Mason-Dixon Virginia 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 45%
• Mitt Romney 44%
  
• Undecided 11%

• Barack Obama 49%
• Newt Gingrich 38%
  
• Undecided 13%

Survey of 625 likely voters was conducted January 16-18, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Romney leads by five points among independents, but Obama hoards 89 percent of Democrats to inch in front of the former Massachusetts governor.

Obama leads Gingrich by 11 points among independents.

Voters are mixed on Obama: 39 percent rate him favorably, 41 percent rate him unfavorably and 19 percent say they are neutral. Romney, on the other hand, has a more positive image rating: 36 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of him, while only 29 percent have an unfavorable opinion and 31 percent say they feel neutral.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Mason-Dixon Virginia 2012 Senate Poll

• George Allen (R) 46%
• Tim Kaine (D) 46%
• Undecided 8%

Survey of 625 likely voters was conducted January 16-18, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points.

Inside the numbers

Kaine wins 90 percent of Democrats. Allen earns 91 percent of Republicans. By a six-point margin, independents lean toward Kaine.

Forty-one percent (41%) say they have a favorable opinion of Allen, while 39 percent have a favorable opinion of Kaine. But the percentages of voters having unfavorable impressions of each candidate is 18 percentage points fewer than their respective favorability ratings.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Mason-Dixon Florida 2012 Senate Poll

• Bill Nelson (D) 45%
• Connie Mack (R) 42%
• Undecided 13%

Survey of 800 likely voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Forty-two percent of voters recognize Nelson’s name and have a favorable impression of him; 24 percent view him unfavorably. Another 22 percent are neutral, and 12 percent don’t recognize Nelson’s name at all.

Mack is clearly the front-runner among Republicans, the poll found. Among likely Republican voters, Mack leads former Sen. George Lemieux 38-12 percent. Trailing with 7 percent is Mike McCalister followed by Adam Hasner (4 percent) and Craig Miller (1 percent). About 38 percent of GOP voters, however, are undecided.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

With the I-4 Corridor being one of the must-win areas of the Sunshine State, all the three remaining candidates who are still competing in Florida are hitting the area hard. Both Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich have events here today and tomorrow. I was lucky in that tonight’s Romney event was at a time I could go to. So, with that in mind, here are a few observations.

First, there were around 500 people showed up to the factory which have proven the backdrop for many Romney events recently. What was important about this plant was that Lanco Paints are headquartered in Puerto Rico and one of the two surrogates with Romney was Governor Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico. This is especially critical in Orlando since Orange County has one of the highest percentages of Puerto Ricans in the whole state. Governor Fortuño gave a solid speech, and he certainly has charisma. At the very least the Puerto Rican Governor should be given a good speaking slot at the convention.

The other surrogate with Romney was Senator John McCain. All those Republicans who supposedly don’t like McCain were nowhere to be seen tonight. The Senator was given an enthusiastic reception by the crowd. Calling himself the warm-up act, McCain told jokes. For instance he said that after he lost the election he slept like a baby “I woke up every two hours and cried”. He also called for an end to debates, saying 19 was enough and that it was distracting the candidates from actually going out to meet voters.

Governor Romney himself gave a very good speech. He shot one zinger at Gingrich saying how the Speaker complained after Monday about the debate audience being too quiet, but after last night that the crowd was too loud. Other than that, the Governor focused on President Obama, calling him out of touch and full of broken promises; more specifically using the State of the Union as a cudgel to go after the President. Attacking the President on Solyndra, excessive regulations, taxation and particularly crony-capitalism Romney forcefully advocated for free-market capitalism without excessive government regulation. This was an economy-based speech and the crowd responded well.

As for the crowd itself, it was as diverse as everyone says Florida is. There were a lot of Hispanic voters, some Africa-America voters, seniors, young people, and families. The people I talked to before the event had sky-high optimism about the Governor’s chances. Everyone was pleased with his debate performance and everyone believes he is going to win the Florida primary. The crowd believed he’s a winner and they are happy to back the winner.

