Santorum crushing the field in Texas; Update: Also Oklahoma
posted at 11:00 am on February 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
If Texas had already settled its legislative redistricting issues, it would play an important part in the Republican presidential primary process. With their redistricting tied up in court, however, Texas has had to move its primary from Super Tuesday in March to late May or early June. That’s bad news for Rick Santorum, who has a crushing lead at the moment in a new statewide poll from the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune:
Santorum would get the votes of 45 percent of the respondents if the election were held today, according to the survey. The other three candidates in the GOP race — former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas — are clustered well behind. Gingrich got 18 percent, Romney received 16 percent and Paul garnered 14 percent.
The presidential race in Texas remains highly volatile, and the numbers could change significantly between now and the state’s primaries. They were originally scheduled for March 6 — early voting would have started this week — but have been delayed by redistricting litigation. Texas still doesn’t have all of its congressional and legislative maps in place, and May 29 appears to be the earliest possible primary date.
If the maps are further delayed, the primaries could slide into June. Either way, the other candidates have time to try to catch the front-runner, and the delays move the focus and some electoral clout from Texas to other states that will vote sooner.
“Rick Santorum has cut through the clutter and emerged as not simply the non-Romney candidate, but as the most credible conservative candidate in the race,” said Daron Shaw, co-director of the UT/TT poll and a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “He hasn’t totally clinched that, but Santorum has gone from a guy who couldn’t get two minutes in a debate to being a guy who looks like the front-runner — not just in Texas, but maybe nationally.”
At least according to Gallup’s tracking poll, Santorum has become the national frontrunner. Yesterday’s iteration put him eight points above Mitt Romney, 36/28, in their five-day rolling average. That was a gain of two points in the gap from the previous day, which suggests that Santorum’s emphasis on fighting Obama over the HHS mandate has not hurt him among Republican voters at all.
In Texas, Santorum also has made the case for his electability, the most important aspect of the primary for 45% of the likely primary voters in the survey. Among likely general-election voters in Texas, Santorum has the widest margin of victory over Barack Obama and the only one to win a majority, 51/37. Romney comes close at 49/36, as does Newt Gingrich (49/38). Native Texan Ron Paul only gets a 44/35 spread over Obama. The partisan D/R/I split in this poll is 35/33/29, for those keeping score.
Santorum’s edge comes from his personal standing with the electorate. He gets the highest favorability rating in the poll with a 42/31 split (14% neither favorable or unfavorable). Romney is underwater at 37/48, as is Gingrich at 33/49 and Paul at 30/41. (Obama gets a 40/55 favorability rating and a 39/55 job approval rating.) Those ratings make it difficult for Santorum’s competitors to gain traction against him unless Santorum ends up getting eliminated before Texas gets a chance to hold its primaries.
As noted, though, Texas matters very little at the moment. As a gauge of how the race is going, it’s certainly a good data point, but Santorum won’t get a crack at these delegates unless he’s around at the very end. Mitt Romney should hope that the fight over the redistricting in Texas will play a very big role in this nomination process.
Update: I meant to write that “Santorum’s emphasis on fighting Obama over the HHS mandate has not hurt him among Republican voters at all,” but left out the word not, which was, er … an important word in that sentence. I’ve fixed it, and sorry for the confusion.
Update II: Oklahoma will vote in the March 6th Super Tuesday contests, and it looks as though Santorum will win handily there, too:
Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has surged to the front among Oklahoma’s Republican voters, according to a SoonerPoll.com survey released Sunday.
Santorum was the first choice of 39 percent of the 278 likely voters who said they planned to participate in the March 6 state GOP primary.
Former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, first in a survey conducted last fall, dropped to third, behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who remained second.
Romney, generally considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, was at 23 percent, followed by Gingrich at 18.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas was at 8 percent, and 13 percent were undecided.
That’s a pretty small sample, although not so small as to be discarded entirely. I’d like to see something with a 500-respondent or so sample to see how well it lines up with this poll.
Related Posts:









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 2
Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…
Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.
onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM
I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.
Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”
can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.
blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.
FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”
And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.
So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.
And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?
Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.
Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?
Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”
AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM
“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM
The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.
Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Who gave the ‘stand down’ order…?
Seven Percent Solution on May 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Weapons To Syria.
Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.
We were in Benghazi for the weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
“US” – Should be UN Security Council
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Syrians squabble over Libyan weapons – Sept. 15, 2012.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM
So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of
terroristsmilitias and rebels.oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM
If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Oops.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.
MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…
Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.
That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM
We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM
I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!
Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM
I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.
flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM
The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.
The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”
Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM
This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered
I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity
IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.
In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.
AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS
entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM
My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.
ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM
This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.
Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM
Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.
Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.
MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM
There were people in Tripoli, who could have gotten to Benghazi. All of that came out in direct testimony from a variety of sources.
dogsoldier on May 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM
You are correct, but it’s malice when you deliberately leave someone in a precarious position ( I mean 9/11 really? ) and ignore their pleas for help<<<<< And then HE.WENT.TO.BED.
That is the most malicious thing ever. Oh wait! Then HE.LIED.ABOUT.IT
Then he got everyone around him to lie about it. And go on five shows to lie about it and he made a lying ass commercial about it and had some poor slob who made a youtube video locked up and lied about it.
Geez he's STILL lying about it.
dogsoldier on May 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM
I’m surprised that the Regime is claiming the “idiot defense”. I thought Team Obama were the smartest guys in the room. The MSM has told us Obama is the best thing since sliced white bread. What happened to his 2008 campaign slogan “Judgement To Lead”? But I guess in their minds, claiming to be idiots is better that self identifying as marxist enemies of America.
SpiderMike on May 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, I’m Just an Idiot!”
AZCoyote on May 18, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Personally I believe they were let to die so this admin could cover their arses, i.e….the gun running similar to f&f; what other reason could there honestly be? Idiots? No. Calculating Bastards with no morals at all? YES!
This is a far more corrupt admin than we may ever know… I hope they all die a slow painful death….SOON!
OldWeaselKeeper on May 18, 2013 at 10:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2