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

Meredith on February 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Whatever happened to all your Romney inevitability Meredith? Did the progressive nonprofit you work for tell you to change the narrative from inevitable Mitt to Four Mor Years?

You people are pathetic. Shove your astroturf up your damn rectum.

tom daschle concerned on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Did he actually say severely conservative?

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM
If he did, he’s severely deranged.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM

He’s severly desparate.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Heh. I’m severely depressed that this once great country will be indistinguishable from France in 10 years.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Have Christians been beheading non-believers, and nobody told me?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

You mean they don’t hand out swords at your baptist church? We round up gays and pregnant teenagers to behead when the ladies return from delivering meals to the shut-ins.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

WE.DON.NOT.WANT.ROMNEY.
ROMNEY.IS.A.DEMOCRAT
ROMNEY:
PLEASE LEAVE NOW!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Because his record on the economy is an utter disaster. He’ll make it about foreign policy and security, because it’s the only way to win. His division of the land, and now the peeing on the constitution will not help him.

He’ll go to the other plan, war in the ME, even though that will turn the Arab Spring into an even deeper winter, with the loss of much U.S. blood and treasure. But, hey, he’s got to be re-elected at all costs because Michell must eat/live well.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

WE.DO.NOT.WANT.ROMNEY.
ROMNEY.IS.A.DEMOCRAT
ROMNEY:
PLEASE LEAVE NOW!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Did he actually say severely conservative?

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Why yes, yes he did.

Night Owl on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 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

csdeven? Are we talking about the online transvestite? One day she’s a Mom, next he’s a Dad?

Come to think of it, a human suit might explain a lot….

tom on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

With all due respect to this poll and Santorum supporters, he hasn’t been hit yet. Its easy to do well when you are essentially a blank slate. Lets take the poll in a few weeks after Gingrich, media, Romney pile on and see how he holds up.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

When

Isserley on February 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

per CNN:

President Obama today announced a compromise in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage — a continuation of current law.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

At best

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You mean they don’t hand out swords at your baptist church? We round up gays and pregnant teenagers to behead when the ladies return from delivering meals to the shut-ins.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Well, Preacher Bennett (a Chevy man) has threatened to blow up a couple of Fords out in the parking lot, but that’s about as tough as it gets.

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

ROMNEY.MUST.GO!

ROMNEY IS DRAGGIN US DOWN . . .WE CANNOT AFFORD HIS CONTINUED PRESENCE . . .WE NEED TO FOCUS ON GETTNG RID OF OBAMA AND ROMNEY WILL NOT HELP US DO THAT . . . .PLEASE REPUBLICANS, INSIST ON ROMNEY’S EXIT NOW!!!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

He’ll go to the other plan, war in the ME, even though that will turn the Arab Spring into an even deeper winter, with the loss of much U.S. blood and treasure. But, hey, he’s got to be re-elected at all costs because Michell must eat/live well.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I’m thinking he will take a page from his youth and have riots and terror in the streets. the Nixion plan

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Good to see you stranger!!..Did you see Romney’s speech?..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

This is a diversion . . . Santorum can handle this issue and more if we get rid of Romney . . . please, please, please get rid of Mitt.

No More Mitt! No More Mitt! No More Mitt!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

How is the belief system of 75% of Americans keeping you from doing what you want to do?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

It’s not. For now. And thats what has Christians so enraged, if you’ve been paying attention. I can be gay, get an abortion, go to public buildings without having to pray. I can not marry, not have kids. Christianists see this and think “slouching towards Gomorrah! America is in decline, we have to bring Jesus back to this country!”. They want to use government power to accomplish their goals of making the US a god fearing biblical shining city on a hill. Rick “Frothy” Santorum is one of those people.

But like I said, he would be completely rejected were he to be nominated, and correspondingly the GOP would have to reconsider their pandering to ignorant bible-thumpers. So bring him on.

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Mitt is a loser . . . he has to go now!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

the Nixion plan

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Some of those will happen on their own, around the world. However that’s too transparent Alynski. He will use his strongest trump card, as CiC, hot war in the ME, Syria or Iran.

Michell = Michelle

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

There are people — woefully uninformed people — calling into C-SPAN to proclaim Rick Santorum as a fiscal conservative and a small government guy. :-(

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Hey there! Yeah just watched it, I thought it was really well done, he still has quite a bit of work to do with the base, but I thought this speech was a good step in that direction.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I’m thinking he will take a page from his youth and have riots and terror in the streets. the Nixion plan

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

OWS was the beta for that and it failed. Also, they have the g8 in Chicago sometime this year so they’ll want to tamp down the protest stuff.

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Mitt is a loser . . . he has to go now!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

He’s not a loser. He just isn’t a winner, a leader the masses wish to follow…no core, no convictions, no message, not inspirational.

It’s utter b/s that the conservatives hate him because he’s not as conservative as they are. Reagan wasn’t either.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Obie will go class warefare route..:(

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I’d vote for the following over Romney:

Wasserman Shultz
Nancy Pelosi
Cynthia McKinney
Barney Frank
John Conyers
Al Sharpton

At least they are honest about their liberal big government ideology which is more than can be said about Mittens, the father of the biggest government takeover of our economy and freedom in history.Romneycare/Obamacare.

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

but really, Rick Man-on-Dog Santorum?
Meredith on February 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

When a candidate is creepy enough to already be widely referred to as “Man on Dog” and “The Bedroom Snooper”, you know he is never going to be elected president.

Santorum = Four more years

JA on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Obie will go class warefare route..:(

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Old news and not a shock factor. He’ll go big, in Aug. It will be a real war.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

With all due respect to this poll and Santorum supporters, he hasn’t been hit yet. Its easy to do well when you are essentially a blank slate. Lets take the poll in a few weeks after Gingrich, media, Romney pile on and see how he holds up.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Romney is 100x better than Santorum and wouldn’t jeopardize the suburban vote. I’m actually rooting for the Romney super PAC as this point.

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM

You do know that Newt was a party chairman for Rockefeller when he was running against Goldwater?

Mitt and Newt were Rockefeller republicans. In 1964, Goldwater and Reagan were the godfathers of modern conservatism and both Newt and Mitt were rooting for the other side.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I agree It was a good step in the right direction..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Santorum = Four more years

JA on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Anyone of the current crop means 4 more.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Wow, I expected you to be for Santorum, thats pretty surprising.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Santorum is actually the only “not Romney” I’d vote for. Up until now, I just thought he wasn’t electable. But while two weeks of polling doesn’t necessarily say he is, I’m interested to see how far he can go once Newt Gingrich drops out.

Romney and Gingrich have hit each other, but they’ve also been hit by outside groups, Romney in particular has been hit by the DNC, so I think we’ve seen the full extent of the argument. Santorum has yet to be vetted by this process. I’d like to see how he holds up to an onslaught from his other competitors and the media in general. That said, I don’t see anything coming up that would absolutely make me not like him. Just I feel that he won’t have the money and organization to beat Obama like Romney would.

cd98 on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

There’s a reason GOP is called the Stupid Party. There are 10 names off the top of my head I can think of that could have beaten Obama. But the RNC/Elite had to stick with the “next in line” strategy. And the result will complete the 1996, 2008, 2012 RINO loss trifecta.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Why is the fault of the “RNC/Elite”, whoever those evil stupid people are, that the 10 people you can think of chose not to run?
Nobody stopped anyone from running so if you’re guy/gal isn’t on the ballot take it up with them.
You must need to wipe the spittle off your screen with a squeegee.

Buttercup on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Old news and not a shock factor. He’ll go big, in Aug. It will be a real war.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

You maybe right..But that would be a slap at his base would it not??..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

How come he doesn’t address the Catholic conundrum? He has been conspicuously silent on such a big topic.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Yes he has. I’ve been waiting on that question to him. Have you noticed he addresses policies that have already passed and not those currently being discussed? I have.

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

He just needs to keep beating that drum. He has a big economic speech at Ford Stadium in Detroit, I believe its in Detroit, in a few weeks and he needs to lay out a very specific agenda. Next few weeks will be very pivotal. That debate on the 22nd going to be huge. The big question for me is, what is Gingrich going to do? Fall on the sword so a “not Romney” wins, or destroy Santorum? Going to be a crazy month.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Some of those will happen on their own, around the world. However that’s too transparent Alynski. He will use his strongest trump card, as CiC, hot war in the ME, Syria or Iran.

Michell = Michelle

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

nothing says it can’t be both. bottom up top down

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You maybe right..But that would be a slap at his base would it not??..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

That’s a good point :) <- Dire style

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Hey there! Yeah just watched it, I thought it was really well done, he still has quite a bit of work to do with the base, but I thought this speech was a good step in that direction.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Words. Just BS words. Anyone can pander to an audience. His actions speak louder than his pandering, and he is a liberal. Full blown, liberal.

LIBERAL

There’s no conservative in LIBERAL, as in ROMNEYCARE, the blue print for Obamacare which Romney doubles down on defending.

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

But like I said, he would be completely rejected were he to be nominated, and correspondingly the GOP would have to reconsider their pandering to ignorant bible-thumpers. So bring him on.

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

How is he going to be overwhelmingly rejected for believing in God, when, according to Gallup, 92% of the country joins him in that belief, and 78% proclaim Christianity?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

There’s a reason GOP is called the Stupid Party. There are 10 names off the top of my head I can think of that could have beaten Obama. But the RNC/Elite had to stick with the “next in line” strategy. And the result will complete the 1996, 2008, 2012 RINO loss trifecta.

angryed on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

the problem for them is those 10 people will be a threat to their way of life living off the teat of the people.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Why would anyone waste time watching Romney’the Democrat liar’ speak at CPAC? Why? Why? It is an insult for him to continue to masquerade as a Republican, let alone a conservative Republican . . .what a disgrace. . . the Republican Party (people) and particularly this country deserve much, much better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO MORE MITT!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

When a candidate is creepy enough to already be widely referred to as “Man on Dog” and “The Bedroom Snooper”, you know he is never going to be elected president.

Santorum = Four more years

JA on February 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I have only seen you refer to Santorum using these terms. Of Course I don’t visit liberal, secular or gay sites.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Mitt is a loser . . . he has to go now!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

He’s not a loser. He just isn’t a winner, a leader the masses wish to follow…

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

By that standard McCain didn’t lose either. I’ll assume that you’re just trying to be kind. But Mitt remins me of McCain, who could only be hard on fellow Republicans because he half accepts what the Democrats believe in.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I am so fed up with Mitt ‘Milquetoast, Mandate, Democrat, Romneycare’ Romney!

No More Mitt!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Every other poll shows Santorum being abused by Obama in polls and Romney within the margin or error and/or leading. Even PPP shows that. Yet Rasmussen shows Mitt down by 10 and Santorum within 4. Right..

Furthermore, I’ll eat my hat if Obama loses Ohio to Santorum, but Sherrod Brown wins re-elecction. That scenario strikes me as completely implausible.

El Txangurro on February 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Once he wanted to be the Republican nominee he stuck his finger in the air and began to cautiously speak about the War on Terror.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

That reminds me of when Sarah Palin was on Hannity(I think) and put her finger up in the air about what Romney does before offering an opinion, LOL True to form!

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Newt is speaking a little later..It should be interesting..:)

PS..I agree it is going to get crazy..But to be honest with you..I think we will see “Crazyx29 in the future..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Why does the latest Rasmussen poll show Santorum besting Romney vs. Obama in Ohio??????????????????????

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Ok then. Really dont have the time or energy frankly to debate you, your clearly set in your thinking. An honest examination of his record is anything but liberal. But you see it as you see it. You said earlier you would vote for Sharpton over Romney, theres no arguing with logic like that.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The speech to listen to is Sarah Palin (tomorrow)!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Can we just have the goddamn brokered convention already?

tkyang99 on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

they lie on February 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Ok then. Really dont have the time or energy frankly to debate you, your clearly set in your thinking. An honest examination of his record is anything but liberal. But you see it as you see it. You said earlier you would vote for Sharpton over Romney, theres no arguing with logic like that.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

. . .and it is illogical for Romney to run as a Republican (when he’s a Democrat).

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

OWS was the beta for that and it failed. Also, they have the g8 in Chicago sometime this year so they’ll want to tamp down the protest stuff.

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

failed? I don’t think you understand what the purpose was for OWS. It was a smashing success. People now have the terms 1% and 99% firmly in their minds, the have started to think in terms of class warfare, the haves and have nots. OWS to plant the seeds of the 2012 elections. the f act they over stayed their welcome has nothing to do with the failure or success.

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

and correspondingly the GOP would have to reconsider their pandering to ignorant bible-thumpers. So bring him on.

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Your bigoted ass is showing.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Oh definitely. You have so many unknowns now. Gingrich is the biggest unknown. The guys is running out of money, hes in debt, what he does and how he handles this situation is the big unknown. I think we will get a preview of it at CPAC. Also Santorum is facing a big test in Michigan also. This is a tipping point for all of them right now, we can only watch and see what they do. Its been fascinating I ll tell you that. If you would have told me a few weeks ago Santorum may be the front runner… I mean this is a crazy race, lol.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Have Christians been beheading non-believers, and nobody told me?

kingsjester on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Don’t expect hateful insulting comments to be rational, kingsjester.
This person would last about 5 minutes on RightScoop. I don’t expect him to last too long on HA either.

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

With all due respect to this poll and Santorum supporters, he hasn’t been hit yet. Its easy to do well when you are essentially a blank slate. Lets take the poll in a few weeks after Gingrich, media, Romney pile on and see how he holds up.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

.
No doubt jubilation for the Anti-Mitts- they get to have their “mo” right now – and they have earned it- Like Sarah says- Let it play out.
.
But this is dejavu again- taking one back to that sunny Sunday after the SC Newton top of the world primary break through. All these candidates have negatives that can only be decided by a cannibal cage match in Tampa.
.
Where are those pro-Newton fans ?

FlaMurph on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Ok thats how you see it. Thats not how the base saw it in 2008, his positions on immigration, spending, ect are conservative. But again, theres no point in arguing about this. You’ll vote how you’ll vote, it is what it is.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Wow, I expected you to be for Santorum, thats pretty surprising.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Santorum is a weasel and doesn’t have the temperament or the intellect to be POTUS. At least Romney is sharp, polished, and can be trusted with the nuclear football and make the tough calls calmly and decisively. Besides, could anyone really see Santorum overseas representing the USA? The man doesn’t have any gravitas or charm.

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

failed? I don’t think you understand what the purpose was for OWS. It was a smashing success. People now have the terms 1% and 99% firmly in their minds,

unseen on February 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

True. I didn’t think of that BUT

The stereotype of the dirty drug adled kid as the driving energy behind the progressive grass roots has been reinforced. They were even lampooned by the liberal MSM. Working adults and progressive activists have been disassociated(?) in the mind’s of Americans.

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

They want to use government power to accomplish their goals of making the US a god fearing biblical shining city on a hill. Rick “Frothy” Santorum is one of those people.

But like I said, he would be completely rejected were he to be nominated, and correspondingly the GOP would have to reconsider their pandering to ignorant bible-thumpers. So bring him on.

Daikokuco on February 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

The “ignorant Bible-thumpers” you’re so worried about don’t believe that the government can fix “slouching towards Gomorrah.” Or that the government should even try. But they would like to have a government that isn’t actively fighting against them….

tom on February 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

If you would have told me a few weeks ago Santorum may be the front runner… I mean this is a crazy race, lol.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I wrote off Santorum in a post, then he started surging. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Gladtobehere on February 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Meredith is back? What happened? Couldn’t get a ticket to CPAC?

Emperor Norton on February 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM

If you would have told me a few weeks ago Santorum may be the front runner… I mean this is a crazy race, lol.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

A lot of folks are suprised (including myself) and are still trying to get their arms around it..:)

PS..I’m thinking Newt brings the “red meat” in his speech and goes after Obie..Maybe attacking Romney and Santorum indirectly but not blatantly..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM

FlaMurph on February 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

This is why this process is so great frankly, basically as voters we have the opportunity to “try on” different candidates and see how we feel about them. Santorum has stayed above the fray, kept to the issues and was strategic in his campaigning, he is seeing the benefits of that. He deserved what he got, Team Romney dropped the ball in CO assumed they would win didnt put in time or money. Mistake. Now Santorum is going to undergo the same process everyone else has, his record will be put out there and people can decide if they are comfortable with it. This is all for the good in my view.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Can you smell the desperation?

Mitt Romney at CPAC: I was “severely conservative” as governor of Massachusetts

Is “severely conservative” one of those “conservative codewords” that Mitt’s media team was saying he was going to start using?

Romney’s “new pitch” to conservatives is, simply put, severely pathetic.

Lawdawg86 on February 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Mitt support Paul Ryan plan LOL LOL,

The same Mitt who said in August of 2011 that if you support Ryan’s plan you want to throw Grandma and Grandpa off the cliff and used Democrat talking point regarding Paul Ryan’s Roadmap.
That is what he used against Rick Perry.

BroncosRock on February 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Don’t let the facts get in your way by any means. Paul Ryan voiced support for the plan Romney had already proposed. The two plans are very similar.

Yuval Levin wrote that the “Ryan-Wyden idea seems to be roughly the same as the one proposed by Mitt Romney last month, and advocated by champions of premium-support (including Ryan, but until today not Wyden) since at least the Breaux-Thomas commission of the late 1990s.”

PKinMI on February 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Based on everything I’ve ever read about his mother and father, Mitt learned progressive Rockefeller Republicanism at home, not conservatism. His mother ran as a pro-choice candidate for senate in 1970, before Roe. His father implemented the first state income tax. They opposed Goldwater, etc.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM

A person that lies out of office and in office will continue to do so unless he’s converted.
Thanks for the info.

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The speech to listen to is Sarah Palin (tomorrow)!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I was really looking forward to Palin’s speech until she starting promoting Newt.

If, as she said, she was just promoting Newt to keep the primary going, then she needs to get behind Santorum and keep the primary going. It was her lack of worrying about character and principles in her support of Newt that really got me and a lot of other Palin supporters questioning her motives.

BTW, I think that Palin could have run away with this nomination.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The “ignorant Bible-thumpers” you’re so worried about don’t believe that the government can fix “slouching towards Gomorrah.” Or that the government should even try.

tom on February 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Rick Santorum believes the government should try, and that is the reason why I oppose Rick and say GO MITT, GO!

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Well, I think hes going to go after Romney at least directly. Its personal for him against Romney, but he may only hint at Santorum. Yes I think he will predominantly stick to Obama, looking for a “grand statesman” moment. I also agree it will be full of “red meat” for that group also. But the big question for Gingrich now is, is anyone going to be paying attention? People are pretty vocally starting to write the guy off… so we’ll see.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I suspect that you are the one who is wrong. You just have to listen to conservative talk radio to understand that people are excited about Santorum’s surge in ways that they were not when Newt was surging or Romney was leading. This, my friend, is the kind of grassroots effort that is necessary for victory in November.

It is long odds that Santorum will become the nominee but to write polling off with the comment “literally no chance” seems to be more your wishful thinking than reality.

The issue is not Republican excitement. I will gladly vote for Newt, Romney or Santorum over Obama. Just like I am sure most of us will.

The issue is really not even whether Santorum is a good candidate. He is okay, but I would have still preferred a lot of people who decided not to run over him. Just like most people on here, and every other Republican.

The issue is electability. And while the grassroots likes him over Romney, lets be honest, for the grassroots this election is not about either guy. It is about defeating Obama – that is the excitement, and that is what it needs to be.

The issue of Santorum versus Romney boils down to getting enough independents and/or Democrats to vote for either of the 2 to defeat Obama. That is where this poll strikes me as ridiculous. To imply that Santorum is closer to Obama than Romney assumes he is more liked by moderates. And I cannot fathom a scenario where that is true.

One’s stregth is the economy. The other’s is social issues. And for independnet’s, this election is about the economy, not abortion. That is why the poll strikes me as being wrong. For Romney to do worse than Saontorum assumes he either is less popular with independents (unlikely) or that he turns enough Republicans off that they either dont vote or vote for Obama (again, not likely).

That is the basis of my argument.

milcus on February 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM

WE.DON.NOT.WANT.ROMNEY.
ROMNEY.IS.A.DEMOCRAT
ROMNEY:
PLEASE LEAVE NOW!

Pragmatic on February 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

your caplocks is going to make it happen…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM

But the big question for Gingrich now is, is anyone going to be paying attention? People are pretty vocally starting to write the guy off… so we’ll see.
nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Thanks for making my point..Newt cannot afford now to be seen as he has been lately..A “mad bully” and “too smart for everyone in the room”..Therefore I don’t think the attacks will be direct in his speech..He will go after Obie hard..Very hard..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM

The “ignorant Bible-thumpers” you’re so worried about don’t believe that the government can fix “slouching towards Gomorrah.” Or that the government should even try.

tom on February 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Rick Santorum believes the government should try, and that is the reason why I oppose Rick and say GO MITT, GO!

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

No, he doesn’t. That is a favorite attacking point against him, but it’s based on false assumptions.

tom on February 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

It’s the issue of the moment, way beyond contraception/abortion. It’s a matter of freedom loss, in a big way, separation of church/state, constitution.

None of the leaders address it at its core. I look forward to what Newt will say on topic. This is as big as a wale, in the oceanic domain of issues.

Too bad the Rs can’t argue and fight on what really matters.

Meh, the callers on C-Span are as sycophant as the commenters.

Schadenfreude on February 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I agree, though Rick Santorum has been hammering it as the constitutional issue it is. Did you see his speech after Missouri?

He has even said he’d go to jail over it, took the USCCB to task over it… I feel confident he will fight it for the battle it is…one of freedom and our God given rights.

Go, Rick!!!!!

I’m sure Newt will be good on it, too. He is a great speaker. I’d vote for him, but I’m a Rick girl. Have been since Sarah declined. :) Man, I wish she’d endorse him.

pannw on February 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

For all of the anti-Mitt crowd out there, do you really think Santorum is the answer?

A) Socially he is radioactive when the general electorate hears his positions.

B) His voting record on fiscal issues is mildly conservative at best.

C) and on taxes and government intrusion into labor and business he may as well be a moderate Democrat.

Tater Salad on February 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM

But on the other hand, Newt kind of cant help himself,lol.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The fact that all you liberals are hatin’ on Santorum so bad, just shows that he’s the man that needs to be nominated. I already knew that, but thanks for helping the lurkers to figure that out.
Gingrich will Newtate out of the race soon (he has no choice) and it will be wide open for our man Rick. Keep bashing him, you’re making him stronger.

Norky on February 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

our caplocks is going to make it happen…

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM

LOL

BoxHead1 on February 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

FYI Sidenote:..Col. Allen West speaks right ahead of Newt..So the crowd will be jazzed to say the least!!..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

No, he doesn’t. That is a favorite attacking point against him, but it’s based on false assumptions.

tom on February 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Santorum’s position on birth control may be as bad as Obama’s. While Obama wants to force birth control, Santorum thinks it would be okay to outlaw birth control. Neither of those positions should be the conservative position.

As a conservative, our answer should be that “it’s not the governments business in either situation”.

Tater Salad on February 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Oh boy, will this one be making the rounds soon. Here is Mitt Romney at CPAC, inadvertently and laughably making the precise case against Mitt Romney:

“My state was a leading indicator of what liberals would be trying to do across the country, and what they’re trying to do right now.

And I fought against long odds in a deep blue state, but I was a severely conservative, Republican governor.”

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iI7e-JsM8Ww

So, Mitt says that he “fought” against liberals in Massachusetts and was a “severely conservative” governor? Lol, I hardly think that is going to reassure the base that he will fight against Dems at the national level, or that he will govern as a conservative. That quote will be used to tremendous effect in attack ads in the coming weeks, juxtaposing Mitt’s description of “fighting liberals” and “severe conservatism” with his record in Massachusetts.

I’ll get it started though. Here is the “severe conservative” Mitt Romney “fighting liberals” in Massachusetts: http://patriotstatesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Romney-joy-signing-of-romneycare-with-Ted-Kennedy.jpg

Lawdawg86 on February 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Lolz..IMHO..He needs too for his own good..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Rick Santorum believes the government should try, and that is the reason why I oppose Rick and say GO MITT, GO!

Punchenko on February 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

is that you, Punchenko???? nooo!…I remember you were one of the most ardent anti-Romney commenter here not long ago when we were getting the mittbot treatment from you :-)…what happened, had a change of heart meanwhile?

jimver on February 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM

hahahahaha!
Palin, Rick and Newt fans are “true conservatives,”
and Mitt, by his own words, is “severely conservative.”

Severe Conservatives for Willard!

james23 on February 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

That is funny, LOL

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM

You do know that Newt was a party chairman for Rockefeller when he was running against Goldwater?