Tomorrow night, I’ll be at the Orange County Lincoln Day Dinner where the guest speaker is none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich. I’ll do a write up for you all about that too. It’s good to be in the center of the political universe for the next few days.

Rick Santorum has been pretty consistent and this clip from 1994 shows Rick on health care now is pretty much the same as Rick on Health Care then.

ARG Arizona 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Newt Gingrich 32%
• Mitt Romney 32%
• Ron Paul 12%
• Rick Santorum 10%
• Undecided 12%

Among Men (54%)

• Newt Gingrich 35%
• Mitt Romney 30%
• Ron Paul 12%
• Rick Santorum 9%
• Undecided 13%

Among Women (46%)

• Mitt Romney 34%
• Newt Gingrich 28%
• Ron Paul 12%
• Rick Santorum 11%
• Undecided 12%

Among Tea Party Supporters (48%)

• Newt Gingrich 40%
• Mitt Romney 23%
• Rick Santorum 13%
• Ron Paul 11%
• Undecided 13%

Among Non-Tea Party GOP Primary Voters (52%)

• Mitt Romney 40%
• Newt Gingrich 25%
• Ron Paul 13%
• Rick Santorum 7%
• Undecided 11%

Survey of 600 Republican primary voters was conducted January 25-26, 2012.  The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

This ad represents a “substantial” buy and is running in every media market in Florida:

Mike Huckabee has responded to the use of video of himself in the ad by saying he does not support Gingrich (or any other candidate specifically) and asking Gingrich to stop running the ad:

On Fox News’ “Your World” Friday, ex-AR Guv says Gingrich’s campaign did not ask to use his sound bite and “would not have received [permission] had they.”

Adds he would “love” for the Georgian’s team to take down the ad.

Mitt Romney continues his big swing of momentum in the Sunshine State with two more solid endorsements today. First, Clay Shaw, a well-respected 26-year US Representative from Florida, announced his support of the Governor:

“Mitt Romney has the experience and skills that are needed to create jobs and undo the damage caused by President Obama’s disastrous economic policies,” said Congressman Shaw. “As a successful businessman and fiscally conservative governor, Mitt knows how to balance a budget and how to put Floridians back to work. He is the only Republican capable of defeating President Obama and implementing the type of conservative policies that our country needs.”

And then the even bigger “get”, the rumors of which began last night during the debate and became official today — Governor Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico:

“Mitt Romney is the one candidate who has the record, leadership, experience, and pro-growth plan to continue the course of private-sector job creation we’ve begun in Puerto Rico and provide economic stability for generations. Mitt Romney has shown throughout his life that the principles learned in the private sector can be applied to all challenges, whether it was saving the 2002 Olympics or balancing the budget as Governor.”

Fortuño has been floated as a possible Veep choice for Romney by several politicos over the past year, and would make quite an interesting choice (in a very high risk/high reward sort of way). Short-term, this endorsement will pad Romney’s already solid inroads with the Florida Hispanic community.

It’s often revealing to turn conventional wisdom on its head and see what’s really hidden underneath.   You’ve all heard it, I’m sure, that RomneyCare is Mitt’s doom, an albatross around his neck, his biggest weakness as a potential candidate.  In Part 1 of this series I detailed not only how grave some people feel this issue is for Romney’s chances, but also pointed out that Obama and his team of key operatives (Axelrod, Gibbs, and Daley) are all praising RomneyCare as ObamaCare’s predecessor in an effort to hurt Mitt with the GOP’s conservative and libertarian bases.  However,  below I present what a great asset and strength Romney’s history and experience with health care will be to him as a general election candidate against Obama.

