Rasmussen in SC: Romney 27, Santorum 24

posted at 9:20 am on January 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The last we saw of South Carolina polling three weeks ago, Newt Gingrich had a large lead over Mitt Romney, the only two candidates in double digits, and Rick Santorum tied Jon Huntsman for last place.  My, how things have changed over the Christmas holidays.  After their dead-heat finish in Iowa, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum now lead the latest Rasmussen poll 27/24, respectively, and Gingrich has dropped to 18%:

What a difference a caucus makes. Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Palmetto State finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still in the lead, earning 27% support from likely GOP Primary Voters, up from 23% in early November. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in third with 18% of the vote, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 11%.

Bringing up the rear are Texas Governor Rick Perry with five percent (5%) and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman at two percent (2%). Another two percent (2%) of these likely primary voters like some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided.

Ron Paul doesn’t appear to have gained a lot of traction in the same period.  The RCP average had Paul at 8.5% for December before today’s Rasmussen poll, but the mid-month Clemson poll had him at 10%.  His surprising drop in Iowa to third place has not hurt him, but he’s not picking up any momentum, either.  Rasmussen’s sample is 74/26 Republicans to independents, so it isn’t as if the survey of 750 likely primary voters (conducted in its entirety yesterday) tried to avoid Paul’s base, either.

Looking at the internals, Santorum competes better in some demos with Romney.  He edges Romney among men, 27/25, but is behind 30/20 with women and almost tied with Gingrich at 19%.  Surprisingly, Romney edges Paul for voters under 40, 25/22, with Santorum in third at 16%.  Santorum tops Romney with 40-64YOs 30/22, but Romney wins seniors by a large margin, 41/25 over Gingrich, with Santorum in third again at 18%.   Romney and Santorum win among Republicans and non-Republicans, 29/25 and 23/21, respectively.  Paul only manages a 19% with independents and just 8% among Republicans.

Romney has a bigger problem with very conservative voters.  He comes in third among this self-identified set, which comprises the plurality in the sample (41%), behind Santorum (36%) and Gingrich (22%).  Santorum has a problem among “somewhat conservative” voters, as Romney wins 38% and Gingrich comes in second at 20% among respondents who accounted for 35% of the sample.  Santorum will have to find a way to increase his appeal beyond the very conservative base, while Romney has to work in the opposite direction.

Santorum may have the edge in making that case.  His favorability rating is 72%, a bit higher than Romney’s 68% and Gingrich’s 59%.  Romney gets a 65% favorability among very conservative voters, but Santorum has a 74% rating with somewhat conservative voters, so he has more potential upside in the demo he needs to target.  Paul’s favorability is only 39%, which beats Jon Huntsman’s 29%.  Rick Perry gets to 50%, but only 9% find him “very favorable,” which portends a very poor showing for the Texas governor in a couple of weeks.

The news has to be encouraging to both Romney and Santorum.  Romney was not expected to do well in South Carolina, but his numbers have improved quite a bit over the last three weeks, and two-thirds of voters in this poll expect him to win the nomination, while 45% believe he’s the strongest candidate to beat Obama in the fall.  Only 16% believe that of Santorum, which means his support outstrips his perceived viability.  A second-place finish in New Hampshire might improve that number and perhaps add more to his support, but that may come at the expense of other conservatives in the race rather than Romney.

 

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 5

Man, I am just not sure I can handle waiting to see which underwhelming candidate will emerge as the victor in the primaries…

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Santorum campaigned in Iowa against ethanol subsidies, if I remember correctly. I watched one of his CSpan townhalls and couldn’t believe he said that in Iowa.

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Hot Gassers for Perry!

John the Libertarian on January 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I still like Perry. Still not set on anyone though.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Then the question becomes can he beat a weak Obama with many Independents (uninspired) & true conservatives

When Romney does his weaseling on Obromneycare the election will be lost. Why vote for Dem Lite when you can vote for the real thing?

ABR/P/O

Baring a miracle by Perry in SC you choice is Santorum or Obromneycare.

18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

If by Tea Party you mean the seething minority, yes, we’re still around – and will never vote for Romney, NEVER.

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

The Tea Party is for letting Obama have another term so he can rule by unfettered executive rule? In short, the Tea Party is a bunch of petulant children like you? Don’t think so.

lowandslow on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Santorum favorables are so high the same reason Gingrich, Perry, Cain and Bachmann all did well for awhile: people don’t know him. They know he did very well in Iowa, he looked presidential in the speech and they hear pundits/analysts/reporters call him “very conservative”.

Santorum will be even more vulnerable to attack ads than Newt was. Once they start, his favs will plummet and his negatives will explode.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Well, whaddya know? Here comes CAIR out of the gate against Santorum

/Unexpectedly, of course.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Baring a miracle by Perry in SC you choice is Santorum or Obromneycare.

18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Shoot me.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Who, where and what are you talking about?

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I’ve seen Romney supporters on HA going after Santorum’s dead son – look in the Robinson thread. It isn’t fair to tar Romney’s campaign at this point, but the temptation will be there for them.

In fact, I’d argue that the first candidate other then Santorum to damn the State Media at the next debate for this gambit will pull a few voters their way.

18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Santorum will be even more vulnerable to attack ads than Newt was. Once they start, his favs will plummet and his negatives will explode.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Don’t rule out the Palin factor.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

CR, can’t he be the anti romney?

BB, *fingers crossed*

cmsinaz on January 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Amendment 2879, sponsored by Senators Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, and Arlen Specter — the very amendment Santorum voted for — established a Commission on Voting Rights and Procedures to “to require States to meet uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements for the 2004 Federal elections” and provides felons the right to file a complaint with the Attorney General of the United States if they are denied the right to vote. (Note Senator Reid calls these people “ex-felons” instead of “felons”)
workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Look, I’m not for Santorum, but these things are not always as cut and dry as they appear. Who knows – maybe he supported the part about uniform technology standards? As for giving felons the “right to vote”, the right to “file a complaint” is not exactly the same thing. FTR, I do not support giving felons or ex-felons the right to vote. Just pointing out that words have meanings and “complaint” is not synonymous with “vote”.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

If by Tea Party you mean the seething minority, yes, we’re still around – and will never vote for Romney, NEVER.

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

The Tea Party is for letting Obama have another term so he can rule by unfettered executive rule? In short, the Tea Party is a bunch of petulant children like you? Don’t think so.

lowandslow on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Exactly. Why consider the opinion whose vote is not available anyway. That’s what marginalization is all about.

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I still like Perry. Still not set on anyone though.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Me too. Hard to get excited over any of them, though…

OmahaConservative on January 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Would CAIR coming out against you be a plus for Santorum?

Zomcon JEM on January 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I do have to admit I used to wonder how anyone could be undecided so late in the game. And it’s very strange to be in that position. (Even more of a wonder for those that claim to vacillate between the two parties at any point.) But, I’ve always seemed to pick a person early on.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM

After the NRLB fight with SC…I don’t think Santorum’s pro-union voting record will fly…neither will his defense of the ear-marks thingy.

“Here is video of a new Rick Perry web ad that goes after Rick Santorum’s defense of “earmarks,” calling him “a porker’s best friend.”

The ad gives multiple examples of pork-barrel spending Santorum supported when he was in Congress
. It also draws a parallel with Barack Obama, showing an image of Obama’s face that morphs into Santorum’s face with the words: “Wasting taxpayer dollars. Senator with no Executive experience. Too close for comfort.”

Expect to see more of this as the battle moves to New Hampshire and South Carolina if Santorum does as well as expected in Iowa. Santorum has not had to withstand attacks until now, for the most part, because his poll numbers were so low for so long no one took him seriously. Santorum joined with Michele Bachmann in relentlessly attacking Rick Perry during debates when Perry was high in the polls, hammering him on the “Gardasil vaccine” and on immigration. Now, it appears, Perry is ready to return the favor as Santorum takes his turn in the sun…”

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012/01/02/new-rick-perry-ad-goes-after-rick-santorum-on-his-defense-of-pork-b

video link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6XCZz2X1Y&feature=player_embedded

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Santorum will be even more vulnerable to attack ads than Newt was. Once they start, his favs will plummet and his negatives will explode.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

This almost sounds you’d like that to happen.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I do have to admit I used to wonder how anyone could be undecided so late in the game. And it’s very strange to be in that position. (Even more of a wonder for those that claim to vacillate between the two parties at any point.) But, I’ve always seemed to pick a person early on.
hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM

They want to see who will kiss the most azz

blatantblue on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Baring a miracle by Perry in SC you choice is Santorum or Obromneycare.

18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Exactly. It comes down to People who are afraid Santorum MIGHT take away their birth control vs. People who KNOW Romney signed a law forcing individuals in his State to buy insurance so others could have their birth control paid for by the taxpayers.

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Huntsman shouldn’t have gone straight for the squishy middle. Big strategic error.

John the Libertarian on January 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Yeppers, he insulted the voters that he was relying on getting him to the “middle voters.”

I honestly don’t see what is so different between Santorum or Romney. One wants to control us on social issues; the other has a record of controlling with fiscal issues.

That being said, as one of the voting sheep-if either is the nominee; I will vote for them. I guess I would rather be controlled by a Republican then a Democrat./

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Was Santorum complaining about autism as well?

Zomcon JEM on January 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

LOL

I love Hot Air.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You are so right, the humor here is priceless! And something we could use more of. The candidate sniping is pretty disgusting.

jb34461 on January 6, 2012 at 10:41 AM

My totally a-political Dem-registered hubby crawled out of his sportsman cave last night to ask “Who’s Rick Santorum”?

It was my pleasure to inform him.

I’m still for either Perry or Newt or Santorum (in that order), but if either of the Ricks can pull it off?

ABO 2012. Except Mitt.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Santorum will be even more vulnerable to attack ads than Newt was. Once they start, his favs will plummet and his negatives will explode.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

No need for attack ads, all they have to do is show clips of him spouting his philosophies, and he’s toast.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Santorum will be even more vulnerable to attack ads than Newt was. Once they start, his favs will plummet and his negatives will explode.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

When people get the implication of these two Santorum quotes, he’ll be lucky to get 15% of the votes in the general election even with an opponent as poor as Obama:

Our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God’s law.

Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’ve seen Romney supporters on HA going after Santorum’s dead son – look in the Robinson thread. It isn’t fair to tar Romney’s campaign at this point, but the temptation will be there for them.
18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Name them (and provide an excerpt of their comments with the time and date). Thanks.

P.S. There is no way – zero – zilch – nada – that Romney (or surrogates) will go after Santorum on the topic of how they mourned their child. Hate his policies all you want, but he is a decent man and would never stoop that low. However, I wouldn’t put it past someone else to engage in push-polling and try to blame it on Romney. Like hire some group out of Utah who donated to Romney and try to make that link. Even the DNC could do that…

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I live in a state that won’t go for Santorum. Period. So I won’t be voting for him. Period. And won’t donate any money either.

JoeShmoe99 on January 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Look, it won’t be easy but Perry can come back.

He has to create a clear, ****hard****, substantive contrast against himself and Romney, and himself and Obama.

Hit Romney on Obamacare and make clear the stakes of nominating Romney.

Hit Obama on his radicalism and make clear that Perry will mobilize patriotic Americans to stop him.

BTW, Newt’s not dead yet either. A good debate performance (plus serious, hardhitting negative ad campaign against Romney and 15 days of disciplined messaging and heavy retail campaigning) this weekend could get him back in serious contention.

Above all, they have to start clashing with Romney in a non-timid way.

Credit goes to Romney for this: he’s not afraid to go after other candidates. Frankly, that’s going to be a basic requirement for dealing with Obama going into the General Election.

Robert_Paulson on January 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM

If by Tea Party you mean the seething minority, yes, we’re still around – and will never vote for Romney, NEVER.

noeastern on January 6, 2012

Ditto³
Why on earth would any decent South Carolinian vote for Mittens?
If Rick Perry knows how to speed-shift, he’ll win.
Hopefully

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM
How exactly do you think a President Santorum is going to get a birth control ban passed? Which is more of a threat to you a birth control ban or an economy that is wrecked by adding trillions to our debt and another downgrade of our credit rating if Obama is reelected?

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

All very good points to consider. The thing that strikes me the most is the fact that so much has been revealed since 2009 that it would not be unremarkable for folks to change their opinions on things they were previously oblivious to.

This is courtesy of the new media, such as HA, Big Gov’t, Daily Caller, etc.

Example: Teachers unions. I used to be ambivalent, cuz I never knew what they were up to. Now I am totally against them.

Public sector unions: I was always ambivalent. Now, OMG, why do they even exist? I’m paying a worker’s $100,000 year pension? A public worker needs “protection” against me, the taxpayer?

Nope. Not anymore.

That’s what 2012 is about.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

This almost sounds you’d like that to happen.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Well, yes! There is a reason that Santorum lost his last election by a landslide. Even many Republican voters dislike him when they get to know him.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Good grief, just it get over and may the best man win. Sheesh!

Winebabe on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I’ve seen Romney supporters on HA going after Santorum’s dead son – look in the Robinson thread.
18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Hate. It’s all they know.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Santorum can’t win the general election.

Actually scratch that, if you nominate someone who makes this election about social issues we may as well just form a new party because the GOP is dead.

But I have faith there aren’t enough of us that stupid to nominate him.

So no, nominating Santorum will not end with Obamacare getting repealed.

jhffmn on January 6, 2012 at 10:52 AM

mankai on January 6, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Damn, you sure know a lot about me! How’d you find out about the tax collecting? I take a cut of what I collect, and live like a Queen! Woo hoo!/

You must love the Welfare State if you’re supporting the one guy who has zero plans for attacking it… and the guy the most horrible tax plan of the original 9. Would like to take your self-proclaimed conservative bona fides and defend his Democratic tax plan? How about that Welfare Queen “$200K/yr = the rich” position Rombama takes?

FTR, I voted for Reagan, loathe the welfare state, I thought Dole was a terrible candidate (and George Bush won twice so I wouldn’t be too dismissive of what he and Rove did. Remember – the power of Fox News, the internets and so forth was in its infancy, especially in 2000. To win required beating the libs at their own game.)

P.S. Obama has accomplished a lot, unfortunately.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM

You’re defending Rove and Bush because they squeaked out two elections against horrible candidates? That about seals it. You’re not a conservative, you just like winning elections.

Bush lost the popular vote to figgin’ Al Gore, then almost lost to Kerry in 2004. John F’n Kerry… in a strong economy!

Bush and Rove DESTROYED the Republican brand and handed the entire Legislative branch back to the Left. They expanded the Welfare State. They expanded the budget. They handed away fiscal issues to the Left.

Karl Rove is one of the worst politicians/Americans of the last 100 years. Pretending to be a conservative, he did more to destroy Reagan conservatism than anyone… because he did it from the inside. The concept is so destroyed, Mitt Romney, author of mandated health insurance, is now supported by supposed “conservatives.”

Please, look at Mitt’s horrible tax plan and tell me if you think it’s “conservative.” It’s a Leftist mess. Try and defend “$200K/yr = the rich”.

mankai on January 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I’ve seen Romney supporters on HA going after Santorum’s dead son – look in the Robinson thread.
18-1 on January 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Hate. It’s all they know.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I don’t understand the hate and anger. Both are decent men in their personal life even if you disagree with their policies.

It is one thing to say I am not voting for (blank) because I don’t agree with his position on (xyz), but it is entirely different when you go after someone personally. I think we have all forgot that we are on the same side. I just don’t see this election going well.

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Well, yes! There is a reason that Santorum lost his last election by a landslide. Even many Republican voters dislike him when they get to know him.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

So how did he win in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 2000?

Come on, it was 2006. Anyone with an “R” next to their name was destined to lose that year.

I’m not a fan of Santorum. But I never like this thinking, oh he lost an election therefore he can’t ever win again. Well fine. Romney lost in 1994 by 18%. Guess he has no shot, right? Nixon lost in 1960 to Kennedy and in 1962 he lost his bid for CA governor. 6 years later he became president. And we all know how Lincoln lost a whole bunch of races before winning the big one.

It’s not unheard of to run, lose and then run and win again.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Hate. It’s all they know.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Says the man with anger is his name. Projecting aren’t you?

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

From Your Black World

Gingrich and Santorum are bad.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM

The issue for Perry is that ethanol doesn’t increase gas milage all that much, is expensive and wholly dependent on the AGW scam for justification as a bio-fuel & affects feed prices throughout the cattle industry…

“COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA — “Top two in Iowa support renewable fuels standard!” tweeted the jubilant Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. In other words, the ethanol lobby is thrilled that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both support forcing you to buy their ethanol. I suppose I’d be tweeting with exclamation points if the top two candidates in the Iowa caucuses wanted to force you to buy my books.

Romney and Santorum (like Gingrich and Obama) both go 4-for-4 on the ethanol lobby’s scorecard. Paul goes 2-for-4 because he would cut oil subsidies and allow 15-percent ethanol blends to be sold, but opposes the mandate and other subsidies. Rick Perry went 0-for-4.”

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/iowa-ethanol-industry-celebrates-romney-sa

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich counts the world’s largest ethanol producer as a top donor to his presidential campaign, underscoring the Republican’s deep ties to an industry whose government subsidies he has steadfastly defended even while running as a fiscal conservative….

In 2009, for instance, he penned an editorial for POET’s quarterly magazine proclaiming ethanol “pro-American” because of its potential to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil while acting as a consultant to the ethanol trade group. The group paid Gingrich $575,000 between 2009 and early 2011, Growth Energy spokeswoman Stephanie Dreyer said.

“For fiscal conservatives, this is almost a classic case of wasteful government spending, entirely designed not to serve any useful purpose but to buy votes,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Gingrich is not a fiscal hawk, and this is symptomatic of it.”

The GOP presidential field is divided on the issue. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney supports the subsidies, while several other contenders, including Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, oppose them.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/07/giant-ethanol-maker-among-gingrich’s-top-campaign-donors

As Texas governor Perry took a decidedly anti-ethanol perspective, reflecting not only the biases of the petroleum industry in his own state but the concern of Texas cattle producers – who unlike their Iowa brethren don’t grow corn – that ethanol was causing spikes in corn and feed costs.

In 2008 Perry made a high-profile flight to Washington, D.C., to lobby for a reduction, if not outright end, to the Renewable Fuels Standard passed by congress in 2005. The RFS, considered by most in the biofuels community to be even more important than the 45-cent per gallon fuel tax credit, this year required up to 13 billion gallons of ethanol be blended with unleaded gasoline…”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/10/28/iowa-ethanol-group-losing-patience-with-rick-perry/

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

This almost sounds you’d like that to happen.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Well, yes! There is a reason that Santorum lost his last election by a landslide. Even many Republican voters dislike him when they get to know him.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Another reason he lost is because in Nov of 2006 prior to Rumsfeld being given the boot and prior to the surge in Iraq, Santorum was a staunch defender of Pres. Bush’s policies in Iraq. Pennsylvania was not. You could say he took one for team USA when it would have been easier for his election prospects to be a squish. But then again, maybe you wouldn’t.

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

This almost sounds you’d like that to happen.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Well, yes! There is a reason that Santorum lost his last election by a landslide. Even many Republican voters dislike him when they get to know him.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

He was my Senator. Your version doesn’t cut it. The party, to include Specter, cut support and dumped him over his Conservative issues. Thanks for the propaganda though.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Probably right. Then the question becomes can he beat a weak Obama with many Independents (uninspired) & true conservatives (pissed that establishment repulicans – who are almost as guilty as the Dems for our 17 trillion $ debt – won again) either sitting it out or voting for a third party.

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM

The answer to that question is YES. Obama has lost his mojo…the guy is out of gas and ideas. The media can’t save his butt this time. No one trust them after 3 years of misery. Yes, the economy might slightly improve, but his career will be on record. Now that he has a record.

rubberneck on January 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Watched a video that has cinched the deal for me. Newt positions are all layed out quite nicely. Romney asks why Newt is so angry??????? Newt is angry because Americans are angry!
Watch the video here.

bloggless on January 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Could one of you Romney supports try and defend his “$200K/yr = rich” and thus they shouldn’t get any tax relief?

The Democrats are rejecting it… they think the threshold is too low.

mankai on January 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

From Drudge – Rubio to Obama – “You’re turning American into ‘deadbeat nation’”

Romney/Rubio 2012 – alliteration you can live with.

FogDog on January 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Santorum can’t win the general election.

Actually scratch that, if you nominate someone who makes this election about social issues we may as well just form a new party because the GOP is dead.

That’s why some of us are so strong in our support for Romney; He may have flipped on some issue’s but that’s not the main agenda in the 2012 election. As much as some conservatives want to DEMAND a socially conservative candidate, he won’t get elected. In fact, I think the ridicule against Santorum would make the treatment of Palin, pale. America may be waking up to fiscal conservatism, but the social stuff is usually a dealbreaker. Romney’s playing this well to downplay social views, and focus on the economy.

Or, you can continue to enjoy our current President, there’s always that option for you.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Everzone will attack Mitt at the debate, and he need to will remain calm and do no harm, as usual. Rick S. and Newt must perform well to gain additional traction.

Philly on January 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM

When people learn how far right Santorum is…they will run. I can’t think of one woman in their right mind who would vote for a man who is a right wing social extremist. Santorum doesn’t stand a chance. Women will determine the race.

Redford on January 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Everyone, that is.

Philly on January 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Redford, why do you say that? I don’t agree, by the way.

Philly on January 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Miit is neither a So-Con or a Fiscal Con.

And he can’t beat Obama.

Do you think “$200K/yr = the rich” is a fiscal conservative position? How about a horrifically high corporate tax rate?

mankai on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM

How exactly do you think a President Santorum is going to get a birth control ban passed? Which is more of a threat to you a birth control ban or an economy that is wrecked by adding trillions to our debt and another downgrade of our credit rating if Obama is reelected?

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Do you think Obama doesn’t stand an excellent chance of winning if we make the 2012 election a referendum on birth control and sodomy laws? Nominate Santorum and it will be.

I had resolved to never bring this up again here, but it seems relevant. I am gay Republican. It’s far too much to ask me or the other gay Republicans to support a candidate who is the politician most known for his hatred of gays in America. Don’t expect any help from GOProud or the Log Cabin Republicans to reassure moderates that Santorum’s view aren’t too extreme. It is hyperbole, but the “Jews voting for Hitler” talk on this issue will become widespread and thought legitimate by a large percentage of the population.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Everyone, that is.

Philly on January 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Sometimes errors are fun. You had me wondering who Everzone was :)

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 11:07 AM

If by Tea Party you mean the seething minority, yes, we’re still around – and will never vote for Romney, NEVER.

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Is Santorum’s opinion of the Tea Party is a deal breaker for you?

DumboTheAvenger on January 6, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I really don’t know how we’ve come to this point. I would imagine it was too much compromising by the likes of Gingrich, Santorum, Bush, et al. It wouldn’t be so bad if U.S. fiscal policy were patterned after a pendulum, swinging equally both ways. Where has being pragmatic & compromising (as many of you are espousing) gotten us? To a 17 trillion debt – 17 TRILLION – so STFU and repeat after me – no more compromising.

I only no one thing – Romney won’t get my vote. Sorry, but I can’t abide Romney. The other’s will have to do some heavy promising & convincing before I pull a lever for any of other the present candidates.

Can we not be delivered from this patheic group?

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I’m wondering how Newt is going to blame his national drop on negative ads in Iowa.

IMO, Newt lost any chance at becoming President the minute he said Romney was a liar and doubled down the minute he was given a chance to explain himself. Newt may actually believe that Romney is a liar. It may even be true when the facts are lined one way or another. But, that does not mean we want a hothead who throws temper tantrums and goes into petulent fits whenever somebody is “mean.”

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Can we not be delivered from this patheic group?

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Absolutely not! Republicans always find a way to pull defeat from defeat. They are like the Chicago Cubs of political parties(and I am a diehard Cubbie fan).

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Huntsman is more conservative than . . . Romney.

mankai on January 6, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Unfortunately for you, that is NOT true.

Just look at how much State spending went up under Huntsman (about 36%) vs. went down under Romney (he cut spending).

Gunlock Bill on January 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Could one of you Romney supports try and defend his “$200K/yr = rich” and thus they shouldn’t get any tax relief?

The Democrats are rejecting it… they think the threshold is too low.

mankai on January 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

No I won’t. I’m not supporting him because of his mistakes, nor will I abandon the Republican Party because he has made them. He’s the best candidate who will draw the most people who once voted for Obama. That is the only path to victory. Harp all you want about all his imperfections, but he’s not Obama, and try as you might, you have zero chance of convincing me that he is.

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I only no one thing – Romney won’t get my vote. Sorry, but I can’t abide Romney.

Well then you might as well slap an Obama2012 sticker on your bumper.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I’m tired of progressive republicans telling us to wait. The fact is I’ve seen your comments and you’re perfectly happy with the abortion laws and you’ll never support restricting even the worst aspects of it.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

After a pregnancy loaded with complications(Toxemia, post-partum EVERYTHING) and 3 years later an impending divorce(Spawn’s dad) i made the decision to have my tubes tied. I got remarried 9 years ago, Spawn can register to vote in April…and 14 + years later I feel ZERO guilt over my tubal. Add in the fact I I really don’t like babies-kids should come out as 8-9 year olds LoL-it was the exact correct decision for me.. I wasn’t sleeping around(I’ve had two husbands. Period.), and I’m against ABORTION but a tubal isn’t abortion.
While I find most of your views to be repulsive-especially when it comes to abortion-when it comes to Rick Santorum and his religious nannystatism…I agree with you.
I hope I never have to again.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Sorry, but I can’t abide Romney. The other’s will have to do some heavy promising & convincing before I pull a lever for any of other the present candidates.

Can we not be delivered from this patheic group?

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I’m prepared to cast a vote for whatever GOP candidate who is nominated with the exception of Ron Paul (who is a racist homophobe isolationist RINO). That being said, Romney lost stock in my book when he got the McCain endorsement. McCain was the wrong person to nominate four years ago and I certainly am not thrilled with nominating the guy who was so pathetic he could not even make a decent running against a liberal like John McCain!

In defeating Obama, we can not just settle for who ever is “most electable.” That isn’t leadership but rather reacting to polls and if we are going to do that we might as well leave the socialist SOB destroying this nation in office.

Happy Nomad on January 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM

To those writing Perry off based on this poll taken two weeks before the SC primary, let me take you on a trip down memory lane.

Rasmussen Poll of Iowa

Date: 13th December, 2011 (approx. two weeks before caucuses)

Romney: 23
Paul: 18
Santorum: 6
Gingrich: 20
Perry: 10
Bachmann: 9
Huntsman: 5
Cain: -

Yep, I guess Santorum, who was polling next to last – just one point above Huntsman – should have dropped out. /sarc

TheRightMan on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM

TheRightMan on January 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM

In this sea of bickering that we’ve taken to on this site, there’s a few cool heads left. I’m not one of them but you are. Your comments are always reasoned and respectful, from the ones I’ve read.

I was a Romney guy last time and he’s not the worst that could happen to us this time. I do wish he would show some dang passion and I wish he would hint that he’s moving at least a little more Conservative. He’s also got to drop this crap about not going after obama. He’s not going to make any clear distinctions by playing patty cake with the despot.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Didja ever think that perhaps Perry was discouraging America from burning its own food source? Corn? What we feed cattle, which is beef? Have you seen the price of beef lately? Could the rise in prices have anything to do with the USDA’s mandates to feed cows a Nancy Pelosi type extravagant diet?

/Nah. Never.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Please, look at Mitt’s horrible tax plan and tell me if you think it’s “conservative.” It’s a Leftist mess. Try and defend “$200K/yr = the rich”.
mankai on January 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I already responded to that question when you asked me the last time. I don’t support it, but to be clear he does not want to raise taxes on anyone so it’s a wee bit different from Obama.

As for the rest, you are seriously unhinged with your hyperbole and misstatements. We didn’t lose Congress in 2006 because of ‘compassionate conservatism’. We lost because ‘Independents’ voted in the majority for the Dems. Bush did not “almost lose” to Kerry, and the prevailing issue was the Iraq War.

Moreover, do you have any fracking idea how important the eeevil Karl Rove’s American Crossroads was in the 2010 congressional tsunami? He is absolutely brilliant at what he does. I am grateful for his contributions, but rage on, dude, if it makes you feel better.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I had resolved to never bring this up again here, but it seems relevant. I am gay Republican. It’s far too much to ask me or the other gay Republicans to support a candidate who is the politician most known for his hatred of gays in America. Don’t expect any help from GOProud or the Log Cabin Republicans to reassure moderates that Santorum’s view aren’t too extreme. It is hyperbole, but the “Jews voting for Hitler” talk on this issue will become widespread and thought legitimate by a large percentage of the population.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM

You are exactly right. Santorum’s neanderthal views would pave the way for a landslide victory for Obama. It’s embarrassing to have someone like him to even be in contention.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

WOW!!!!

76% Against Santorum.

82% Against The Newton.

95% Against Perry.

LOL!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on January 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM

The bottom line is we will vote for the Nominee. Even if it’s mittens the haughtykerry Romnulet’e.

All the bickering is just so much fun, though!

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Public sector unions: I was always ambivalent. Now, OMG, why do they even exist? I’m paying a worker’s $100,000 year pension? A public worker needs “protection” against me, the taxpayer?

Nope. Not anymore.

That’s what 2012 is about.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I live in Texas…witnessed the budget showdown Epic btwSchool Districts in Texas (especially the larger urban ones) are corrupt & famous for mis-managing their budgets and being administration heavy gravy trains…look up DISD scandals and you’ll get the drift. The bloated school districts will have to cut costs and they should begin by cutting the salaries of overpaid underperforming administrators. The teachers unions in Texas cannot negotiate pensions etc. as this is against Texas law added to the state constitution.

” Gov. Rick Perry may be in the process of teaching conservatives a similar lesson by taking on another sacred cow: the higher-education establishment.

Friday’s Washington Post article “Rick Perry wages assault on state’s higher education establishment” describes how Perry has picked a high-profile fight with the state’s university system. He is pushing reforms to improve the efficiency of the state’s universities and backing a potentially game-changing plan to create a low-cost $10,000 degree program.

Perry’s initiative is attracting fierce opposition — challenging higher education unsettles some big constituencies, like alumni groups that maybe resistant to change and potential threats to tradition…

Conservative leaders around the country should follow Rick Perry’s lead.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273950/rick-perry-leads-way-higher-ed-reform-carrie-lukas

“But reformers across the country are taking aim at public colleges and universities like never before. As tuition keeps rising and state budgets are squeezed, higher-ed is coming under sharper scrutiny – fiscally and academically.

Texas, under Gov. Rick Perry, grabbed headlines with a list of “Seven Solutions” that includes measuring teaching efficiency and effectiveness, splitting research and teaching budgets, and requiring evidence of teaching skill for tenure.

Scott views Texas’ agenda — which has yet to be enacted — as a “jumping off point,” says spokesman Lane Wright. Wright said the governor discusses reform ideas with each of his prospective appointees to the Board of Governors.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/tenure-battle-looms-florida-universities-colleges

Perry, by contrast, has been unapologetic about his hardline stance against tax increases, putting his all-cuts budget at the center of his nascent presidential campaign. And as governor, he insists that state officials aren’t to blame if teachers get laid off as a result of the cuts. As he told the Houston Chronicle in March: “The lieutenant governor, the [Texas House] speaker, and their colleagues aren’t going to hire or fire one teacher, best I can tell. That is a local decision that will be made at the local districts.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-will-rick-perrys-budget-affect-education/2011/08/16/gIQ

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

He’s also got to drop this crap about not going after obama. He’s not going to make any clear distinctions by playing patty cake with the despot.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I always thought that that was one of the mistakes McCain made in his election. He tried to play nice by putting things like Jerimiah Wright off the table.

Obama won’t respect niceness. He’ll smile to their faces, and have his surrogates attack.

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Tick, tock, tick, tock….

The attacks on Santorum begin….

Can these polls last? He should ask Gingrich…

I bet pretty soon we will have a whining Santorum complaining about lies that have sunk him.

Go Perry 2012.

Perry is in the exact spot Santorum was in two weeks before Iowa. See my comment @ 11:14 am.

:)

TheRightMan on January 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

That being said, Romney lost stock in my book when he got the McCain endorsement.

Oh come on! What would you have expected Romney to do- Call a press conference and denounce the endorsement?! That would have been ridiculous and childish, and the media would have a field day over it. It’s politics!

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM
You are exactly right. Santorum’s neanderthal views would pave the way for a landslide victory for Obama. It’s embarrassing to have someone like him to even be in contention.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

“Log Cabin Republicans”? Really?

Check out these guys.

http://www.hillbuzz.org

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

He’s also got to drop this crap about not going after obama. He’s not going to make any clear distinctions by playing patty cake with the despot.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Romney will go after Obama’s record. He just won’t make it personal. Some people can’t distinguish the difference.

Gunlock Bill on January 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

He was my Senator. Your version doesn’t cut it. The party, to include Specter, cut support and dumped him over his Conservative issues. Thanks for the propaganda though.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

The same Specter that Santorum endorsed over Pat Toomney? Specter campaigned hard for Santorum in 2006.

Fiscal conservatives in the Philly suburbs abandoned Santorum because 1) he was more of a spender than most earmarks 2) he couldn’t go a week without talking about sex

joana on January 6, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The bottom line is we will vote for the Nominee. Even if it’s mittens the haughtykerry Romnulet’e.

All the bickering is just so much fun, though!

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I wouldn’t be so sure.

Romney will go down the well-worn path that Ford, Dole, and McCain travelled before him.

He will lose massively to Obama and some of us will be whistling knowingly.

TheRightMan on January 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Thanx for the compliments, even though they are not completely deserving (I’m not against taking a cheap shot here and there).

I too have reservations about Romney. I’m just going with the best horse that came up to the starting line.

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The Tea Party is for letting Obama have another term so he can rule by unfettered executive rule? In short, the Tea Party is a bunch of petulant children like you? Don’t think so.

lowandslow on January 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

If you consider Sir Thomas More, Patrick Henry (and the many other souls that have followed their conscience) petulant – then OK we’re petulant.

Maybe the grownups will start to understand that voting for the lesser of two evils has led us to a 17 trillion dept – 17,000,000,000.

VOTING LESSER OF TWO EVILS WON’T SAVE AMERICA

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Ron Paul at 11%.

How can this be? I thought he was teh one and was really Captain America? He stop Irans bombs with the power of his mind you know.

sheikh of thornton on January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM

workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I’m still for Perry. He can make a comeback but he’s going to have to come out swinging. Not against Santorum. He’s got to zing Romney; name the progressive for what it is and speak honestly with vigor.

Michelle Bachmann’s issue with the gardasil also has to be overcome. To this day, I still have an issue with a mandatory vaccine for young women. He better come clean on that one.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM

My comment didn’t have anything to do with any group in particular, it was more addressed to emphasize that Santorum is a bit of a bigot and he’s he’s going to have to wear that label- there’s too much out there to deny his (ha) zany views.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM

How can this be? I thought he was teh one and was really Captain America? He stop Irans bombs with the power of his mind tinfoil helmet you know.

sheikh of thornton on January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Moreover, do you have any fracking idea how important the eeevil Karl Rove’s American Crossroads was in the 2010 congressional tsunami? He is absolutely brilliant at what he does. I am grateful for his contributions, but rage on, dude, if it makes you feel better.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM

High Five!

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM

My comment didn’t have anything to do with any group in particular, it was more addressed to emphasize that Santorum is a bit of a bigot and he’s he’s going to have to wear that label- there’s too much out there to deny his (ha) zany views.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Show me where Santorum has been a “bigot”.

That term “Bigot” is so worn out, so 1967-1974. Define the term Bigot in 2012. If you can.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Gee, Santorum is sure giving “Mr. Good Enough” Romney a run for his money.

Santorum has never really had the media exposure the other candidates have had thus far. He certainly is far more Conservative and is an incredibly more passionate and caring person than Mr. Plastic.

And, Santorum does have Tea Party values, unlike Mittens who has values only according to the finger test in the wind.

Most entertaining read of each day is the excruciating and mind-bending contortions Romney supporters get themselves into. They give exaggeration and flip-flopping new meaning!

Sparky5253 on January 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM
thanks for your honesty. I understand how it would be the most important issue for you. I would not ever ask you to compromise such an inherently important issue to you. If it comes down to Obama who opposes gay marriage hypocritically and Santorum who opposes it on principle who would you choose?

txmomof6 on January 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Show me where Santorum has been a “bigot”.

That term “Bigot” is so worn out, so 1967-1974. Define the term Bigot in 2012. If you can.

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Bingo! It is from the leftist playbook, and it is overplayed-usually by people who want to shut up dissent.

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Name them (and provide an excerpt of their comments with the time and date). Thanks.

Buy Danish on January 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Crickets chirping in the background.

LOL!!!!

Gunlock Bill on January 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Awesome. What is bigotry? Hatred?

Obama….1967

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Exactly. Why consider the opinion whose vote is not available anyway. That’s what marginalization is all about.

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Oh, the irony. It is you who are marginalized. The republican establishment could put forth a flaming bag of crap and you’d vote for it, because you always compromise, always abide. Your useless as you are inconsequential (in much the same way as the Black and Jewish vote are “in the bag” for the Dems).

Stop trying to browbeat those of us with a conscience. It won’t work. Either climb aboard and save America or get out of the way.

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:32 AM

http://www.npr.org/about/press/061024_rove.html

Cindy Munford on January 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM

VOTING LESSER OF TWO EVILS WON’T SAVE AMERICA

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM

No sh!t Sherlock. But making both sides evil won’t either, and certainly won’t make your opinion matter to ta’boot.

CaliforniaRefugee on January 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM

While I find most of your views to be repulsive-especially when it comes to abortion-when it comes to Rick Santorum and his religious nannystatism…I agree with you.
I hope I never have to again.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I fear you will have to agree with me in the future. I’m pretty conservative outside the gay marriage and abortion issues and some ecological issues. I bet we agree on size of government, foreign policy, no amnesty for the illegals, and the damage that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will do to our economy.

thuja on January 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I guess I would rather be controlled by a Republican then a Democrat./

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

You need to really take stock and consider what you are saying.

noeastern on January 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM

That term “Bigot” is so worn out, so 1967-1974. Define the term Bigot in 2012. If you can.

I won’t need to- the media will do it over and over if Santorum is the nominee.

BettyRuth on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Awesome. What is bigotry? Hatred?

Obama….1967

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I meant to say that Obama’s stuck in the 67 Revolution era.

Grrr. Sorry!

Key West Reader on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5