Rasmussen tracking poll shows Santorum within four of Obama

posted at 12:45 pm on February 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Remember the “electability” argument?  Conservatives need Mitt Romney, the argument goes, in order to compete against Barack Obama in the general election.  However, the latest Rasmussen tracking poll on head-to-head results shows Romney trailing Obama by ten points — while Rick Santorum comes within four:

In a potential Election 2012 matchup, the president attracts 50% of the vote and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 40% (see tracking history). This is the largest lead the president has enjoyed against Romney in regular polling going back more than a year. It’s also the first time that the president has reached the 50% level of support against Romney.

Rick Santorum now trails the president by four percentage points, 46% to 42%. Rasmussen Reports will now be tracking the Obama-Santorum race on a daily basis. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Last week, Santorum had a one-point advantage over Obama. However, like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich before him, Santorum was unable to sustain that advantage beyond a single poll.

In the crucial swing state of Ohio, Santorum is now even with the president. Romney trails by four. Democrat Sherrod Brown has a modest lead in the Ohio Senate race. Rasmussen Reports will release new data on the race for president in Florida at noon Eastern today.

Scott Rasmussen’s weekly column looks at the political impact of Obama’s decision to impose a health-insurance mandate on religious organizations, and concludes that Obama’s electability might be a moot point anyway:

The Obama administration recently ruled that all insurance policies must offer contraceptive services with no co-payments required. In and of itself, that decision is neither positive nor negative. Forty-three percent of voters favor it, while 46 percent are opposed.

That mandate violates the beliefs of some churches. Normally, religious exemptions are granted in such cases, but not this time. Thirty-nine percent support the administration on this point, while 50 percent are opposed. Even worse for the White House, support for the ruling comes primarily from people who rarely attend church. That’s a group that voted strongly for Obama in 2008 and continues to support him today. In other words, no upside.

But, among Catholics, only 28 percent believe religious organizations should be required to implement rules that conflict with church doctrine. Sixty-five percent are opposed. This is true even though many Catholics disagree with church teachings on birth control.

The impact is stunning since 54 percent of Catholics voted for President Obama in 2008. Today, just 39 percent of Catholic voters approve of the way he’s doing his job.

Perhaps some strategists thought that Catholics would welcome government help in battling the church on birth control. But Catholics who disagree with the church deal with the situation in the privacy of their own bedroom. They don’t need federal help. In fact, it is hard to imagine any person of faith wanting the federal government to have any say in church doctrine and how Holy Scripture should be applied.

The last couple of weeks have been a near-perfect storm for Santorum, who has tried to campaign primarily on economic and national-security issues.  Now, suddenly, Barack Obama has validated the culture war with his attack on religious conscience, and Santorum has the best position from which to lead a counter-attack.  He speaks the language much more fluently and with more passion than Romney, and Republicans looking for a champion in this fight will start naturally looking for Santorum.

The Ohio results should be even more concerning for Obama and Romney.  Santorum is speaking to the voters that Obama lost in the 2008 primaries but won in the 2008 election as a supposedly reasonable moderate.  Ohio will be a tough state for Republicans to carry in the general election this year, but it will be absolutely critical to their White House hopes.  If Santorum maintains this momentum, it’s quite possible that the electability argument will begin to favor Santorum rather than Romney, especially if the Obama administration fails to retreat on the HHS mandate.

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

How can this be. Romney is the only one electable!!!!!

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Cue CSDeven reply saying polls don’t mean anything this early in

5….4….3…..2…..

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Behold the power of an Ed Morrissey endorsement.…(TM)//

ted c on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

hey, what part of “it’s Mitt’s turn, don’t you fruitcakes get?”

/RNC/

ted c on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

How can this be. Romney is the only one electable!!!!!

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Perfect!

They lie!

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Simply mind numbing. A wombat should be up by at least six points against Obama.

Rohall1215 on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Santorum? Seriously. Right to Work, Union Wage Increase, IRS Union Reps?

ConservativeLaw on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I like Rick a lot, but I don’t see him as a strong electable candidate. Come on, he couldn’t win in Penn as an incumbent, how will he possibly win a national election.

rjoco1 on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I like Rick a lot, but I don’t see him as a strong electable candidate. Come on, he couldn’t win in Penn as an incumbent, how will he possibly win a national election.

rjoco1 on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

He won in 2000 when Gore carried PA.
He lost in 2006 when anyone with an “R” nationwide was pretty much toast.

You gotta put some context behind his loss.

And if we’re going to play this game, how can Romney win when he lost his 1994 senate race by 18%? And this was 1994, the anti-2006.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

the latest Rasmussen tracking poll on head-to-head results shows Romney trailing Obama by ten points


“[I]f [their] side’s front runner had lost 3 of the first 8 elections and been swept out last Tuesday, by Wednesday the Democrats would have a new candidate in the race.”

– RedState, 02/10/12

Kent18 on February 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Wow! Go figure!!

and here I thought only ONE person was electable against the Won.

ToddPA on February 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Santorum is the 1980 Olympic Ice Hockey Team….

no one is picking him to win.

ted c on February 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Gosh. You mean all those pleasant, good-natured Romney supporters(/) we picked up in the dual Open Registrations, may have overestimated their candidate just a wee little bit?

Say it ain’t so, Ed.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Santorum will be the nominee! He’s the only one who can beat Obama!
All the other candidates are fat, idiot, socialist RINOs! Support Santorum now or you’re a stupid, Anti-Catholic bigot!!11!!1

I mean, the only reason any sane people wouldn’t support Santorum is because he’s Catholic.

His past doesn’t matter. If you bring it up you’re a stupid bigot!

/

29Victor on February 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM

live by the polls die by the polls

suck on this poll you Mittheads.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Guess Romney will have to take his advisor’s advice and start using more conservative code words. Someone will have to put them on a teleprompter for him since faux conservatives have no idea what is conservative and what is liberal. But in Romney’s case, he is liberal up to date and always has been. Time for a final look at Santorum and a vote for him. He can and will beat Obama. Romney avalanche of negative ads and HA comments against Santorum to begin in 3…2….1….

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I’m not convinced Santorum can go to the mat with Oblahblah, but if this poll proves not to be an outlier, I might be able to get a little more comfortable with him.

He’s already the remaining candidate I’m 2nd most comfortable with, but given that the bottom two are Paul and Newt, it’s kind of just by default.

Red Cloud on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Cue CSDeven reply saying polls don’t mean anything this early
angryed on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I foresee a difficult day for her. Her human suit must chafing her private parts.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I don’t think the average voter knows enough about Santorum.

He’s Generic Republican. His numbers will certainly go down as his views and his way of expressing his views become better known.

Mister Mets on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Santorum? Seriously. Right to Work, Union Wage Increase, IRS Union Reps?

ConservativeLaw on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Romney? Romneycare, the white Obama, unable to explain any position deeply, fundamentally detached from the American core?

BuckeyeSam on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

It’s going to take a lot of singing to dig out of this hole, right Mitt?

Dack Thrombosis on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Yes, keep the horse-race going. Tune in and watch every minute with bated breath. And you candidates, you guys just keep pouring money into purchasing media time. Oh yeah… it’s not over… Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum is the “real deal”.

rhombus on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

But….seriously.

For the past several months many of us here have been begging Romney supporters to give us one good reason to vote for him. In return, they have given us millions of reasons to not vote for the other guys, and only one reason to support Romney: Because he’s electable– the polls say so.

Well, by their logic those same Romney supporters are intellectually bound, if they have any intellectual honesty at all, to jump ship and support Santorum. The polls have spoken.

29Victor on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

He’s Generic Republican. His numbers will certainly go down as his views and his way of expressing his views become better known.

Mister Mets on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

What views are those?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Ricko…!

(bluegill’s alarm just went off)

Seven Percent Solution on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

I like Rick a lot, but I don’t see him as a strong electable candidate. Come on, he couldn’t win in Penn as an incumbent, how will he possibly win a national election.

rjoco1 on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Mitt couldn’t win as an incumbent…I don’t get this, you have to win every election, have to make 100% correct decisions to be your candidate…you will never have a candidate, unless you ignore facts.
Mitt has lost more elections than Rick…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Buh Bye Willard!

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Santorum voted against NAFTA. That may prove valuable in states like Ohio and Michigan.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

A Palin endorsement tommorrow as the CPAC keynote speaker would seal the deal for Rick and end the hopes of Mitt and mormons everywhere.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Mitt Romney is fixing to speak at CPAC..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I seem to recall a few years ago most people saying, “Santorum? Who?”

He was perceived as unknown and unwinnable on a national stage, as milquey.

We were also told that the way the primaries were shaping up, it’d make things harder for voters to coalesce around and support someone, to get a nominee that’d get national support and win.

Winners aren’t born; they’re made.

Mr. Santorum has come from effective obscurity even up to a couple of months ago to potentially outstripping Romney and who knows, even being able to beat Obama.

That says a lot. Not only of Mr. Santorum, but more importantly of the conservatives, Republicans and others who do and will vote.

Logus on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

santorum will be swept into office as hordes of women will line up to vote for him.

sesquipedalian on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Newt says:

“Get out you fool, before it’s too late!!”

BacaDog on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Crowns, pipes, cigars, Champagne…dropped in stock value.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

But, but, but Santorum will be destroyed in the general because no really religious person ever avoided forcing their views on the entire population when in office.

Mitty wan ke-Romney, you are our only hope!

/SARCASM

WhatNot on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I don’t think the average voter knows enough about Santorum.

He’s Generic Republican. His numbers will certainly go down as his views and his way of expressing his views become better known.

Mister Mets on February 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Bingo. The less we know, the more we like. Look who America elected in 2008.

rhombus on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Santorum voted against NAFTA. That may prove valuable in states like Ohio and Michigan.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You are damn right it will whereas Bain capital shipped jobs to china which one plays better in OH?

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Yeah. It’s great. But don’t think the LSM is going to sit back and let him glide along. They’re just waiting for the right timing to send out their barrage of “He’s going to start a theocracy” stories. And I don’t like his union-loving ways. But I have many more issues with Romney’s “let’s give in the liberals every chance we can get ways”.

yhxqqsn on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Let’s not go chucking each others socks just yet, gentlemen.

Right now the general public views Santorum as a “generic Republican” that they don’t know much about as there’s been little coverage or scrutiny towards him until very recently.

Hollowpoint on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Romney needs to increase the use of code words around the issues of religious freedoms and executive oversteps. Doing so should increase his market share of dumb rube conservatives to lock up the primary.

Just don’t expect Romney to actually govern as a conservative, “you can’t make him what he is not.” Source..Romney Advisers

Skwor on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

santorum will be swept into office as hordes of sane women will line up to vote for him.

sesquipedalian on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

…because they don’t want the futuer of their kids destroyed by the one in who’s azz you dwell. Suffocate from what you eat, what you also live in.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Mitt Romney is fixing to speak at CPAC..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

who cares? which is Mitt’s problem.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

While it is fun to go out after those who have lectured that Romney is the only “electable” one, there is serious business to do.

I hereby urge and demand that Newt Gingrich drop out of the race so that the conservative vote can be consolidated behind the only non-Romney with a chance of getting the nomination.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

But….seriously.

For the past several months many of us here have been begging Romney supporters to give us one good reason to vote for him. In return, they have given us millions of reasons to not vote for the other guys, and only one reason to support Romney: Because he’s electable– the polls say so.

Well, by their logic those same Romney supporters are intellectually bound, if they have any intellectual honesty at all, to jump ship and support Santorum. The polls have spoken.

29Victor on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

And this my friends, is it in a nutshell…Rick is proving to be the “electable” one, and this from a basically grassroots campaign.

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Its a crap sandwich, vrs a crap wrap.. vrs a crap buffet. I think I may want to starve.

upinak on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

What happend to a ham sandwhich could beat Obama??? Once Santorum gets the nomination the race will begin in earnest and there will be a steady stream of attacks against Obama starting with; Obama signing the abortion rule and homosexual rule on his very fisrt day of holding office, his partays at the WH while the economy sinks , his stimulus that hurt the economy and went to his cronies, his Solyndra and other green company ficos, GM and Chrysler bailouts, his socialist marxist czars, death panels, his golfing, his explosion of the national debt, his illegal Obmacare, his unauthorized wars… he’s depressed him moderate base and only has the fanatics…. a small majority. I’m not even worried that the Lamestream Obamamedia will try to cover for him. We’re all on to them now and have our ways of geting our message out. So once Romney and his scorced earth tactic against the Republicans is gone… we’ll get to destroying Obama’s re-election plan!

CCRWM on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Uh huh. So, the new Mittbot argument is: “Well, nobody knows much about Santorum”.

Perhaps. More likely, it’s the fact that everybody knows about Mitt.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

send out their barrage of “He’s going to start a theocracy” stories.
yhxqqsn on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

If he was a theocrat he would have won Iowa. Oops, nevermind.

hanzblinx on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

And I don’t like his union-loving ways. But I have many more issues with Romney’s “let’s give in the liberals every chance we can get ways”.

yhxqqsn on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yeah becaus eReagan and his union membership hurt him.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Before anyone celebrates for Santorum, recall sanely that he’s a social-con, nice guy, proletarian, with lots of big gov’t votes.

He just appears a tad better than the others in the race, at the moment. The entire field is horrific.

Brokered convention and West for the win.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I hereby urge and demand that Newt Gingrich drop out of the race so that the conservative vote can be consolidated behind the only non-Romney with a chance of getting the nomination.

Happy Nomad on February 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I second that motion…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

A lot of folks may want to hear what he has to say..Some like myself are still making up our minds ..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

OT: Mitt’s up next at CPAC. He has a Hispanic introducing him, chatting up his extraordinary conservative cred. Oy.

BuckeyeSam on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Yes, but Fox has Santorum down 12 to Obama and Mittens down “only” 5. Face it, conservatism in American is done for.

sheikh of thornton on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Confirmed: Romney is unelectable.

Norwegian on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Mitt Romney is fixing to speak at CPAC..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

who cares? which is Mitt’s problem.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Santorum had a few digs at Mitt during his speech this morning. I’m curious on what Mitt will have to say.

WisRich on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I second that motion…

right2bright on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Plausible and good for the country, not likely, due to two big egos.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

the press has given santorum a total pass and hasn’t even begun to rip into this clown. its in their best interest for the GOP to nominate a fully un-electable tool that Obama can paint as a right wing fringe bible thumper who will force women to coathanger themselves in an ally along with all the other easy to push social conservative arguments that the vastly uneducated electorate will buy hook line and sinker.

The press silence on anything critical of Santorum should pretty much prove that he is the preferred candidate that they would like to see go up against Obama. They are keeping their powder dry on him because they know it will be easy to destroy him come the General election.

If you actually believe that Santorum is electable, you are an ignorant fool.

thegreatsatan on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Santorum and Flopney are both miserable scum. Neither has a prayer in hell of defeating the Bamster. But at this point I’d prefer Flopney get the nomination, in the hope that the LDS gets unmasked to the public once and for all for the controlling dishonest cult that it is.

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Uh huh. So, the new Mittbot argument is: “Well, nobody knows much about Santorum”.

Perhaps. More likely, it’s the fact that everybody knows about Mitt.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

disagree. they don’t know much about Mitt yet. What should scare republicians is that with just the small amount of information they do know about mitt they all ready can’t stand him. there will be no blank slate candidates in this election. Dems are the only ones that get blank slate candidates thanks to the media control they have….

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

A lot of folks may want to hear what he has to say..Some like myself are still making up our minds ..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Give us red meat, Mitt!

John the Libertarian on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

He has a Hispanic introducing him, chatting up his extraordinary conservative cred. Oy.

BuckeyeSam on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Two big fakes, right there, in yer summation

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

…because they don’t want the futuer of their kids destroyed by the one in who’s azz you dwell.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

whatever, pal. (i’m a bit apprehensive about making fun of santorum’s chances, lest i jinx his nomination.)

also, too, if you edit my comment, at least make it obvious.

sesquipedalian on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

If you actually believe that Santorum is electable, you are an ignorant fool.

thegreatsatan on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Okay. Who is electable, in your opinion, O poster who chose a Muslim insult for his handle?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Fox news poll
Shows 50-38 Obama v Santorum. But this guy says Santorum is beating Obama. Now I expect fox nation people to be this bête. But here? Ok sure well be more than happy to go against Mr. jus du derrière. lmao

Isserley on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Cue CSDeven reply saying polls don’t mean anything this early in

5….4….3…..2…..

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

cd seven is a complete pies of crap.

And I see sesquepedouchebag showed up.

Hey, if my girlfriend’s mother, a Jersey democrat likes Santorum, I wouldn’t worry too much.

Lanceman on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Santorum voted against NAFTA. That may prove valuable in states like Ohio and Michigan.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM

He also came out against TARP

CCRWM on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

You may be right. Although, a lot of Americans are familiar with Mitt and his track record…and they’re not impressed.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:04 PM

John the Libertarian on February 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I left you a message on the QOTD..I thought you were joking about the frisbee ban in LA..After looking it up I see where it is a $ 1000.00 fine..WTF??!!??..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

He won in 2000 when Gore carried PA.
He lost in 2006 when anyone with an “R” nationwide was pretty much toast.

You gotta put some context behind his loss.

And if we’re going to play this game, how can Romney win when he lost his 1994 senate race by 18%? And this was 1994, the anti-2006.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Romney ran against an incumbent in Massachusetts, a state that is much more liberal than Pennsylvania. And Santorum was better-known when he lost.

You emphasize the margin of Romney’s loss, but not the margin of Santorum’s loss, which was actually slightly worse. And it’s Santorum’s most recent General Election.

Santorum’s loss was the largest ever margin of victory for any Democrat who ran for Senate in Pennsylvania, and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in that cycle.

Mister Mets on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Rasmussen.

Heh

Key West Reader on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

A Palin endorsement tommorrow as the CPAC keynote speaker would seal the deal for Rick and end the hopes of Mitt and mormons everywhere.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Hasn’t she been favoring Newt??? Perplexing but true no?

CCRWM on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

A lot of folks may want to hear what he has to say..Some like myself are still making up our minds ..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

really? I have no idea what you are trying to decide on.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Some people clap, others just sit there, suspiciously…CPAC

Teh-heh “American conservatism…declaration of independence…hand of providence…founders…like me, who see both”…pap, pap, pap

“America is Great” — Romney 2012

“From Diapers to Depends” — Obama 2012

Whom do you wish to follow”

Neither

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

And I don’t like his union-loving ways. But I have many more issues with Romney’s “let’s give in the liberals every chance we can get ways”.

yhxqqsn on February 10, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yeah becaus eReagan and his union membership hurt him.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Yeah the Teamster support was bad for Reagan.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I said nothing about Romney, however Santorum doesn’t appear electable to me. He sat there like a bump on a log at the debates when Newt and Romney did all the talking. By the way when he won in 2000 he ran against a real knucklehead. Then he lost to Casey, another knucklehead.

rjoco1 on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

On the other hand, a landslide victory against Mr. Bible-Thumping Bigoted So-con would be a huge repudiation to the social issue pushing dominionists who currently dominate far too much of the GOPs time and public image.

So there’s a good side to it no matter who gets their ass handed to them by the douchebag community organizer.

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Come on, he’s just spewing b/s.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I didn’t figure you would..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

He also came out against TARP

CCRWM on February 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

In the eyes of a normal human being that doesn’t give a flying huck about religion, that’s pretty much Santorum’s only redeeming feature.

Archivarix on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Is tis guy for real? Two other polls show ppl favor the decision to provide contraceptives by over 50%. Wow you guys have to read other sources if you want to be sincere.

Isserley on February 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Hasn’t she been favoring Newt??? Perplexing but true no?

CCRWM on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

not really. Her husband endorsed Newt, she has endorsed the continuation of the process or in other words the anti-Mitt vote. In SC and FL the only challenge to Mitt who had a chanc eof winning was Newt so she said she would vote for Newt to continue the process and allow mitt to be vetted more. Now with Newt dropping she can easily switch to Rick as the not mitt vote.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

OT: Mitt’s up next at CPAC. He has a Hispanic introducing him, chatting up his extraordinary conservative cred. Oy.

BuckeyeSam on February 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM

And Fox cut in and is showing his speech. Did they show Santorums?

JPeterman on February 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Romney is speaking at CPAC right now. He still loves America.

Night Owl on February 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

As I wrote on another thread, everything being said about Santorum wanting to create a theocracy and force his views on the American people was said about Ronald Reagan.

The secularists ALWAYS resort to fear mongering and hyperbole when they fear that their ability to take over American society, which they have been doing for the last 20 years, is in jeopardy.

You see, according to secularists, it is only they who should be allowed to force their views on the rest of us.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

What in the world is a “dominionist”? Is it some sort of cockeyed insulting way of referring to the 75% of the country who are Christians?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Behold the power of an Ed Morrissey endorsement.…(TM)//

ted c on February 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Why the sarc? Edinistas are driving this thing.

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

A Palin endorsement tommorrow as the CPAC keynote speaker would seal the deal for Rick and end the hopes of Mitt and mormons everywhere.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I know everyone is on pins & needles to hear what she has to say!!!

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Is tis guy for real? Two other polls show ppl favor the decision to provide contraceptives by over 50%. Wow you guys have to read other sources if you want to be sincere.

Isserley on February 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

ROFL…yeah Obama changed his position and backtracked because the majority agreed with him….

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Obama and his cadences…

Romney and his…

Romney should not talk about “arrogance”.

Having to hear this voice/cadences for 4-8, or Obama for 4 more will make people commit suicide.

Heh “as conservatives we’re united”, heh, again.

You’re not a conservative and talking about it will not infuse it into your brain/veins.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Romney ran against an incumbent in Massachusetts, a state that is much more liberal than Pennsylvania. And Santorum was better-known when he lost.

You emphasize the margin of Romney’s loss, but not the margin of Santorum’s loss, which was actually slightly worse. And it’s Santorum’s most recent General Election.

Santorum’s loss was the largest ever margin of victory for any Democrat who ran for Senate in Pennsylvania, and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in that cycle.

Mister Mets on February 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

2006: 6 Republicans lost, Santorum lost
1994: Every Republican in the country won – except Mittens

And Mittens didn’t even bother running in 2006 because he knew he would lose.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

“my conservatism came from…” God, he lies as good as Obama.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

My My. Mitt hammering politicians who like “big government”.

Look in the mirror pal.

WisRich on February 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Go Rick!

darwin on February 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Mitt is the MAN!
You Christanist True-Cons lie because you’re blind to the reality that…Mitt is the MAN!!
*Do I really need to?*
I’d better.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

And Fox cut in and is showing his speech. Did they show Santorums?

JPeterman on February 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Fox not showing any more, just C-Span…

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Hey elect me, my dad was a Gov!

WisRich on February 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

“Hey, elect me, I can lie as good as Obama”.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

As I wrote on another thread, everything being said about Santorum wanting to create a theocracy and force his views on the American people was said about Ronald Reagan.

The secularists ALWAYS resort to fear mongering and hyperbole when they fear that their ability to take over American society, which they have been doing for the last 20 years, is in jeopardy.

You see, according to secularists, it is only they who should be allowed to force their views on the rest of us.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Well said.

neuquenguy on February 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

face it. Mitt is only running to be the first.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4