Mitt and Newt were Rockefeller republicans. In 1964, Goldwater and Reagan were the godfathers of modern conservatism and both Newt and Mitt were rooting for the other side.

fight like a girl on February 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I’m not going to defend Newt on that. He will have to explain it. But I do know that he was 21 years old in 1964. When I was 21 I had just graduated from Vanderbilt and was thrilled to land a job in Howard Baker’s office. It was only later that I began to really understand Baker’s political philosophy, as well as Ronald Reagan’s. Today I’m approaching fifty and I am much more firmly rooted in my beliefs. I presume Newt is too.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The fact that all you liberals are hatin’ on Santorum so bad, just shows that he’s the man that needs to be nominated. I already knew that, but thanks for helping the lurkers to figure that out.
Gingrich will Newtate out of the race soon (he has no choice) and it will be wide open for our man Rick. Keep bashing him, you’re making him stronger.

Norky on February 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

As a conservative, I don’t consider Santorum anywhere near a conservative, because he sees government as the answer. Whether it be on imposing his social views or using the government to seek outcomes in the business and labor arena, a REAL conservative wouldn’t want government in either.

Tater Salad on February 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Its true he really does. Just a few weeks ago he was pushing Santorum to leave the race, now Santorums camp is saying the only thing Southern about Gingrich is that he “looks like Paula Deen.” You have here a huge pendulum swing and now the confidence is in the Santorum camp and Gingrich now needs a moment to justify staying in the race. Its an incredible thing when you think about it.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So, Mitt says that he “fought” against liberals in Massachusetts and was a “severely conservative” governor? Lol, I hardly think that is going to reassure the base that he will fight against Dems at the national level, or that he will govern as a conservative. That quote will be used to tremendous effect in attack ads in the coming weeks, juxtaposing Mitt’s description of “fighting liberals” and “severe conservatism” with his record in Massachusetts.

I’ll get it started though. Here is the “severe conservative” Mitt Romney “fighting liberals” in Massachusetts: http://patriotstatesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Romney-joy-signing-of-romneycare-with-Ted-Kennedy.jpg

Lawdawg86 on February 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Those who fought for traditional marriage in Massachusetts do not believe he fought the liberals. They will give you an earful on what the great conservative man of faith and family did for marriage in Massachusetts.

flyfisher on February 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

That SB5 vote (ballot initiative Issue 2) still burns me. We sweep the GOP into control, the GOP does what it says its going to do, the unions wail, and suddenly everyone we feels sorry for the unions. I don’t think Ohioans know what they want.

I am looking forward to casting my ballot for Josh Mandel. “Socialist Sherrod” has to go.

Bitter Clinger on February 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I know, but it failed because the Union defined the issue and the R’s didn’t get out front. Lied to the union members also and the Prison workers voted with the Unions also.

Josh Mandel is great! He’s done a very good job as Treasurer too.

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

It is amazing what pols. “internal polling” can come up with..:)

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Mitt is the person who said if you want to fix Social Security you will push grandma and grandpa off the cliff. That was his first big attack on Rick Perry,

Rick Perry wanted to privatize S.S but Mitt said if you do that you will throw Grandma and Grandpa off the cliff.

BroncosRock on February 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Would a conservative?:

Seek to have states outlaw birth control?

Think closed shop work rules are okay?

Vote against anti-earmark legislation?

Propose varing sets of tax laws for different types of businesses?

These are not things Santorum said many years ago, he has suggested and defended these positions since he has been on the campaign trail.

Tater Salad on February 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Thankfully and correctly, since mid-July the anybody-but-Obama Republican has held the lead.
Many may have to hold their noses when voting on Nov. 6 but it’s my considered conclusion that most Americans realize the main objective this election is to remove the current PutzOTUS regardless of who the eventual GOP nominee is.

rocksandbroncs on February 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

With all due respect to this poll and Santorum supporters, he hasn’t been hit yet. Its easy to do well when you are essentially a blank slate. Lets take the poll in a few weeks after Gingrich, media, Romney pile on and see how he holds up.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

No, he’s not taken too many hits from the “Severely Conservative” yet, but I think people will come to his defense. We are tired of these negative ads against other Republican Candidates. Especially distortions & lies, which Romney & his advisors like to do.

bluefox on February 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Dire Straits on February 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Lol yeah I know it. The truth is my main concern, no matter who the winner is although obviously I want Romney, is that it is settled before the convention. I think a brokered convention would be a disaster for the general. So I hope this next month or so just sorts it out and we can all focus on the general.

nswider on February 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4