Yes . . . for the purposes of this post I am skipping the GOP primary altogether and how health care will effect that outcome.  Don’t worry, I will address those issues thoroughly in later installments of this series.  But sometimes it’s important to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the carrot at the end of the stick, to give a proper and more accurate assessment of the situation one is currently in.  Winning the GOP nomination and imagining how well Mitt could tackle Obama on health care is that light/pot/carrot.  Some Mitt fans or fence-sitters may be guilty of hand wringing and fretting over how RomneyCare might really be the big problem that so many are saying it will be.  This post is for you folks in particular.

First off, it’s always wise to take a step back and look at the big picture.  Health Care promises to be a big topic in the upcoming 2012 presidential election no doubt . . . but I can guarantee that it will not be the biggest. It never has been the number one issue on people’s minds and I see no reason for that to change (“It’s the Economy Stupid!“). The Exit polls from our most recent election cycle show “The Economy” dominating voter’s hearts and minds:

The economy isn’t just the most important issue to voters this year . . .  it’s roughly twice as important to them as the other top issues of concern combined . . .  Sixty-two percent of voters name the economy as their most important issue this year. Health care ranks a distant second, at 19 percent. Illegal immigration and Afghanistan follow at 8 and 7 percent.

The 2008 Presidential exit polls also showed that “The Economy” was far and away the biggest issue on people’s minds:

The economy dominated voters’ concerns at historical levels in the presidential election . . . Fully 62 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent) or terrorism (9 percent)

(more…)

Yesterday I posted a CBS News profile of the Gingrich presidential effort’s primary money man, Sheldon Adelson.  Today, ABC News is out with a story that Adelson has been under investigation for nearly a year by the Justice Department concerning allegations of bribery and connections to Chinese organized crime. Read the story here.  As I discussed in yesterday’s posting about the Gringrich-Adelson connection, the most compelling cause for concern is that Adelson is essentially the source of funding that has kept Newt’s campaign viable via the SuperPAC.  He financed the “King of Bain” TV/video that made false and dishonest allegations concerning Romeny and his activities while at Bain Capital, as well as financing what can only be described as blatant attacks on the fundamentals of free enterprise capitalism.  One might expect such activity from the likes of George Soros or other “billionaire socialists” shilling for the left-wing of the Democratic Party, but it is shocking to see that kind of thing play out in a Republican presidential primary.  There is absolutely no way that Gingrich can avoid the logical suspicion that, should his campaign succeed, he would be owned by Mr. Adelson.  That point might be debatable if Newt had say a dozen $10 million plus contributors to his SuperPAC or other associated campaign support activities—but he does not.  Just this one.

As I have made clear in past writings, I am no “Rombot.”  I initially preferred either of two other candiates (Daniels or Christie).  So, while I do plan to vote for Mitt Romney (along with a little sentiment for Ron Paul) in my state’s primary, that is not what motivates my concern over the character, direction, and style of the Newt Gingrich campaign.  I have seen a lot in presidential politics over many years.  I totally identify with that old Reagan punch-line:  ”They say politics is the second oldest profession, but from what I’ve observed it bears a close resemblance to the first!”  Yet, I cannot recall anything like what we have seen from Gingrich in the last 60 days.  His penchant for serial prevarication and revisionist history,  calculated manipulation, lack of a consistent identifiable philosophical framework, dependence on essentially one primary financial backer, together with what can only be described as volatile and (in my judgement) sociopathic behavior, combine to make him unacceptable for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party, much less for the presidency itself.  And, if all of that were not enough, his own history and track-record should be the final straw.

