Q-poll: Santorum up 9 over Romney

posted at 9:50 am on February 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Rick Santorum’s momentum on a national level continues in the new Quinnipiac poll conducted among 1124 Republican primary voters.  The news is not so good among the larger sample of 2,605 registered voters, where Mitt Romney scores within the margin of error against Barack Obama, but Santorum trails by 10:

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum leads the Republican presidential field with 35 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 26 percent among Republicans and independent voters leaning Republican nationwide, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. In November matchups, President Barack Obama edges Santorum, while the race with Romney is too close to call,

Santorum leads Romney head-to-head 50 – 37 percent.

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul score in double digits, but still fall far off the pace at 14% and 11%, respectively. Santorum’s strength comes from Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians, but the surprising demo for Santorum is women. He beats Romney 34/28 among women, just as Gallup found yesterday.  If Santorum’s attention to traditional conservative values and comments on the HHS contraception mandate damage him among women, it’s certainly not true among those women voting in the Republican primaries, at least according to this poll.

In the general election?  There’s actually not that much difference between Santorum and Romney:

Although this is Quinnipiac University’s first national poll this year, all of the numerous surveys of key states this year, including Florida, Ohio and Virginia, show Romney doing better against Obama than Santorum.

In this national poll, the president benefits from his 46 – 41 percent lead over Romney and 49 – 39 percent margin over Santorum among independent voters.

Obama wins women head-to-head against Romney in this poll by eight points, 49/41. He also wins independents 46/41, but loses Catholics by a huge margin of 35/56 — a big contrast to his 54/45 win in that demo against John McCain in 2008. However, Santorum loses women only by one point more, 50/41, but does worse among independents, losing by twice as much at 49/39. The Catholic vote stays the same, but Santorum does better with seniors (52/40) against Obama than does Romney (48/41).

The sample seems to be a little off, however, although not exactly tilted. The weighted D/R/I is 30/28/33, but another 8% are “other.” In other polls, those would go into the independent column, which would make this 30/28/41, a little too tilted toward the independents.  (The 2010 midterms produced a 35/35/30 split, for comparison.)  The sample doesn’t account for the R/I mix in the Republican primary polling, so it’s impossible to know whether Republicans were oversampled for that purpose (which would tend to help Santorum) or undersampled (which would tend to help Romney).


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

But, but, but…Santorum is leading the Catholic invasion of America!!!!111!11!1

BEWARE THE POPISH PLOT1!1!111!11111!!!!

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

The news is not so good among the larger sample of 2,605 registered voters, where Mitt Romney scores within the margin of error against Barack Obama, but Santorum trails by 10.

And there’s the rub. I want to win. Santorum won’t win. He’ll lose spectacularly.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Atheist FEEEEVAH????????????

Eph on February 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Mitt Romney is unelectable

Eph on February 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

How does this compare to the 2008 or 2004 election cycles at this time in the campaign? Otherwise, why are we really paying attention to how far back a Republican is from Obama?

If there is some kind of useful correlation, I’d love to see it.

Logus on February 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Perhaps it’s a good thing to have a solid Conservative running against the Socialist National agenda of El Presidente Downgrade.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Electable!

Red Cloud on February 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

The news is not so good among the larger sample of 2,605 registered voters, where Mitt Romney scores within the margin of error against Barack Obama, but Santorum trails by 10.
And there’s the rub. I want to win. Santorum won’t win. He’ll lose spectacularly.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

In the general election? There’s actually not that much difference between Santorum and Romney:

So, how’sa Santorum going to

lose spectacularly?

they lie on February 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Shocker. The useless candidate wont beat Obama. Like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle before him.

In related news, the sky is blue and Obama will raise everyones taxes, aside from the useless people who pay no taxes at all, if he gets 4 more years.

Santorum/Obama 2012

milcus on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

And there’s the rub. I want to win. Santorum won’t win. He’ll lose spectacularly.
Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Whoever wins the GOP nomination, wins the general. Period.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

bluegill & csdeven hardest hit!

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

they lie on February 22, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Because indies will not vote for him, as the poll shows. No indies? No win. Simple math.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Obama wins women head-to-head against Romney in this poll by eight points, 49/41. He also wins independents 46/41, but loses Catholics by a huge margin of 35/56 — a big contrast to his 54/45 win in that demo against John McCain in 2008. However, Santorum loses women only by one point more, 50/41, but does worse among independents, losing by twice as much at 49/39. The Catholic vote stays the same, but Santorum does better with seniors (52/40) against Obama than does Romney (48/41).

So in other words, if Santorum(or Mittens for that matter) can close the deal with indies, he wins. Which won’t exactly be a challenge if the economy sucks and gas prices are sky high. And I hate to say it, Mittbots, but that Catholic vote will be a lot easier to secure if we’re running an actual Catholic on the ticket instead of a Mormon.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

If Mitt is unelectable, then Rick Santorum is dog meat. He has offended every Protestant and every woman who has ever used birth control. Who is there left to vote for him…angry white men with sexual hangups?

bopbottle on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

And there’s the rub. I want to win. Santorum won’t win. He’ll lose spectacularly.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

General election match-ups show:

President Obama with 46 percent tor Romney’s 44 percent;
Obama inching past Santorum 47 – 44 percent.

Really? Obama beats Romney by 2 points and Santorum by 3 (margin of error +/- 1.9). What a spectacular loss for Santorum!

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

What are republicans thinking? Religious nuts like Santorum is a threat to our republic.

Santorum will not be the nominee

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

And there’s the rub. I want to win. Santorum won’t win. He’ll lose spectacularly.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Then vote for Obama. You want to win right?

Absurd? Yup.

You’re also making a huge assumption and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for yourself.

By the by, what if Santorum not only gets the nomination but wins the election?

Instead, a rational comment would be, “I don’t think Santorum will win. I think he’ll lose. I want to win, but I’ll vote for the Republican either way.”

Elections are won because people make the candidate electable. Yes, the candidate has to make themselves electable, but it takes two to get that candidate into office, the candidate and the voters.

Romney has just as much a possibility of losing against Obama as Obama does against any Republican. It’s just too soon to really come up with firm prognostications.

Logus on February 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

milcus on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

O’Donnell and Angle were sabotaged by the Republican establishment.

That won’t happen in the general.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Because indies will not vote for him, as the poll shows. No indies? No win. Simple math.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Why wouldn’t indies vote for him? They vote their pocketbooks. If the economy and gas prices are bad in the fall, Santorum(or Romney) wins. Simple as that.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The news is not so good among the larger sample of 2,605 registered voters, where Mitt Romney scores within the margin of error against Barack Obama, but Santorum trails by 10:

….

Check the numbers, Ed.

artist on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The Devil made him do it.

:-)

coldwarrior on February 22, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Another poll showing Barack not getting 50%.

SouthernGent on February 22, 2012 at 10:03 AM

So, how’sa Santorum going to

lose spectacularly?

they lie

Because most Indy’s aren’t paying attention to the REpublican primary and Sweater Vest social views will play well with social conservatives they’re not going to win over Dems or very many Indy’s. If Santorum wins the nomination those views will be brought to the fore front and he’ll drop like a rock with: Dems, Indy’s and moderate republicans.

Zaggs on February 22, 2012 at 10:03 AM

What are republicans thinking? Religious nuts like Santorum is a threat to our republic.

Santorum will not be the nominee

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Who do you want to see as the President for the next four years?

Night Owl on February 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM

If Rick is unelectable, then Romneycare is dog meat. He has offended every Protestant and every woman who has ever used their private health insurance. Who is there left to vote for him…angry white men with sexual hangups?

Eph on February 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM

What are republicans thinking? Religious nuts like Santorum is a threat to our republic.
Santorum will not be the nominee
liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

.
You just keep resisting Santorum’s nomination with all your might, and we’ll keep trying to nominate him with all ours.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I am reading things like Romney needs course correction, and Romney saying that Santorum has not begin to be vetted yet, and here is what I am thinking:

Mrs. Palin was on Hannity, and she didn’t know about Governor Romney’s record as a SEVERE fiscal conservative when he was Governor. So, she didn’t read the Boston Globe, that is in her favor. But I hope by now she has read every word on the Romney 2012 webpage, because as a pundit, that really is her duty.

Santorum needs to put MORE stuff on his web page about how he will restructure government, not that he will be conservative about it, we know he will be sitting there all socially conservative while he is doing it.

Romney needs to read from his platforms for the people who don’t feel it is their duty to read what he wants to do.

I remember Hannity saying to read Barach Obama’s books last campaign. Who did? Romney has two absolute TOMES you can read about his expertise.

Newt has about 500 books, I cannot tell you where to start, maybe someone could ask him in the debate tonight.

The candidates have to go back to square one, because the MSM and even Fox repeats the controversial details but we are not getting the MEAT that we need to hear. I don’t mean for Fist Pumping, I mean details, economic plans that show realism, and projection of what the deficit should look like if you put them in place.

The rhetoric gets over used, we need to know what the candidates mean. What is on their pages and what does it mean to the future? Stop the hype over religion…for god’s sake. All those words have been hijacked by the media.

I am not looking for someone whooping up the crowd tonight, I want to discuss the direction of the country with republican leadership, what will they do, what do we have to look forward to, and how will we get there.

And if someone can project Obama’s budget for us, and where that is taking us, that will be fine too.

And if you want a rallying cry, this is what I suggest: Where the Hell is Harry Reid, and Why doesn’t Obama get him to pass the House’s bills? Put his budget in writing so we can see it. Reid is a democrat and responsible to Obama, Obama needs to be blamed for Harry’s inaction.

Fleuries on February 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM

bluegill & csdeven hardest hit!

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

At the same time.

Pass the popcorn.

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Eph on February 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM

.
I think you missed your point there, wanna try again?

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Bah! I think Rush is right when he said Elmer Fudd would win against Obama. You look at how badly Emperor Pinhead is doing in his PAC, the REAL unemployment rate, which regardless of what the White House claims it to be, those folks without jobs, without better paying jobs, without the hours they are looking for know the truth. I think Santorum is taking it to Obama in a dangerous place, not for himself, but for Obama. There are plenty of folk, Catholic or otherwise, who do not necessarily ascribe Obama’s policies and actions to the devil, but believe they are not in our best interest and destructive.

redmama on February 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Really? Obama beats Romney by 2 points and Santorum by 3 (margin of error +/- 1.9). What a spectacular loss for Santorum!

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

It is the independent voters where elections are won and lost, and Obama leads Santorum by 10 points with those voters, twice his lead over Romney. And there is just no way Santorum closes that gap with his long, ugly trail of religious zealotry. Indies just run away from that stuff.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I am not looking for someone whooping up the crowd tonight, I want to discuss the direction of the country with republican leadership, what will they do, what do we have to look forward to, and how will we get there

Great idea. Likelihood of it happening = slim and none.

Priscilla on February 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

And a Socialist National leader like El Presidente Downgrade – who never met an unconstitutional power grab he didn’t like – isn’t a threat to Liberty?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

O’Donnell and Angle were sabotaged by the Republican establishment.

That won’t happen in the general.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

It’s also worth remembering that O’Donnell was running for the Senate in Delaware, one of the bluest states in the nation. Even Castle with his liberal tendencies had at best a coinflip’s chance of winning that seat. And Angle was going up against the Senate Majority Leader who had millions of dollars pouring in from the unions who were successful in getting out the vote and pushing Reid over the finish line.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Who do you want to see as the President for the next four years?

Night Owl on February 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Odds are, she’s got a fever for even more Downgrade.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

In tonight’s debate, CNN needs to ask Santorum for details on this claim from his web page.

First, I will cut spending by $5 trillion over 5 years, repeal ObamaCare and other onerous regulations and cut non-defense spending to 2008 levels.

If someone who posts here has found the details, can you post the link, Santorum is not off playing golf like Obama, but I don’t know if he likes to put pen to paper or use real numbers. 5 trillion is a lot of dollars to just Cut without telling us how he will do it.

Fleuries on February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

He has offended every Protestant and every woman who has ever used birth control. Who is there left to vote for him…angry white men with sexual hangups?

bopbottle on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Perhaps you missed this:

Santorum’s strength comes from Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians, but the surprising demo for Santorum is women. He beats Romney 34/28 among women, just as Gallup found yesterday.

I’m a Protestant woman who has used birth control, and though my preferred candidate is Gingrich, I would gladly vote for Santorum over Romney.

Flora Duh on February 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Religious nuts like Santorum is a threat to our republic.

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

That’s funny. I’m not a Santorum supporter but when I see comments like this I have to wonder what those who actually founded our republic would say about Santorum’s religious beliefs. I’m guessing something along the lines of “Yeah, and?…”

Kataklysmic on February 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

In tonight’s debate, CNN needs to ask Santorum for details on this claim from his web page.

First, I will cut spending by $5 trillion over 5 years, repeal ObamaCare and other onerous regulations and cut non-defense spending to 2008 levels.

If someone who posts here has found the details, can you post the link, Santorum is not off playing golf like Obama, but I don’t know if he likes to put pen to paper or use real numbers. 5 trillion is a lot of dollars to just Cut without telling us how he will do it.

Fleuries

Maybe I’m missing something, but the government spends under 4 trillion a year. So if you cut 5 trillion over 5 years (anyone wanna bet the majority comes in the 5th year?), wouldn’t that leave the budget at 0? Assuming knocking off 1 trillion of spending a year, you have 4 trillion gone in 4 years.

Zaggs on February 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

It is the independent voters where elections are won and lost, and Obama leads Santorum by 10 points with those voters, twice his lead over Romney. And there is just no way Santorum closes that gap with his long, ugly trail of religious zealotry. Indies just run away from that stuff.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM

So the overall vote totals matter less than the vote totals among independents? Why do Democrats and Republicans even bother voting then? Why do we continue to allow them to vote, if it means nothing anyway?

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

What are republicans thinking? Religious nuts like Santorum is a threat to our republic.

Santorum will not be the nominee

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Some day, when they can do brain transplants, and if anyone would ever be in need of one…this one ^ should be your donor. You would have a brain, that has never been used before. It would be like getting a 20 year old car, with 3000 miles.

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Santorum is probably the most electable of the remaining “not-Romney” candidates, but that isn’t saying much. While his pro-life position is great, some of his other views are too 1950s for 2012.

McDuck on February 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM

He has offended every Protestant and every woman who has ever used birth control. Who is there left to vote for him…angry white men with sexual hangups?

bopbottle on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Mainline Protestants account for only 14% of all American adults.

Evangelical Protestants account for 29%. Roman Catholics account for 25%. Most of that 54% right there probably wasn’t offended by anything Santorum said (back in 2008, to a Catholic audience, at a Catholic college, speaking about Catholic beliefs).

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM

So the overall vote totals matter less than the vote totals among independents? Why do Democrats and Republicans even bother voting then? Why do we continue to allow them to vote, if it means nothing anyway?

steebo77

Because there are not enough pure Republicans or pure Democrats to win the election. Unless you think Santorum is going to pull Dems away from Obama along with winning all Republicans. Otherwise he would need to win more independents than Obama. He won’t.

Zaggs on February 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM

What are republicans thinking? Religious nuts like Santorum is a threat to our republic.

Santorum will not be the nominee

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Can we at least wait till noon to start with the Catholic bashing….sheeesh!

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM

For the beat Romney people this is great news! For the people that hope to beat Obama this news is obvious. Romney or we lose!

BobScuba on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It is February. These polls are worthless.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

angry white men with sexual hangups?

bopbottle on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

With a name like that…watch what comments you make! (:>0)

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Romney or we lose!
BobScuba on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Unfortunately for you, your feelings do reflect the majority of Republican voters at this time, especially the Conservative Base.

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Can we at least wait till noon to start with the Catholic bashing….sheeesh!

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM

It will be interesting to see if Santorum shows up for tonight’s debate with mark of ashes from an Ash Wednesday service. Of course liberal4life would attack him for that too.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

That’s funny. I’m not a Santorum supporter but when I see comments like this I have to wonder what those who actually founded our republic would say about Santorum’s religious beliefs. I’m guessing something along the lines of “Yeah, and?…”

Kataklysmic on February 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Religious bigotry has found its way into the Republican base apparently. Which is ironic since it seems to be emanating from Mitt supporters and their candidate is likely to be subjected to far worse treatment than Santorum in the general election since he’s a Mormon.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Because there are not enough pure Republicans or pure Democrats to win the election. Unless you think Santorum is going to pull Dems away from Obama along with winning all Republicans. Otherwise he would need to win more independents than Obama. He won’t.

Zaggs on February 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You must have missed this:

The sample seems to be a little off, however, although not exactly tilted. The weighted D/R/I is 30/28/33, but another 8% are “other.” In other polls, those would go into the independent column, which would make this 30/28/41, a little too tilted toward the independents. (The 2010 midterms produced a 35/35/30 split, for comparison.)

The poll oversampled indies, undersampled Dems, and dramatically undersampled Republicans. With the proper weighting, both Santorum and Romney would be even with Obama or slightly ahead.

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

O’Donnell and Angle were sabotaged by the Republican establishment.

That won’t happen in the general.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

How were they sabotaged exactly? If you’re going to make this accusation, then let’s see you back it up. Give us specifics. O’Donnell had a massive campaign warchest thanks to her national publicity and she completely tanked because she was focused on all the wrong issues. The Democrats successfully baited her with social issues, just like they’ll bait Santorum, and he’ll lose to Obama the exact same way if we nominate him.

The Republican establishment isn’t excited about losing elections. If you think that they intentionally would torpedo their own candidate just for kicks, you’re insane enough to be institutionalized. The Republican establishment cares about one thing only: winning. Sometimes to the detriment of conservatism, yes, because they sometimes think wrongly that a conservative can’t win. But once a conservative is nominated, they fall into line — because that’s the only way to win.

I’m not interested in losing nobly with O’Donnell/Angle/Santorum again. If you are, go live in Europe where you can enjoy the fruits of your futile endeavors. The rest of us are trying to save this country from a madman.

Caiwyn on February 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM

A lot of the Mitt supporters who are the most vocal are actually those who have been labeling themselves, “Fiscal Conservatives”, i.e., New Libertarians, Moderates, or Liberals. They could care less about the flack Mitt will take over his Mormonism. They’re just supporting him because he’s not a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Obama already beat our moderates (and Romney ain’t no war hero). Time to give a conservative a chance.

tommylotto on February 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM

That’s funny. I’m not a Santorum supporter but when I see comments like this I have to wonder what those who actually founded our republic would say about Santorum’s religious beliefs. I’m guessing something along the lines of “Yeah, and?…”

Kataklysmic on February 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Actually if you bother to read the things that the founding fathers wrote, they would probably consider Santorum’s view a bit on the timid and wishy washy side. But be offended by him, or consider him extreme? not a chance.

SWalker on February 22, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Religious bigotry has found its way into the Republican base apparently. Which is ironic since it seems to be emanating from Mitt supporters

What a crock. The level of victimhood claimed by Santorum supporters is offensive. Santorum has made statements that indicate to many that he is a negative and judgmental person, fixated on the sins of others. They are his statements, and they are coming to light because he has rallied the TrueCons™ to his campaign with false and overblown claims of his conservatism and his fitness for the presidency.

So vetting now = bigotry? I thought only Obama supporters said that.

Priscilla on February 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

The Willard “electability” meme has no substance, as you can see. It’s just a lame idea floated by the Media, and enforced by their makeshift polls.

Emperor Norton on February 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Religious bigotry has found its way into the Republican base apparently. Which is ironic since it seems to be emanating from Mitt supporters and their candidate is likely to be subjected to far worse treatment than Santorum in the general election since he’s a Mormon.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I agree and as a Mormon myself, I frequently ask Mitt supporters to put away the “bigotry” card. One of the reasons I don’t support Mitt in the primary is I know what is going to happen to my beliefs in the general with a Mormon nominee and to me it’s not worth it to go through with someone whose conservative credentials are weak. That said, I’ll certainly support him if he is the nominee.

Kataklysmic on February 22, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I’m not interested in losing nobly…

Caiwyn on February 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

No one is. I understand Santorum’s flaws, but it’s not a black and white decision on who will lose and who will win in November.

Why can’t Romney, dispite all of the advantages of money and institutional support, close the deal? Could it be that he just sucks as a communicator?

Or, how did Santorum rise in the field dispite having little cash or institutional support? Is it – in part – because he is an effective communicator?

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Obama already beat our moderates (and Romney ain’t no war hero). Time to give a conservative a chance.

tommylotto on February 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Do you have one in mind? On anything other than social issues, Santorum isn’t even close.

Tater Salad on February 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Religious bigotry has found its way into the Republican base apparently. Which is ironic since it seems to be emanating from Mitt supporters and their candidate is likely to be subjected to far worse treatment than Santorum in the general election since he’s a Mormon.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM

No, not into the Republican base, the bigotry we’re seeing right now is coming from the political junky activist’s who have adopted a slash and burn Alinski style of advocacy for their preferred candidate. The problem is, having used scorched earth Alinski styled tactics on those whose help they will need once a nominee has been chosen has a tendency to make coalition building very difficult as those who have been attacked may not choose to forget what an a$$hole some people were during nomination process.

SWalker on February 22, 2012 at 10:34 AM

The country is beyond saving when a Christian running for POTUS is slandered, demeaned, and crucified for his adherence to his Christianity. I guess we would rather have an immoral womanizer, accused rapist, or Marxist/Communist as POTUS.

A Catholic goes to a Catholic University and gives a speech in which he refers to Satan , which is mentioned 49 times in bible (KJV), Devil 57 times (KJV non specific)and Lucifer Once (KJV). Someone needs to censor the bible and remove any reference to Satan, the Devil or Lucifer, so that when a Christian is speaking at a religious university, he will not be able to use the term. Maybe then, we can get the atheist vote, the independents and the women’s votes. Better yet, let’s just nominate immoral womanizers, rapists, and Marxists/Communists since the all important indies seem to like to vote for them. You indie obsessed morons make me puke.

they lie on February 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Time to give a conservative a chance.

tommylotto on February 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You don’t get given anything. You earn it and when you lose you don’t turn into a victim and bellyache about “the establishment” or some rich guy who outspent you because he was more successful fund raising. That’s Democrat whining.

rhombus on February 22, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So if Obama wins another 4 years….is that an act of God? or Satin?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 22, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Actually if you bother to read the things that the founding fathers wrote, they would probably consider Santorum’s view a bit on the timid and wishy washy side. But be offended by him, or consider him extreme? not a chance.

SWalker on February 22, 2012 at 10:28 AM

You may want to re-read Jefferson, in the Constitution he made sure people were free to believe what they wanted without government intrusion, not a government that set the standard for religion.

If Santorum was fighting for religious freedom, then great; he’s fighting for a Catholic-centered Judeo Christian role for government.

PS. If Romney was trying to make us all Morman’s I would be just as offended.

Tater Salad on February 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Willard has very little going for him except this idle speculation about who can win and can’t win–with no evidence to back it up. His faithful Independents can’t stand him any more, either.

The last time I heard such empty talk about electability was in 1976, when Jerry Ford told everyone that he, the RINO, was electable, and Reagan wasn’t.

We know how that one worked out. Jerry Ford was pro-choice, by the way.

Emperor Norton on February 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

What a crock. The level of victimhood claimed by Santorum supporters is offensive. Santorum has made statements that indicate to many that he is a negative and judgmental person, fixated on the sins of others. They are his statements, and they are coming to light because he has rallied the TrueCons™ to his campaign with false and overblown claims of his conservatism and his fitness for the presidency.

So vetting now = bigotry? I thought only Obama supporters said that.

Priscilla on February 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

A parallel meme with Romney are when he is attacked for his work with Bain or his, “I like to fire people” gaffe. The attacks are out of context by supposedly free-market Republicans. They are dumb and counterproductive in the Republican nominating process.

Likewise, attacking Santorum for his religious belief are dumb and counterproductive. And, yes, they frequently reek of anti-catholic bigotry.

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You must have missed this:

The sample seems to be a little off, however, although not exactly tilted. The weighted D/R/I is 30/28/33, but another 8% are “other.” In other polls, those would go into the independent column, which would make this 30/28/41, a little too tilted toward the independents. (The 2010 midterms produced a 35/35/30 split, for comparison.)

The poll oversampled indies, undersampled Dems, and dramatically undersampled Republicans. With the proper weighting, both Santorum and Romney would be even with Obama or slightly ahead.

steebo77

No. its called “knowing the demographic breakdown is not in stone”. Also I don’t see the demographic data so I don’t know how Ed is adding the 8% “other” to independents. That most likely is the number of people who did not answer. If you split that 8% equally the numbers are not far off the midterm.
But even then nothing you said invalidates my point. You cannot get to 50.1% just from Republicans. Santorum loses in independents. Multiple polls have found this.

Zaggs on February 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

So if Obama wins another 4 years….is that an act of God? or Satin?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 22, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Or is it an act of the voters?

gryphon202 on February 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Santorum is erectable! He’ll get Satan by the balls and rip him an extra one! He’ll burn the witches and stake the gays… wait, was that the other way around?

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM

What a crock. The level of victimhood claimed by Santorum supporters is offensive. Santorum has made statements that indicate to many that he is a negative and judgmental person, fixated on the sins of others. They are his statements, and they are coming to light because he has rallied the TrueCons™ to his campaign with false and overblown claims of his conservatism and his fitness for the presidency.

So vetting now = bigotry? I thought only Obama supporters said that.

Priscilla on February 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

There’s nothing wrong with vetting a candidate. But when people on here(including Allahpundit) start hyperventilating about Santorum using the power of the Presidency to ban contraceptives or even institute a theocracy, we’ve gone way past the point of examining the man’s record and are into Oliver Stone territory. This is the kind of crap I expect from people on the left, not on our side. And yes, some of the language I’ve seen on HA over the past week borders on anti-religion.

Doughboy on February 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Er, what to polls showing a single, united candidate running against a group of people tell us?

Dick.

HopeHeFails on February 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Rick as president will do reforms unlike Mitt who DOES NOT WANT TO DO ANY REFORM OF ANYTHING. Rick can win because anybody can win against Barack.

Rick will tell the American people who Barack is. Mitt won’t tell the American people who Barack is.

Mitt won’t do anything on Social Security, medicare or tax reform.
If you do anything on Social Security you will throw Grandma and Grandpa off the cliff according to Mitt.

