FYI this poll was done at the PEAK of the Santorum love fest, and before the Romney upset at CPAC and his unexpected victory in Maine, Romney will win California by at least 15 points, you heard it here first, Little Ricky is falling fast!
In June, the Tigers will be mowing the Angels down like grass, and the Red Wings will have polished off the San Jose Sharks probably a month earlier in the Playoffs.
You don’t want to send anybody even remotely related to Michigan trying to win an election out there about then, like Willard. It’s gotta be Newtorum.
Romney is clearly in trouble, but the question is whether Santorum can win the nomination outright. Are Santorum’s numbers at this point enough to get him to 50 percent plus 1 of delegates, provided that he enjoys a similar bump across all remaining states, or are we looking at a hung convention if this keeps up?
Santorum absolutely has the available delegates to win the nomination. Assuming he wins all the midwestern and southern states, that is. For him to win the nomination outright, he will simply HAVE to make the ballot in Indiana, which he initially failed to make, and is challenging the failure in court.
He will also have to eliminate Gingrich and receive his delegates when he drops out.
But the math is there, I’d rather not run through it in detail because I’m busy, but it’s there.
That probably depends in part on how committed Mitt’s support is outside of Utah. If he loses Michigan and does poorly on Super Tuesday, does the bulk of his support rally around an “inevitable” Santorum, or do they dig in and hope for a turnaround?
Mitt’s support was resilient in the face of FOTM polling, but it doesn’t seem to be handling electoral defeat as well.
In 2008, when it looked like niether Obama nor Hillary had enough delegates to get the nomination, something called the superdelegates stepped in and the majority of them went heavily for Obama, which is what him over the top to secure the nomination. If Romney or Santorum don’t reach the necessary 1144 delegates needed, do we have a similiar superdelegate system which could help Romney or Santorum get the nomination?
The Democrats had over 600 superdelegates. The required delegates to win in their party was roughly 2200. In other words, their superdelegates were MUCH more important than ours, ironically.
By June 5 the Californians, for whom the liberty of their newest farming industry (Marijuana) is very dear, and who do not like the federal raids on the medical cannabis dispensaries, will all have read this recent expose by Ron Paul, which is available on Kindle for PC (free download in seconds) at $9.99 so you can read it in five minutes. (You can also make it a last minute Valentine gift for your special someone): http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X
And the California Lottery will decide the fate of Mitt, Rick and Newt, in accordance with the newest GOP practices (see Maine 2/11).
All I can say is, for the sake of the country, Craig is now supporting Santorum. With Craigs support Rick will be back in the single digits before super tuesday.
Hee hee! Look at all these fervent Santorum supporters. The guy nobody knew or cared about thirty days ago, the big spending porka-fella Republican with NO, make that ZERO executive experience has suddently become their dream candidate. I don’t buy it.
FYI this poll was done at the PEAK of the Santorum love fest, and before the Romney upset at CPAC and his unexpected victory in Maine
Only in this crazy campaign and from a most diehard Romney Supporter would we hear this argument, “Yeah, but this poll was taken 4 days ago before he won a state by 3 points that he won by 30 and then surprisingly won a straw poll he won three times before.” Game changer.
#44 That story’s been around for a while. It will not matter. According to my local talk show, it’s “evangelicals and Tea Partiers” who are “flocking to Santorum in droves.” These are the ABR people we’ve come to know so well. They do not give a rat’s behind about hypocrisy, prior record or ability. The only thing they want to know is if the latest FOTM (1) Is not Romney and (2) Rising in the polls.
Fervent Santorum supporters would be overstating it. I don’t think there are any of those. There are a lot of people hopping on the bandwagon (allebit as reluctantly as possible and only after every other option has been exhausted), but I didn’t know a Santorum supporter back in December. Among many though he is the lesser of two evils. To me Obama is the greatest of all the evils. Some equate Romney and Obama, and I think that is crazy. There lies the difference.
I read the story about Santorum’s wife. Is she on the ballot? Or are we requiring the President’s wife to be candidates for Sainthood. In her 20s, she did stupid things. That defines being in your 20s. Since, then she’s become a mom of 8. SHe grew up.
“Santorum hasn’t been vetted yet. have you read the heart warming story about his wife?? it will endear him and her to all the evangelicals, I’m sure!”
If you think evangelicals are prone to holding the sins of a person’s prior life against them, you don’t understand evangelicals. They’re big into altar calls, repentance, a new life, and leaving the old behind. They see a radical break in the identity and perhaps even essence of a person, pre and post conversion.
I wasn’t a Santorum supporter in December. I was actually being pretty cautious. I got on the Cain train, but really had decided to wait until Iowa to see who emerged. No reason to make a decision until you know who is left in the race.
It reeks of desperation, which I don’t understand given the race is very much up for grabs. That line of attack has no chance of success. In fact, it would be quite the opposite actually
So now some Rombots are attacking Rick because of sins his wife committed 30 years ago before she became serious about her faith, before she had kids, before she and Rick were in love and married, before Rick entered politics? How low can you go?
At least the attacks on Romney for his past as an independent and Reagan skeptic are about his politics. Dang.
You are more politically informed than most, and I understand that it is easy to brush with broad strokes when making commentary on Internet forums. I am addressing what I see as his issue with electability.
If you think evangelicals are prone to holding the sins of a person’s prior life against them, you don’t understand evangelicals. They’re big into altar calls, repentance, a new life, and leaving the old behind. They see a radical break in the identity and perhaps even essence of a person, pre and post conversion.
The story about Santorum’s wife SHOULD be irrelevant, but if Sant were to become the GOP nominee, it would be a really BIG deal on the left. But given Santorum’s famous adherence to his faith and his outspokenness about it, the story will invite catcalls from the left.
OK, but what doesn’t invite catcalls from them really? It is not a game changer either, unless somebody on the Romney team gets the bright idea to reference it, which they won’t. They are smarter than that. I’m a Romney supporter trying to help here. Using this would be stupid
Norris’s article mentioned some stuff about Santorum that was either benign or irrelevant….and didn’t mention some of the stuff that SHOULD have been mentioned….but there was some good stuff in it regardless.
I commented that he had voted for Sarbanes Oxley, then wondered if I had gotten that right, and apologized for it. Turns out he did. In doing the mea culpa, I mentioned that he’s voted for Davis Bacon, which he did. Add to that that he had voted against Right to Work, and it becomes clear that he helped pass some of the worst big government legislation of recent years.
Much more could be added. Even I was shocked at his anti-second Amendment activity, for example. How many states would he carry if he lost the U.S. by 18 points?
Lol! Hell, I might even raise a glass in appreciation. The man has been running forever, can we not just give him a state as some sort of lifetime participation award or something
Do you believe in dragging everything in, under the pretense that “the Democrats will talk about this”?
If we suppose Democrats will talk about all the intimate details and history of the LDS, does that mean we should discuss it here? Or base our vote on the fear of their “vetting” such issues?
KG 66: How sanctimonious you are: “It’s painful to have to bring this up, since it shouldn’t matter, but it’s our duty to do so.”
C’mon. If the only way Romney can get elected is by dredging up slime from the sewer and spraying it all over the party, at least be honest about what you’re doing.
#69 It would not only be stupid, it would be reprehensible for anybody on the right to use this. No way would Mitt use it. But like I said, Santorum has been so “religious” and sanctimonious, standing so strong against birth control, homosexuality, and abortion, even for victims of rape and incest, a story like this just isn’t any old story. It will reek of hypocrisy for those who want to make that case.
It definitely is not a game-changer on the right. Matthew MSW is completely right. However, IMO it would be a big stumbling block in the general election.
If it goes until California, the question then becomes, WHO would actually want to be the nominee?
Still, the way California is structured is winner take all, and a candidate with deep pockets in an expensive state that has a much more “moderate” GOP would be an almost certain win for Romney (if he’s still in it)
But I think Super Tuesday will decide the nominee. If Mitt loses Michigan and does poorly on Super Tuesday, he’s not going to be able to recover. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I think we’ll know who our nominee is in the next few weeks.
If Romney wins both AZ and Michigan and does well on Super Tuesday (more likely scenario) I think Santorum drops out. The math to become the nominee becomes “lottery” type odds, as not only would he have to take all the winner take all states, but also get lopsided majorities in the proportional states as well. He’s also not on the ballot in some crucial states. That’s when fundraising completely dies because who wants to write a check to a campaign with a nearly zero chance of victory?
#75: What??????????? I never said it was our duty to do anything. The story is already out there and I referenced no detail. I plainly said the story will mean nothing in the GOP primary. It could be a big deal in the general….
…especially considering how all this religious stuff is bubbling up lately.
The left hates, hates, hates (medieval, unenlightened, hateful, judgmental) churches impinging on ther sexual freedom. When they see hypocrisy or just religious people living below “God’s commandments,” they jump for joy in their gotcha moment and are going to make political hay.
What are you talking about? I haven’t mentioned it, but Rick’s wife shacking up with the abortionist for 6 years is relevant because the Dems would bring it up….big time. Not that it would matter, since Rick wouldn’t have the proverbial prayer against Obama in the first place….but every man, woman, and child in America would know about it by the end of the campaign….and Santorum would rue the day he entered the festivities.
As for what they would say about Mormons, that’s a given….but it would be ok. Most of it would be false, and the rest would be ignorant. They would have to take it up with Mormon Senators and Congressmen in their own Party.
And Mormon Governors have done a good job, Mormonism or no Mormonism.
Those that would legitimize such a tactic hate them anyway. What they like are excuses to justify that hate. With or without the excuses they will still feel that way
You guys are like a bunch of baboons ripping out you own guts. If this goes on much longer Obama will have a second term. Guess the moment is to big. Support in what you believe. That mitt Romney for me.
At the cusp of a euro meltdown (Italy, Portugal just downgraded again today), we’re going to nominate a guy who thinks worrying about other people’s sex lives is a presidential issue? You’re kidding me.
To quote Romney, “contraceptives are working just fine. Don’t mess with it.”
Most of this country still loves a good conversion story. It’s just so much a part of our Christian fabric, however much that fabric is frayed.
If Mitt, or Barack, or their directors of the Dark Arts try to make hay of this, they will be handing Rick a golden opportunity. His wife will now have the opportunity to discuss how Jesus changed her life (and her life has obviously changed a great deal since the 80s), the Santorums get lots of sympathy and tearful embraces, and whoever was dumb enough to try to exploit this looks like a big a-hole.
“I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is, and we are not a group of people who believe in no government.” – Rick Santorum, June 2011
#80: I have no idea what you just said. But you have to envision anti-Santorum videos from the left. Since Santorum has signed the Personhood Amendment, stating that any fertilized ovum is the exact same thing as a born, living human being. The Personhood Amendment leads to all kinds of radical outcomes:
Arresting young girls who submit to an abortion for murder; forcing an 11-year-old incest victims to bear her father’s child.
Imagine these shocking “Rick Santorum wants” videos. And then imagine them along side the story of his wife. Are you getting the picture?
“I think the dangers of contraception in this country, and the whole sexual libertine idea — many of the Christian faith have said, well that’s okay, I mean y’know, contraception is okay. It is not okay.” – Rick Santorum,
No, I’m saying you’re a hypocrite — you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
You say that the issue doesn’t matter, that it’s ‘reprehensible’ to bring it up. And then you justify bringing it up because the Dems will talk about it.
Rick is right about the libertarians. Libertarianism puts abstract theory ahead of inherited wisdom. It’s naturally allied with social Darwinsm and utilitarianism, neither of which are conservative.
If you favor libertarianism over conservatism, you’re supporting the wrong candidate.
#83: Matt: Yes, on the right–you are exactly right. On the left, no. They don’t believe in redemption. At least not for finger-wagging, puritanical SoCons.
Not that Santorum would ever get the nomination….but, hypothetically, if he did, staying home would not be the answer. There will be 3rd Party candidates in that instance, which would offer the opportunity to cast a protest vote. Either Ron Paul or Gov. Johnson on a Libertarian ticket. Even a vote for Trump would be an improvement, depending on his platform.
I am not for Santorum. I don’t think he can win. I do think you just changed the subject entirely. I’m referring to the link posted attacking Santorum’s wife. Do you not think the left is going to have something ready to go about whoever emerges as the nominee? You are talking about the crowd that would never, ever, vote for either Romney or Santorum. And if Obama is actually dumb enough or unlucky enough to get connected to that line of attack it would blow up in his face.
With all due repect, it seems you are the one who doesn’t believe in Christian redemption. And you’re blaming the left when it’s YOU who has the big problem with Rick’s wife!
#96 We’re talking how the Right will see this story: One of redemption. The left, who don’t believe in any such thing, will see it as rank hypocrisy and use it gleefully to undermine the Santorum’s brand.
Nice try Sarah stalkers… Santorum is going nowhere.
Newt and Santo will lock horns and undercut each others support.
Santo cherry picks states in an effort to ‘steal’ wins from Romney, showing himself too weak and ineffective to go head to head.
He cannot and will not compete head to head with Romney in every state. And Santo makes a huge mistake in thinking anyone is for him. Hell even Foster Friess, his super pac money man has only given him 400k, that is gum money to Adelson and to Romney’s pac.
He showed himself for the as*hat he is when he said he didn’t even compete in Maine (his excuse for third) and that he doesn’t ‘rig’ votes in reference to losing CPAC (but no mention of buying Vanderplats vote in Iowa).
Romney will beat him by 8%+ in Michigan, 10%+ in Arizona, Newt will be out of money and life lines after super Tuesday, and Rick will play the role of Huckabee in ’08. Romney rolls on and effectively wraps this up in early March.
FYI, National Review had a clarification on their Romney or Santorum post – they did not ask Gingrich to get out and support Santorum. And once Santorum shows us his tax returns (with nearly half his income coming from peddling influence as a lobbyist, among many other deviations) his ‘supporters’ will peel off.
What has most surprised me is the sheer ignorance of voters (and so many of the schizophrenic posters on this site who jump from candidate to candidate like Michael Jackson and ‘guests’ at a slumber party), and their inability to find one candidate, stick with one candidate, and intelligently fight for one candidate.
One of the smartest things to remember in politics is there are only two things necessary to winning: first, have tons of money. Second, refer again to number one. Romney is the only candidate with money to burn and continued earning power.
I hope little Ricky enjoys his moment in the sun, cause Romney’s gonna make it go dark on him in two weeks.
If someone digs up a quote of Mitt saying “Joseph Smith was right” does that mean he’s trying to shove his religious beliefs on the rest of us?
Give me a break.
Strawman, much? Has Mitt said anything like that? No. And if he did and preached it loudly for all, and made it a key component of his campaign, then yes, he would be shoving his religious beliefs upon the rest of us, and making us suspicious of his agenda once president.
Yes, we understood you said that before, and a couple of us now have answered that a) the left won’t vote for us anyway and b) Indies would be more inclined to side with the Santorums in such a skirmish.
So if the left is inclined to try that, by all means, they’ll be helping their opponent.
Conversion stories are great. I’m a convert based on an intense religious experience. I’m sure Mrs. Santorum is a happy mother and is in a good place with God.
But what we’re talking about here is the Presidency. Everybody will know, and she would probably prefer they didn’t. And not everyone thinks nice thoughts.
93 – Believe what you want. Practice what you want. But do NOT think that a candidate who spouts that birth control is “wrong,” is going to appeal in the General Election. Have you idiots forgotten that this is about beating Obama??? Oh yeah. . . you have. You just want to push your So Con values. Don’t doubt for a minute that all this Santorum garbage is going to come gurgling up in the General. Go ahead and vote him as the GOP nomination. Go ahead. And buy Obama shares on Intrade while your’e doing it.
107 – Indies are not going to vote for Santorum with his nutty views on abortion, birth control, gays, etc. Your’e fooling yourself big time if you believe that. Heck, I won’t’ vote for him and I’ve been voting Pub since high school!
I don’t have a problem with Santorum’s wife, dang it. I completely believe in redemption. Good grief! You guys work overtime to miss the point.
Just imagine if Santorum were our nominee. He’s probably unelectable with his outspoken views anyway. They will be seen as frightenly extreme to many people, whose votes you need. But at least he has the courage of his convictions. If you juxaposition his extreme views along side his wives story IN A GENERAL ELECTION, it’s a zonk.
Is it a fatal election zonk? I don’t know. But it doesn’t help. And it will be used. None of this has anything to do with ME. It’s between the Santorums and the electorate.
California doesn’t even matter right now. It won’t matter until the adding up of the total delegate count. Whoever has momentum on their side when CA comes around will win there. Michigan is the key state right now. Mitt needs to forget about campaigning in AZ now and head strait to MI to flatten Santorum there. He CANNOT let Santorum, of all people running, win MI.
#116: Matt: I always thought so. Then, when this election season, Mitt looked pretty good in polls, I had some hope. However, as we both know, some portion of the ABR movement is anti-Mormon.
Is Mormonism an election-killing zonk by itself? Maybe not. But for a candidate that’s having trouble winning people over, it doesn’t help. According to my local talk shows, “evangelicals and Tea Partiers” are going for Santorum in droves, although I dare say they know little about him.
And Mormonism might be a bigger zonk in the general, at least according to the polls.
It’s an interesting question: Between Mitt and Rick, who’s religion is the bigger zonk in this election? On the face of it, being a Mormon is a bigger zonk; no zonk for being a Catholic. EXCEPT Santorum actually lives and promotes Catholicism and that’s pretty extreme in America today.
JFK was a Catholic, but as Jackie famously said: “But he’s such a bad Catholic.” Americans want a president of faith, but not too much faith.
IMO here’s the difference between Mitt and Rick in the general. Mitt keeps his religion to himself and Rick gives the impression that he wants to impose his in their reproductive life. It would be a interesting poll to run.
“Rombots” bring “it” up because Romney-supporters want the GOP to beat Obama–so we analyze everything that could go wrong with the different candidates. Could things go wrong with Mitt? You betcha. That’s why we look hard at each of the new Not-Mitts to see what they have goin’ on.
We have to go with our best bet. And after vetting each of the Not-Mitts, it’s still Mitt. Every candidate that’s come up, has had a great big deal-breaker. Pawlenty couldn’t stand up to Mitt. Bachmann couldn’t stand up to Perry. Perry couldn’t stand up to the debates. Newt can’t stand up to his erratic past.
Can Santorum stand up to the vetting that hasn’t even started yet? That’s what we’re talking about.
121-looks likely indeed. But the fightwill be very hard. Obama can lose against Romney. Not against Santorum, of course.
Yet the Republican Establishment trying to screw their Caucuses voters with NEW delegates rules even CNN doesn’t understand could greatly mitigate the enthusiasm of the base to vote for Romney.
We all believe in redemption, but the reality is that Santorum needs to talk about his wife’s past…It needs to get out if he thinks he has a chance to be the nominee..Since the story is already out there, it’s only fair to his wife that her husband deals with it in public.
Better it comes from him than the Obama machine. The Democrats won’t care about redemption or how long ago it was.
127– The Big Dig, a $15-billion, corruption-riddled transportation project:
“The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and even four deaths.”
#133: WHERE did I ever “sling mud?” WHERE did I ever see Mitt was “perfect?” Get a grip.
I’ll tell you what “won’t work.” Sending Santorum up against the Obama machine. Mitt’s rationale against Obama is an older, waaaaay more experienced executive with finanical expertise.
The Big Dig was begun in the early 1980s and was finally opened after twenty years of construction in 2003, at the start of Romney’s governorship. Romney had little to no role in the entire clusterf’uck. No one with a brain would try to blame the Big Dig on Romney.
The Big Dig is a good example why Davis-Bacon should be repealed (I’m looking at you Santorum).
Your Youtube clip of the SEC investigation is from 2007. What happened with the SEC investigation? Did it get anywhere? Why don’t you look it up yourself?
The sample seems to be very favorable for Santorum compared to 2008 exit poll results.
Santorum is tied with Romney among men, and this is men-women 59%-41%, when in 2008 it was 53%-47%, NH and FL had significantly more women this year, SC didn’t (it was 51-49 in 2008 already) but if I understood correctly SC setting D and R presidential primaries for different dates enabled people to vote in both primaries if they felt like it, lessening any Clinton effect.
Sample is much more conservative than in 2008, the 2008 exit poll results in brackets
Very Liberal(4%) 1%
Somewhat(8%) 1%
Moderate (27%) 26%
Somewhat Conserv (36%) 43%
Very Conservative (25%) 27%
Non-evangelical/evangelical vote was 35%-65% in 2008, it is 40%-57% in this poll.
Also >$80k income seems to be down by 4-5% from 2008 (either 4 or 5 can’t say which since the exit poll bracket use $75k as significant point), the recession might be enough to explain that, or it might not be.
Latino vote is 20, up 7 from 2008, Santorum leading Romney by 6 points among them, not sure if it being that much up is realistic.
Whether they are Rick’s proclamations or his wife’s past.
Bringing them up just makes the GOP discussions resemble cess pools.
Yes, I know, you are itching to get even with the treatment you’ve received from the ABR folks, but lowering ourselves to their standards is a lossing proposition…
Yeah, Santorum’s rise is such an inspiring story to everybody:
Getting in to politics straight from college working as administrative assistant for state senator. Then he went to private sector for four years, and fought for a worthy cause with a great success:
After graduating, Santorum was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar and practiced law for four years at the Pittsburgh law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, now known as K&L Gates. As an associate, he successfully lobbied on behalf of the World Wrestling Federation to deregulate professional wrestling, arguing that it should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was entertainment, not a sport.
The effect of this great accomplishment could be felt even years after it:
FAYETTEVILLE, Ga. — Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with the pulley of a weight machine, authorities said Tuesday.
Investigators found prescription anabolic steroids in the house and want to know whether the muscle man nicknamed “The Canadian Crippler” was unhinged by the bodybuilding drugs, which can cause paranoia, depression and explosive outbursts known as “roid rage.”
Then he went to congress at his early 30es, was there until he lost re-election, and became a millionaire fast as unregistered lobbyist.
I’m so inspired, a true American hero, from rags to riches story.
Santorum’s basically a generic Republican, and would make the election a referendum on Obama. The charges of being an extremist won’t go anywhere as people won’t believe them just like they didn’t believe charges that Obama was an extremist. The election will be about the economy. For this reason, Santorum is the most electable.
152 – How do we know if Ricks’ not in the so-called 1%? He has yet to release his taxes. Let’s see ‘em, and then we’ll know how well he’s lining his pockets with his Washington Lobbyist money. And don’t forget – the “rich” are now determined to be $250,000 a year. . . . At least Mitt got his money in the private sector, not bilking Washington like Noot and Ricky. Rick may be a fighter, but I think we’re seeing that Mitt’s a greater fighter.
159 – He is 0bviously in the one percent. Have you seen his house(s)? He has about as much credibility as John Edwards when he talks about being blue collar.
I’m so inspired, a true American hero, from rags to riches story.
.
You mean, as opposed to Willard’s riches</i to riches story?
Scarborough’s right. Santo is the stronger general election candidate. I don’t have much use for Santo, but facts is facts, and the data on that is just flooding in right now.
To sum up the thrust of the comments on this thread, it seems we can expect a hung convention if Romney has a plurality of delegates. If Santorum has the plurality, the convention will be well hung.
148. Okay, Teemu, you seem to have a handle on the challenge of distribution within a poll. For example, you did some redistribution with the final PPP Florida polls and managed to come up with numbers which were dramatically closer to the final outcome than the ones PPP themselves published.
Could you please teach me how you did that so I could do the same with the current PPP MIchigan poll? At the moment, the four current Michigan polls, from MIRS, Rasmussen, ARG and PPP all disagree with each other. This means it’s impossible to know which, if any, of these surveys are right.
What I’m hoping is that if I recrunch the PPP Michigan numbers through what I call the Teemu strainer, I will end up with numbers which match AT LEAST ONE of the other Michigan surveys.
I suspect the only Michigan numbers you need concern yourself with right now are the ones telling you that 50-60% of the R primary electorate is in flux right now.
It was similar in Florida, right up until the weekend and primary day.
You did great work on that, fyi. So did Teemu. Nobody’s “wrong” per se… it was just a tough numerical get. Happens.
I’ll give you bonus points if you can predict the turnout model and total count. NOBODY got that right in FL, I suspect.
Romney has been attacked by both the conservative media and the liberal media for months.
Santorum has been constantly praised by the conservative media and mostly ignored by the liberal media.
Yet even so, Romney is polling slightly better against Obama.
There is no possible way to honestly conclude that Santorum is a stronger general election candidate. None. Zero. If you think that, you are deluding yourself.
Nominating Santorum increases the chances of an Obama second term.
148. Okay, Teemu, you seem to have a handle on the challenge of distribution within a poll. For example, you did some redistribution with the final PPP Florida polls and managed to come up with numbers which were dramatically closer to the final outcome than the ones PPP themselves published.
Could you please teach me how you did that so I could do the same with the current PPP MIchigan poll? At the moment, the four current Michigan polls, from MIRS, Rasmussen, ARG and PPP all disagree with each other. This means it’s impossible to know which, if any, of these surveys are right.
I just used the 2008 exit poll ideology distribution and the poll cross tabs that had the percentages of what percentage of what ideology voted for which candidate, then I multiplied and added for each candidate based on the 2008 exit poll and cross tabs. But I think Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were almost tied by that calculation, and it wasn’t really anywhere near the actual results for them. Also I got the right numbers for the top two, eventhough this year the electorate was significantly more conservative than in 2008 (apparently the property tax vote in 2008 pulled in more moderates), but not as conservative as PPP sample. I think it was partly because the PPP sampled Hispanic as way too pro-Gingrich, so the eventual electorate being more conservative than 2008 exit poll was kinda compensated by that PPP error.
I tried that fast on PPP numbers but didn’t work that well, also on ARG but their numbers were more off, probably several aspects of sample off, so can’t do any sensible calculations based on trying to correct one thing.
171. Understood. Okay, I think, based on what you wrote, that it’s almost a hit-and-miss thing. One can correct one aspect of a poll’s distribution, but then either fail to correct for another error, or create an additional error on top of that. Probably too random to consider it an established or stable system.
Not to mention the fact that today’s Rasmussen Michigan survey actually AGREES with the last PPP Michigan numbers, so perhaps there are no grounds, in this instance, to recrunch PPP’s numbers at all. Who knows?
But thank you for getting back to me; I figured it was at least worth a shot.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
February 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
HOLY RAPTURE!
The fat lady is warming up here in Cali…
California Republican Presidential Primary SurveyUSA
Romney 33, Santorum 31, Gingrich 17, Paul 9
February 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
all the leaves are brown
February 13th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Oh, and I almost forgot..
N E W T O R U M !!!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
CA votes June 5. I believe it will be over by then.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
3.
The bad news for Willard is he has to go one-on-one with either So-Con, Newt or Rick in Cali later when the weather turns fine.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Wow…Romney can’t even close the deal in CA??!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
FYI this poll was done at the PEAK of the Santorum love fest, and before the Romney upset at CPAC and his unexpected victory in Maine, Romney will win California by at least 15 points, you heard it here first, Little Ricky is falling fast!
February 13th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
In June, the Tigers will be mowing the Angels down like grass, and the Red Wings will have polished off the San Jose Sharks probably a month earlier in the Playoffs.
You don’t want to send anybody even remotely related to Michigan trying to win an election out there about then, like Willard. It’s gotta be Newtorum.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
MassCon #1,
Link please…
February 13th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Santorum will not win CA – guaranteed. Once they see how much emphasis he puts on social issues, they will be turned off.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
10 Kavon
Sorry, it appears that it was just a comment, not a front page post:
http://race42012.com/2012/02/13/poll-watch-american-research-group-michigan-2012-republican-primary-survey/#comment-1139313
February 13th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Romney rockin in Arizona, this will be an easy win for him…
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/romney-talks-up-his-conservative-credentials-in-arizona/
February 13th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
And so it begins, let’s see how much whining Little Ricky does when Romney drowns him in ad’s in Michigan…
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/13/pro-romney-super-pac-increases-buy-in-michigan/
February 13th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Holy schmoley. No wonder Mitt’s losing Michigan.
Somebody better do a poll of Utah quick, just to see how bad it’s gotten.
I bet he’s plummeted below 90% there.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
14
Restore Our Future also bought ads in Mississippi, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee. (see Politico)
Very, very bold of them.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Oh come on, I thought my home state was smarter than this. Santorum a close second in CA? It scares me he is doing that well here.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Perhaps CF could explain again how last Tuesday didn’t do Santorum much good.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
11.
That is true, I must say. California NEVER goes for the far right so-cons.
(Oops, what about Reagan? Well, Reagan was not the “in the bedroom” Conservative that Santorum is.)
February 13th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Romney is clearly in trouble, but the question is whether Santorum can win the nomination outright. Are Santorum’s numbers at this point enough to get him to 50 percent plus 1 of delegates, provided that he enjoys a similar bump across all remaining states, or are we looking at a hung convention if this keeps up?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
20
Santorum absolutely has the available delegates to win the nomination. Assuming he wins all the midwestern and southern states, that is. For him to win the nomination outright, he will simply HAVE to make the ballot in Indiana, which he initially failed to make, and is challenging the failure in court.
He will also have to eliminate Gingrich and receive his delegates when he drops out.
But the math is there, I’d rather not run through it in detail because I’m busy, but it’s there.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Dave,
That probably depends in part on how committed Mitt’s support is outside of Utah. If he loses Michigan and does poorly on Super Tuesday, does the bulk of his support rally around an “inevitable” Santorum, or do they dig in and hope for a turnaround?
Mitt’s support was resilient in the face of FOTM polling, but it doesn’t seem to be handling electoral defeat as well.
We’re light years from Florida now.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
MassCon,
I think it depends on if Rick can create the sort of stampede Mitt failed to coming out of Florida.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
don’t take any solice in the new ad buy in Michigan “All of the ads currently running from Restore Our Future are aimed at Newt Gingrich”
It’s seems Romney is not going to take his foot off Newt’s neck again even if it costs him Michigan
February 13th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
This race sort of has that feel when the Browns play the Rams.
You know somebody’s got to win.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
“All of the ads currently running from Restore Our Future are aimed at Newt Gingrich”
Maybe the good folks running Restore have been vacationing in the Falklands, and don’t have WiFi.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
24
Where are you getting that crap? According to Politico, the content in the ads is not clear because NONE of the ads are running yet except in Arizona.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
21,
In 2008, when it looked like niether Obama nor Hillary had enough delegates to get the nomination, something called the superdelegates stepped in and the majority of them went heavily for Obama, which is what him over the top to secure the nomination. If Romney or Santorum don’t reach the necessary 1144 delegates needed, do we have a similiar superdelegate system which could help Romney or Santorum get the nomination?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
28
Only 63 RNC superdelegates
February 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
24.
LOL!
Was it something Newt said about Bain or just the Romney camp’s temper?
I remember they would not ever let up on Perry till he cried uncle and went home.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
28
The Democrats had over 600 superdelegates. The required delegates to win in their party was roughly 2200. In other words, their superdelegates were MUCH more important than ours, ironically.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Matty,
Not the Falklands, the Caymans where they’re drunk and mean!
February 13th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
26
Or as Argentinians would call the islands, las islas Malvinas.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
By June 5 the Californians, for whom the liberty of their newest farming industry (Marijuana) is very dear, and who do not like the federal raids on the medical cannabis dispensaries, will all have read this recent expose by Ron Paul, which is available on Kindle for PC (free download in seconds) at $9.99 so you can read it in five minutes. (You can also make it a last minute Valentine gift for your special someone):
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X
And the California Lottery will decide the fate of Mitt, Rick and Newt, in accordance with the newest GOP practices (see Maine 2/11).
February 13th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
MassCon,
The Brits won the right to name it, I think. Settled that back in the 80s.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
34.
Bongs with Uncle Ron’s signature available, too.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Craig,
If I lived on las islas Malvinas, I’d be drunk and mean too.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
35
Yes, I’m aware.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
westerner,
You’re suggesting that people buy their girlfriends an e-book by Ron Paul about pot?
I take it you’re single?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
All I can say is, for the sake of the country, Craig is now supporting Santorum. With Craigs support Rick will be back in the single digits before super tuesday.
Thanks again Craig!!!!!
February 13th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Hee hee! Look at all these fervent Santorum supporters. The guy nobody knew or cared about thirty days ago, the big spending porka-fella Republican with NO, make that ZERO executive experience has suddently become their dream candidate. I don’t buy it.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
39
Don’t be silly. e-books are all the rage! The fact that it’s about pot conforms to the culture that loves e-books anyway: college-aged hippies
February 13th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
No doubt if Ron Paul actually ever won a primary he’d serve marijuana brownies at his party.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Interesting article, must read for those wanting the truth.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/mrs-santorum-s-abortion-doctor-boyfriend.html
February 13th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
#8:
FYI this poll was done at the PEAK of the Santorum love fest, and before the Romney upset at CPAC and his unexpected victory in Maine
Only in this crazy campaign and from a most diehard Romney Supporter would we hear this argument, “Yeah, but this poll was taken 4 days ago before he won a state by 3 points that he won by 30 and then surprisingly won a straw poll he won three times before.” Game changer.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
#44 That story’s been around for a while. It will not matter. According to my local talk show, it’s “evangelicals and Tea Partiers” who are “flocking to Santorum in droves.” These are the ABR people we’ve come to know so well. They do not give a rat’s behind about hypocrisy, prior record or ability. The only thing they want to know is if the latest FOTM (1) Is not Romney and (2) Rising in the polls.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
45 Adam
Santorum hasn’t been vetted yet. have you read the heart warming story about his wife?? it will endear him and her to all the evangelicals, I’m sure!
February 13th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Liz:
Fervent Santorum supporters would be overstating it. I don’t think there are any of those. There are a lot of people hopping on the bandwagon (allebit as reluctantly as possible and only after every other option has been exhausted), but I didn’t know a Santorum supporter back in December. Among many though he is the lesser of two evils. To me Obama is the greatest of all the evils. Some equate Romney and Obama, and I think that is crazy. There lies the difference.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
45,
The spin machines are at full work all of the time! Romney has some issues going forward. MI really does loom large
February 13th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
#45:
I read the story about Santorum’s wife. Is she on the ballot? Or are we requiring the President’s wife to be candidates for Sainthood. In her 20s, she did stupid things. That defines being in your 20s. Since, then she’s become a mom of 8. SHe grew up.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
44. And the Rombots go in the gutter again. Seems to be their natural environment.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
50,
Agreed
February 13th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
the truth,
“Santorum hasn’t been vetted yet. have you read the heart warming story about his wife?? it will endear him and her to all the evangelicals, I’m sure!”
If you think evangelicals are prone to holding the sins of a person’s prior life against them, you don’t understand evangelicals. They’re big into altar calls, repentance, a new life, and leaving the old behind. They see a radical break in the identity and perhaps even essence of a person, pre and post conversion.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
#48:
I wasn’t a Santorum supporter in December. I was actually being pretty cautious. I got on the Cain train, but really had decided to wait until Iowa to see who emerged. No reason to make a decision until you know who is left in the race.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
51,
It reeks of desperation, which I don’t understand given the race is very much up for grabs. That line of attack has no chance of success. In fact, it would be quite the opposite actually
February 13th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Just curious,
Why is what Santorum’s wife did BEFORE they met at all relevant to his Presidential bid?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Kavon: Aren’t attacks on candidates’ families bannable?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
This really shows how little Romney has to go on against Santorum…
The earmarks/big spender charge is extremely hypocritical too, given that Romney requested earmarks himself as Governor.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
53. Unless they’re Mormon of course.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
40.
I’m a Newt guy till the bitter end.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
So now some Rombots are attacking Rick because of sins his wife committed 30 years ago before she became serious about her faith, before she had kids, before she and Rick were in love and married, before Rick entered politics? How low can you go?
At least the attacks on Romney for his past as an independent and Reagan skeptic are about his politics. Dang.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
54,
You are more politically informed than most, and I understand that it is easy to brush with broad strokes when making commentary on Internet forums. I am addressing what I see as his issue with electability.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
53.
Amen.
Well said, Matty.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Exactly, this is very true.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
44.
The Lib’s Daily Beast is your source, Rombot?
That figures.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
The story about Santorum’s wife SHOULD be irrelevant, but if Sant were to become the GOP nominee, it would be a really BIG deal on the left. But given Santorum’s famous adherence to his faith and his outspokenness about it, the story will invite catcalls from the left.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
No doubt if Ron Paul actually ever won a primary he’d serve marijuana brownies at his party.
If Romney brings the green jell-o and funeral potatoes I think we’ll have a fine party
February 13th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
61.
Matt,
Hardcore Rombots here will go as low in the gutter as they can if it helps their man.
The problem is, it never does help Willard. In the end.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
66,
OK, but what doesn’t invite catcalls from them really? It is not a game changer either, unless somebody on the Romney team gets the bright idea to reference it, which they won’t. They are smarter than that. I’m a Romney supporter trying to help here. Using this would be stupid
February 13th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
“truth”,
Before you’re banned, I just wanted to ask if you think Mitt or Ann have ever sinned?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Somebody better do a poll of Utah quick, just to see how bad it’s gotten.
If Romney by some strange happening is no longer in the race by the time we vote, this state is Ron Paul territory!
February 13th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Norris’s article mentioned some stuff about Santorum that was either benign or irrelevant….and didn’t mention some of the stuff that SHOULD have been mentioned….but there was some good stuff in it regardless.
I commented that he had voted for Sarbanes Oxley, then wondered if I had gotten that right, and apologized for it. Turns out he did. In doing the mea culpa, I mentioned that he’s voted for Davis Bacon, which he did. Add to that that he had voted against Right to Work, and it becomes clear that he helped pass some of the worst big government legislation of recent years.
Much more could be added. Even I was shocked at his anti-second Amendment activity, for example. How many states would he carry if he lost the U.S. by 18 points?
Probably ZERO.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
67,
Lol! Hell, I might even raise a glass in appreciation. The man has been running forever, can we not just give him a state as some sort of lifetime participation award or something
February 13th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
KG,
Do you believe in dragging everything in, under the pretense that “the Democrats will talk about this”?
If we suppose Democrats will talk about all the intimate details and history of the LDS, does that mean we should discuss it here? Or base our vote on the fear of their “vetting” such issues?
I would hope we could be better than that.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
KG 66: How sanctimonious you are: “It’s painful to have to bring this up, since it shouldn’t matter, but it’s our duty to do so.”
C’mon. If the only way Romney can get elected is by dredging up slime from the sewer and spraying it all over the party, at least be honest about what you’re doing.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
#69 It would not only be stupid, it would be reprehensible for anybody on the right to use this. No way would Mitt use it. But like I said, Santorum has been so “religious” and sanctimonious, standing so strong against birth control, homosexuality, and abortion, even for victims of rape and incest, a story like this just isn’t any old story. It will reek of hypocrisy for those who want to make that case.
It definitely is not a game-changer on the right. Matthew MSW is completely right. However, IMO it would be a big stumbling block in the general election.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
If it goes until California, the question then becomes, WHO would actually want to be the nominee?
Still, the way California is structured is winner take all, and a candidate with deep pockets in an expensive state that has a much more “moderate” GOP would be an almost certain win for Romney (if he’s still in it)
But I think Super Tuesday will decide the nominee. If Mitt loses Michigan and does poorly on Super Tuesday, he’s not going to be able to recover. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I think we’ll know who our nominee is in the next few weeks.
If Romney wins both AZ and Michigan and does well on Super Tuesday (more likely scenario) I think Santorum drops out. The math to become the nominee becomes “lottery” type odds, as not only would he have to take all the winner take all states, but also get lopsided majorities in the proportional states as well. He’s also not on the ballot in some crucial states. That’s when fundraising completely dies because who wants to write a check to a campaign with a nearly zero chance of victory?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
#75: What??????????? I never said it was our duty to do anything. The story is already out there and I referenced no detail. I plainly said the story will mean nothing in the GOP primary. It could be a big deal in the general….
…especially considering how all this religious stuff is bubbling up lately.
The left hates, hates, hates (medieval, unenlightened, hateful, judgmental) churches impinging on ther sexual freedom. When they see hypocrisy or just religious people living below “God’s commandments,” they jump for joy in their gotcha moment and are going to make political hay.
Are you saying I’m wrong about this?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Matt,
What are you talking about? I haven’t mentioned it, but Rick’s wife shacking up with the abortionist for 6 years is relevant because the Dems would bring it up….big time. Not that it would matter, since Rick wouldn’t have the proverbial prayer against Obama in the first place….but every man, woman, and child in America would know about it by the end of the campaign….and Santorum would rue the day he entered the festivities.
As for what they would say about Mormons, that’s a given….but it would be ok. Most of it would be false, and the rest would be ignorant. They would have to take it up with Mormon Senators and Congressmen in their own Party.
And Mormon Governors have done a good job, Mormonism or no Mormonism.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
78,
Those that would legitimize such a tactic hate them anyway. What they like are excuses to justify that hate. With or without the excuses they will still feel that way
February 13th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
You guys are like a bunch of baboons ripping out you own guts. If this goes on much longer Obama will have a second term. Guess the moment is to big. Support in what you believe. That mitt Romney for me.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
I’m staying home if Santorum is the nominee.
At the cusp of a euro meltdown (Italy, Portugal just downgraded again today), we’re going to nominate a guy who thinks worrying about other people’s sex lives is a presidential issue? You’re kidding me.
To quote Romney, “contraceptives are working just fine. Don’t mess with it.”
February 13th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Most of this country still loves a good conversion story. It’s just so much a part of our Christian fabric, however much that fabric is frayed.
If Mitt, or Barack, or their directors of the Dark Arts try to make hay of this, they will be handing Rick a golden opportunity. His wife will now have the opportunity to discuss how Jesus changed her life (and her life has obviously changed a great deal since the 80s), the Santorums get lots of sympathy and tearful embraces, and whoever was dumb enough to try to exploit this looks like a big a-hole.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
82.
Rombot,
You keep saying that. You wanna medal?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
“I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is, and we are not a group of people who believe in no government.” – Rick Santorum, June 2011
February 13th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Matt,
It wouldn’t work. You see the irony, right? Santorum is supposed to be a SoCon’s dream candidate?
Under the circumstances, why would he do this to his wife?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
#80: I have no idea what you just said. But you have to envision anti-Santorum videos from the left. Since Santorum has signed the Personhood Amendment, stating that any fertilized ovum is the exact same thing as a born, living human being. The Personhood Amendment leads to all kinds of radical outcomes:
Arresting young girls who submit to an abortion for murder; forcing an 11-year-old incest victims to bear her father’s child.
Imagine these shocking “Rick Santorum wants” videos. And then imagine them along side the story of his wife. Are you getting the picture?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“I think the dangers of contraception in this country, and the whole sexual libertine idea — many of the Christian faith have said, well that’s okay, I mean y’know, contraception is okay. It is not okay.” – Rick Santorum,
February 13th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
85.
Are you gonna link to rest of it? Because it sounds good to me and I’m a Newt guy.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
KG: “Are you saying I’m wrong about this?”
No, I’m saying you’re a hypocrite — you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
You say that the issue doesn’t matter, that it’s ‘reprehensible’ to bring it up. And then you justify bringing it up because the Dems will talk about it.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
haner,
Rick is right about the libertarians. Libertarianism puts abstract theory ahead of inherited wisdom. It’s naturally allied with social Darwinsm and utilitarianism, neither of which are conservative.
If you favor libertarianism over conservatism, you’re supporting the wrong candidate.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
#83: Matt: Yes, on the right–you are exactly right. On the left, no. They don’t believe in redemption. At least not for finger-wagging, puritanical SoCons.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
88.
Rombot,
A lot of Catholics and Lutherans like me believe that. What’s your real problem with our faiths?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
haner,
Not that Santorum would ever get the nomination….but, hypothetically, if he did, staying home would not be the answer. There will be 3rd Party candidates in that instance, which would offer the opportunity to cast a protest vote. Either Ron Paul or Gov. Johnson on a Libertarian ticket. Even a vote for Trump would be an improvement, depending on his platform.
Staying home doesn’t make a statement.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
I am not for Santorum. I don’t think he can win. I do think you just changed the subject entirely. I’m referring to the link posted attacking Santorum’s wife. Do you not think the left is going to have something ready to go about whoever emerges as the nominee? You are talking about the crowd that would never, ever, vote for either Romney or Santorum. And if Obama is actually dumb enough or unlucky enough to get connected to that line of attack it would blow up in his face.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Dave,
“It wouldn’t work. You see the irony, right? Santorum is supposed to be a SoCon’s dream candidate?”
Conversion stories are all about irony. I used to be a fire breathing anti-Catholic. That’s sort of ironic.
Do Mormons not have conversion stories? Are we speaking two different languages here?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
#90: I’m not a hypocrite, tonto. I am envisioning how this would clearly be played out on the left. Oh, not by Obama, himself. But “someone.”
Two sides: Right and left. It won’t matter on the right; it will matter on the left. Trust me.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Please don’t shove your religious beliefs upon the rest of us. That’s my problem with you.
If you think contraceptives are evil, don’t use them.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
KG,
The left won’t be voting for Rick or Mitt in any case.
If this is a wedge issue, it drives Indies away from the would be pharisees of the left.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
92.
With all due repect, it seems you are the one who doesn’t believe in Christian redemption. And you’re blaming the left when it’s YOU who has the big problem with Rick’s wife!
February 13th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
98,
Are you serious? He wasn’t preaching, he was asking a question
February 13th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
haner,
If someone digs up a quote of Mitt saying “Joseph Smith was right” does that mean he’s trying to shove his religious beliefs on the rest of us?
Give me a break.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
98.
No one is doing that.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
#96 We’re talking how the Right will see this story: One of redemption. The left, who don’t believe in any such thing, will see it as rank hypocrisy and use it gleefully to undermine the Santorum’s brand.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Nice try Sarah stalkers… Santorum is going nowhere.
Newt and Santo will lock horns and undercut each others support.
Santo cherry picks states in an effort to ‘steal’ wins from Romney, showing himself too weak and ineffective to go head to head.
He cannot and will not compete head to head with Romney in every state. And Santo makes a huge mistake in thinking anyone is for him. Hell even Foster Friess, his super pac money man has only given him 400k, that is gum money to Adelson and to Romney’s pac.
He showed himself for the as*hat he is when he said he didn’t even compete in Maine (his excuse for third) and that he doesn’t ‘rig’ votes in reference to losing CPAC (but no mention of buying Vanderplats vote in Iowa).
Romney will beat him by 8%+ in Michigan, 10%+ in Arizona, Newt will be out of money and life lines after super Tuesday, and Rick will play the role of Huckabee in ’08. Romney rolls on and effectively wraps this up in early March.
FYI, National Review had a clarification on their Romney or Santorum post – they did not ask Gingrich to get out and support Santorum. And once Santorum shows us his tax returns (with nearly half his income coming from peddling influence as a lobbyist, among many other deviations) his ‘supporters’ will peel off.
What has most surprised me is the sheer ignorance of voters (and so many of the schizophrenic posters on this site who jump from candidate to candidate like Michael Jackson and ‘guests’ at a slumber party), and their inability to find one candidate, stick with one candidate, and intelligently fight for one candidate.
One of the smartest things to remember in politics is there are only two things necessary to winning: first, have tons of money. Second, refer again to number one. Romney is the only candidate with money to burn and continued earning power.
I hope little Ricky enjoys his moment in the sun, cause Romney’s gonna make it go dark on him in two weeks.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
102
Strawman, much? Has Mitt said anything like that? No. And if he did and preached it loudly for all, and made it a key component of his campaign, then yes, he would be shoving his religious beliefs upon the rest of us, and making us suspicious of his agenda once president.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
KG,
Yes, we understood you said that before, and a couple of us now have answered that a) the left won’t vote for us anyway and b) Indies would be more inclined to side with the Santorums in such a skirmish.
So if the left is inclined to try that, by all means, they’ll be helping their opponent.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Matt,
Conversion stories are great. I’m a convert based on an intense religious experience. I’m sure Mrs. Santorum is a happy mother and is in a good place with God.
But what we’re talking about here is the Presidency. Everybody will know, and she would probably prefer they didn’t. And not everyone thinks nice thoughts.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
93 – Believe what you want. Practice what you want. But do NOT think that a candidate who spouts that birth control is “wrong,” is going to appeal in the General Election. Have you idiots forgotten that this is about beating Obama??? Oh yeah. . . you have. You just want to push your So Con values. Don’t doubt for a minute that all this Santorum garbage is going to come gurgling up in the General. Go ahead and vote him as the GOP nomination. Go ahead. And buy Obama shares on Intrade while your’e doing it.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
106.
Haner,
But that’s what Willard was taught and believes. I see no problem.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
haner,
“Has Mitt said anything like that?”
He better have, or someone should have vetted him better before making him stake president or bishop.
Your quote on contraception is a straw man, because Rick isn’t proposing banning it, just offering his opinion.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
107 – Indies are not going to vote for Santorum with his nutty views on abortion, birth control, gays, etc. Your’e fooling yourself big time if you believe that. Heck, I won’t’ vote for him and I’ve been voting Pub since high school!
February 13th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Dave,
Anyone who is scared of people not thinking nice thoughts about them is not running for President, or First Lady.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Fig,
“Santo cherry picks states in an effort to ‘steal’ wins from Romney”
Like………. Michigan and California?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
I don’t have a problem with Santorum’s wife, dang it. I completely believe in redemption. Good grief! You guys work overtime to miss the point.
Just imagine if Santorum were our nominee. He’s probably unelectable with his outspoken views anyway. They will be seen as frightenly extreme to many people, whose votes you need. But at least he has the courage of his convictions. If you juxaposition his extreme views along side his wives story IN A GENERAL ELECTION, it’s a zonk.
Is it a fatal election zonk? I don’t know. But it doesn’t help. And it will be used. None of this has anything to do with ME. It’s between the Santorums and the electorate.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
KG,
Do you think Mitt’s religion is a “zonk”?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
#23 That is going to change, count on it.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Kermit,
If I had a dime for every Rombot who impetuously claimed he’d never vote for X in a general election (x being anyone but Mitt), I’d be retired.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
California doesn’t even matter right now. It won’t matter until the adding up of the total delegate count. Whoever has momentum on their side when CA comes around will win there. Michigan is the key state right now. Mitt needs to forget about campaigning in AZ now and head strait to MI to flatten Santorum there. He CANNOT let Santorum, of all people running, win MI.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
115.
Only you Rombots bring it up weekly for some reason.
Hmmmmmmmm……. I wonder why?
Ever heard a Paulbot, Newtbot, Perrybot, Cainbot, Huckabot, or Sarahbot ever bring it up here? No.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
118
Better plan for retirement: Load up on Intrade shares for Obama to be reelected.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
121.
Rombot,
Is that what you’re doing now?
February 13th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
#116: Matt: I always thought so. Then, when this election season, Mitt looked pretty good in polls, I had some hope. However, as we both know, some portion of the ABR movement is anti-Mormon.
Is Mormonism an election-killing zonk by itself? Maybe not. But for a candidate that’s having trouble winning people over, it doesn’t help. According to my local talk shows, “evangelicals and Tea Partiers” are going for Santorum in droves, although I dare say they know little about him.
And Mormonism might be a bigger zonk in the general, at least according to the polls.
It’s an interesting question: Between Mitt and Rick, who’s religion is the bigger zonk in this election? On the face of it, being a Mormon is a bigger zonk; no zonk for being a Catholic. EXCEPT Santorum actually lives and promotes Catholicism and that’s pretty extreme in America today.
JFK was a Catholic, but as Jackie famously said: “But he’s such a bad Catholic.” Americans want a president of faith, but not too much faith.
IMO here’s the difference between Mitt and Rick in the general. Mitt keeps his religion to himself and Rick gives the impression that he wants to impose his in their reproductive life. It would be a interesting poll to run.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
“Rombots” bring “it” up because Romney-supporters want the GOP to beat Obama–so we analyze everything that could go wrong with the different candidates. Could things go wrong with Mitt? You betcha. That’s why we look hard at each of the new Not-Mitts to see what they have goin’ on.
We have to go with our best bet. And after vetting each of the Not-Mitts, it’s still Mitt. Every candidate that’s come up, has had a great big deal-breaker. Pawlenty couldn’t stand up to Mitt. Bachmann couldn’t stand up to Perry. Perry couldn’t stand up to the debates. Newt can’t stand up to his erratic past.
Can Santorum stand up to the vetting that hasn’t even started yet? That’s what we’re talking about.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Could this destroy Romney?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-D0CmrORew
Worst than Solyndra.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
121-looks likely indeed. But the fightwill be very hard. Obama can lose against Romney. Not against Santorum, of course.
Yet the Republican Establishment trying to screw their Caucuses voters with NEW delegates rules even CNN doesn’t understand could greatly mitigate the enthusiasm of the base to vote for Romney.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
#125: Naw. Not sexy enough. It’s a non-story. Too complicated–and nothing like Solyndra.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:05 am
We all believe in redemption, but the reality is that Santorum needs to talk about his wife’s past…It needs to get out if he thinks he has a chance to be the nominee..Since the story is already out there, it’s only fair to his wife that her husband deals with it in public.
Better it comes from him than the Obama machine. The Democrats won’t care about redemption or how long ago it was.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:05 am
127– The Big Dig, a $15-billion, corruption-riddled transportation project:
“The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and even four deaths.”
This is Solyndra plus the Mafia.
EXPECT GINGRICH TO HAMMER ROMNEY ABOUT THIS.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:09 am
LV,
That’s crazy talk, Rombot.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:13 am
124.
Utter nonsense.
You bring it up BECAUSE it bothers YOU.
Come clean for once.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:16 am
#131: I’ll tell you what bothers me. Dense people who cannot seem to get their brains around the truth.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:16 am
KG,
You, CF, and a few others sling filthy mud because you THINK you’re helping your precious perfect little Willard towards the nomination.
NEWSFLASH: It won’t work.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:17 am
#129: I’m sure he will. Or somebody will. And maybe it will matter. We’ll see.
Are you buying Obama?
February 14th, 2012 at 12:22 am
#133: WHERE did I ever “sling mud?” WHERE did I ever see Mitt was “perfect?” Get a grip.
I’ll tell you what “won’t work.” Sending Santorum up against the Obama machine. Mitt’s rationale against Obama is an older, waaaaay more experienced executive with finanical expertise.
What’s Santorum’s? Just another boyish Senator.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:27 am
i thought the Big Dig started before romney was governor? I know there was 1 death while he was in office.
I think after the death he took a more hands on approach. it would be interesting to see if he made any changes and if things improved.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:35 am
134- not buying Obama
I don’t want to tie my money up for so long.
I’m buying a ton of Romney winning Arizona, for a sure 20% return. February the 28th.
Michigan seems volatile. A lot depends on how well Romney regain the monopoly of economic competence.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:49 am
The Big Dig was begun in the early 1980s and was finally opened after twenty years of construction in 2003, at the start of Romney’s governorship. Romney had little to no role in the entire clusterf’uck. No one with a brain would try to blame the Big Dig on Romney.
The Big Dig is a good example why Davis-Bacon should be repealed (I’m looking at you Santorum).
February 14th, 2012 at 12:57 am
138– so why is the SEC investigating Romney?
February 14th, 2012 at 1:20 am
139
Your Youtube clip of the SEC investigation is from 2007. What happened with the SEC investigation? Did it get anywhere? Why don’t you look it up yourself?
February 14th, 2012 at 1:22 am
139
English has a past tense, I suggest you learn how to use it.
February 14th, 2012 at 1:33 am
135.
ROTFLMAO!
February 14th, 2012 at 1:38 am
135.
Ok, I’m back up…
You sling mud daily against every Republican that challenges Willard. And know go, “who me?” LOL!
Nevertheless…
Just list me 10, no FIVE of Willard Romney’s BIGGEST faults as a candidate.
February 14th, 2012 at 1:40 am
*know = now
February 14th, 2012 at 2:03 am
140—I will.
Thanks for the feedbacks.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:30 am
If anything, Romney should get praise for the Big Dig. He forced them to get their act together and get it fixed.
It is ludicrous to think that is a burden on him. Come on!
February 14th, 2012 at 2:30 am
On a lighter note, Adele slammed Newt at the Grammy’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKucBtFwymU&nomobile=1
February 14th, 2012 at 3:06 am
The sample seems to be very favorable for Santorum compared to 2008 exit poll results.
Santorum is tied with Romney among men, and this is men-women 59%-41%, when in 2008 it was 53%-47%, NH and FL had significantly more women this year, SC didn’t (it was 51-49 in 2008 already) but if I understood correctly SC setting D and R presidential primaries for different dates enabled people to vote in both primaries if they felt like it, lessening any Clinton effect.
Sample is much more conservative than in 2008, the 2008 exit poll results in brackets
Very Liberal(4%) 1%
Somewhat(8%) 1%
Moderate (27%) 26%
Somewhat Conserv (36%) 43%
Very Conservative (25%) 27%
Non-evangelical/evangelical vote was 35%-65% in 2008, it is 40%-57% in this poll.
Also >$80k income seems to be down by 4-5% from 2008 (either 4 or 5 can’t say which since the exit poll bracket use $75k as significant point), the recession might be enough to explain that, or it might not be.
Latino vote is 20, up 7 from 2008, Santorum leading Romney by 6 points among them, not sure if it being that much up is realistic.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:31 am
Rombots….Please…..Get off the sex topics.
Whether they are Rick’s proclamations or his wife’s past.
Bringing them up just makes the GOP discussions resemble cess pools.
Yes, I know, you are itching to get even with the treatment you’ve received from the ABR folks, but lowering ourselves to their standards is a lossing proposition…
February 14th, 2012 at 3:33 am
And oh so self-righteous Craig for Losers.
We know you never, ever, sling any mud…
…because you’re buried too deep in it to get your arms up any more…
February 14th, 2012 at 5:12 am
#147 jaxermer11 – Thanks for the “Adele slammed Newt at the Grammy’s” Really enjoyed that!
February 14th, 2012 at 7:13 am
Sounds like ‘Morning Joe’ thinks Santorum matches up against Obama better than Mitt does.
He makes some good points.
For one, Rick isn’t the 1% stereotypical rich republican.
That would make for a very interesting GE campaign…and Rick’s a fighter.
February 14th, 2012 at 7:38 am
and Rick doesn’t like to fire people.
February 14th, 2012 at 7:47 am
You’re right : the Big Dig is a non-story.
Thanks guys.
February 14th, 2012 at 7:53 am
Yeah, Santorum’s rise is such an inspiring story to everybody:
Getting in to politics straight from college working as administrative assistant for state senator. Then he went to private sector for four years, and fought for a worthy cause with a great success:
The effect of this great accomplishment could be felt even years after it:
Then he went to congress at his early 30es, was there until he lost re-election, and became a millionaire fast as unregistered lobbyist.
I’m so inspired, a true American hero, from rags to riches story.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:00 am
Also all the porkulus he managed to get for PA during his congress years, his 50 porkulus projects campaign leaflet, that also really inspires me.
The fact that his father was not rich makes, that makes his impressive record even more inspiring.
Romney’s achievements, hard work are nothing because his father was rich.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Santorum’s basically a generic Republican, and would make the election a referendum on Obama. The charges of being an extremist won’t go anywhere as people won’t believe them just like they didn’t believe charges that Obama was an extremist. The election will be about the economy. For this reason, Santorum is the most electable.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:01 am
118 – I’d love it if you’d retire Matt. . . . your annoying as hell.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:09 am
152 – How do we know if Ricks’ not in the so-called 1%? He has yet to release his taxes. Let’s see ‘em, and then we’ll know how well he’s lining his pockets with his Washington Lobbyist money. And don’t forget – the “rich” are now determined to be $250,000 a year. . . . At least Mitt got his money in the private sector, not bilking Washington like Noot and Ricky. Rick may be a fighter, but I think we’re seeing that Mitt’s a greater fighter.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:15 am
159 – He is 0bviously in the one percent. Have you seen his house(s)? He has about as much credibility as John Edwards when he talks about being blue collar.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:28 am
I’m so inspired, a true American hero, from rags to riches story.
.
You mean, as opposed to Willard’s riches</i to riches story?
Scarborough’s right. Santo is the stronger general election candidate. I don’t have much use for Santo, but facts is facts, and the data on that is just flooding in right now.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:31 am
To sum up the thrust of the comments on this thread, it seems we can expect a hung convention if Romney has a plurality of delegates. If Santorum has the plurality, the convention will be well hung.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:50 am
Kermit,
“I’d love it if you’d retire Matt. . . . your annoying as hell.”
Thank you, Kermit, for supporting my dreams.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:30 am
161 Harold
comn’, Morning Joe???? that’s where you get your news??
Harold, just tell the truth, You, tele and Craig are just bigots….let it out, the truth shall set you free.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:32 am
“Mitt Romney 33%
Rick Santorum 31%”
Mitt Romney the leading candidate of the most liberal state in America? Who knew?!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:46 am
148. Okay, Teemu, you seem to have a handle on the challenge of distribution within a poll. For example, you did some redistribution with the final PPP Florida polls and managed to come up with numbers which were dramatically closer to the final outcome than the ones PPP themselves published.
Could you please teach me how you did that so I could do the same with the current PPP MIchigan poll? At the moment, the four current Michigan polls, from MIRS, Rasmussen, ARG and PPP all disagree with each other. This means it’s impossible to know which, if any, of these surveys are right.
What I’m hoping is that if I recrunch the PPP Michigan numbers through what I call the Teemu strainer, I will end up with numbers which match AT LEAST ONE of the other Michigan surveys.
Thanks for your help!
February 14th, 2012 at 9:51 am
165 Ryan
And Santorum is…..?
February 14th, 2012 at 10:07 am
criggs,
I suspect the only Michigan numbers you need concern yourself with right now are the ones telling you that 50-60% of the R primary electorate is in flux right now.
It was similar in Florida, right up until the weekend and primary day.
You did great work on that, fyi. So did Teemu. Nobody’s “wrong” per se… it was just a tough numerical get. Happens.
I’ll give you bonus points if you can predict the turnout model and total count. NOBODY got that right in FL, I suspect.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:27 am
167.
Santy is another big spending candidate, which also explains why the Cali-Libs love him.
February 14th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Romney has been attacked by both the conservative media and the liberal media for months.
Santorum has been constantly praised by the conservative media and mostly ignored by the liberal media.
Yet even so, Romney is polling slightly better against Obama.
There is no possible way to honestly conclude that Santorum is a stronger general election candidate. None. Zero. If you think that, you are deluding yourself.
Nominating Santorum increases the chances of an Obama second term.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
I just used the 2008 exit poll ideology distribution and the poll cross tabs that had the percentages of what percentage of what ideology voted for which candidate, then I multiplied and added for each candidate based on the 2008 exit poll and cross tabs. But I think Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were almost tied by that calculation, and it wasn’t really anywhere near the actual results for them. Also I got the right numbers for the top two, eventhough this year the electorate was significantly more conservative than in 2008 (apparently the property tax vote in 2008 pulled in more moderates), but not as conservative as PPP sample. I think it was partly because the PPP sampled Hispanic as way too pro-Gingrich, so the eventual electorate being more conservative than 2008 exit poll was kinda compensated by that PPP error.
I tried that fast on PPP numbers but didn’t work that well, also on ARG but their numbers were more off, probably several aspects of sample off, so can’t do any sensible calculations based on trying to correct one thing.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
171. Understood. Okay, I think, based on what you wrote, that it’s almost a hit-and-miss thing. One can correct one aspect of a poll’s distribution, but then either fail to correct for another error, or create an additional error on top of that. Probably too random to consider it an established or stable system.
Not to mention the fact that today’s Rasmussen Michigan survey actually AGREES with the last PPP Michigan numbers, so perhaps there are no grounds, in this instance, to recrunch PPP’s numbers at all. Who knows?
But thank you for getting back to me; I figured it was at least worth a shot.