EPIC-MRA Michigan 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 48% (41%) {43%} [41%] (41%)
• Mitt Romney 40% (46%) {45%} [46%] (46%)

• Barack Obama 51% (45%)
• Newt Gingrich 38% (40%)

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted January 21-25, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 13-16, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted August 13-16, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 9-11, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted February 12-17, 2011 are in parentheses

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Rasmussen 2012 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Barack Obama 45% [46%] (46%) {46%} [45%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 42% [43%] (43%) {43%} [43%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 48% [48%] (48%) {49%} [48%] (47%)
• Newt Gingrich 41% [41%] (41%) {40%} [39%] (40%)

Survey of 1,500 likely voters was conducted January 24-26, 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 conductedJanuary 23-25, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 22-24, 2012 are 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 conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

EPIC-MRA Michigan 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 31% [34%] (32%)
• Newt Gingrich 26% [20%] (5%)
• Ron Paul 14% [8%] (5%)
• Rick Santorum 10% [2%]
• Undecided 19% [13%] (16%)

Survey of 271 likely primary voters was conducted January 21-25, 2012. The margin of error is +/-6 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted November 13-16, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 13-16, 2011 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Gallup has released their 1/27 daily tracking poll. As usual, the graphics are courtesy of Gallup:

Gingrich clicks up a point to 32%. It has to be a welcomed return to positive momentum for the former Speaker of the House after stalling at 31% for a couple of days.

The news isn’t so good for Romney. The former Governor of Massachusetts continues his slide by dropping a point to land at 24%. That gives Gingrich an eight point lead. That has to be discouraging for Mitt after he has been doing so well in Florida.

Paul has ticked back up a point to match his previous high water mark of 14%. He now claims sole possession of third place.

Santorum pushes. He remains at 13%. With Paul’s upward movement, he is left all alone in fourth place. He has been in last place — either in a tie, or sole possessor of it — for the last nine days. Coupled with his equally abysmal numbers in Florida, I don’t see how Rick can reasonably continue past the Florida Primary next week unless some miracle happens Sunshine State.

Heh…

Here he goes again.

With Florida and perhaps his presidential hopes in the balance, Newt Gingrich turned in an oddly passive debate performance that left his supporters scratching their heads and illustrated his unpredictable and even whimsical style.

It served as a reminder of the essential trait of the Gingrich campaign: It is entirely dependent on the candidate’s impulse or mood.

And the Gingrich who lit up a pair of moderators last week in South Carolina on his way to a thumping win didn’t show up here Thursday evening.

The former speaker never once portrayed Mitt Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate,” his preferred gibe, or ever even tied his chief rival to the “establishment” Republican voters in this state decisively rejected two years ago. He seemed more consumed with litigating the unfairness of Romney’s attacks against him than driving his own message.

All told, Gingrich’s performance was more a throwback to the last days of his Iowa campaign — a floundering, listless, message-free affair — than an extension of his Palmetto State victory tour.

Be sure to Read the rest here.

Obviously, it wasn’t just Martin and Burns as Romney surged to over 90.0 to win Florida on Intrade during last night’s debate.

The Huffington Post reports (emphasis added):

WASHINGTON — Members of Newt Gingrich’s campaign accused Mitt Romney’s campaign of packing the audience for the Republican presidential candidate debate on Thursday night in Jacksonville, Fla., with its own supporters to ensure that the dynamics would be favorable to Romney.

“They definitely packed the room,” Kevin Kellems, one of Gingrich’s senior advisers, told The Huffington Post early Friday morning. “The problem for them is their candidate, at several junctures, couldn’t remember what he had said before on an issue or what the fundamental truth is on a given topic. TV viewers tend to notice and remember things like that.”

A more junior member of the Gingrich campaign said in an email that it was “obvious” that the Romney campaign had worked to make sure the audience was overly favorable toward the former Massachusetts governor.

…

(more…)

Sunshine State News (R) Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 40% (46%)
• Newt Gingrich 31% (20%)
• Rick Santorum 12% (12%)
• Ron Paul 9% (9%)
• Other 1% (1%)
• Undecided 6% (8%)

Which Republican candidate has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in November?

• Mitt Romney 45%
• Newt Gingrich 33%
• Rick Santorum 8%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Other 1%
• Undecided 7%

Survey of 865 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012 by VSS. The margin of error is +/- 3.33 percentage points.Click here to view crosstabs.  Results from the poll conducted January 11-14, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Quinnipiac Florida 2012 GOP Primary Poll

• Mitt Romney 38% (34%) [37%] {36%} (22%) [21%] {22%} (24%)    
  
• Newt Gingrich 29% (40%) [26%] {24%} (35%) [17%] {8%} (5%)
• Ron Paul 14% (6%) [15%] {10%} (8%) [3%] {6%} (10%)
• Rick Santorum 12% (11%) [15%] {16%} (2%) [1%] {2%} (1%)
• Don’t know 6% (7%) [7%] {7%} (12%) [16%] {13%} (19%)

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?

• Mind made up 67%
• Might change 32%

Among Voters Whose Minds Are Made Up

• Mitt Romney 25.46%
• Newt Gingrich 20.30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Santorum 53% (60%) [56%] {59%} / 19% (13%) [12%] {8%} {+34%}
• Mitt Romney 61% (70%) [72%] {73%} / 28% (21%) [16%] {14%} {+33%}
• Newt Gingrich 50% (66%) [54%] {59%} / 38% (23%) [31%] {29%} {+12%}
• Ron Paul 35% (33%) [41%] {34%} / 42% (42%) [38%] {47%} {-7%}

Survey of 580 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 24-26, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 22-23, 2012 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 4-8, 2012 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted November 28 – December 5, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedOctober 31 – November 7, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 27 – August 2, 2011 are in parentheses.

-–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

Dear Conservatives,

In the last three letters, I’ve taken a look at how I see Rick Santorum being able to win the presidency, his vision for America, and his steadfastness. In this section, I take an honest look at some of the concerns that have been raised about Senator Santorum.

There is no candidate with which I can agree 100 percent of the time. The question that must be asked is how important those disagreements are. Usually when fly by night opponents offer up these attacks on a candidate, the attacks are presented ripped from context-both the context of the issues and what motivated the votes and the greater context of what the problems with other candidates are.

In the case of Rick Santorum, the issues with his record are either: a) not relevant to the main problem facing this country and/or b) his opponents have similar or worse problems. I believe Senator Santorum not only has the best qualifications, but far less negatives than other candidates.

Of course, there are some things that will be considered faults by others that I won’t consider problems. For example, Senator Santorum is opposed by some under a thinly veiled cloak of anti-Christianity and anti-Catholicism by radical secularists on both the right and the left as has happened with several other candidates in recent years. I obviously don’t consider his faith and defense of the family to be a negative.

Some supporters of Congressman Ron Paul take issue to the fact that Santorum said the U.S. should not have objected to Mossad killing an Iranian Nuclear scientist who was helping to develop a nuclear program that threatened Israel and the stability of the world. Quite frankly, the job of the President of the United States is to keep us safe, not to keep safe terrorists who threaten the lives of millions.

The issue of earmarks has been raised against Senator Santorum. Senator Santorum did request earmarks (which funds specific local projects) in appropriations bills.

It must be noted that Congressman Paul also requested earmarks and Speaker Gingrich began the process of the massive growth of earmark requests during his speakership as a way to help members get re-elected. Governor Romney in Massachusetts sought federal funding through earmarks for his state.

Earmarks are a concern because there are many .wasteful and corrupt earmarks (i.e. pork). However, as a portion of the federal budget, they amount to 0.5%. That’s not what’s bankrupting us. What’s bankrupting us is the high costs of entitlements, and entitlement spending is an area that Santorum has been a stalwart on. In addition, looking at broader fiscal issues, during Santorum 12 years in the Senate, he received an “A” rating from the National Taxpayers Union seven years, a B+ rating three times, and a “B” rating twice. This indicates a very fiscally conservative voting record on issues of taxes and spending.

