick Santorum 45%
• Newt Gingrich 18%
• Mitt Romney 16%
• Ron Paul 15%

The latest UT/Texas Tribune internet survey of 800 Texas voters was conducted from Feb. 8-15, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percent. Questions asked only of 371 Republican voters have a margin of error of +/- 5.09 percent; questions of 529 likely voters in general elections have a margin of error of +/- 4.26 percent.

Inside the numbers:

Slightly more than half of GOP voters are satisfied with the choices in their presidential candidate field, while 34 percent said they are unsatisfied. What are they seeking? Someone with the ability to beat President Obama was chosen by 45 percent, followed by someone with high standards and character (25 percent), someone who shares issue views (20 percent) and someone who has the right experience (8 percent).

“It could change again, and it will change,” said Jim Henson, who co-directs the UT/TT poll, teaches government at UT-Austin and heads the Texas Politics Project there. “There’s no reason to think this is static. Nothing about this GOP race, either in Texas or in the country, has been static.”

One thing has remained consistent: All four Republicans would beat Obama in a general election in Texas. In head-to-head matchups with the president, Santorum would win 51 percent to 37 percent among likely voters, Gingrich by 49 percent to 38 percent, Romney by 49 percent to 36 percent, and Paul by 44 percent to 35 percent.

Santorum is the only Republican in the race who received more favorable grades than unfavorable grades from voters.

Santorum was rated “very” or “somewhat” favorably by 42 percent of voters and “very” or “somewhat” unfavorably by 31 percent.

Romney was rated favorably by 27 percent of voters and unfavorably by 48 percent.

Gingrich’s numbers were 33 percent favorable and 49 percent unfavorable, and Paul’s were 30 percent favorable and 41 percent unfavorable.

Obama had relatively high favorable ratings — 40 percent — but also had the highest unfavorable grades, at 55 percent.

Hat-tip: Granny T

Rasmussen 2012 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Barack Obama 47% [48%] (48%) {47%} [47%] (48%) {49%} [49%] (48%) {46%} [46%] (44%) {46%} [48%] (48%) {46%} [47%] (45%) {45%}
• Rick Santorum 44% [42%] (40%) {41%} [41%] (42%) {41%} [41%] (41%) {42%} [42%] (45%) {44%} [40%] (38%) {39%} [37%] (34%) {31%}

• Barack Obama 46% [47%] (49%) {48%} [47%] (47%) {49%} [48%] (48%) {49%} [50%] (48%) {47%} [48%] (49%) {47%}[46%] (45%) {46%} [47%] (47%) {47%} [45%] (46%) {45%} [46%] (46%) {46%} [45%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 42% [43%] (41%) {42%} [43%] (43%) {42%} [42%] (41%) {42%} [40%] (42%) {43%} [42%] (42%) {43%} [44%] (45%) {45%} [43%] (42%) {41%} [43%] (42%) {42%} [43%] (43%) {43%} [43%] (44%)

Survey of 1,500 likely voters was conducted February 17-19, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.  Results from the poll conductedFebruary 16-18, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 15-17, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 14-16, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 13-15, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 12-14, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 11-13, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 10-12, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 9-11, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conductedFebruary 8-10, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 7-9, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 6-8, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 5-7, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 4-6, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 3-5, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 2-4, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 1-3, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 31 – February 2, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 30 – February 1, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedJanuary 29-31, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 28-30, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 27-29, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 26-28, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 25-27, 2012 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 24-26, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 23-25, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 22-24, 2012are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 21-23, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 20-22, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conductedJanuary 17-21, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

We Ask America 2012 Michigan Primary Survey

• Mitt Romney – 29%
• Rick Santorum – 29%
• Ron Paul – 12%
• Newt Gingrich – 10%
• Undecided – 20%

Survey of 1,025 likely primary voters was conducted Feb 19 and has a margin of error of +/-3.06%.

Among men, Santorum leads 32-27; among women Romney leads by the same 32-27 margin. However, 23% of women are undecided while only 13% of men are.

PPP (D) Michigan 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Rick Santorum 37% {39%}  
  
• Mitt Romney 33% {24%} [24%]
• Ron Paul 15% {12%} [6%]
• Newt Gingrich 10% {11%} [7%]
• Someone else/Undecided 6% {13%} [17%]

(more…)

Public Policy Polling is out with a new Michigan Poll showing a significant shift from Santorum +16 to Santorum +4. But is the momentum really with Romney? Not to the extent to which Public Policy Polling might suggest.

In comparing the sample from the February 13th poll, it becomes apparent that there’s a great deal of difference in the sample composition:

The 2/17 sample is probably closer to accurate as a representation of the Michigan electorate that will show up on Tuesday than the 2/13 poll. This moves PPP from outlier to right in the mainstream of its polls. When Real Clear Politics updates its polling averages, the PPP Poll will replace the Detroit News poll that also showed Santorum up 4% and the RCP average will remain at Santorum+6.5%.

While there may be some movement of undecided towards Romney, PPP overstates its case because it bobbled its 2/13 sample. Properly examined, this poll falls in alignment with the vast majority of polls taken over the last week.  To say that there’s serious movement towards Mr. Romney we’ll need to see more than one poll, preferably with a consistent polling sample.

Rasmussen 2012 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Barack Obama 47% (49%) {48%} [47%] (47%) {49%} [48%] (48%) {49%} [50%] (48%) {47%} [48%] (49%) {47%} [46%] (45%) {46%} [47%] (47%) {47%} [45%] (46%) {45%} [46%] (46%) {46%} [45%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 43% (41%) {42%} [43%] (43%) {42%} [42%] (41%) {42%} [40%] (42%) {43%} [42%] (42%) {43%} [44%] (45%) {45%} [43%] (42%) {41%} [43%] (42%) {42%} [43%] (43%) {43%} [43%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 48% (48%) {47%} [47%] (48%) {49%} [49%] (48%) {46%} [46%] (44%) {46%} [48%] (48%) {46%} [47%] (45%) {45%}
• Rick Santorum 42% (40%) {41%} [41%] (42%) {41%} [41%] (41%) {42%} [42%] (45%) {44%} [40%] (38%) {39%} [37%] (34%) {31%}

Survey of 1,500 likely voters was conducted February 16-18, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.  Results from the poll conductedFebruary 15-17, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 14-16, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 13-15, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 12-14, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 11-13, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 10-12, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 9-11, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conductedFebruary 8-10, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 7-9, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 6-8, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 5-7, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 4-6, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 3-5, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted February 2-4, 2012 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 1-3, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 31 – February 2, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 30 – February 1, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conductedJanuary 29-31, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 28-30, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 27-29, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 26-28, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 25-27, 2012 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 24-26, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 23-25, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 22-24, 2012are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 21-23, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 20-22, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conductedJanuary 17-21, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Rick Santorum 36%
• Mitt Romney 28%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Ron Paul 11%

(more…)

Sadly, the “Jennifer Rubin Praises Santorum” phase of the primary has passed.  I’m generally skeptical of Santorum (and Romney for that matter) but Rubin’s latest distortion is an affront to pro-lifers of all stripes.  She takes issue with his contention that, in a regime where abortion was illegal, abortion doctors would have to be criminally liable.   Here’s Santorum:

Just so you know, if it’s against the law, yes they should be criminally prosecuted, because then it’s against the law and the country would have made a decision that it’s against the law. And I would suggest that once we — if we make it against the law that there should be penalties, otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law, it’s not much of a law, is it?

Rubin finds this, apparently, outrageous.  She writes:

As for his comments on prosecuting abortion doctors, this would, I assume, concern the death penalty in states that impose capital punishment for murder. After all, it would be contrary to his views (that unborn children are people under the Constitution) to decide for criminal law purposes that an unborn child is any less a person, and deserving of less protection, than any other person.

Moreover, if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right? If she conspired with a doctor to kill a live child, she would not be spared (“otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law”). So what exactly is the rationale — that it would be too outrageous to articulate this legal predicament? Well, that’s where his reasoning leads us.

This is obviously wrong and possibly deliberately misleading.  State laws make distinctions between homicides of different types, without declaring any person “less deserving of protection”.  In fact, the murder/manslaughter/involuntary manslaughter divide has nothing to do with the moral worth of the person killed.  It generally has to do with the mental state of the person committing the act.  I.e, what it is they think they’re doing?  If abortionists and women who have abortions do not believe they’re ending a human life, then there are coherent reasons, grounded in our current law, to make abortion a criminal act with significantly lesser penalties than murder.  Homicide, yes, but perhaps homicide on par with manslaughter (it’s not inconceivable that a regime of illegal abortion would result in an entirely new category of homicide).  Bringing up the death penalty when, at least in this quote, Santorum has not mentioned it, is both a non-sequitur and a straw-man.

Next, Jennifer Rubin- who, it goes without saying, is not a social conservative of any type and has no connection to the movement- apparently claims to speak for all “non-hardcore social conservatives”.  She writes:

Santorum likes to say that he is principled, but in fact he’s vividly demonstrating day after day that his strongly held social views, when uttered aloud in dogmatic tones, sound outrageous to voters who aren’t hard-core social conservatives.

After all, why does he even need to comment on this issue? Abortion is currently legal, and if the Supreme Court were to reverse itself and if states characterized abortion as murder and if doctors were to be prosecuted, this still would be a state matter. So Santorum makes a distant hypothetical into a comment that makes even pro-life voters wince. This, in a nutshell, is his problem. Ironically, he is the worst possible spokesman for social conservative views that are within the mainstream because he intersperses them with stances that make him sound extreme.

Again, Santorum’s suggestion- that in a world of illegal abortion there must be penalties for breaking the law- is perfectly sensible and not outrageous at all.  The 40% to 55% of the population that identifies as pro-life would have to, as Santorum notes, agree with this basic premise, even if they disagreed amongst themselves about the ideal penalties.  This only becomes outrageous if, like Rubin, you’re a social liberal or if, like Rubin, you’re determined to distort the arguments of candidates you dislike.  Nor is it clear why she thinks Santorum shouldn’t have commented here.  It’s true this will, ultimately, be a state issue (the penalties involved, at any rate).  But Santorum has not suggested otherwise.  If Rubin had bothered to read the article she’d linked to, she’d realize that Santorum was simply answering a question, not volunteering his opinion apropos of nothing.  Is this not allowed?  I recall Fred Thompson and Tim Pawlenty answering similar questions.  There’s nothing unusual in such responses even if, ultimately, these men won’t be making the decision.

SoonerPoll Oklahoma 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Rick Santorum 39% (2%)
• Mitt Romney 23% (14%)
• Newt Gingrich 18% (33%)
• Ron Paul 8% (4%)
• Undecided 13% (24%)

Survey of 278 likely Republican primary voters was conducted February 8-16, 2012. The margin of error is ± 5.66 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 17 – December 16, 2011 are in parentheses.

Courtesy of The Argo Journal

If Mitt Romney has what it takes to be president, and I suspect he does, he will use his present predicament to overcome his greatest vulnerability in the presidential contest for his party’s nomination, that is, his failure so far to connect emotionally with voters.

That does not mean that the former governor of Massachusetts will suddenly say he “feels our pain,” or that he will make teenage girls and grown men swoon with incendiary rhetoric. Mr Romney’s personality is not naturally outwardly warm or empathetic; that is not going to change overnight or suddenly, as if by a political consultant’s wand. But where is it written in American political history that the nation’s chief executive is supposed to be the First Therapist or the National Teddy Bear?

In fact, few presidents have been like Bill Clinton. Yet most presidents did have the knack to relate to voters, that is, voters have found them ultimately likable. Mitt Romney is a rich man, but he is a self-made rich man. He is a problem-solving businessman. His greatest problem now is restoring his campaign for president, subjected for months to “bubble” assaults in the polls from rivals. He has recuperated from each of these, but the Republican nomination is now in its decisive stage, i.e. , delegates are being chosen, voters are finally making up their minds.

Although I have written for months, without endorsing him, that I thought that Romney would ultimately win his party’s nomination, nowhere have I suggested that his victory was absolutely inevitable. In politics, nothing is absolutely inevitable.

What is Mr. Romney’s problem? It is a lack of connection. It is not that voters cannot “like” him, but they are having difficulty “connecting” to him. His remoteness is the distance he appears to place (intentional or not) between himself and voters. Does it come from his personality, his wealth, his upbringing, and his political circumstances? Yes, all of these. He can’t change his wealth, nor his upbringing, and his political circumstances have been thrust on him. But he can share with voters his obvious dilemma, and invite them to help him solve his problem.

This probably cannot be done alone with massive political advertising by his own campaign (nor by the SuperPac he does not control), nor by pretending he does not have a problem. It cannot be solved alone by superior organization. It cannot be solved simply with his resume.

Mitt Romney needs to get a large number voters to be part of solving his political problem, and that begins with a simple heartfelt appeal directly to voters. Voters, I have observed over many presidential cycles, are not looking for perfect candidates. They look for candidates who agree with them, but they also like candidates who can admit mistakes, who ask forgiveness for their personal shortcomings, and most of all, voters in America like candidates who acknowledge, simply and humbly, that they, the politicians, ultimately need them, the voters.

I do not presume to say what Mr. Romney should say, and how he should say it, to accomplish this, but at some point he will, if he is to prevail, have to do this. If he does not, Mr. Gingrich may yet overcome his own problems and win this nomination. If neither of them do it, there may yet be a so-called “brokered” convention, and no one now in the contest may suddenly emerge.

This election is bigger than personalities, and someone who can do the job, even if he or she is not now on the ballot, will contend to be commander-in-chief this November. Mr. Romney earned his fortune, as they say, ”the old-fashioned way.” If he is to be president, he must find his way to do this again.

____________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site. 

I call your attention to today’s installment of what has begun to seem like daily brokered convention/white knight rumors:

Most reporters still think Romney “will find a way to win Michigan.” Nevertheless, some of the nation’s most powerful Republicans are poring over filing deadlines and pondering worst-case scenarios.

Our friend handed us a printout of FEC deadlines for ballot access, with five of them circled and starred: California (March 23), Montana (March 12), New Jersey (April 2), New Mexico (March 16) and South Dakota (March 27). The point: Even after Feb. 28, it might be possible to assemble a Hail Mary candidacy that could garner enough delegates to force a CONTESTED convention (a different nuance than BROKERED, which implies that someone is in charge).

Under RNC rules, the delegate count builds slowly: just 15% before Super Tuesday, March 6; 19% through Super Tuesday (brings you to 34%); 17% in the rest of March (brings you to 51%); with 48% in April, May and June (21%, 12%, 15%).

Our friend said: “If somebody came on the scene that week after Super Tuesday with, ‘I’m coming in. I’m taking a look at this,’ there are enough delegates. He would suck all the oxygen out of the race.

At this point, the unfolding of this race has so often taken me by surprise that I no longer place much stock in predictions even by me. But, for what it’s worth, I’ll opt against categorically ruling out a brokered (or contested, as the cited article suggests) convention.

Of course, the conversation then turns to who (or is it “whom”?) would benefit from the unrest in the party and become the white knight. For my money (keep in mind how poorly I’ve fared with foreseeing the proceedings of this race), I can’t see the GOP rallying behind Jeb Bush, with his toxic last name and the treasure trove of campaign material it would bring. Mitch Daniels doesn’t seem to have the personality to clear the “intensity” hurdle the base clearly seeks in a potential nominee. Nor does Bobby Jindal. Chris Christie doesn’t seem to want it. Neither does Marco Rubio (nor does he likely feel ready). Mike Huckabee appears too comfortable in his media role. Sarah Palin generates too much uneasiness among much of the party faithful. And for the nostalgic, Rudy Giuliani would have a difficult time convincing voters of his relevance.

Thus, for my money, I’ll have to agree with my esteemed colleague Matthew Miller and argue that Paul Ryan seems like the most logical and realistic choice. As Matthew frequently notes, Ryan still has one of the highest profiles of anyone in the party, especially when budget season rolls around. And both the grassroots and upper levels of the party hold him in high regard. What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

Des Moines Register/Selzer & Co. Iowa 2012 Presidential Poll

• Ron Paul 49%
• Barack Obama 42%

• Rick Santorum 48%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Mitt Romney 46%
• Barack Obama 44%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Newt Gingrich 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 48%

Survey of 611 likely voters was conducted February 12-15, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Gallup 2012 GOP Nomination Daily Tracking Poll

• Rick Santorum 35%
• Mitt Romney 29%
• Newt Gingrich 13%
• Ron Paul 11%

(more…)

I’ll be honest – not 100% sure if this is an official Newt ad or if it was created by Right Face, but it’s a very well done web-ad I’ve seen floating on Twitter. It says at the end it’s an official Newt ad…so, you be the judge for me: