ARG poll shows Santorum up 6 over Romney in Michigan

posted at 11:00 am on February 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Of all the polling that takes place over the next three weeks, Michigan might get the highest profile.  Mitt Romney has strong ties to Michigan; his father was a popular governor in the state, and most people assumed Romney would not have to expend much energy there to win a Republican primary.  The first hint of trouble came two weeks ago in a Rasmussen poll that showed Romney only 15 points up over Newt Gingrich but only at 38%, roughly what he got in 2008 against two strong challengers.  I wrote at the time that Michigan could provide an opening for an unpleasant surprise for Team Romney, and today’s ARG poll of 600 likely Republican primary voters has delivered it:

Rick Santorum leads the Michigan Republican presidential primary with 33%. Santorum is followed by Mitt Romney with 27%, Newt Gingrich with 21%, and Ron Paul with 12%.

Of course, this could be an outlier, as none of the previous polling in Michigan has had Santorum out of the teens. Now, though, Santorum takes 42% of the Republicans surveyed in the poll (72% of the sample), with Gingrich coming in a distant second at 24%.  Romney wins nearly a majority of independents at 48%, with the other three candidates in a virtual tie in the teens.  Santorum now leads among Tea Party adherents 37/29 over Gingrich, and comes in a close second to Romney among non-TP adherents 35/30, with Gingrich at 14%.  Romney tops Santorum among women only by six points, 39/33, while Santorum beats Gingrich among men 33/28, with Romney at 17%.

Team Romney had better hope that this is an outlier.  A Michigan loss would seriously damage Romney’s electability argument, and would give Santorum a great deal of momentum heading into Super Tuesday.  Is it an outlier, though? PPP tweeted yesterday that their multiple-day survey in the state so far showed Santorum up by as much as 10-15 points over Romney, and has Newt Gingrich losing to Ron Paul.  Those results just got published, and Santorum leads 39/24:

Rick Santorum’s taken a large lead in Michigan’s upcoming Republican primary. He’s at 39% to 24% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Ron Paul, and 11% for Newt Gingrich.

Santorum’s rise is attributable to two major factors: his own personal popularity (a stellar 67/23 favorability) and GOP voters increasingly souring on Gingrich.  Santorum’s becoming something closer and closer to a consensus conservative candidate as Gingrich bleeds support.

The internals look different than ARG’s, however:

Santorum’s winning an outright majority of the Tea Party vote with 53% to 22% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich. He comes close to one with Evangelicals as well at 48% to 20% for Romney and 12% for Gingrich. And he cracks the 50% line with voters identifying as ‘very conservative’ at 51% to 20% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich.

Santorum’s benefiting from the open nature of Michigan’s primary as well. He’s only up by 12 points with actual Republican voters, but he has a 40-21 advantage with the Democrats and independents planning to vote that pushes his overall lead up to 15 points. Santorum is winning by a healthy margin in every region of the state except for Oakland County, where Romney has a 40-26 advantage, and the area around Lansing where Paul actually has an advantage at 30% to 27% for both Romney and Santorum.

As noted, Paul actually finished ahead of Gingrich in the PPP poll, but only by a single point, which is a virtual tie.  How did Gingrich fare so poorly in Michigan?  His favorability rating dropped into negative territory at -9, with only 38% seeing him favorably.  He does better than Paul’s -19, but Romney has a +10 and Santorum a huge +44 at 67/23.

We’ll see if other polling confirms ARG and PPP and corroborates the assessment of PPP’s president, who writes that “Rick Santorum has all the momentum in Michigan right now.”  If so, Romney will have to spend a lot of time and money in the state to get it back in his column, or his electability argument will evaporate just in time for the biggest date on the primary calendar.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/02/08/santorum-sends-the-right-message-on-global-warming/

Romney’s hushed but supportive position on global warming is telling.

On the one hand he claims that his – liberal – view on agw would not impact policy, on the other he stated plainly (in June) that he thinks it is good that the govt get involved in clamping down on CO2 “pollution.”

At minimum Romney needs to disavow (now) his support for Mitt’s ex-advisor and radical leftist John Holdren (O’s Science Czar).
!

anotherJoe on February 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

social-justice on February 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Your comment about Romney not winning a single red state in the general election is so laughable, I’d be surprised if you typed it with a straight face.

Can’t you see what’s happening here? Liberals like Soros are working overtime to make sure we nominate a loser like Santorum so Obama coasts to an easy 10 point victory in November. Santorum shifts the focus in a general from a Referendum on Obama and his failed policies, to a losing battle over the Social conservative culture war against secularism.

Obama is going to play all of you socialcons for fools. Look what he did regarding the contraception mandate. He knows Romney is his biggest threat due to his business background and moderate policies so he does something to piss off the extreme wing of the GOP and turns the election away from him, and makes it about social issues, a much easier path to victory for him than answering for his stupid, socialist failed policies.

The MSM may be playing nice right now, but if crazy Rick wins the nomination, they will go nuclear on him everyday up until the election about his backwards veiws regarding women, gays, government intrusion in the bedroom etc. You will see that quote about “no real right to privacy” replayed every single night. They will do this because they know Obama can’t win with his record of economic failure, but they can win the stupid culture war because average people are turned off by the GOP when they’re painted as nasty, foaming at the mouth theocrats. Nominating Santorum guarantees an Obama victory, and the liberals know it.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM

You seem to be more concerned with destroying Romney than beating Obama.