Another issue that has been raised is Senator Santorum’s opposition to a national right-to-work bill while he was a member of the Senate. Senator Santorum made clear that the reason he opposed this was because it would impose right to work on every state in the union and he was representing the interests of the State of Pennsylvania, which does not have a right-to-work law and doesn’t want to be forced to have one by the federal government. Santorum said if he were president, he would sign such a bill.

It we’re truthful, right to work is not the big issue facing our country at the moment. Senator. What could be a big issue is if Santorum were a minion of big labor as has been alleged by those who have tried to take this vote and extrapolate that Santorum was beholden to the interests of Big Labor.  One commenter suggested that Santorum was a “Union Social Con.” In reality, Santorum had a career AFL-CIO rating of 13%. For comparison, through 2009, Ron Paul had a career rating of 19%. If Rick Santorum is beholden to big labor, then Ron Paul must be Jimmy Hoffa.

The fact of the matter is that Rick Santorum is a strong fiscal and social conservative. The record shows that clearly from ratings and actual votes in context.

The issue of Senator Santorum’s endorsement of the re-election campaign of Senior Senator Arlen Specter in 2004 has come under attack. Specter was being challenged by a Conservative Congressman named Pat Toomey, who six years succeeded Specter, but with Santorum and President Bush endorsing Specter in 2004, Specter won renomination by a 51-49% margin in the GOP primary and then went on to win the General Election.

The context of this endorsement was that Senator Santorum was concerned about Toomey’s prospects to win a general election. He was rightly concerned that one or more Supreme Court justice would retire (as indeed they did.)  At the time of 2004 elections, the GOP held a 51-49 margin in the U.S. Senate. Even with a Bush win, successful presidential often offer no coattails for the Senate. In Reagan’s 1984 landslide, for example, Republicans lost a seat in the Senate. With other liberal GOP Senators such as Lincoln Chafee being even less likely to support a conservative judge for the high court, Santorum believed that Republicans could not spare a seat and could not risk nominating Toomey.

While Santorum admits that endorsing Specter was a mistake, he may have been right about Toomey’s inability to win in 2004. In the greatest GOP Congressional Victory in two generations, Toomey managed to eek out a 51-49% illustrating the challenges conservatives face in Pennsylvania. In 2004, the odds would have been far less favorable for him, and he probably would have lost given the power and influence of big labor in that State. On the other hand, Santorum was wrong about the need to keep Specter. Even if Toomey had lost, the GOP picked up four Senate seats and would have been able to move its judicial nominees anyway.
While Santorum’s endorsement wasn’t one I agree with, it was not out of the ordinary. Santorum endorsed a fellow senator of his own party for re-election in home state. Compare this to Newt Gingrich’s strident campaigning for liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava with bitter attacks on conservatives who supported Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich, like Romney could have stayed out of race as the Georgian’s involvement was hardly required in an upstate New York House race. For the record, in that race, Santorum endorsed Hoffman.

Finally, there’s the issue of Santorum’s big re-election loss in 2006. Santorum had won as a fairly conservative member in a blue district in the House and then in a Blue State. However, a perfect storm came together in 2006. Santorum had been a strong supporter of President Bush on issues like Social Security and the War on Terror and the President was quite unpopular in Pennsylvania. 2006 was an incredible year for Democrats, many conservatives were sore over Santorum’s endorsement of Specter, so money and resources didn’t come as freely. In addition, even Republicans who may have wanted to come to Santorum’s aide were challenged by the numerous Republican incumbents in trouble who appeared to have a better chance of survival than Santorum.

In the fall, Santorum faced the son of a famous and well-regarded state political family who apparent shared Senator Santorum’s pro-life views and picked up a quarter of pro-life voters. To top that all off, the full force of organized labor came out against him, and Senator Santorum lost by a wide margin.

However, he wasn’t the only one to go down in a land in 2006. In Massachusetts where Republicans had held the Governor’s Mansion for sixteen years Mitt Romney endorsed his own Lieutenant Governor to succeed him. She lost by twenty-two points, which may be suggestive of the opinion the people of Massachusetts held of her boss.

