Rasmussen IA poll: Romney 23, Paul 22 … Santorum 16

posted at 2:45 pm on December 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Bear in mind Tina’s caveats about the difficulty of polling in the holiday season, but this does look as though the predictions of Rick Santorumentum have been realized.  In the latest Rasmussen poll of 750 likely caucus-goers in Iowa, conducted yesterday, Santorum leaps up to third place, behind a virtual dead heat between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul:

After months of volatility, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul remain the front-runners in Iowa for the third week in a row with the state’s Republican caucus just five days away.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP caucus participants finds Romney with 23% support to Paul’s 22%. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has moved into third place with 16%, his best showing to date, closely followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry who earn 13% of the vote each.

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann picks up five percent (5%) support, while former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman gets three percent (3%) of the vote, marking no movement on either candidate’s part over the past week. One percent (1%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

That’s a six-point jump for Santorum in one week, outside the margin of error.  In contrast, Romney and Paul both only shifted within the MOE to get closer together.  Perry also added to his total by three points, again within the MOE, while Gingrich dropped four points in the same period to fall into a tie for fourth place.

The sample improves over the CNN poll, which only surveyed Republicans.  According to the sample data provided by Rasmussen, 30% of respondents are independents, a good representation.  None are Democrats, though, who could cast votes in the caucus, and who thus far favor Paul.  The survey was taken in a single day, which sometimes makes the results a little less reliable, but I believe the Rasmussen polls in this series have all used that methodology, so the trending is still significant.

Where does Santorum pick up his support?  He comes in second to Romney among Republicans, 26/19.  He falls into a three-way tie among women, far behind Romney, 27/15, and third among men at 17%, with Paul leading Romney 27/19.  Santorum has a double-digit lead among very conservative respondents over Romney, 28/18, but lands in fourth place among “somewhat conservative” voters at 15%, behind Romney (27%), Paul (18%), and Gingrich (17%).  Santorum also leads among Tea Party adherents, 25/19 over Romney, with Paul fourth at 14% behind Perry’s 15%, and Santorum wins evangelicals with 24% to Perry’s 17%.

Is that enough to ignite Santorum for a win?  He may not need an outright win.  As long as he bests Perry, Gingrich, and Bachmann, Santorum could be a rallying figure for social conservatives and evangelicals, which would stand him in good stead in South Carolina.  It’s still a long shot, but it’s not out of the question.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Look at the PA polls now. Santorum could contest his home state much more than Romney could contest his. At the very least Santorum forces the Dems to spend alot more money and resources in PA. That’s extra money they would prefer go to FLorida and Ohio.

Pennsylvania is much closer to “swing state” status than Massachusetts.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Ron Paul should have run as a Libertarian. He’s not a conservative Republican.

He’s a racist kook too.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:27 PM

There wasn’t a single thing in my post that was false, so it certainly couldn’t have contained falsehoods, plural. And you provided no counterargument.

Social conservatives wish to use the force of government to punish and change behaviors they don’t like.

If you think you can provide a counterargument, then do so and refute my statement with facts. Name some social conservative issues.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Very well. Let’s begin with the following.

Both advocate using the force of government to prevent particular behaviors. Neither groups are for individual liberty.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Your statement is wrong concerning both liberals and social conservatives. Liberals will promote the freedom to use drugs. Social Conservatives will not. Thus, on this matter, liberals favor liberty.

When it comes to what your child eats in school, liberals will advocate for a meal plan that your child must obey, social conservatives will not. Thus, on this matter, social conservatives favor liberty.

When it comes to gay marriage, liberals will advocate for complete freedom of association, whereas social conservatives believe that marriage’s purpose is undermined by a lack of any rules. Thus, on this matter, liberals favor liberty.

On school prayer, liberals believe that students should not be praying at all. Social conservatives believe that prayer should be permitted. Thus, on this matter, social conservatives favor liberty.

Thus, your post has 3 incorrect assertions.

1.) Social Conservative = Liberal… not if they are advocating for completely opposing policies they’re not

2.) Liberals are against liberty… not if some of the time they are in favor of it

3.) Social conservatives are against liberty… not if some of the time they are in favor of it

What you are neglecting to acknowledge is that neither social conservatives nor liberals acknowledge liberty as intrinsically good or bad. Thus, they neither favor nor oppose it. Each of them looks at particular liberties, and then assesses those relative to a moral code, and then advocates for intervention accordingly. It is not because they “don’t like” a behavior. Otherwise they’d push for literally banning anything or everything they don’t like. Instead, they’re looking to assess actions vis-a-vis a standard. Even libertarians, much as you might hate to admit it, do the same thing by asking if the use of liberty harms another.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 3:27 PM

So much of a big deal being made about tiny little Iowa and their 100,000+ caucus votes. Maybe someday someone will be able to explain it to me. The simple fact that Ron Paul is leading in polls should tell us something other than Iowa is relevant.

cajunpatriot on December 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM

There wasn’t a single thing in my post that was false, so it certainly couldn’t have contained falsehoods, plural. And you provided no counterargument.

Social conservatives wish to use the force of government to punish and change behaviors they don’t like.

If you think you can provide a counterargument, then do so and refute my statement with facts. Name some social conservative issues.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM

The so-con “conquest” of the Tea Party is pretty much why the TP fell out of my favor, and why I generally refer to them as “small l” libertarians. They’re not REAL libertarians. They like that whole small government / fiscal responsibility stuff, but once it comes to social policies, they LOVE them some big government and can’t wait to get the government more involved in people’s lives. Human Life Amendment, reinstating DADT, etc.

Vyce on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

O/T,DinnerJacket is pushing it!
——————————–

Iran’s senior commander says the US is not in a position to tell Iran ‘what to do in Strait of Hormuz,’ state TV reports – @ReutersStory metadata:
Submitted 7 hours ago by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

That’s what’s funny about Romney as a candidate, he can’t even win his home state or even compete there but we are told he’s most electable. He’ll be a much weaker candidate in the southeast and midwest than Perry or Gingrich or Santorum, I think.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Santorum leaps up to third place, behind a virtual dead heat between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul:
=================================
And baggage free!!
canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Not quite

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it?

SANTORUM: I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

rubberneck on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Where he used the words “wants or passions”, I would use the words “pleasure or hedonism”.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

He couldn’t even win a third term in Pennsylvania.

Good Lt on December 29, 2011 at 3:05 PM

And Romney couldn’t even make his second term in Massachusetts with 34% approval… so he ran away.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Dante,

Courtes are the less represantative branch of our government. I don’t think they have the right to overrule majority of a family with one exception.

There was no living will, and her husband had married another woman and had two kidss with her.

THere was no moral or medical reason why Schiavo had to to be starved to death. The family was willing to take on the medical costs.

You are the one that has your nose in their personal business. I’m siding with the family over the government.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM

You keep bringing irrelevant info regarding the family into this. First you specifically used the word “biological,” as a means to poison the well. I’m not biologically related to my wife, is she not my family? Was Shaivo’s husband not her family? So your “overrule majority of a family” is along the same lines. Her husband was her legal guardian, not the majority of her family.

“the less representative branch of our government” is irrelevant, even if I were to disagree with that claim.

That her husband remarried and had children is also irrelevant.

Moral and medical reasons are also irrelevant to my post. The man was her legal guardian and stated her wishes were not to be kept alive via artificial means. As her legal guardian, he gets to speak for her.

Nothing in your response addresses our federal government intervening in a state case, crafting person-specific legislation, and surreptitiously “passing” it through unanimous consent.

That’s tyranny.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM

I wonder what his support would look like after some democrats run ads quoting him and his wife stating that they showed off their dead child to their other children and then slept with the body overnight before returning it to the hospital. I’d bet that within 48 hours he would be branded a lunatic weirdo by a majority of the nation. And you KNOW that would be coming, since his family are the ones who took that ridiculously private moment and made it public in an effort to win over crazy social cons.

thphilli on December 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM

You’re a Rumpelstiltskin supporter having the nerve to call someone else nuts??

sure you want to go there??

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 3:33 PM

The guy is anti privacy, anti birth control, wants to criminalize adultery. He is a disaster and is just plain creepy. I hope he goes down in flames.

Believing there is no constitutional right to privacy (there isn’t) does not equate to anti-privacy. If by anti-birth control, you mean pro-life, then yep. If you are referring to the Catholic position on birth control, then that’s a non-issue for a president anyway. And if he’s against adultery? Good, so are most sane folks. He’s not going to use an executive order to ban adultery upon pain of death. Get real, people. When one actually listens to what Rick Santorum has to say, he comes across as a logical, states rights kind of guy. My kind of guy.

Othniel on December 29, 2011 at 3:33 PM

OT, sort of: Perry admits to not knowing landmark court case decided while he was Texas governor, Lawrence v. Texas

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM

social conservative = liberal.

Both advocate using the force of government to prevent particular behaviors. Neither groups are for individual liberty.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM

As I find myself becoming less of an outright conservative and more of a fiscally conservative libertarian as I get older (no, I’m not a Ron Paul guy), I have to agree with you, Dante. The government has no more right to dictate morality to others than it has the right to dictate that people purchase healthcare insurance.

Just my opinion, mind you; your mileage may vary.

Dime IV on December 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM

cajunpatriot on December 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM

You can’t win the nomination by winning Iowa, but you can lose it. I agree that it is a terrible thing that Iowa has such power. Nonetheless, many a candidate has been shoved off the radar (and perhaps Radar if you’re a M*A*S*H fan) by doing poorly there.

This year, a good showing could essentially eradicate the chances of all but Romney if he wins simply because the others are all hanging by a thread and Mitt has no competition for NH.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Mittens Ad!
=============

2012 elections GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases 1st 60-second ad in Iowa, “Freedom and Opportunity” – NBC’s Garrett HaakeStory metadata:
Submitted 7 hours ago by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

“Freedom And Opportunity”
**************************

Uploaded by mittromney on Dec 28, 2011

“When generations of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time, one thing they knew beyond any doubt, and that is they were coming to a place where anything was possible; that in America, their children would have a better life.”
=======

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ypqKig9_I

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Too bad we can’t find some more candidates. If Santorum is like Big Gov’t Bush – no thanks. Others all fall into the “no thanks” category as well. But… most anyone but Obama has my vote. Oh wait, I will not vote for Newt.

But hey, in CA my vote means nothing.

sdbatboy on December 29, 2011 at 3:36 PM

I saw this morning someone claim for an incumbent Senator losing the race, Santorum had the widest vote gap ever recorded. (Gives Rick a double John Belusci in Animal House eyebrows up and both thumbs us)

Marcus on December 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM

And Romney couldn’t even make his second term in Massachusetts with 34% approval… so he ran away.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Romney was a Republican running for governor in a deep blue state.

Santorum was a conservative in a purple state running for Senate.

Romney had the tougher road to hoe.

Good Lt on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

If you look at the polls and compare them to the previous ones (i.e. Rassmussen 12/28 to Rassmussen 12/19, etc), you’ll see that Paul is indeed not losing ground. Except for the Insider Advantage poll, which is all kinds of strange.

Comparing Rassmussen’s results to PPP’s, for example, would be stupid.

That’s not to mention that there’s little-to-no crossover between Paul supporters and Santorum supporters.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

The rise of frothy fecal matter!

Constantine on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM

The fact that he was allowed to have that ‘final say’, in spite of evidence that Terri was in that condition due to having been assaulted by Michael, is a huge issue.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

I’m not Paul supporter, but we can’t say Iowa is irrelevant if Paul wins. Whenever Paul wins a straw poll people call it irrelevant. If Paul wins Iowa people will call it irrelevant. What happens if Paul wins the nomination or the presidency?

Whether we like it or not Paul is resonating with a large swath of voters. I blame the GOP establishment. They viewed him as a fringe element instead of challenging him substantively , they simply ignored him. Outside of the debates and the very very recent media scrutiny I’ve never seen him seriously challenged.

Utica681 on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Nothing against Rich but Santorum 2012 feels like Huckabee 2008.

WisRich on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Your statement is wrong concerning both liberals and social conservatives. Liberals will promote the freedom to use drugs. Social Conservatives will not. Thus, on this matter, liberals favor liberty.

When it comes to gay marriage, liberals will advocate for complete freedom of association, whereas social conservatives believe that marriage’s purpose is undermined by a lack of any rules. Thus, on this matter, liberals favor liberty.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Liberals would outlaw salt, happy meal toys, etc. They wish to change and penalize behavior using the force of government. They would also use government to force people to purchase and carry health insurance.

Social conservatives are advocating the use of government force to criminalize drug possession and drug use in order to criminalize and change behavior. They have no respect for individual liberty, and do not respect that it is a person’s choice whether to use drugs or not. They need and desire the government to take that free choice away.

On gay marriage social conservatives are against individual liberty, believing the government should say who can and who can’t marry, and desiring to outlaw gay marriage. Again, social conservatives wish to use the force of government to outlaw behavior they don’t like.

Thus, your post has 3 incorrect assertions.

You are the one who made three assertions, not me. I made one: liberals and social conservatives both favor using the force of government to change and punish behavior they don’t like.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM

O/T,Nanny State Strikes again!
——————————

Jan 1: children in California will have to use car seats until they’re 8 years old or 4-feet-9 inches tall – @WSJStory metadata:
Submitted 3 hours ago from online.wsj.com by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Seriously Google “santorum frothy mix”

My God you insane people…LOL, the freak show continues.

rubberneck on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Libertarian = Liberal

The groups share a common prefix, and both love rotting out minds with drugs, blaming the United States for everything wrong in the world, perverting marriage so it gets away from child-rearing and family and instead focuses on self-gratification, and advocate for abortion on the grounds of maximizing choice. Both admire the “Me” culture of the 1960s, and hold the very idea of goodness in contempt.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan, 1975.

When Hannity and Beck started calling themselves libertarians a few years ago, it was with their fingers to the wind. It appears a good percentage of Americans desire a charismatic candidate who can get as close as possible to the libertarian ideal. Santorum and Obama ain’t it. Paul’s probably been too thoroughly branded with the kooky label for mainstream America to embrace him. The rest of the GOP stage rejects libertarianism, when public perception of the word is actually very positive.

If just one of the other candidates had been convincing as a fiscal conservative (read libertarian), the polls wouldn’t look like this.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Romney ran as a liberal and he governed like a liberal in Mass.

Santorum ran as a conservative in PA, a swing state that usually swings Democrat, and won 2 out of 3 elections. He lost in 2006 which was a bad year for Republicansss

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM
The fact that he was allowed to have that ‘final say’, in spite of evidence that Terri was in that condition due to having been assaulted by Michael, is a huge issue.
listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

A huge issue for Florida or wherever such decisions are made.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Goons at it again!
——————

5 Occupy protesters arrested outside of US GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul’s Iowa campaign headquarters – @APStory metadata:
Submitted 2 hours ago from hosted.ap.org by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM

MSM starts the bombing of Santorum in 5…4…3…2..

Boodad on December 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM

OH NO RICKY!! I really like you too!!

OK…here it comes….the Romney Camp (Fox News, GOP establishment, Ron Paul Nation and the MSM)

Bend over….your annal exam is about to begin!!!

Doctor: Jelly Please… Now Ricky…this might hurt a little bend over….and cough please.

This will be exam #5….ANYBODY BUT ROMNEY…and PAUL!!

coach1228 on December 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Seriously Google “santorum frothy mix”

My God you insane people…LOL, the freak show continues.

rubberneck on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

So if the libtards at Google, encouraged by ghey jihadist Dan Savage, decide to create a Google bomb for Romney, we should then just drop Mitt by the wayside?

Not a Santorum guy, just wondering.

Kataklysmic on December 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Dante is the perfect example of why liberterians will always be regulated to 3rd party status.

He wants to argue that the majority the family, including both parents and both siblings, having their wishes respected by the government in the Schiavo case, where was no living will, is actually a form of tyranny.

It’s not tryanny for a court to overule the wishes of her entire biological family and not only that, but starve the woman to death.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Good Lt on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Nationally, the voters were down on Republicans in 2006. Particularly over the Iraq war.
Santorum loudly trumpeted his support for the Iraq war, in the face of public sentiment.
The Dems, smelling blood in the water, ran Pa State royalty in the form of Robert Casey Jr.
The Casey family has the same esteem in PA that the Kennedys have in MA.
That’s why Rick lost in 2006.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM

In my view, most the people who are strident in their opposition are homosexuals, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Pro-choicers hate him too.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Liberals would outlaw salt, happy meal toys, etc. They wish to change and penalize behavior using the force of government. They would also use government to force people to purchase and carry health insurance.

All true. And in many other cases, they want to see no restrictions at all.

Social conservatives are advocating the use of government force to criminalize drug possession and drug use in order to criminalize and change behavior. They have no respect for individual liberty, and do not respect that it is a person’s choice whether to use drugs or not. They need and desire the government to take that free choice away.

The use of the term “need” is suspect here. They certainly do not respect such a “choice” though since that sort of choice impairs the ability of the mind to think and the body to respond according to the mind’s commands. By impairing these functions, drug-use essentially allows a person, through their own volition, to give up the ability to be responsible for one’s own actions, and consequently, the ability to ensure that their behavior is permissible. It is not out of a general lack of respect for individual liberty, but the recognition that, as the old adage goes, with rights come responsibilities.

On gay marriage social conservatives are against individual liberty, believing the government should say who can and who can’t marry, and desiring to outlaw gay marriage. Again, social conservatives wish to use the force of government to outlaw behavior they don’t like.

And why do they oppose this? Because children may result from copulation, and consequently there exists a responsibility to care for those children. Social conservatives recognize the existence and need for social norms, and the codification of those norms, to support the upbringing of children from one generation to the next.

As for the assertions, might I remind you…

social conservative = liberal.

Both advocate using the force of government to prevent particular behaviors. Neither groups are for individual liberty.

Thus, you did say that social conservative = liberal. I might be willing to give you the second and third assertions only in so far as by saying they are not “for” individual liberty you are at least willing to concede that they are not expressly against it, either.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Romney was a Republican running for governor in a deep blue state.

Santorum was a conservative in a purple state running for Senate.

Romney had the tougher road to hoe.

Good Lt on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Romney didn’t ___________ because Democrats!

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum Or Nothing

If Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum does not win the GOP nomination I am done.

I will not support another lukewarm conservative like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. And I am damn sure not going to vote for a creepy nut like Ron Paul.

I did it with John McCain in 2008, but no more; I will not do it again. These establishment candidates have no chance of beating someone like Obama, because millions of Teaparty, social cocservatives and evangelicals feel the same as I.

If it takes another four more years of Obama for Republicans to realize that sticking with true conservatives is the path to victory, then maybe that is the best thing that can happen.

There is not such a thing as an independent in this day and time. You either fire up the base, or you have half of your voters sit out.

I thought that the RINO McCain taught us this hard lesson already.

The poles show that we are slow learners.

conservativeBC on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

As it stands, Santorum could be a viable alternative to Romney if he can demonstrate an ability to swing indies to his side. We’ll see.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Nothing against Rich but Santorum 2012 feels like Huckabee 2008.

WisRich on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Ok, if you say so.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Alternate headline: conservativeBC loves Obama

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

One thing to consider, Santorum is even weaker on illegal immigration than Perry. In fact his stance on the issue mirrors that of W. Bush, which is comprehensive reform with a guest worker program that is available to illegals after they pay a minimal fine for their years of identity fraud.

paulsur on December 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

If Romney had made some effort to move Mass. to the right, we could cut him some slack for being gov. in a blue state.

But he didn’t. Ann Coulter’s theory that Romney tricked people in Mass just doesn’t hold up if you are logical.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Romney supported McCain’s amnesty plan a few years ago.

You can’t play the immigration card on Santorum if you are backing Romney.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:54 PM

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Ok, if you say so.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Hey, have you felt either Santorum or Huckabee? I didn’t think so.

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Santorum is the man on taxes.

Huckabee wasn’t.

Big difference.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM

@ppppolls Santorum’s 3% in New Hampshire ties him for 6th with Rick Perry…and BUDDY ROEMER

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 3:56 PM

That’s what’s funny about Romney as a candidate, he can’t even win his home state or even compete there but we are told he’s most electable. He’ll be a much weaker candidate in the southeast and midwest than Perry or Gingrich or Santorum, I think.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

What’s funny is that someone would actually try and make any kind of deal out of the fact that Massachusetts likely would not vote for Romney.

At any rate, whether he has a chance to win there or not, at least he will be on the ballot in his home state.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 3:56 PM

As it stands, Santorum could be a viable alternative to Romney if he can demonstrate an ability to swing indies to his side. We’ll see.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I don’t have anything against Santorum, but if he gains any traction the MSM will come down on him like an avalanche because of his socon positions. And he has no resources to combat them. MSM loving indies will treat this guy like he’s radioactive.

Kataklysmic on December 29, 2011 at 3:56 PM

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 3:54 PM

TOUCHE! : )

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

If Americans love liberterianism so much, wny is the Liberterian Party unable to win elections?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

If Romney had made some effort to move Mass. to the right, we could cut him some slack for being gov. in a blue state.

But he didn’t. Ann Coulter’s theory that Romney tricked people in Mass just doesn’t hold up if you are logical.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Yup. Two words: Chris Christie

Christie has proven that if you have the will and the skills you can get things done in a blue state. Romney’s supporters excuses for him are just that, excuses.

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I think if Romney was this great candidate, he could win his home state. He did win there as govenor right?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I don’t Chris Christie is all that conservative. He’s mostly a moderate…he’s a budget hawk, but outside of that, he’s a moderate.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

If Romney had made some effort to move Mass. to the right, we could cut him some slack for being gov. in a blue state.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

No you wouldn’t. And what exactly do you think healthcare would like in Mass without Romney? Two words: single payer.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

If Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum does not win the GOP nomination I am done.

Guess you’re done, bro.

Good Lt on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Yup.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Kataklysmic on December 29, 2011 at 3:56 PM

That is true of whomever the nominee is. But you’re right about the money. Santorum could never amass the war chest that Romney has and will continue to add to.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

apocalypse on December 29, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Who don’t you recognize anymore?

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 4:01 PM

I think if Romney was this great candidate, he could win his home state. He did win there as govenor right?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Obviously the 85% democrat demographic didn’t like him checking the reins on their liberal agenda.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 4:01 PM

gotsig,

Good luck selling Romney to conservatives with RomneyCare. :)

Most Romney fans just stick to Bain Capital and marketing him as some kind of champion of free markets and capitalism because he founded Bain Capital. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Dante is the perfect example of why liberterians will always be regulated to 3rd party status.
He wants to argue that the majority the family, including both parents and both siblings, having their wishes respected by the government in the Schiavo case, where was no living will, is actually a form of tyranny.
It’s not tryanny for a court to overule the wishes of her entire biological family and not only that, but starve the woman to death.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM

The irony is that libertarians are mischaracterized as anarchist wanting to return the US to the wild wild west while your vision of the court system would come much closer to such dreaded chaos.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

You’ve got to expound on that.
Who would that single-payer have been?

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Come on Conservatives. Help him keep the surge going! Santorum 2012!

pannw on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM

gotsig,

Romney seemed prettty liberal on healthcare, immigration, taxes (fees), gun control (he supported the ban on semi-automatic weapons, which he called machine guns), abortion, gay marriage, and his appointments to the courts were usually liberal and gay activists over qualified Republicans.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I don’t Chris Christie is all that conservative. He’s mostly a moderate…he’s a budget hawk, but outside of that, he’s a moderate.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Yes he is a moderate, but at least he fought back which is more than Romney did. Romney is a liberal.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Rick Perry spins Santorum as hungry for earmarks in new radio ad
2:23 PM, Dec 29, 2011
***********************
***********************

The same day that Texas Gov. Rick Perry began taking swipes from the stump at Rick Santorum’s history with earmarks, the Perry campaign released an analogous radio ad hammering Santorum on the same subject.

The ad, called “Game Show,” features a fictional voiceover host named Wink Taxandspend and “Wheel of Washington,” the quiz show where all the questions are about legislative earmarks and all the answers are “Rick Santorum.”

The ad also features a clip from a 2009 appearance by Santorum on Fox News in which he said he was “proud” of earmarks he secured while in congress.

The ad represents a last-grab effort from Perry to pull Santorum down by his sweater vest as the candidate’s popularity in Iowa rises, according to a new CNN/Time poll.

Here’s the script:

“Game Show” Script:

Announcer: “It’s ‘Wheel of Washington!’ I’m your host, Wink Tax-and-Spend!”

“First question: Which Republican running for president voted for the Bridge to Nowhere earmark?” [1]

“Yes, Susie from Des Moines.”

Susie: “Rick Santorum?”

Announcer: “Correct! Santorum voted for the Bridge to Nowhere and a highway bill full of pork.”

“Who personally demanded more than one billion dollars of earmarks in his 16 years in Congress?”

“Jay from Ames.”

Jay: “Rick Santorum?”

Announcer: “Right! Santorum grabbed for a billion in earmarks – until voters kicked him out of office in a landslide.”

“Audio bonus! Name this Congressional porker.”

Rick Santorum: “I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills.”

Announcer: “Jen, from Sioux City.”

Jen: “That’s Rick Santorum.”

Announcer: “In-deedy-duty! Santorum’s proud of feeding at the earmark trough in Congress. Soo-ee pig!”

“That’s right, Iowa. On taxes and spending, if Rick Santorum wins, you lose.”
===========

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/29/rick-perry-spins-santorum-as-hungry-for-earmarks-in-new-radio-ad/

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I don’t Chris Christie is all that conservative. He’s mostly a moderate…he’s a budget hawk, but outside of that, he’s a moderate.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Neither do I (Coulter is infatuated with him too, hmmmmmmm), but the fiscal policies that he has enacted are conservative. And he has done that in a blue state with massive opposition both from within his state and nationally.

That’s why the “Romney didn’t ?????? because DEMOCRATS!” argument falls flat.

And it’s an especially bad argument if there is any chance at all of there being a Deomcrat Congress in 2014. Apparenly even Romney’s supporters already admit that he’d be helpless against them.

29Victor on December 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM

These establishment candidates have no chance of beating someone like Obama, because millions of Teaparty, social cocservatives and evangelicals feel the same as I.

conservativeBC on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

We all know that when Romney beats Obama, you will conveniently ignore that part of your screed.

And you’re fooling yourself if you think your meaningless protest vote/non vote will do anything to change the establishment GOP. They will run you over and continue to find ways to enrich themselves.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

there’s little-to-no crossover between Paul supporters and Santorum supporters.

gyrmnix on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The “Paul supporters” you’re referring to, would be his regular nutjob anarchist supporters who have never been able to get him above the 3-6% mark. The voters he’s losing, and going to continue to lose, are the undecided voters and those who temporarily jumpted onto his wagon after Cain’s fall. The fact is that there is a huge group of voters who are looking for anyone other than Romney or Gingrich and they are just now realizing that the only remaining logical choice is Santorum.

Awwww … did you really think the extra 18-19% of voters Paul recently started seeing actually WANTED him as their President, did you? No, like me, they’re just willing to vote for ANYONE other than Romney and Gingrich.

Now, watch both Romney and Gingrich lose votes as well, as Santorum’s numbers rise and they realize they have another choice.

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

The irony is that libertarians are mischaracterized as anarchist wanting to return the US to the wild wild west while your vision of the court system would come much closer to such dreaded chaos.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM

The Wild West is letting a the majority of a family make medical decisions without government intervention?

There is no liberterian argument for putting Schiavo down via deprivation of food and water. It was ghoulish.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Game Show(Audio)in Radio Ad Spot,in above linky!

canopfor on December 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I don’t think Christie is much better than Romney but his combative personality makes it seem that way, and he knows how to play to the camera.

He’s not on the ballot and I rather not talk about his problems until he’s a candidate for president. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 3:09 PM

It’s interesting that you would mention the Terri Schiavo case, I had asked before if anyone thought his involvement in the case (which was extensive) had anything to do with his loss. People said it was more that he was living in D.C. full time and no longer really a resident. Since I don’t live there I wasn’t in a position to argue but it seemed plausible to me he might have been seen as meddling in other states’ business.

Cindy Munford on December 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Yes he is a moderate, but at least he fought back which is more than Romney did. Romney is a liberal.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I dont see Romneys line of attack on Obama. He is unvetted and Bain has proved to be a line of attack in other campaigns. He’s cornering himself with an economy line of attack. The media will be trumpeting good economic numbers and highlighting Mitt’s weakness in the area. He is also terrible on the attack, the guy whines whenever he is confronted. See Brett Baier, debates. He wont be able to handle the interviews and debates. He hasnt really done much interviews. It’s easy to see why.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I don’t (think?) Chris Christie is all that conservative. He’s mostly a moderate…he’s a budget hawk, but outside of that, he’s a moderate.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Yes he is a moderate, but at least he fought back which is more than Romney did. Romney is a liberal.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Christie’s biggest appeal to conservatives has been the brute force with which he has very publicly made the opposition back-down.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

He didn’t lose because of Schiavo. That just what the freaks who seemed so eager for her to die want you to think..

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Dante is the perfect example of why liberterians will always be regulated to 3rd party status.

He wants to argue that the majority the family, including both parents and both siblings, having their wishes respected by the government in the Schiavo case, where was no living will, is actually a form of tyranny.

It’s not tryanny for a court to overule the wishes of her entire biological family and not only that, but starve the woman to death.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM

It appears you are incapable of honesty and deliberately misrepresenting what I said. The usurpation of a state’s court decisions by the federal government and done clandestinely with unanimous consent is tyranny. Further, you think someone’s opinion or wishes should take precedence over a legal guardian. You have no respect for our system and do not realize that what you desire could be used against you someday.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

The Wild West is letting a the majority of a family make medical decisions without government intervention?
There is no liberterian argument for putting Schiavo down via deprivation of food and water. It was ghoulish.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Absolutely. You’re suggesting mob rule democracy. I don’t know if it would be the wild west as much as the state of chaos associated to the wild west. The system you’re suggesting is one that encourages rule of law to be ignored so long as the majority is content.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:12 PM

If Americans love liberterianism so much, wny is the Liberterian Party unable to win elections?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I’m no expert on the Libertarian Party, but McCain-Feingold and other barriers to entry make a third-party run totally unfeasible above dog catcher in the USA. There’s no outlet for any alternative to the watered-down liberalism and the watered-down conservatism that characterize the Dems and the GOP. That’s why there’s such a fight for ideology within both parties right now and such energy in the Tea Party and OWS.

TXGOP on December 29, 2011 at 4:12 PM

gotsig,

Romney seemed prettty liberal on healthcare, immigration, taxes (fees), gun control (he supported the ban on semi-automatic weapons, which he called machine guns), abortion, gay marriage, and his appointments to the courts were usually liberal and gay activists over qualified Republicans.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I’m not going to go line by line with you on these – there is no question Romney’s record in Massachusetts is more liberal than most Republicans (me included) would like. But if you want to be intellectually honest about it (which I doubt given your posting history) put it in context.

Take gun control for example – yes he signed a bill that made the assault weapons ban permanent, but that was going to pass anyway. Had he vetoed that bill, the legislature would simple have overridden his veto. Recognizing that fact, he worked to get compromises in the bill such that the gun lobby there actually endorsed it.

Much as you just want to hate on Romney, context does matter.

gotsig on December 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM

I wonder what the story-spin will be on wed when Ron Paul wins by getting 10%+ above all other candidates?

Capitalist75 on December 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM

The “legal guardian” was married to another woman and had kids with her.

The point of our government is for the different branches to check and balance each other. You act like nobody can question a court’s decision or it’s tyranny. That’s absurd.

There was no living will, and majority of the family, her entire biollogical family, all of her friends, wanted her alive.

I think majority of family wishes rules in a case like this.

I’m siding with the family, you are siding with a judge. But I’m the tyrant? How it does it hurt the “legal guardian” if the family was willing to take on all medical costs?

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

He didn’t lose because of Schiavo. That just what the freaks who seemed so eager for her to die want you to think..
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Why don’t you detail all of the policies that caused him to lose.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

conservativeBC on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

+ 1 million
I’m with you

Gregor on December 29, 2011 at 4:15 PM

gotsig,

Romney sure seemed enthusiastic about his support for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which he calls assasult weapons and compares to machine guns.

He even mocked the NRA and bragged about the NRA wasn’t goign to like him.

You are the one not being intellectually honest.

I don’t know a Romney fan can accuse anybody of being dishonest….if you had a problem with that, ROmney wouoldn’t be your guy. The guy will say anything to get elected.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM

At least Rick isn’t sitting on the couch with Nancy. But hey, I guess that would win some independents.

mtucker5695 on December 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

No, but he did endorse Arlen Specter, which is just as bad!

bopbottle on December 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Terri Schiavo is not a good issue/example for the purpose of invalidating Rick Santorum. Moving my previous post forward.

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM

The fact that he was allowed to have that ‘final say’, in spite of evidence that Terri was in that condition due to having been assaulted by Michael, is a huge issue.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Why don’t you detail all of the policies that caused him to lose.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I would think it has more to do with what was going on in PA. More local issues.

I really don’t care. Sometimes candidates lose, but do you really think the guy that replaced him was better? He won 2 out of 3 elections in PA.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Another couple of examples to demonstrate why I’m a Social Conservative (and support government intervention sometimes) and not a Libertarian

1.) Michael Vick & killing dogs. A liberal would oppose the killing of the dogs on the grounds of animal rights, and that animals are people too. A social conservative would oppose the killing of the dogs on the grounds that allowing it to transpire allows for the development of reveling in the suffering of another, and that it could lead to future problems. Consequently, both would be against liberty. The libertarian, while “personally” disgusted, would nonetheless argue against government coercion to stop the torture and killing. Thus on this matter only libertarians favor liberty while social conservatives and liberals do not.

2.) Octomom. A liberal would support IVF implantation and the generation of 14 kids that a mother couldn’t raise on her own and then have the state support them. A libertarian would support the implantation but not include state support, thereby allowing the kids, conceived through no fault of their own, to die due to the lack of ability of the mother to support them. A social conservative would oppose such a procedure in the first place on the grounds that it wouldn’t be prudent to allow for it due to the severe problems that awaited down the road. On this matter both libertarians and liberals support liberty, social conservatives do not.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

The mob rule was people not related to Schavio demanding she be starved to death.

Government overrulled her entire biological family, and there was no living will. There was no legality in the court order.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:20 PM

It was ghoulish.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Absolutely. You’re suggesting mob rule democracy. I don’t know if it would be the wild west as much as the state of chaos associated to the wild west. The system you’re suggesting is one that encourages rule of law to be ignored so long as the majority is content.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:12 PM

It was ghoulish because there was no proof that Terri wished to die, only Michael’s say so.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I would think it has more to do with what was going on in PA. More local issues.
I really don’t care. Sometimes candidates lose, but do you really think the guy that replaced him was better? He won 2 out of 3 elections in PA.
Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

So you don’t care except when you care. You’re proving to be particularly wormy.

aryeung on December 29, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I would think it has more to do with what was going on in PA.

I’ll tell you why he lost here. He was a dweeb who creeped many people out. He takes the socon sh#t way to far for my liking. He brought a dead baby home to show his family. I dont want to know that please. The guy’s most likely also a sexist. He calked my mother a housewife at a townhall with absolutely no info on her when she asked a question on the wars.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Liberterians don’t go anywhere because Americans generally are not pro-legalization of drugs, prostitution, etc with a dovish naive approach to national security and foreign policy.

Dr. Tesla on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I dont see Romneys line of attack on Obama. He is unvetted and Bain has proved to be a line of attack in other campaigns. He’s cornering himself with an economy line of attack. The media will be trumpeting good economic numbers and highlighting Mitt’s weakness in the area. He is also terrible on the attack, the guy whines whenever he is confronted. See Brett Baier, debates. He wont be able to handle the interviews and debates. He hasnt really done much interviews. It’s easy to see why.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Romney is a very weak candidate and Obama can easily damage him by being nice and saying ‘Thanks Mitt for helping me with Obamacare. You and your friend and collaborator Ted Kennedy were a deciding influence in making it happen‘.

They just haven’t bothered with much in the way of attacks on Romney because they know how to destroy him. They did it in 1994, and they have a stronger card to play in 2012.

sharrukin on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Dante on December 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM

So when a Paulbot loses an argument, they revert to insults.

eva3071 on December 29, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4