Rasmussen tracking poll shows Romney and Santorum within 2 points of Obama

posted at 10:30 am on February 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

For all of the talk about the damage being done from a spirited Republican primary to GOP hopes, at least one indicator shows both leading candidates making gains against Barack Obama in polling.  Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll regularly tests head-to-head general-election matchups, and both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum register at or near their strongest position:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).

In potential Election 2012 matchups, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have pulled to within two points of the president. Obama leads Romney 45% to 43% and if Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads 46% to 44%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

Today’s results are the closest Romney has been since shortly after the Florida primary. For Santorum, only once in polling since July 2011 has he performed better in a polling matchup than today.

That’s not the only good news for both Republicans from pollsters today.  Gallup’s new national poll has very good news for Santorum, and a silver lining for Romney:

Rick Santorum now holds a 10-percentage-point lead in Gallup’s Daily tracking of national Republicans registered voters’ preferences for the 2012 GOP nomination.

In the Feb. 15-19 Gallup Daily tracking rolling average, Santorum is ahead of Romney by 36% to 26%, with Newt Gingrich at 13% and Ron Paul at 11%. This marks Santorum’s largest lead to date. Santorum had moved to within two points of Romney, 30% to 32%, by the end of last week.

Prior to Santorum’s surge, Romney led Santorum 37% to 16% in Gallup Daily tracking ending Feb. 6, the day before Santorum won primaries and caucuses in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

The good news for Romney?  The electability argument still carries a lot of weight:

In a separate USA Today/Gallup survey conducted Feb. 16-19, all Americans were asked which of the two candidates — Romney or Santorum — they believed would have the best chance of beating Barack Obama in November. Overall, 54% of Americans named Romney and 29% chose Santorum.

Fewer Republicans are undecided on this issue, leaving 58% who say Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, while 32% choose Santorum.

However, the Rasmussen results tend to indicate that both candidates would have roughly equal standing against Obama in a general election, at least at the moment among likely voters.  The USA Today/Gallup results are based on perception of the candidacies rather than actual support in a head-to-head matchup.  It’s a measure of the Romney campaign’s success that this perception remains so strong in the minds of voters, but if Romney loses Michigan and Arizona next week to Santorum, it’s a perception that may not last for very long.  As long as it remains, though, this perception will exert a significant amount of influence on undecided voters in those states to break Romney’s way in the final days and hours before their primaries.


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

Rasmussen, in the tank for Santorum. They are sandbagging Romney’s real numbers and propping up that total loser…Santourm (or whatever funny name for Santorum being used today).

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

There goes the electability argument for Romney

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The latest polls in both VA and OH show Santorum doing better than Romney vs Obama. Without the electability argument, Romney has nothing.

gumbyandpokey on February 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Any challenger within 10 pts. of the incumbent this far out from an election is doing pretty good. Has a sitting president ever been this close to any challenger 8+ months out from an election?

NotCoach on February 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Sweet,where crossing the T,with a nine gun salute full-broadside!
(snark)

canopfor on February 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Mitt Romney is unelectable

Eph on February 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

However, the Rasmussen results tend to indicate that both candidates would have roughly equal standing against Obama in a general election, at least at the moment among likely voters.

Thank you. Can we please stop with the unelectable narrative for either of these guys(although Newt probably is too toxic with voters)? They’re both gonna be smeared by the drive-bys, so it doesn’t matter who we nominate in that regard. And don’t think for one second only Santorum’s religious beliefs will be examined under a microscope. You think the media won’t enjoy every minute of going after Romney’s Mormon faith?

So let the best man win and when that happens we need to unite behind whomever it is. And that goes for the GOP establishment as well. If Santorum gets the nomination and they even hint at disenfranchising a majority of the base in order to anoint their handpicked candidate, they can kiss the party goodbye and I don’t just mean in 2012.

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Thanks Ed. I want to see these polls when gas reaches $4 for most everyone in the US.

CoffeeLover on February 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM

gumbyandpokey on February 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Not necessarily, Santorum isn’t on the ballot for the Virginia primary. All Romney has to do is remove Santorum’s name from a few other states and the nomination is his.

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Brokered Convention/SMOD 2012.

davek70 on February 21, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Thank you. Can we please stop with the unelectable narrative for either of these guys
Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Yeah, right. Like that’s gonna’ happen.

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM

+1 Doughboy

ABO

cmsinaz on February 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

While the Gallup poll has him up by 10, Santorum’s lead in Michigan appears to be slipping away. If he loses MI and AZ, the national number soon follows. I think the voters in MI and AZ are paying more attention to Santorum’s campaign than other primary voters, and they’re starting to get nervous about his prospects in November. This makes sense given that Santorum and his surrogates keep getting stuck talking about religious and social issues. Obama won in 2008 mainly because of the economy, but also because he energized the base, and because he was able to run as the “post-partisan” centrist. If we put him against Romney, both of those advantages disappear. If we put him against Santorum, he’ll enjoy them again.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Yeah, right. Like that’s gonna’ happen.

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM

It better. At least once the primaries are over. It’s one thing for Karl Rove and a bunch of other GOP insiders to trash Christine O’Donnell while she’s giving her victory speech and immediately writing her off. That was a deep blue state and a longshot candidacy at best. But if Santorum pulls off the upset against Romney, and the bitter Mittens supporters inside the Beltway retaliate by smearing their own nominee as unelectable and sabotaging his campaign, they’ll do irreparable harm to the party.

Same goes for a Romney victory, BTW. The Tea Party and conservatives alike need to swallow their pride, accept him as the nominee, and focus on the real endgame which is the defeat of Obama(and the retaking of the Senate of course).

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Romney or Santorum, whomever we choose, we won’t loose.
Now we just have to make a choice…both with good and both with bad.
Each side will only see the “good”, and only see the bad in the other.
But in the end, it won’t matter, because Obama will be gone…but in two or three years after the election it will matter.

Mitt has an unproven record, except in Mass, running as a liberal, in one of the most liberal states, he stayed to the left, and embraced abortion and gun control, and was the father of ObamaCare.

Rick has a proven record (straight A’s from the National Taxpayers Union, in the top 10% fiscal conservative Senators for those 12 years), in one of the most liberal states, he stayed right (obviously, his voting record), but cozied up to unions and stayed true to his faith.

The conservative edge goes to Rick, no doubt (from unbiased sources), money raising goes to Mitt.

Rick danced around “lobbying”, but never was, Mitt has taken in more Lobbyist money than all the other candidates combined.

Edge has to go to Rick on lobbying…Mitt was never in a position to vote on fed money, so it’s a wash on entitlements and earmarks.

Both are faithful, both strong marriages, it’s a wash as far as “morals” go.

Rick has won more elections, and lost one, Mitt has won one election and is a perennial loser…the edge for campaigning goes to Rick.

Rick has taken it to Obama, Mitt has not retreated from the praise and admiration he has shown to Obama.

More conservative, better voting record, won more elections, not afraid of confronting Obama, the edge has to go to Rick…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Thanks Ed. I want to see these polls when gas reaches $4 for most everyone in the US.

CoffeeLover on February 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Heck, wait till it reaches $5. I foresee another tap into our reserves. It will be ugly come summer.

dddave on February 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Thank you. Can we please stop with the unelectable narrative for either of these guys
Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM

No, we can’t. Santorum only does well in electability polls because he’s mostly unknown to the general electorate. He basically enjoys the “generic Republican” position in the poll. If he maintains frontrunner status, this advantage will disappear quickly. Let’s see how he polls in a month, if he’s still a serious contender.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

If we put him against Romney, both of those advantages disappear. If we put him against Santorum, he’ll enjoy them again.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

If Romney showed that he was willing to take the fight to Obama, you may be right, but he seems to want to continue his personal attacks…meanwhile Rick is hitting Obama on the economy, and his lack of leadership, at least leading us in the wrong direction.

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM

As long as it remains, though, this perception will exert a significant amount of influence on undecided voters in those states to break Romney’s way in the final days and hours before their primaries.

But that doesn’t happen. That is one of Romney’s main problems. Even where he wins he doesn’t tend to exceed his polling numbers. Why? He loses late deciders. People may be sure he can win and is the most electable. But they aren’t too sure they want him to.

Rocks on February 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Nobody listens to the likes of me or Dick Morris at this point but every expert I know thinks BHO looks like the the pop up stuff you put jelly on in the morning or a rookie corner back.

IlikedAUH2O on February 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

If these polls don’t include the possibility of running a ham sandwich, they’re useless.

platypus on February 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The more important number this morning is Gallup showing that unemployment might jump back up to 9.0% for February. If that is the case, Obama will be back down to 43-44% approval soon, and both Romney and Santorum should take a lead against him..

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Has a sitting president ever been this close to any challenger 8+ months out from an election?

NotCoach

Good ? NC…

hillsoftx on February 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Keep making fun of Romney. Then ask a Vietnam Vet what a B-52 strike looked like. Carpet bomb. Like Jesus mad at the world. A wonder to behold. Go Mitt.

IlikedAUH2O on February 21, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Let’s see how he polls in a month, if he’s still a serious contender.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

His actual record will make him even stronger…the only candidate in the Senate that was given an A for fiscal spending the last four years of Bush’s term…all the other Senators buckled, except for him…When people see his record (yeah, I know 12 years and there will be some hiccups), his total record and his conservative “scorecard”, the unbiased scoring, not Mitt supporters, he will be a stronger candidate than now.

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Then ask a Vietnam Vet…
IlikedAUH2O on February 21, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Well, that won’t be Mitt because he dodged the draft and spent the time in France…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

If Romney showed that he was willing to take the fight to Obama, you may be right, but he seems to want to continue his personal attacks…meanwhile Rick is hitting Obama on the economy, and his lack of leadership, at least leading us in the wrong direction.

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM

What do you consider “personal attacks”? I don’t live in Michigan or Arizona, but if the ads that I have seen here are representative of the candidates, Santorum and Gingrich have been much more personal in their attacks on Romney, calling him a liar, a fake and a mudslinger. Attacking Santorum for voting to raise the debt ceiling is not personal. I’m genuinely curious, what are the personal attacks that Romney has continued?

Priscilla on February 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

No, we can’t. Santorum only does well in electability polls because he’s mostly unknown to the general electorate. He basically enjoys the “generic Republican” position in the poll. If he maintains frontrunner status, this advantage will disappear quickly. Let’s see how he polls in a month, if he’s still a serious contender.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

.
They shoulda been around for the Newt-mania after SC. What a hoot.

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The more important number this morning is Gallup showing that unemployment might jump back up to 9.0% for February. If that is the case, Obama will be back down to 43-44% approval soon, and both Romney and Santorum should take a lead against him..

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 10:47 AM

I think this is a strategy by the Obama team — yup, I’m that paranoid! They clearly moved the fake jobs numbers last month too soon. Obama got a bounce, but it wasn’t sustainable. The strategy now is to have bad news followed by bad news, and an “unexpected recovery” just before the election so Barry can ride that bump to a victory. Jobs numbers are just another tool in his re-election arsenal, and they will be massaged and manipulated from now until November.

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Well, at least he is staying up. It could be good for conservatism, but it is only good for conservatism if he can actually lead the nation. He is going to have to talk to the “We the People” and get our consent for changes, and it is not always easy. Many of the changes we need are going to be sacrifices of either our own government sponsored other peoples-money-welfare or some group of easily used people’s sacrifices of government sponsored other-people’s-money welfare. Does Santorum have that in him? I do not think he does. It is why he was back of the pack until he was the last not-Romney not yet vetted. He does not carry a message very well. I also do not think he has solutions to our problems.

I will vote for him in the general because he does not seem as if he will devastate the (R) brand name. I would prefer Newt Gingrich who has taken a message to “we the people” before and gotten our consent for sacrifices and then implemented those changes with accolades from the people.

astonerii on February 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

.
Are you saying Mittens didn’t register for the draft and receive a draft number? Because if you are, then you are lying the same way dishonest liberals do.

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I listened to a clip of Newt at ORU , speaking to students about National security , now here is a man that I trust my children’s future in his hand.
Santorum not so much , since he rose in the polls and the spot light is on him he has been saying something and spending the next day clarifying what he said and whinning that he is been misunderstood.

evergreenland on February 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I think Romney would be weaker than Santorum in the general. He has to outspend his opponents significantly to be competitive. He won’t be able to outspend Obama the way he’s outspending his rivals now.

David Blue on February 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

The key isn’t what Santorum or Rmney are getting in these polls-it’s what obama is getting. The fact that he is well below 50% is the key. Undecideds will always fall big for the challenger. Obama is in deep trouble at this point and if gas prices get near $5.00 he is toast.

Ta111 on February 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Santorum is the bestest

- Ed Morrissey

DHChron on February 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Well, that won’t be Mitt because he dodged the draft and spent the time in France…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Dodged the draft and spent the time in France? Are you f*cking kidding me? He was on a mission for the Mormon church.

You have no credibility. None.

Syzygy on February 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

In potential Election 2012 matchups, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have pulled to within two points of the president. Obama leads Romney 45% to 43% and if Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads 46% to 44%.

I am continually amazed that the President isn’t polling 30 points below any Republican candidate.

It seems to me that any sane and conscious American who is against the further degradation of our economy and world standing would vote for the Republican nominee whomever that may be.

I sincerely hope enough of the electorate wakes up in time to realize the damage that will be done should Mr. Obama be re-elected.

MessesWithTexas on February 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Obama is in deep trouble at this point and if gas prices get near $5.00 he is toast.

Ta111 on February 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM

knock on wood

DHChron on February 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Rasmussen, in the tank for Santorum.

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 10:33 AM

LMAO

Mittbots are getting more delusional than the Ronulans; seeing a conspiracy behind every poll.

What’s next? The military-industrial complex is “in the tank” for Santorum?? LOL

Norwegian on February 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

As others have noted, this blows the “electability” argument straight to Blazes.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

It’s a measure of the Romney campaign’s success that this perception remains so strong in the minds of voters, but if Romney loses Michigan and Arizona next week to Santorum, it’s a perception that may not last for very long.

That’s certainly true, but it doesn’t make Santy any more electable. That’s the problem. I can definitely see Romney losing both states and eventually the primary…true cons have decided they want anyone but. Of course, the alternatives are deeply flawed general election contenders, but it seems like more and more are resigned to winning the battle against Romney but losing the war against Obama.

changer1701 on February 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM

USA Today/Gallup National General Election Survey 2/16-19
•Romney – 50%
•Obama – 46%

•Obama – 49%
•Santorum – 48%

Jon0815 on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

LOL! La raeson d’etre du Mitt Romney es non plus!
Learned a bit of French from John Kerry.

abobo on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

As others have noted, this blows the “electability” argument straight to Blazes.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

You said that after Iowa
You said that after SC.
You said that after CO, MINN, MO

How long do you have to keep saying this to yourself Dorothy?

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

What’s next? The military-industrial complex is “in the tank” for Santorum?? LOL

Norwegian on February 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Hey, you let the cat out of the bag early!

Stop that.

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 11:08 AM

IMO, I don’t see Romney winning any midwest/rust belt states, but he can win NH. Santorum could get blown out, but has a chance to resonate with Reagan Dems in states like PA, MI, OH, and Iowa.

gumbyandpokey on February 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM

No, we can’t. Santorum only does well in electability polls because he’s mostly unknown to the general electorate. He basically enjoys the “generic Republican” position in the poll. If he maintains frontrunner status, this advantage will disappear quickly. Let’s see how he polls in a month, if he’s still a serious contender.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

And Romney isn’t unknown? Are you kidding me? The only reason he polls as well as he does is because he’s running as the generic Republican. Once he starts to be defined for the electorate, his numbers will plummet. And just wait til he opens his piehole and tries to pander to voters. Can you imagine having an “I love trees” moment occurring on a daily basis?

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM

How long do you have to keep saying this to yourself Dorothy?

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I know. Whom should believe? A bunch of anonymous Mittbots who could be sockpuppets from dKos for all I know, or a national figure who takes polls for a living?

Gosh, what a difficult choice./

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM

gumbyandpokey on February 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM

.
When was the last time the Republican prez candidate won Michigan ?

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM

If we put him against Santorum, he’ll enjoy them again.

EricW on February 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Sanctorum is positioning himself as the Preacher in Chief candidate. And then there is this bit of unintended truth coming from his campaign.

He was referring to the president’s policies, in terms of the radical Islamic policies the president has,

Rick Sanctimoneous! The “Christian” candidate! What a bible thumping moron he is.

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Gosh, what a difficult choice./

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM

why did they call you Dorothy?

Is that clever or snarky or something?

DHChron on February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I can definitely see Romney losing both states and eventually the primary…true cons have decided they want anyone but. Of course, the alternatives are deeply flawed general election contenders, but it seems like more and more are resigned to winning the battle against Romney but losing the war against Obama.

changer1701 on February 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Agreed. I’m afraid that “winning the battle, but losing the war” has become an acceptable outcome for too many conservatives.

Priscilla on February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

How long do you have to keep saying this to yourself Dorothy?

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

That is what paid KOS trolls do. He did the same with St Palin the Victimized. Every week she was going to announce her candidacy……and that she was being extra super smartsy by putting it off week after week.

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

DHChron on February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Or something.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM

You need to get back on your medication, precious.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM

USA Today/Gallup National General Election Survey 2/16-19
•Romney – 50%
•Obama – 46%

•Obama – 49%
•Santorum – 48%

Jon0815 on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

USA Today/Gallup is in the tank for Santorum!!eleventy!! /Mittbot

Norwegian on February 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I think this is a strategy by the Obama team — yup, I’m that paranoid! They clearly moved the fake jobs numbers last month too soon. Obama got a bounce, but it wasn’t sustainable. The strategy now is to have bad news followed by bad news, and an “unexpected recovery” just before the election so Barry can ride that bump to a victory. Jobs numbers are just another tool in his re-election arsenal, and they will be massaged and manipulated from now until November.

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 10:58 AM

While I think you are right in that they tried to spur the economy by putting out exaggerated numbers, there are problems with Obama’s approach.

The 3 major ones are:

1. Most analysts will tell you there is very little behind the stock growth. There is just no logic behind the market movement so far in 2012.

2. In the Summer, companies tend to downsize, which will slow growth.

3. The better the news, the more people who left the job market will try to go out and find work. When they can’t find jobs, they will sour on Obama.

4. Gas prices are going to kill any potntial growth in the summer.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Agreed. I’m afraid that “winning the battle, but losing the war” has become an acceptable outcome for too many conservatives.

Priscilla on February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

The radical Islamist’s believe they can hasten the destruction of the world through their own actions.

These Romney haters are all saying the same thing. They will vote for Obama or sit at home so the country will burn to the ground because they want to teach the country a lesson.

Both groups are sick 8astards.

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

You need to get back on your medication, precious.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Are you saying csdeven needs to place an aspirin between the legs? HATER!!!

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM

24/7/365 BAAAABEEEEE!

hahahahaha

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Are you saying Mittens didn’t register for the draft and receive a draft number? Because if you are, then you are lying the same way dishonest liberals do.

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

No, I am saying that he took the “missionary” tract and got out of Dodge and went to France.
His father was the committee chair that went to the selective service and got the selective service to change their designation for Mormon missionaries to be “deferred” (the first time that was done, the other religious deferments were for conscientious objectors, and they allowed civil servant jobs as long as there was no uniform, Quakers was an example). Then coincidentally Mitt was chosen to be a missionary, and was given France, where he spent a little under one year living in an apartment, than, coincidentally, he was chosen to live at the Bishop’s luxurious house for the remainder of his missionary, which ended, coincidentally, right after he received his draft number which was high and basically guaranteed that he wouldn’t be drafted…right after receiving that number, coincidentally, he returned to the U.S., and entered Stanford…lot’s of coincidences…and you were so excited that you read into a lot of what I posted, calm down and look at the facts…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I’m not going there. I will let her winning personality speak for itself.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

That’s certainly true, but it doesn’t make Santy any more electable. That’s the problem. I can definitely see Romney losing both states and eventually the primary…true cons have decided they want anyone but. Of course, the alternatives are deeply flawed general election contenders, but it seems like more and more are resigned to winning the battle against Romney but losing the war against Obama.

changer1701 on February 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Yup, the Christine O’Donnell approach. Nominating the one candidate that can’t beat the Democrat just so the moderate cant win.

I just hope that if Santorum is the nominee and loses because he sucks that badly, that we dont hear the same non-sense as we did after O-Donnell lost, in that the result proves the moderate could not have won. It was ridiculous then, and it will be ridiculous in November.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

(or whatever funny name for Santorum being used today).

I’ve taken to calling him Sanctimoniorum. :P

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

As others have noted, this blows the “electability” argument straight to Blazes.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:02 AM

You said that after Iowa
You said that after SC.
You said that after CO, MINN, MO

How long do you have to keep saying this to yourself Dorothy?

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Kingjester will say it as many times as it takes to get it through you Mittbotts thick skulls that Mitt’s meme that “Only he does well in match ups against Obama” is complete bunk.

Keep firing Kingjester.

portlandon on February 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

csdeven likes to point out the overlap between Palin supporters and Santorum supporters. Has anyone else besides myself noticed the overlap between Palin haters and Santorum haters?

gryphon202 on February 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

portlandon on February 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I plan to, buddy. Have you seen our “friend” JB around? Maybe the Hammer struck again.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Dodged the draft and spent the time in France? Are you f*cking kidding me? He was on a mission for the Mormon church.

You have no credibility. None.

Syzygy on February 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Read my post…call it what you must, but he was one of the first ever to be “exempt” because he was a mishie…what a charmed life, just plain lucky I guess…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

You didn’t know what his father did, did you? Ever wonder why no Mishies, in the later stages of the war were not drafted?
Now you know…call it what you want, but others served in his place to fight for our country.

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Here is the question for Gingrich and Santorum:

If they both LOSE Michigan AND Arizona then they both need to drop out of the race! This is only fair as that is the same logic some are using here on Romney…THE FRONT RUNNER. We’ll hold our breath to see if that happens…/

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Yeah, we should vote a McCain clone, that worked well last time…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It’s not their “home” state.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM

There goes the electability argument for Romney

liberal4life on February 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

But! He will be the nominee…you bet your basement on it!

KOOLAID2 on February 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I plan to, buddy. Have you seen our “friend” JB around? Maybe the Hammer struck again.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM

No I haven’t. HotAir smells a lot better without him.

portlandon on February 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

csdeven likes to point out the overlap between Palin supporters and Santorum supporters. Has anyone else besides myself noticed the overlap between Palin haters and Santorum haters?

gryphon202 on February 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

There are some eery similarities. Both seem to be rooted in religious bigotry. Palin also had no reservations about discussing her faith in public and a lot of folks were made uncomfortable by that. Remember how Charlie Gibson asked her in that interview whether she believed we were in a holy war? Or maybe it’s because they both have special needs children and the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd(the GOP does have a contingency of these folks) doesn’t like that. Either way, we’re fast approaching the point where it’s no longer a pro-Romney sentiment, but rather Santorum Derangement Syndrome(SDS for the hip kids).

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Agreed. I’m afraid that “winning the battle, but losing the war” has become an acceptable outcome for too many conservatives.

Priscilla on February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

By my count, Mitt has won one battle, as a liberal, and lost all the other battles…the last one to the man who lost to the man that Mitt wants to beat, but praises.
And McCain and Mitt, are Republican clones of each other…hardly a difference, except that McCain served in the military with honor…Mitt served in France…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

portlandon on February 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Indeed. It may have been a “slealth” banning.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Has anyone else besides myself noticed the overlap between Palin haters and Santorum haters?

gryphon202 on February 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM

No, lots of people notice the hatin’ nutballs. And how their hatin’ spreads.

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

csdeven occupies the heads of several deranged Romney haters at the same time.

Talent on loan from…..them! Thanks for making the room losers!

lol

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

.
Did he apply for a selective service draft number in 1969 or didn’t he?
or,

Could he have been drafted in 1969 ?
Its a Yes or No answer.

Don’t give me your liberal-like spin BS. Its inadmissible here.

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Okay, that was kind of creepy. Nutball pride?

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM

You didn’t know what his father did, did you? Ever wonder why no Mishies, in the later stages of the war were not drafted?
Now you know…call it what you want, but others served in his place to fight for our country.
right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM

r2b…
That is an out right lie…What the Defense Dept did was take people where they had a higher percentage of young men who were members of the Church and may or may not have served missions yet. For Example:
SLC has 100 men in the area so the DoD drafts 40 of them into the service. And let’s say in Romney’s hometown in Michigan there was 4 members there so they drafted 1 for the war. This is what happened in its SIMPLISTIC explanation and nothing more.

Romney still signed up and was ELIGIBLE for the draft, however, like MANY his number was too high and he was never called overseas but he has said over and over he would have went had his number been called!

This article though is about where he ranks w/Obama not about his draft history… :o)

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Yeah, we should vote a McCain clone, that worked well last time…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Different election. 2008 was nearly impossible for Republicans to win for many reasons. 2012 is almost the exact opposite.

Since that is the case, you go with the candidate that is most appealing to the most voters to maximize your chance of winning, not the candidate that is appealing to a handful of voters, and does not appeal to independent voters.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Okay, that was kind of creepy. Nutball pride?

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM

What do you mean “kind of”?

Ed, AP…get the net!

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I just hope that if Santorum is the nominee and loses because he sucks that badly, that we dont hear the same non-sense as we did after O-Donnell lost, in that the result proves the moderate could not have won. It was ridiculous then, and it will be ridiculous in November.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Won’t happen. We’ll hear that the Establishment didn’t support him, that the media killed his candidacy, and that Romney would’ve done worse.

You didn’t know what his father did, did you? Ever wonder why no Mishies, in the later stages of the war were not drafted?
Now you know…call it what you want, but others served in his place to fight for our country.

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Oh good, the draft dodging thing. I was disappointed the arguments have mostly been about policy or electability. /

changer1701 on February 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I think this is a strategy by the Obama team — yup, I’m that paranoid! They clearly moved the fake jobs numbers last month too soon. Obama got a bounce, but it wasn’t sustainable. The strategy now is to have bad news followed by bad news, and an “unexpected recovery” just before the election so Barry can ride that bump to a victory. Jobs numbers are just another tool in his re-election arsenal, and they will be massaged and manipulated from now until November.

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 10:58 AM

You give team Obama waaaaay too much credit. They are not even competent enough to file their taxes on time and you think they can engineer an “unexpected recovery”? No way.

What they can do, however, is release oil from the SPR to try to lower gas prices. If they try that and file, however, the problem will only get worse.

Deafdog on February 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It’s not their “home” state.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Well, Kings…what does that say about Gingrich seeing he has lived in VA for almost 30-40 years and he did NOT qualify there. Why is he still in then?

MI is no more Romney’s home than TN is mine because I lived there for 2 years…I agree that he SHOULD do well as he grew up there BUT what is going to mess up the politics of it all is that the DEMS can come vote for Santorum thus making HIS numbers look better than what they really are and Romney’s worse than they really are…

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Mittbots a socks puppets from DKos.

SparkPlug on February 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

portlandon on February 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

.
That’s kinda like if you keep telling a lie over, and over, and over, again?
.
Don’t forget to click your heels.

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

oof

see drudge.

ooooooofff/

ted c on February 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Jobs numbers are just another tool in his re-election arsenal, and they will be massaged and manipulated from now until November.

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 10:58 AM

There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics! haha

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM

csdeven occupies the heads of several deranged Romney haters at the same time.

Talent on loan from…..them! Thanks for making the room losers!

lol

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

creepy Mittwitt. You are obsessed with yourself. That’s what happens when you live in Mitt’s basement eating bread crust.

SparkPlug on February 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has long counted on Michigan. He grew up there. His father, the late George Romney, chaired American Motors and served as governor from 1963 to 1969. Mitt met his wife, Ann, there; they still keep a summer home in the state. “Michigan’s been my home, and this is personal,” Romney says in one ad.

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Agreed. I’m afraid that “winning the battle, but losing the war” has become an acceptable outcome for too many conservatives.

Priscilla on February 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of fanaticism and zealotry. It is rather astonishing to watch. “We’re going with the anti-birth control guy and we’re gonna…win by losing.” It makes no sense. Fanaticism never does.

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Okay, that was kind of creepy. Nutball pride?

cozmo on February 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Those tent stakes hurt don’t they?

csdeven on February 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM

There are some eery similarities. Both seem to be rooted in religious bigotry. Palin also had no reservations about discussing her faith in public and a lot of folks were made uncomfortable by that. Remember how Charlie Gibson asked her in that interview whether she believed we were in a holy war? Or maybe it’s because they both have special needs children and the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd(the GOP does have a contingency of these folks) doesn’t like that. Either way, we’re fast approaching the point where it’s no longer a pro-Romney sentiment, but rather Santorum Derangement Syndrome(SDS for the hip kids).

Doughboy on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Yeah, it’s really none of those things. I don’t even know what Palin’s faith is, nor do I care. And the whole ‘they both have special needs children and that bothers some people’ thing is both dumb and insulting, as I’ve not seen any pro-Romney people saying anything about his kid.

changer1701 on February 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM

ted c on February 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

.
We knew Satan had to get in on this at some point in time.

FlaMurph on February 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Different election. 2008 was nearly impossible for Republicans to win for many reasons. 2012 is almost the exact opposite.

Since that is the case, you go with the candidate that is most appealing to the most voters to maximize your chance of winning, not the candidate that is appealing to a handful of voters, and does not appeal to independent voters.

milcus on February 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

IMO, If McCain had said no to TARP, 2008 was winable. When he went along to get along, he handed the election to the Dems.

2012 will be a referendum on Obama. I’m not convinced there will be any difference to the Rep chances whether it’s Romney or Santorum or Newt. I think Obama sucks (as does most of Hotair), but a lot of folks like him and he is the incumbent.

Deafdog on February 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

And McCain and Mitt, are Republican clones of each other…hardly a difference, except that McCain served in the military with honor…Mitt served in France…

right2bright on February 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM

R2B…
Also do not denigrate these or ANY other people who decide to serve the people in other forms.
As a military member, I do not think any LESS of people who do not serve in the military as that is their choice. Both men signed up and one went overseas and the other was eligible to serve. The military only represents about 1 percent of the population and so that does not make the other 99 percent less honorable. People can serve their country in taking many different avenues. :o)

g2825m on February 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

oof

see drudge.

ooooooofff/

ted c on February 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Oof, indeed.

But then again…WHAT IN THE HELL IS HE DOING TALKING ABOUT SATAN???!!!!!!!

How stupid do you have to be??!! How out of touch with your fellow Americans do you have to be??!! This is the end result of zealotry. Zealots just talk and talk and talk and they never realize that everyone else thinks they’re nuts.

WHAT IN THE HELL IS A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO WANTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY DOING TALKING ABOUT SATAN!??!!

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Rational Thought on February 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Satan’s not serious?

kingsjester on February 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3