Of course, making extrapolations from one of the most anti-Republican elections in history about viability in national election is unwise and unfair. The one election Santorum lost in the midst of a perfect storm in favor of his opponent should not cause us to forget how he was able to survive and thrive in a political environment that was very difficult for a conservative Republican.

Every candidate will have negatives and issues with which we disagree with them on, but we ultimately must weight positive and negatives to render a fair judgment on a candidate. Not only with Senator Santorum, but others in this race. In the next letter, we turn our attention to the former Speaker of the House and the question of character.

NBC/WSJ 2012 Presidential Poll

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

• Newt Gingrich 37% [40%] {13%} (8%) [5%] {8%} (6%) [11%] {13%} (10%)
• Mitt Romney 28% [23%] {28%} (23%) [23%] {30%} (30%) [21%] {21%} (19%)
• Rick Santorum 18% [3%] {2%} (1%) [3%] {3%} (4%) [3%] {2%} (3%)
• Ron Paul 12% [9%] {10%} (11%) [9%] {9%} (7%)

Now, if you were voting today in the 2012 Republican primary for president, and the candidates were Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, which one would you favor?

• Newt Gingrich 52% [59%]
  
• Mitt Romney 39% [36%]

(more…)

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

The Morning Call Story that’s been quoted so much does not directly quote Senator Santorum. However, video of Senator Santorum talking about his views on health care does exist thanks to C-Span. It’s also not embeddable (again, thanks to C-Span.) However, I’ve selected the  relevant portion of the debate (watch here) where Santorum discusses his views on what health care reform should look like. He says, “You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” and argues for choice and health savings accounts, pretty much the exact same position he holds today.

Well, what do we make of this quote from the Morning Call:

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.

There are no quotes and its very unclear as to what policy exactly was advocated here by either candidate. Most likely, the candidates appear to have opposed forcing employers to provide health insurance with people responsible for their own health care. Certainly, Santorum will need explain it for certain, but all the Santorum opponents hooping and hollering over this  are truly making much ado about the fact that the Morning Call had a reporter who turned in a sloppy report back in 1994.

PPP (D) Minnesota 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 51% [51%] (47%)
• Mitt Romney 41% [36%] (42%)

• Barack Obama 52%
• Rick Santorum 40%

• Barack Obama 51%
• Ron Paul 38%

• Barack Obama 54% [54%] (51%)
• Newt Gingrich 39% [36%] (38%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Rick Santorum 30% / 50% {-20%}
• Ron Paul 29% / 53% {-24%}
• Mitt Romney 29% [29%] (32%) / 56% [53%] (42%) {-27%}
• Newt Gingrich 27% [17%] (30%) / 60% [65%] (52%) {-33%}

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

• Approve 49% [51%] (49%)
• Disapprove 45% [44%] (46%)

Survey of 1,236 Minnesota voters was conducted January 21-22, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% [38%] (37%) Democrat; 33% [31%] (34%) Republican; 32% [31%] (29%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 29% [29%] Moderate; 22% [25%] Somewhat conservative; 22% [20%] Somewhat liberal; 16% [15%] Very conservative; 11% [11%] Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted May 27-30, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted December 4-5, 2010 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

BOOM:

Rick Santorum supported the idea of “requir[ing] individuals to buy health insurance” when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during that election cycle.

“Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits,” The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes.

If true, the distinction between requiring people to buy health insurance and an individual mandate might be lost on the voters who have heard Santorum excoriate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of the individual mandate — which, in Gingrich’s case, dates back to the early 90s.

Hat-tip to Beltway Confidential.

Here is an excerpt from the original report dated May 2nd, 1994:

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. Both oppose abortion services and support limits on malpractice awards. Santorum says non-economic damages should not exceed $250,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and lawyers’ contingency fees should be capped at 25 percent.

Hat tip: Massachusetts Conservative

Here’s the teaser:

When it comes to debates, which have had an outsized effect on polls and on primary and election results, it was a role-reversal for Gingrich and Romney, and something that Gingrich needs to remedy Thursday night.

“Voters can smell fear and they can smell confidence. Newt has been displaying confidence, strength, even having fun in these debates. He needs to continue that. That’s the mark of a leader,” says Alex Castellanos, a GOP strategist and CNN contributor.

With five days to go until the primary, the CNN/Time/ORC poll indicates that a quarter of likely primary voters say they may change their mind on which candidate they are backing, which makes the debate a final chance for the candidates to reach a statewide audience, as well as viewers across the nation. The economy — and jobs in particular — the housing crisis, which is particularly acute in Florida, illegal immigration and health care reform are topics likely to be debated during the showdown.
But undecided voters might be tuned into more than just the issues.

“There is only a smidgeon of difference between Gingrich and Romney on issues. That means they are going to draw differences on personal qualities and character: Who is the stronger leader? Who is a flawed vessel for the nation’s hopes and fears?” added Castellanos, who was a top media adviser for Romney’s 2008 nomination bid but who is not taking sides this cycle.

“Voters don’t know what tests a president will face, but they do know he’ll be tested. When picking a president, how a leader reacts under pressure is more important than issues. Romney should not appear stressed or uncertain on the attack. He needs to display confidence and be a joyous warrior, like Gingrich.”
Gingrich’s campaign was left for dead after early stumbles in May and June, but he came back and soared to front-runner status in polling in late November and early December. But he faltered again, with poor showings in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, before mounting a second comeback in South Carolina.
That made Romney’s path to the nomination a lot tougher now that it was a week ago.

“Romney must think these debates are ‘The Night of Living Dead,’ ” Castellanos said. “Newt Gingrich keeps rising from the grave every few weeks to challenge him. And every time he does, he’s a little harder to dispatch. Wooden stakes and silver bullets don’t seem to stop Gingrich. He keeps coming back.”

Need to watch the debate online? Watch it on CNN.com/Live or CNN’s mobile apps.

And as always… Have at it in the comments!

Hat-tip: The Argo Journal

One of my favorite Congressmen, Rep. Erik Paulsen, announced his support for Mitt Romney today. Here’s a snippet from the press release:

“It’s an honor to receive Congressman Paulsen’s support,” said Mitt Romney. “He has served Minnesota well, both in Congress and in the State Legislature. He understands business and job creation, having spent many years in the private sector. I am proud he’s joining my team and I look forward to working with him to bring my message to all Minnesotans.”

Announcing his support, Congressman Paulsen said, “These are tough times for our country. We need a president who will lead on key issues like tax reform, energy, spending, and, most of all, getting Americans back to work. Mitt Romney has the proven leadership and experience to put our country back on the path toward economic certainty and stability. I look forward to working with Mitt Romney over the next year to ensure his victory in November.”

Congressman Erik Paulsen was elected to the Minnesota State House in 1994, served as Majority Leader from 2003-2007, and in 2008 was elected to the United States House of Representatives. He is a member of the House Ways & Means Committee where he serves on the Select Revenue, Oversight, and Human Resources Subcommittees. Erik and his wife live with their four daughters in Eden Prairie.

There has already been some discussion in the various media concerning Newt’s principal source of SuperPAC support.  Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is reported to have already contributed $10+ million (with more likely to come) to the Gingrich effort in one way or another.  Regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits, or the free-speech rights, of the SuperPAC’s, when one individual (or individual and spouse) contribute $10+ million to a presidential campaign effort attention is warranted.  This is not to suggest that there is anything illegal or unethical, rather it is that in politics money buys influence regardless of party, philosophy or whatever—it’s just a fact.  Yesterday, CBS News profiled Newt’s largest contributor, and because some might suggest that he is largely responsible for the Gingrich campaign’s viability, the profile is worth a look: