Arizona: Romney 38, Santorum 31, Gingrich 15, Paul 11

posted at 3:40 pm on February 15, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Good news just keeps coming for former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Not only does a new Rasmussen poll show him leading Romney by 12 points nationally, but a new poll from the American Research Group shows that he’s also made a significant jump in the state of Arizona:

The American Research Group survey shows Romney with 38% support among likely Republican primary voters, followed by Santorum at 31%, Newt Gingrich at 15% and Ron Paul with 11%.

The new figures represent a significant shift since January, when a similar poll indicated Romney and Gingrich tied at 32%, Paul with 12% and Santorum with 10%.

That earlier ARG poll wasn’t the only poll that, just a few weeks ago, showed Santorum noticeably behind in the Grand Canyon State. A Feb. 1 poll from Rasmussen suggested the state would be a lock for Romney, who then led Gingrich 48 percent to 24 percent. At the time, Santorum drew just 13 percent support.

Santorum’s surge in Arizona is all the more remarkable because he’s paid very little attention to the state. While Romney has hit the Southwest, Santorum has focused the majority of his energy on Michigan and Ohio, where his efforts are paying off in the polls. A second-place finish in Arizona would bolster Santorum’s case that he’s the clear not-Romney in the race, but it wouldn’t do much to augment his delegate count. Arizona is a winner-take-all primary. Indeed, Ben Shapiro reports that most of the states that favor Santorum are proportional, whereas Romney will likely fare well in the winner-take-all contests. That makes the math difficult for Santorum. Still, it can’t hurt him to finish second in every state in which he doesn’t finish first. If he shows himself to be strong across the country, anything could happen.


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

At least Romney understand business.

ConservativeLaw on February 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Indexing the minimum wage shows real business insight.

/

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Obama is up in the swing states and his approval rating has climbed to about 50%. This current crop of Republican presidential candidates are starting to make McCain look good. It was the Republicans to lose and they’re doing just that . . . sad and disgusting.

rplat on February 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Yeah, having high moral standards is just awful, who would ever vote for someone with morals?

right2bright on February 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM

So you can, as an elected official, rip off the taxpayers that you represent, but as long as you believe sex must always be a purely procreative act, you are moral?

When he moved to Virginia, Santorum also kept his home-schooled children in a program run by the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School. That cost Pennsylvania taxpayers thousands of dollars a year, and some of Santorum’s political opponents demanded he reimburse the state. “Just pay the money back,” Casey said to Santorum in one debate. “You ripped off the taxpayers. Pay it back..” Santorum declined, and an adjudicator ruled in his favor, but at the very least the school issue highlighted the fact that Santorum had left Pennsylvania behind.

Thanks for helping me out, I’m a little slow. Because, as we all know, when the adjudicator rules in your favor, you’re innocent.

Mr. Arkadin on February 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Santorum:

, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

, “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”

just how does a libertarian minded fiscal conservative with liberal social views is supposed to vote for santorum?!? I said in another thread, I will repeat it here, quite probably, if santorum is nominated, I will not just stay home, I go out to vote and will vote for Obama. romney, paul and newt i vote for any of them, but santorum? no way!

nathor on February 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I am now hoping that Gov. Romney wins the nomination, there isn’t enough medication in the world to cover the loss.

Cindy Munford on February 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Maybe if every state passes ORomneycare we can have a conservative, federalist solution to the medication crisis./

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Explaining current political choices based on historial terms is asking for various equivocation fallacies to enter the discussion.

Libertarians do well in the economic realm, until they start treating every topic as another ‘nail’ just because they have a hammer in their hands.

Most people would not accept a Libetarian view that insisted that adults should be allowed to trade illegal drugs for sex with children.

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Especially most libertarians.

Now, can you try again, this time without strawman arguments?

joana on February 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Santorum:

, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

, “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.”

just how does a libertarian minded fiscal conservative with liberal social views is supposed to vote for santorum?!? I said in another thread, I will repeat it here, quite probably, if santorum is nominated, I will not just stay home, I go out to vote and will vote for Obama. romney, paul and newt i vote for any of them, but santorum? no way!

nathor on February 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Fiscal conservatives that are moderate or indifferent on social issues are a huge part of the Republican electorate – in most states, they’re essential for republicans to have any hope of winning statewide.

Santorum lost them in 2006 because of his big spending record + stridency on social issues, hence his defeat by 18 points. This would only repeat itself at a national scale.

joana on February 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

LOL! See, we can’t lose!

Cindy Munford on February 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Now, can you try again, this time without strawman arguments?

joana on February 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Try an intentional comic overstatement, followed by my note that this was a parody in the same post.

Talk to the hand. Get paid by the post from Rombot central for discussions with someone else.

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

LOL! See, we can’t lose!

Cindy Munford on February 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Winning!
/Charlie Sheen

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 7:08 PM

..Hmmmmmmmm. No takers. Genuinely curious here.

The War Planner on February 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Okay…I’ll try to think like a Romney hater……

Santorum can beat Obama in November because he isn’t the guy who is married to Ann Romney.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I can’t believe so many of my fellow Arizonans are backing the guy who said this:

“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Longing4Lincoln on February 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Give it time. Romney is just getting started on that fraud.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Wow! Man, I am so surprised that Ed didn’t darken the photo of Mitt via Photoshop for this piece, while lightening the photo for Santorum. Ed, you’re slipping.

Such a deep intelligent intellectual site – maybe Santorum surge is coming from Newt’s declining numbers? Just saying.

mark cantu on February 15, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Drudge has interesting short article about Kos messing with Romney and Santorum if you haven’t already seen it.

jeanie on February 15, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Drudge has interesting short article about Kos messing with Romney and Santorum if you haven’t already seen it.

jeanie on February 15, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Kos is planing to vote for santorum to mess up the repubs…

nathor on February 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Kos is planing to vote for santorum to mess up the repubs…

nathor on February 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Chris Mathews and now KOS, but Obama wants to face Romney right?

Wake up, fast.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/daily-kos-to-make-mischief-in-republican-primary

1984 in real life on February 15, 2012 at 7:49 PM

… a libertarian minded “fiscal conservative” with liberal social views … will vote for Obama .

nathor on February 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Edited to make plain what everybody already knows about the consistency of “libertarians”.

joe_doufu on February 15, 2012 at 8:12 PM

“I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party, the Tea Party movement, to sort of re-fashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.”
- Rick Santorum

jan3 on February 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

If it walks like a duck, …

WhatNot on February 15, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I see you’re the sensitive, simple type. Allow me to deconstruct your argument for Santorum as winning GOP nominee:

1. Not Romney
2. King of Social Conservatives
3. ??????
4. OMG! VICTORY IN NOVEMBER!!!

Does that about cover it?

troyriser_gopftw on February 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Really ? I’m supposed to ignore my own eyes and believe that one grade from one organization about one aspect of the government proves he’s not a big government social conservative ?

AND, what’s more, since the standard with Romney is that Romneycare is an albatross until he repudiates it, I don’t want to hear ANY defense of Santorum on these issues. If he wants to shed the label of big government social conservative he needs to stand up and repudiate Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the Terry Shiavo debacle.

deadrody on February 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Hey, where does your Senators measure up…if you are not from Oklahoma you ought to be ashamed of who represents you.

Obviously you do not listen or care to listen, Santorum has stated that Medicare Part D was a mistake. How is Shiavo a mistake for Santorum? Is not the Government to defend Life? Geez, get a grip.

PuritanD71 on February 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Santorum lost them in 2006 because of his big spending record + stridency on social issues, hence his defeat by 18 points. This would only repeat itself at a national scale.
joana on February 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Negative. Santorum lost in 2004 over:

1. The War in Iraq (he openly supported it)

2. His endorsement of Arlen Spectre two years previous.

3. The Casey family looked upon as “royalty” in PA.

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Santorum is a religious person, not a conservative. Mr sweater vest will ensure four more years of obama.

aniptofar on February 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You left out Santorum’s less-than-winning personality, which–according to Byron York–played a role in his defeat, as well.

Santorum likes to argue. Forcefully. Stridently. With voters.

Yeah, that’ll fly. Can’t wait.

troyriser_gopftw on February 15, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Santorum is a religious person, not a conservative. Mr sweater vest will ensure four more years of obama.

aniptofar on February 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Agreed. Arizona is wise enough to realize a vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama.

scotash on February 16, 2012 at 2:04 AM

Edited to make plain what everybody already knows about the consistency of “libertarians”.

joe_doufu on February 15, 2012 at 8:12 PM

we are as consistent as the republican party!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

Barnett’s The Lost Constitution is a much clearer articulation on liberty.

ConservativeLaw on February 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM

I’ve added Restoring the Lost Constitution by Barnett to my next book shipment from Amazon. Thanks for the recomendation.

WhatNot on February 16, 2012 at 8:00 AM

we are as consistent as the republican party!

nathor on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

Well isn’t that just a wonderful claim to fame.

MelonCollie on February 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Hey Arizona!! Consider this, RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) and his hatchet-men LIED, and LIED, and LIED about Gingrich’s record in Iowa and Florida, where apparently there’s a bunch of STUPID Americans who were too busy playing “Angry Birds” on their cell phones to look past Willard’s (from the RAT movie of the same name) LIES and more LIES!!! Santorum’s next. I just love Santorum’s new ad, because that’s what a liberal like Willard does, just throw CRAP all over the other candidates (sounds a lot like Ob@st@rd!), because RINO Romney canNOT defend his own record in office!?! Remember RomneyCare, anyone??? Virtually UNdefendable against Ob@st@rd!?! Oh yeah, Arizona … Pay NO attention to your part-time J@ck@ss, Juan McLame!!! Sarah doesn’t owe him any more favors!?! Do NOT let the RepublicRAT establishment INFECT you with MHIT-For-Brains, that deadly, dreaded LEMMING disease they have been transMITTing from state to state!! MHIT-For-Brains steals your common sense and ROBS you of any rationality in the voting booth!?! Arizona, innoculate yourselves from the dreaded LEMMING disease, MHIT-For-Brains before it’s too late!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 16, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3