A Santorum candidacy will end Romney’s candidacy (AWESOME!) and give Obama 4 more years (WHO CARES?! ROMNEY’S GONE!).

Everyone loses.

I have come to the sad conclusion, that the best thing for this nation may in fact be 4 more years of gridlock. The RePUBICS in congress have to fight with Obama to save face. They won’t have to pretend they are not gentry-class statists with the democrat Romney.

Any new executive edicts King Barry sets up can be unmade in exactly the same way. Barry’s pet projects will be born and die to the executive order.

Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is a democrat who lacks the desire to remove Obamcare. The waivers he’s talking about will be slapped down in months with an equal protection suit. He won’t do squat beyond that – and I base this on his political history as an east coast liberal Rockefeller mush.

So, yeah, I do wish to damage Romney so bad he can’t win, even if he get’s the nomination.

Because I view him as potentially MUCH worse than a gridlocked government. A big moderate slug like Ken-Doll will kill this nation just like King Barry will. Only slower.

Mitt is aids. Obama is Hemorrhagic fever. Both are terminal. Both are horrible ways to go out. The only difference between the two is the timeline.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Liberals are under the delusion that a real conservative cannot win in November.

Santorum is not a “real conservative.”

He’s a big-government Bush-era nanny-stater Republican.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Getting the idiot out at the top is a good way to put the brakes on his stupidity, for step one.

Replace Obama the Democrat with Romney the Democrat – 2012

Good luck with that one. Prepare yourself for a turnout like what you saw in Main.

Not a good candidate?

NO VOTE.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Romney is not a conservative. Obama is so unpopular to the point where anyone can beat him.

This is the fatal assumption that Romney-haters are making in order to convince themselves that Rick Santorum is electable on a national level.

They haven’t been paying attention to recent polling trends.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

ChrisL on February 13, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I really wish people would stop saying this BS. Sure santy lost a tough election in a tough year, could happen to anyone in +dem state.
when Mitt face a tough election what did he do ? He ran alright! TO THE NEAREST EXIT. He knows he would have benn crushed by at least 15 to 20%. This why he quit and started running for prez. He knew he had no chance of getting the nomination but it was a way to save face and stay in the next in line game (hasn’t that worked well for us) Republicans in MA like myself had quite enough of Mitt’s crap.
So next time one of you mittbots or trumptrolls want to cite Santy’s loss % just think how much Mitt would have lost by or is honesty to much to ask of you or Mitt

rik on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

NO VOTE. Obama wins.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Santorum’s benefiting from the open nature of Michigan’s primary as well. He’s only up by 12 points with actual Republican voters, but he has a 40-21 advantage with the Democrats and independents planning to vote that pushes his overall lead up to 15 points

So perhaps the case could be made that Santorum can get votes from across party lines? Sounds like the same case Romney supporters make about Mitt.

Santorum speaks the Reagan Democrat language.

For you elites out there, that is the language of us “crackers” and residents of “flyover country.”

Marybeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Santorum speaks the Reagan Democrat language.

Please don’t mention Santorum in the same sentence as Reagan.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM

The MSM may be playing nice right now, but if crazy Rick wins the nomination, they will go nuclear on him everyday up until the election about his backwards veiws regarding women, gays, government intrusion in the bedroom etc.
1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM

They have already found and reported on this little gem: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/mrs-santorum-s-abortion-doctor-boyfriend.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/01/17/the_anti_fornication_anti_abortion_wife_of_rick_santorum_lived_very_differently_in_her_20s_.html

If Santorum wins the nomination, don’t think this sordid little tale will go away. . . I’m curious as to how he’ll try to spin it.

cmsciulli on February 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The establishment will destroy Santorum, like they did all others.

However, Mitt will be that much more lonely and will not have united anything/anyone.

His bloodying of the opposition will continue, with even more dire results.

Winning at all costs will destroy him. He has offered no reason to follow him.

This is a replay of the 1850′s. What we are watching here is a schism in the Republican Party. Willard Fillmoure Romneycare is the guy that could very realistically shred the party forever. If the establishment hacks force him on the base, they can look forward to a replay of what happened the last time a political party was foolish enough to disregard the base on the greatest issue of the era.

I for one won’t cry if the GOP chooses to join the Whigs on the scrap-heap of history.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Santorum is not a “real conservative.”

He’s a big-government Bush-era nanny-stater Republican.

Maybe so. But…

Mitt Romney is a gun-grabbing, big-government, Clinton-era nanny-stater democrat, who buys global warming, appoints liberal judges, and forced his population to suffer under communist health-care.

My job is not to carry Lil’Rick’s water.

But when you compare him to Willard Fillmoure Romneycare…

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM

if crazy Rick wins the nomination, they will go nuclear on him everyday up until the election

There’s nothing about Rick Santorum’s background or public demeanor to suggest that he’s “crazy” in the least, but it’s obvious the Romney campaign is paying its forum astroturfers by the reference to get that out there.
Romney can’t seem to get any traction on his own record, issues or any kind of positive vision of his own, so he’s reduced to having to use the liberal playbook of negative depictions of his opponents.
Remember, in the liberal pantheon, every conservative candidate is either “stupid” or “crazy.”

Right Mover on February 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM

O/T I was listening to Rush and missed the site of an article he was discussing on the Catholic Church and this Healthcare Mandate.
If anyone knows, please post it. Rush read part of this person’s article and added a lot of background info of his own.

If I had not been preparing an online order and taking care of my banking, I would have caught it:-)

Thanks

bluefox on February 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM

NO VOTE. Obama wins.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

A: That is by no means assured. Obama is his own worst enemy. At least – unlike Willard Fillmoure Romneycare – The-lil’Rick-that-could can point out that he is not a gun grabbing, socialized health-care proponent and global warming alarmist. Who appoints liberal judges.

What’s Mitt’s slogan? “Hey, I believe most of the same things as Obama – only I am slightly less bad!”

B: As I have stated before, I can think of worse things than 4 more years of gridlock. Anything made by the executive dies by the executive in 2016.

And don’t even talk to me about judges. One look at the judges Romney has appointed tells me that he and Obama would probably grab people from the exact same pools of applicants.

Don’t believe your lying eyes! Vote Romney, he’s a conservative… (despite every single thing he’s ever done in his entire political career…)

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM

There’s nothing about Rick Santorum’s background or public demeanor to suggest that he’s “crazy” in the least. . . .

Right Mover on February 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Progressive and Independents view him as “crazy” because he is too much of a socialcon for their tastes.

They will not vote for him over Obama, no matter how displeased they are with Obama’s policies and performance, whereas Romney supporters believe that he is moderate enough to get some of their votes over Obama.

cmsciulli on February 13, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Has anyone read Politico’s article about Santorum’s strategy to derail Romney?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72781.html

the safest way forward for Santorum is to keep his attention on states like the ones he has already taken: conservative, cheap, low-turnout contests where a good part of victory is just showing up.

We can’t seriously be considering putting this guy up against Obama. We’re banking on the guy who’s plan is record low turnout numbers in cheap-to-win states and we’re throwing him against the 125 million dollar Democrat machine with full MSM support?

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’m a Michigander and will be there for Romney. The only reason Santorum will win is because of Democrats and delusional Republicans who think a lightweight like Santorum can actually beat Obama. Team Obama are licking their chops to shred sweater vest who lost an election by 19 points as an incumbent Senator.

One thing to Romney’s advantage is that in Michigan which is basically an open primary where you only check a box declaring party affiliation-this unlike in the past your declared party affiliation will be public information. Many liberal Democrats who would love to vote for Santorum will not under any circumstance publicly declare themselves as a Republican.

Goodale on February 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM

This is a replay of the 1850′s. What we are watching here is a schism in the Republican Party.
SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I think that might be a bit extreme.

The Whigs were major players for what… 40-50 years? The death knell for the Whigs was the divisiveness of Slavery.

Just as the Left claimed that Obama’s 2008 marked the end of Conservatism, I think those forseeing some kind of Republican Party split are quite incorrect.

RightWay79 on February 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Romney is not a conservative.

This is the fatal assumption that Romney-haters are making

Yeah, it’s fatal to Willard.

They haven’t been paying attention to recent polling trends.

Here’s one out today: A Survey USA poll from California showing

Willard 33
Santorum 31
Gingrich 17
Paul 9

Emperor Norton on February 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM

They will not vote for him over Obama, no matter how displeased they are with Obama’s policies and performance, whereas Romney supporters believe that he is moderate enough to get some of their votes over Obama.

They think they key to victory against a democrat is to become a democrat.

If that’s the mantra, then there is zero point to even bothering with a republican party.

I am not alone in that mindset.

I am a conservative. Not a Republican. If they won’t give us someone that you can at least, with a nudge and a wink, call a conservative, then no vote.

My vote is earned.

Looks like alot of people in Florida and Main felt the same way, and just stayed home.

This does not look like a primary to me.

It looks like the Grand Old Party committing existential suicide.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You act as if the liberal media will allow Santorum or any other Republican to determine the narrative. When Palin was talking about energy policy, or trying to bring attention to Obama’s associations, did the MSM allow that to become the narrative. No. The narrative was that Sarah could see Russia from her house, her family was trash, and she didn’t read newspapers and magazines.

The narrative that has already been established for Romney is the class warfare one – a narrative that I do not believe will be successful, because it is already failing, and because we saw what trying it did to Gingrich’s campaign.

For Santorum, the narrative is much easier: He’ll be a prig, a religious zealot, and a homophobe, who will legislate us back into the Victorian Age. That will draw attention way from the economy and have independents deciding that Obama is the lesser of 2 evils.

Priscilla on February 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

what exactly is the point you’re trying to make? Of course the media will be an extension of the Obama campaign, but the media’s influence is much less than it used to be and the Republican nominee will have massive Super Pacs to set their own narratives.

Palin wasn’t able to attack Obama for his past associations because of McCain – Not the media.

If you’re worried about the media and Santorum, you should be just as worried about the media and Romney. don’t think for one second there won’t suddenly be an “open discussion” about Mormonism and its sexist/racist past, or that Romney won’t be smeared as some greedy Gordon Gecko hiding his money in Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts. I don’t care for any of these candidates, Santorum is just another go along to get along politician with the worst tax plan next to Romney’s, but worrying about the media is the least of my concerns.

Daemonocracy on February 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM

VOTE MITT THE INEFFECTUAL CH!CKENSHIT now that’s a real winner of a bumper sticker

rik on February 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Here’s the link to the Survey USA California poll.

Emperor Norton on February 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM

They haven’t been paying attention to recent polling trends.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Like the ones showing romney losing ground to Obama?

Daemonocracy on February 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM

OBAMAROMNEYCARE says it all.

But who is the Dark Lord and who is the apprentice?

PappyD61 on February 13, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I think that might be a bit extreme.

The Whigs were major players for what… 40-50 years? The death knell for the Whigs was the divisiveness of Slavery.

Just as the Left claimed that Obama’s 2008 marked the end of Conservatism, I think those forseeing some kind of Republican Party split are quite incorrect.

I think you underestimate how angry people are with Socialized Medicine are. I will die before I bow down to it.

Millions more just like me.

This is the defining issue of our generation. The moderait squishes have failed to recognize this – their attitude? “Nothing to get worked up about.”

They are putting themselves on the wrong side of this issue, and you better believe millions of people like me will ditch them over it.

Obamacare IS the Slavery of our generation.

I have zero faith Mittbot will do a damn thing to get rid of it. I base this on his record. I don’t trust his mouth – politicians lie. ALL of them. I look at what they have done. Talk is cheap. Actions tell the story.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Santorum is not a “real conservative.”

He’s a big-government Bush-era nanny-stater Republican.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Yes he is, I agree. Who do you support again? Please don’t say Romney, the irony will be too much.

and don’t bother saying Ron Paul, he couldn’t even seal the deal in Maine, he’s done.

Daemonocracy on February 13, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Progressive and Independents view him as “crazy” because he is too much of a socialcon for their tastes.

They will not vote for him over Obama, no matter how displeased they are with Obama’s policies and performance, whereas Romney supporters believe that he is moderate enough to get some of their votes over Obama.

I think this is an unfounded overgeneralization.

The voters for whom Santorum’s religious views would be a dealbreaker might be the same ones who would look at Romney’s Mormonism with a jaded eye.

“Progressives” aren’t going to cast their vote for any GOP nominee anyway.

Right Mover on February 13, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Daemonocracy on February 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM

you’ll have to excuse the good lt. hasn’t quite got a handle on that internets thang

rik on February 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

PappyD61 on February 13, 2012 at 2:44 PM

you vile racist!! lol

rik on February 13, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Romney is the best risk-reward. We MUST put forward the candidate who can compete with Obama dollar-for-dollar. First rule is to do no harm to downballot candidates, which is why members of Congress overwhelmingly back Romney.

matthew8787 on February 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM

The ‘let’s nominate a moderate business person’ tack has been tried – and failed – miserably. See, Whitman, Meg. Mitt’s mini-me Nutmeg got beat by Moonbeam by the same margin COD lost.

Fiorina kept it closer – and she was the more socially conservative candidate between her and Nutmeg.

Lou Budvis on February 13, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Conservatives attacking Romneycare is completely laughable. On the one hand, conservatives talk about the 10th amendment and states being the labrotories of democracy. On the other hand, when a candidate goes with the 10th amendment and tries something in his state, they say he is wrong.

You can’t have it both ways folks. You either want the 10th amendment or you don’t.

milcus

Morons who continue to make this silly, illogical argument are laughable.

xblade on February 13, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Please don’t mention Santorum in the same sentence as Reagan.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM

That’s just plain ridiculous. Here’s what I said:

Santorum speaks the Reagan Democrat language.

Can you understand the nuanced difference? You ARE a Romney supporter, right? :-)

Why, it’s like not understanding the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare

Marybeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Willard Fillmoure Romneycare

You know, I often wonder when I see people posting little memes like this, are they really Obama campaign staffers sent here to cause Chaos behind enemy lines? It’s almost like some sort of bizarre subliminal messaging made to sew an idea, and association into our train of thought. I literally see this exact same phrase used by multiple posters in every single thread that comes up. It makes me believe that Obama and the Dems are actively campaigning for Santorum.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I think you underestimate how angry people are with Socialized Medicine are. I will die before I bow down to it.

Millions more just like me.

This is the defining issue of our generation.

Obamacare IS the Slavery of our generation.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:44 PM

That, I think is going a bit too far… but I agree nationalized healthcare is a big problem. So does Romney.

He doesn’t want nationalized healthcare. He has vowed to do whatever a President is Constitutionally allowed to do in order to repeal Obama’s Nationalized Healthcare debacle.

The Supreme Court should rule it unconstitutional, and that will be that…it will be struck down.

If that doesn’t happen, then Congress has to repeal it. That will be their job.

If that doesn’t happen, then Romney has said he will offer a 50-state waiver in an effort to take the fangs out of Obamacare.

But, understand… if it gets to Romney, then many other people will have failed first.

RightWay79 on February 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

If Santorum wins the nomination, don’t think this sordid little tale will go away. . . I’m curious as to how he’ll try to spin it.

cmsciulli

Why would he spin it? There’s nothing there worth spinning. If that’s the worst they’ve got, Rick will be fine. In fact, I hope they run with it, because it shows them for the idiots they are.

xblade on February 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM

what exactly is the point you’re trying to make?

That the media will easily turn Santorum into a caricature of a crazy right-wing extremist misogynist hate-monger. Romney will get the Gordon Gekko treatment. But independents can vote for a business guy who promises to turn around a bad economy and repeal Obamacare. They won’t vote for a guy who comes across as judgmental and hypocritical. Every salacious detail of Santorum’s life will be written about in detail, while Obama again gets a free pass. Wait until they decide to go after Karen Santorum for living with an abortionist twice her age.

I’ll go with our chances with the rich guy. The most salacious thing they’ve ever gotten on him is the dog on the car roof story. And the dog was fine.

Priscilla on February 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

They will not vote for him over Obama, no matter how displeased they are with Obama’s policies and performance, whereas Romney supporters believe that he is moderate enough to get some of their votes over Obama.
cmsciulli on February 13, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I reject, renounce, and DEFY your premise (second time I’ve said that today).
Rick Santorum’s pro-Christianity, anti-atheism, pro-family, anti-hedonism views/stands are NOT going to chase the swing-voters over to Obama. Period.
But IF he goes all the way to the Oval Office, they might give YOU nightmares, or ‘apoplexy’, or something.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM

If that doesn’t happen, then Romney has said he will offer a 50-state waiver in an effort to take the fangs out of Obamacare.


The waiver will fail almost instantly to an equal protection suit in the 9th circuit court.

And I am not being overly dramatic. There is a great deal of underestimation of HOW angry people are over this. This goes way beyond the money and the insurance.

This is the complete unmaking of the constitution. If they get their way on socialized healthcare, we are THROUGH. If they get this, the government has unlimited power.

This is what is at stake. It’s not about insurance. It’s about the state getting complete utter and unlimited power to dictate ANYTHING to us.

You gravely underestimate how people are viewing this.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Romney will get the Gordon Gekko treatment.

This makes me very confident about Romney’s chances in the general. We all saw what a joke the OWS protests were, and how incredibly unpopular they were. If Obama has to go the class warfare route he will lose, just like Gingrich was destroyed for it.

We cannot allow the Dems to make this election about social issues and nominate the moral crusader.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Priscilla on February 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

why don’t just be honest and quit hiding behind “they” we know you mean I

rik on February 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Can you understand the nuanced difference? You ARE a Romney supporter, right? :-)

Why, it’s like not understanding the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare

Marybeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Santorum doesn’t speak the Reagan Democrat language.

Santorum speaks the big-government, ‘compassionate conservatism’ language. If he spoke Reagan Democrat, he’d have won re-election in PA.

Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You know, I often wonder when I see people posting little memes like this, are they really Obama campaign staffers sent here to cause Chaos behind enemy lines? It’s almost like some sort of bizarre subliminal messaging made to sew an idea, and association into our train of thought. I literally see this exact same phrase used by multiple posters in every single thread that comes up. It makes me believe that Obama and the Dems are actively campaigning for Santorum.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Google search shows that it’s pretty much just me. I started this meme, and I have been posting it here, and many other forums I frequent. I also called into Levin’s show last week and shared my opinion on the GOP following the Whig’s trajectory, and he did not disagree with my observation. It was nice having my views shared with millions on air, and I feel they are dead on.

As for me being a democrat operative, hah. The democrats, in my opinion, very much want Romney, as he immunizes them from attacks against Obamacare, Fast and Furious, and Obama’s hyper partisan judicial appointments – not to mention the terrible spending.

They are just praying for Willard Fillmoure Romneycare to tie this up. They know he can’t run on anything except:

“I am less bad than Obama – we believe in all the same things – me just less so!!!”

They even agree on global warming! How cute.

Pass Ken-Doll.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

The waiver will fail almost instantly to an equal protection suit in the 9th circuit court.

And I am not being overly dramatic. There is a great deal of underestimation of HOW angry people are over this. This goes way beyond the money and the insurance.

This is the complete unmaking of the constitution. If they get their way on socialized healthcare, we are THROUGH. If they get this, the government has unlimited power.

This is what is at stake. It’s not about insurance. It’s about the state getting complete utter and unlimited power to dictate ANYTHING to us.

You gravely underestimate how people are viewing this.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

OK.

But again, I would say, what can Romney constitutionally do himself to end Obamacare?

The Executive Branch exists to enforce national laws. The waiver would, in essence, be an effort to simply not enforce Obamacare.

If that waiver is struck down… well, I am no legal expert, but I would think a Romney administration would use the Justice Department to try and soften Obamacare up as much as they can.

But, again, the first step for getting rid of Obamacare is the Supreme Court. If that fails, it falls to Congress.

Not really a Presidential issue. I believe he would sign a bill that repeals it. But, it shouldn’t even get to that point if those of us who oppose it do what we need to do.

RightWay79 on February 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Ouch… Rush is doing a number on Willard Right now…

That whole “He just said what he needed to to get elected in Mass” will leave a mark..”

Especially when it’s his [Romney's Consultant Mike Murphy] saying it…

What else is Ken-Doll only “saying” to get elected…

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

why don’t just be honest and quit hiding behind “they” we know you mean I

rik on February 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Wtf are you talking about? I’ve been completely open about my preference for Romney, and the reasons why I believe that we would lose with Santorum. I’ve also said multiple times that I will vote for the GOP nominee, no matter who he – or she – is. So, if that was supposed to be some kinda “gotcha” moment……it wasn’t.

Priscilla on February 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM

They think they key to victory against a democrat is to become a democrat.
If that’s the mantra, then there is zero point to even bothering with a republican party.
I am not alone in that mindset.
SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Damn straight, Silver’. You’re definitely NOT alone. : (
.
Conservative voters are FED-UP with Liberal/Democrat “light”.

“We’ve got a 1/3 less socialism, than your average Democrat.
Plus we taste great, and are less filling !”

Would that make a good campaign ad for a Conservative candidate in a primary running against a Moderate?

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM

There is a great deal of underestimation of HOW angry people are over this. This goes way beyond the money and the insurance.

Relax. Mitt said it’s “not worth getting angry about,” remember?

Right Mover on February 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I reject, renounce, and DEFY your premise (second time I’ve said that today).
Rick Santorum’s pro-Christianity, anti-atheism, pro-family, anti-hedonism views/stands are NOT going to chase the swing-voters over to Obama. Period.
But IF he goes all the way to the Oval Office, they might give YOU nightmares, or ‘apoplexy’, or something.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM

You’re dead wrong. Most people won’t see Rick’s views as “pro family” and “anti hedonism” they will see them as Anti-Freedom, which they are. And if you use the “He believes that stuff but he won’t try to legislate it!” argument then you shouldn’t vote for him anyway cause that would mean he has no true convictions.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I see it alot here, It’s not just you.

You, and alot of ther people write these strange, ranting posts with lots of BOLD type, and HTML markup around key phrases, and words like ROMNEYCARE.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I reject, renounce, and DEFY your premise (second time I’ve said that today).
Rick Santorum’s pro-Christianity, anti-atheism, pro-family, anti-hedonism views/stands are NOT going to chase the swing-voters over to Obama. Period.
But IF he goes all the way to the Oval Office, they might give YOU nightmares, or ‘apoplexy’, or something.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM

First, please don’t try and assume what my reactions or views might be.

I’m stating an opinion based on things I have overheard/read about the GOP candidates for the past several months. While not official polling by any means, people who seem to be more moderate on the socialcon scale have stated they would never vote for Santorum because of his views on contraception, abortion, homosexuality etc.

And besides his social views, many see him as a pro-union, big gov’t guy.

Why would he spin it? There’s nothing there worth spinning. If that’s the worst they’ve got, Rick will be fine. In fact, I hope they run with it, because it shows them for the idiots they are.

xblade on February 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM

If The Left, Media, Romney, etc jumped all over Newt for having several affairs, you don’t think they will do the same for Santorum and his strict Pro Life views?

cmsciulli on February 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

For the record, I’m not really thrilled personally about any of our current prospects.

cmsciulli on February 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM

They sure as hell do. Go to any major lib website and message board and see how they are organizing to vote Santorum in the open primaries, and exulting that he may be the nominee.

Priscilla on February 13, 2012 at 1:47 PM

YUP!!!

And here is a link that shows it.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/hispanic-politico/2012/01/19/anybody-but-romney-latino-democrats-and-latino-independents-urged-to-vote-in-numerous-state-open-primaries/

The Liberal FEAR Romney!!!

Gunlock Bill on February 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

OK.

But again, I would say, what can Romney constitutionally do himself to end Obamacare?

I don’ believe – based on his record – he has the fortitude to apply the pressure, put up the fight, and do every last thing that he can – this will be a blood-fight. Especially since he agrees with it. What I believe, is that Romney will try to FIX it – as he sees it not as broken in concept, but in execution.

The fact that this opens the door to the state exercising unlimited power is not even a concern to the man.

As to what his exact power are, he could do a great deal beyond waivers. Can he not veto pretty much anything that might fund the program? Can he not gut the executive appointed positions with people under direct orders to capsize the program? I believe by executive order he could cripple huge parts of the program. Also, does not the treasury secretary – who serves at the pleasure of the president have a great deal of latitude when it comes to throwing an unholy monkey-wrench in the workings of, say, the pension plans and pay checks of the little apparatchiks sent to enforce this distopian nightmare??

The Executive Branch exists to enforce national laws. The waiver would, in essence, be an effort to simply not enforce Obamacare.

If that waiver is struck down… well, I am no legal expert, but I would think a Romney administration would use the Justice Department to try and soften Obamacare up as much as they can.

That would be an option yes, amongst many.

But, again, the first step for getting rid of Obamacare is the Supreme Court. If that fails, it falls to Congress.

I don’t disagree.

Not really a Presidential issue. I believe he would sign a bill that repeals it. But, it shouldn’t even get to that point if those of us who oppose it do what we need to do

I am not certain that he would be given one. I fear greatly that the temptation of the Mush’s in congress, with Romney at the helm, would be to “try to fix” Obamacare.

This is, in my opinion, due to a critical mistake on why people in the heartland are angry. These gentry pols in the RePubic Establishment have already accepted that the government has unlimited power, and they foolishly think, we are mad because Obamacare is a wasteful spending pet project.

No. We are PISSED OFF because they are trying to effectively CODIFY the notion that our government has UNLIMITED POWER.

Romney has come to an incorrect conclusion.

I believe he will half-heartedly try to repeal, fail, then try to fix the system into something he see’s as somewhat manageable, then, be completely dumbstruck when a collective scream of rage is expelled from the heartland and south.

Because he and the mush-heads in the Grand Old Party have made a disastrous miscalculation.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/11/george_soros_pretty_sure_romney_will_pursue_a_stimulus_as_president-comments.html

social-justice on February 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM

So, Soros is the leader of your cult?

Why else would you believe him?

Gunlock Bill on February 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Annoy a conservative, vote Mitt

SparkPlug on February 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Santorum doesn’t speak the Reagan Democrat language.
Santorum speaks the big-government, ‘compassionate conservatism’ language. If he spoke Reagan Democrat, he’d have won re-election in PA.
Good Lt on February 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I do NOT believe that is why Santorum lost his Senate seat.

He lost it over the War in Iraq, and the “Royalty status” of the Casey family in PA.
.
I believe that he could have won his senate seat back this time around if he didn’t opt for the White House.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Romney’s hushed but supportive position on global warming is telling.

anotherJoe on February 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Why misrepresent/distort his position? Isn’t the truth good enough for you?

“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” Romney said in the speech, a clip of which was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. “And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”
Mitt Romney, Oct 2011

Gunlock Bill on February 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I see it alot here, It’s not just you.

You, and alot of ther people write these strange, ranting posts with lots of BOLD type, and HTML markup around key phrases, and words like ROMNEYCARE.

I don’t see anyone else calling Ken-Doll “Willard Fillmoure Romneycare.”

In 62 pages of google search, the only people besides me using the terms are using the quote feature of this forum.

Some laughing.

Some enraged.

I wish more people were picking it up. I wish you were right on that bit, It’s fitting to the man, and I’d like nothing better than making it a meme.

As to my using bold words, repetition of phrases, you better believe I am google bombing Mitt. And doing so intentionally.

SilverDeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

So next time one of you mittbots or trumptrolls want to cite Santy’s loss % just think how much Mitt would have lost by or is honesty to much to ask of you or Mitt

rik

Even better, let them think about how much he DID lose by before running for governor. I think it was 16-18 points.

It’s a stupid argument anyway. He’s running for President of the United States, not president of Pennsylvania.

I’m a Michigander and will be there for Romney. The only reason Santorum will win is because of Democrats and delusional Republicans who think a lightweight like Santorum can actually beat Obama.

If Romney can’t even get by a lightweight like Santorum, what chance does he have against Obama?

I think you underestimate how angry people are with Socialized Medicine are. I will die before I bow down to it.

Millions more just like me.

This is the defining issue of our generation.

Obamacare IS the Slavery of our generation.

SilverDeth

Yeah, but Santorum supports traditional marriage, and according our fellow republicans/conservatives, that trumps everything Obama has done, lol.

xblade on February 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Annoy a religious bigot, vote Mitt

SparkPlug on February 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Fixed it for you.

Gunlock Bill on February 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I do NOT believe that is why Santorum lost his Senate seat.

He lost it over the War in Iraq, and the “Royalty status” of the Casey family in PA.
.
I believe that he could have won his senate seat back this time around if he didn’t opt for the White House.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Or, you know, he could have lost it cause he lied about his place of residence while living out of state, ripped off the taxpayers by charging them to homeschool his kids, voted against right to work, and generally made an ass of himself so much so that voters in a purple state threw him out in favor of a liberal.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Interesting article from American Spectator:

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/13/why-santorum-can-beat-obama

Funny, they talk about those Reagan Democrats too! Guess they are also not too bright.

/

Marybeth on February 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Wait until they decide to go after Karen Santorum for living with an abortionist twice her age.

So, they’re going to talk about the social issues card? I thought doing that was bad? By the way, I didn’t realize Karen was running for anything.

I’ll go with our chances with the rich guy. The most salacious thing they’ve ever gotten on him is the dog on the car roof story. And the dog was fine.

Priscilla

Wait until they start talking about how racist he is for being a Morman, not to mention his own pro-abortion past.

xblade on February 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Here’s an interesting thought:

Santorum/Rand Paul 2012.

I’m not a Ron Paul person AT ALL, but Rand is not nearly as nutty.
He’s from the South, a tough budget cutter, very charismatic, and it would certainly help unite the anti-Obama vote.

Plus I’d pay big bucks to watch both the President AND VP debates.

Marybeth on February 13, 2012 at 4:01 PM

. . . . they will see them as Anti-Freedom, which they are. And if you use the “He believes that stuff but he won’t try to legislate it!” argument then you shouldn’t vote for him anyway cause that would mean he has no true convictions.
1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Anyone who views pro-Christianity, anti-atheism, pro-family, anti-hedonism as “anti-freedom”, is living under, or by a “false definition” of FREEDOM.

The fact that Rick Santorum won’t try to ‘legislate’ these beliefs does NOT equal an “absence of convictions” on his part.
I oppose ANY new legislation towards the ends of changing these things that Rick Santorum and myself want to see changed.
What I (and I believe Rick) would like to see, is the SCOTUS decisions abolishing the open practice of Christianity in public places, OVERTURNED.
That, by it self, would eventually bring about the other changes he (and I) seek.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Or, you know, he could have lost it cause he lied about his place of residence while living out of state, ripped off the taxpayers by charging them to homeschool his kids, voted against right to work, and generally made an ass of himself so much so that voters in a purple state threw him out in favor of a liberal.
1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Nope.

Rick’s stand on the Iraq War, and R.P.Casey’s ‘social status’. Period.
.
OH alright, MAYBE we could ‘throw in’ the fact that the Republicans “took it on the chin” nationally everywhere in November 2006. But I believe it was the other reasons I mentioned, that cost Rick his Senate seat.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM

By the way, I didn’t realize Karen was running for anything.
xblade on February 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM

.
Well YEAH . . . FLOTUS.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Gunlock Bill on February 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Annoy Gunlock Bill; vote for Ned Fla- . . . dang it . . . I mean Rick Santorum.

listens2glenn on February 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I am looking at the PPP poll cross tabs from the link posted in this article. Is there a reason, Michiganers for the differences in numbers of participants in this survey by area code?

Are the local primary candidates an issue, drawing out more Santorum voters? I don’t know any of the names of these primary candidates, do they bring out Tea Party? Evangelical?

It says 48% of these surveyed voters are Evangelical Christians, why are they using such a high number of these respondents in the survey? Are they expecting 48% of the Republican primary vote to come from evangelicals in MI? Is it because of the other Tea Party candidates on the ballot?

What do the large numbers in the area codes mean to you Michiganers? Can anyone provide answers here?

Fleuries on February 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Please correct the spelling it is so awkward, “Michiganders” in my post above.

Fleuries on February 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Americans love big government.

Dante on February 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Or, you know, he could have lost it cause he lied about his place of residence while living out of state, ripped off the taxpayers by charging them to homeschool his kids, voted against right to work, and generally made an ass of himself so much so that voters in a purple state threw him out in favor of a liberal.

1984 in real life on February 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Not from Pennsylvania I see, nope listens2glenn is pretty close to it I think. The name Bob Casey is golden in PA, and for good reason. I don’t know that the Iraq War itself played a direct role but being from Ohio with a fiancee (girlfriend at the time) from Pennsylvania all I can say is both states went full on retard in 2006. Here’s how the gov/sen races went:

Conservative incumbent senator in PA: lost by over 15.
Moderate Republican incumbent senator in OH: lost by over 15.
center-right Republican for governor in PA: lost by over 15.
very conservative Republican for governor in OH: lost by over 15.
Not to mention the Republicans lost I believe it was 8 of their 25 or 26 reps and I believe the Republicans won 1 (one!) of the 15 or so statewide races overall.

Who or what those candidates in 2 purple sister states didn’t much matter, the states went full retard.

OH-PA weren’t the only states affected, just to pick one example Bob Corker, a good candidate, narrowly beat a carpet bagging liberal in Tennessee that year. That would be the state which became the only (or the second) one to not vote for their native son for president just 6 years earlier who happpened to be a Democrat of course.

So how would Romney have done in MA in 2006 anyways? Lost to Axelrod’s proto-Obama by 20? 30? 40? Sure it’s a blue state but that doesn’t mean any loss is ok, losing by 30 in MA would be about the same as losing by 18 in PA.

jarodea on February 13, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Dang it, jumped in too late again. Oh well, I should save that response for future use.

jarodea on February 13, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The real problem is that people like you don’t know the difference between a small government capitalist and a big government socialist. Mitt can’t fix stupid.

Basilsbest on February 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Between Santorum and Romney, it’s clearly Romney who is the big government socialist. Exhibit A: Romneycare

Mitt can’t fix stupid because he’s depending on it to win!

tom on February 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Conservatives attacking Romneycare is completely laughable. On the one hand, conservatives talk about the 10th amendment and states being the labrotories of democracy. On the other hand, when a candidate goes with the 10th amendment and tries something in his state, they say he is wrong.

You can’t have it both ways folks. You either want the 10th amendment or you don’t.

So if Maine decides to confiscate all private property and see if it helps the economy, anyone who has a problem with that is not a conservative?

You’re trying to push the “laboratories of democracy” far beyond any reason. Socialize medicine is not conservative, whether it’s done at the state level or not. Just because it doesn’t violate the Constitution doesn’t mean that it’s a conservative position.

As for the Tea Party, maybe people here dont get how elections work, but you need to win as close to 50% as possible. He knows the Tea Party is voting for anyone but Obama. Why appeal to them when he has to broaden his base, and ensure a majority to beat Obama?

milcus on February 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Why appeal to them? Because he wants their vote! At least he should.

This is the RINO line in a nutshell: Pander to the liberals, because the conservatives don’t have a choice but to vote for you.

It’s usually followed by the RINO lament: I would have won if those stupid conservatives didn’t throw a temper tantrum and stay home!

tom on February 13, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Does anyone know why or how they get 46 Democrats in the respondents of the ARG poll?

How are they likely Republican Primary voters?
Do they have time to register and actually vote?

Fleuries on February 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Here is another strange thing in the ARG poll, it is not a poll of voters who have voted often and are classified as likely to vote, they are people who say on the phone that they are likely to vote, it is one of the questions.

Usually you use people who have voted in 3-5 out of the last number of elections, it varies from state to state/city how often you have had elections. So these are self identified likely voters?

Fleuries on February 14, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4