Rasmussen in OH: Romney 24, Santorum … 42
posted at 12:15 pm on February 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
While Rick Santorum courts the blue-collar vote in Michigan, he’s already looking forward to at least one Super Tuesday state — Ohio. He has spent quite a bit of time in this Rust Belt swing state, and according to the latest Rasmussen poll, that investment has paid off handsomely. Santorum now leads Romney by eighteen, 42/24:
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum continues to ride his polling momentum into Ohio where he leads Mitt Romney by nearly two-to-one in the first Rasmussen Reports survey of Republicans in the state.
The new statewide telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters shows Santorum picking up 42% of the vote to Romney’s 24%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich draws 13% support, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul picks up 10%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.
Santorum leads Romney by an even bigger margin – 58% to 30% – when the race is down to a one-on-one matchup in Ohio. Romney leads Gingrich 46% to 37% in a two-man race and Paul by a 58% to 26% margin.
The problem for Romney in Ohio mirrors that in Michigan, which is that Santorum’s pitch resonates more with the blue-collar workers that populate the Rust Belt. In fact, Newt Gingrich leads among those earning under $20K a year, 28/19 over Romney, but Santorum wins all other income demographics by pluralities below $75K, and by majorities above $75K. He also wins every age demo by a plurality, although the 18-39 group only by two points over Romney, 26/24.
The further problem for Romney is that Santorum’s perceived strength in a general election now nearly matches that among Ohio primary voters, 35/34. Among independents, Santorum actually surpasses Romney on general-election strength, 35/26, among independents. On the main question, independents back Santorum over Romney 37/19, which gives a little more credibility for the argument for Santorum’s strengths.
There is one big red flag for Santorum, however. Among those who have already cast their ballots in early voting, Romney leads by seventeen, 40/23. Depending on how many have already voted, that might put Santorum in a hole that could be significant by the time Romney starts paying attention in Ohio.
Update: Slate’s Dave Weigel says that Santorum has toned down the focus on social-conservative issues the past few weeks:
In the final debate before the New Hampshire primary, when he was asked if he’d be a “gay rights leader”—a pretty blunt trick question—Santorum said he’d “be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity.” If his son told him he was gay, “I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it.” In two new ads, his social conservatism is mentioned only in a long rundown of other reasons to vote for him. One mentions that he was “one of the top 25 evangelicals in America,” according to Time, but the point is left out there, context-free.
The result of all this: polls showing Santorum as an electable national candidate. The strategists who worked against Santorum in 2006 are amused. He gave them length after length of rope, they hung him with it, and essentially, he hasn’t changed. He still holds onto his criticism of homosexuality, for example—that it stems from the rise of the welfare state and loose morals. They have destroyed the American ideal of one-income households. Sex is meant to be a procreation-only pursuit, and they’ve ruined that, too. …
How does Mitt Romney take advantage of that? He hasn’t tried yet. His argument against Rick Santorum is all about the former senator’s résumé, and support for earmarks—stuff libertarians care about, nothing cultural. The digging into Santorum’s theories about contraception has only just begun. Since he’s risen in the polls, he’s tried to genericize that issue, too, attacking a contraception mandate as the “government trying to control your life,” not as some battle in the culture war. How long can this new Santorum keep that up?
The February 22nd debate might be the first test of that question.
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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
I’m certain he already has some sort of final solution to said problem in mind, should the situation ever arise.
Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 8:13 PM
.
Only a fool would believe that his moral hostility to contraception would form enforceable policies that would reduce availability of or access to contraceptives.
And your NOT a fool. Nor do I believe the other libertarian posters are fools, either.
Nope, I come right back to: “you’re afraid of Santorum over something else. But you’re using the claim that “Rick Santorum wants to, or might try to establish a theocracy” to hide the real reason for opposing him.
Drum the Libertarians out of the party? How would he do that?
By making you so uncomfortable with his “anti-sexual hedonism” beliefs, that you ‘feel’ unwelcome?
listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM
It’s funny. All these fat-bottom husbands of Bible-thumping church ladies pushing Santorum on an innocent public are attacking Romney and Romney supporters like madmen here, while at the same time whining about attacks on Deacon Rick and their precious social issues. I’ve never heard such whining in my life. We’re electing a president, not a pastor, and your failure to see the difference is killing the GOP.
jan3 on February 16, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Have you two met…?
Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 9:09 PM
It’s the economy, stupid. You guys don’t want to talk about financial conservatism. All you want to talk about are the big ticket social issues that make everyone squirm. Obama’s people are gamblers playing you guys like suckers, throwing red meat at you in order to keep you talking about everything BUT the economy – his biggest weakness.
jan3 on February 16, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Ridicule…whining. Very different.
jan3 on February 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Only if done effectively, and from a genuinely principled stance.
FAIL x 2.
Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 9:20 PM
This post of yours was a reply to mark81150, but I believe YOU finally “boiled yourself down” to the REAL REASON you oppose Rick Santorum as POTUS.
Michelle Obama is aiding and abetting her husband in trying to LEGITIMIZE, and JUSTIFY the government taking children away from their parents.
Rick Santorum is NOT going to have a National Vice-squad, running around checking on peoples sexual behavior. He is Not going to round up all of the ‘out-of-the-closet’ gay people, and put them in prison. Or a concentration camp. NO COMPARISON with Michelle Obama, at all.
There’s nothing wrong with using the Public Office Bully Pulpit to . . . . . . (are you ready for this?) STIGMATIZE sexual hedonism and immorality.
The fear of ‘stigma’, coming from a high-ranking politician is exactly what I figured was the real reason for all of this anti-Santorum sentiment.
And it took this long, with myself and others here asking the most ‘pointed’ of questions, to get to the bottom (no pun intended) of this.
Your ball.
(I won’t be able to reply, again tonight. Have to wait until tomorrow afternoon or evening)
listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM
Where do you guys get this stuff? You are so easily led by the nose…good grief.
He never said he wanted to “drum”libertarians, I showed in the interviews and speeches he was talking about Libertines, do you know what a libertine is? Look it up…good gracious.
He was talking about the extreme elements in the Tea Party like the libertines.
Next time, don’t rely on your websites or wherever you are getting your information, you are being duped, and you are swallowing it.
Now the problem with that is…once people like you make up their mind (even using false information) you won’t change it…you are too “manly” to change your mind and admit you were duped…that’s the danger of this, that you have made an error, but won’t admit it and change you mind.
Pal, it’s the LIBERTINES, he has a problem with…
My goodness, get a dictionary…
right2bright on February 17, 2012 at 12:10 AM
Let’s run Santorum. If you ever see what the other side feels about this guy from their blogs, it goes something like this:
A woman-hating, homophobe, that would be the perfect GOP Candidate for not 2012, but 1912.
The Anti-Mitt crowd can hang their ropes around their necks with Santorum, because not only are they going to be the cause of us losing the White House, but everything else.
The Democrats are going to have a field day with this guy. And his “Aw, shucks answers aren’t going to fly…just listen to how Charlie Rose got this guy so frustrated today on contraception, yes – it’s 2012 and the MSM is holding the national debate to whom could be our potential nominee to contraception as oppose to the poor economy…meanwhile Santorum goes after Charlie on national TV looking like a bratty child.
Good Job Anti-Mitt crowd! Santorum is going to ride into the White House on the Contraception Issue! Yeah Right!
mark cantu on February 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Always liked Santorum, and could easily vote for him, but Newt’s still my guy!?! Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) is now throwing s#it all over Rick (absolutely love Rick’s new ad!), but you know what, it looks like that strategy may well backfire, and I for one, really would like to see RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) go down in flames AGAIN!?!
Ohio and Michigan!!! Be aware that the RepublicRAT establishment is trying to INFECT you with MHIT-For-Brains, that dreaded and deadly LEMMING disease!?!
Colatteral Damage on February 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM
I agree with both of you!! I will vote for whomever wins the Primary, but it makes me sick to think it could be Santorum instead of Romney. He’s not Presidential material, Romney is. We need people who can help our economy and I agree that we do not need to choose a candidate for President the same way a search committee would pick a Minister. Democrats are probably just thrilled with the thought of Santorum as their competition.
mtb on February 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5