BroncosRock on February 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM

OT Ed: May you and Mrs. Morrisey have blessed Ash Wednesday.
Thank you for all that you do here.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You may want to re-read Jefferson, in the Constitution he made sure people were free to believe what they wanted without government intrusion, not a government that set the standard for religion.

If Santorum was fighting for religious freedom, then great; he’s fighting for a Catholic-centered Judeo Christian role for government.

PS. If Romney was trying to make us all Morman’s I would be just as offended.

Tater Salad on February 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

A), you’re full of Shiite, and B) you’re full of lying Shiite… Rick Santorum isn’t trying to force a Catholic-centered judeo-christian based government on anyone. His voting record in the senate makes that indisputably clear.

SWalker on February 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

More bad news for Willard.

Head-to-head polling data:

Satan 42%
Willard 27%
Undecided 31%

Emperor Norton on February 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM

The country is beyond saving when a Christian running for POTUS is slandered, demeaned, and crucified for his adherence to his Christianity.

OY! Not too hyperbolic. Get the boards, get the nails, put up the cross. Hey wait a minute, didn’t we go through this in 2008 when almost every question Romney got involved Mormonism? It was almost like he was “slandered, demeaned, and crucified” for “adherence to his Christianity”.

rhombus on February 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

But when people on here(including Allahpundit) start hyperventilating about Santorum using the power of the Presidency to ban contraceptives…..

Doughboy

And when candidates try to give credence to an issue but act as if they are disinvested by saying “I wouldn’t vote for it, but they they should be allowed to pass it” they invite such comparisons.

Zaggs on February 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM

When the liberal press start attacking Mitt on his Mormon faith you people will wish Rick Santourm was our nominee.

Mormon baptize dead people that they don’t even know into their faith.

Also Mitt believes he WILL BE A GOD when he dies. Also Mitt believes he came from some planet. A way to leave that planet is to have kids.

Mitt can be make into a nut. All the liberal media has to do is talk about his Mormon religion.

BroncosRock on February 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

A lot of the Mitt supporters who are the most vocal are actually those who have been labeling themselves, “Fiscal Conservatives”, i.e., New Libertarians, Moderates, or Liberals. They could care less about the flack Mitt will take over his Mormonism. They’re just supporting him because he’s not a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM

He’s not even a “fiscal conservative.” All you have to do is look at his record in Massachusetts to see that.

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The country is beyond saving when a Christian running for POTUS is slandered, demeaned, and crucified for his adherence to his Christianity.

It’s not his adherence to Christianity that I’m worried with – it’s his insistence on mine.

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

O’Donnell and Angle were sabotaged by the Republican establishment.

That won’t happen in the general.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 10:02 AM

No. Conservatives in Delaware and Nevada got greedy (or is stupid a better word?) and nominated 2 unelectable candidates instead of candidates they considered RINO’s. The result was the GOP basically wrote off O’Donnell because she had no chance to beat Coons, and tried to help Angle, but she was too unelectable to beat Reid.

And to cover up their foolishness, convervatives that voted for them, said the defeat showed that the more moderate candidates would have lost as well, completely ignoring that they never got a chance to run against the Democrat.

Conservatives for another 4 years of Obama (aka Santorum supporters) are trying to do the same this year. And once he loses, will tell everyone how the loss proved Romney was unelecatable as well.

They say that those that don’t study history are bound to repeat it. That applies here.

milcus on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Why can’t Romney, dispite all of the advantages of money and institutional support, close the deal? Could it be that he just sucks as a communicator?

Or, how did Santorum rise in the field dispite having little cash or institutional support? Is it – in part – because he is an effective communicator?

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

You seem to have hit the nail on the head.

Romney supporter in Arizona urges course correction

Phoenix (CNN) – Randy Pullen, a former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and a prominent supporter of Mitt Romney in the state, said Tuesday his candidate must intensify his efforts to win over conservatives at the grassroots level or risk losing the GOP nomination fight.

Pullen told CNN that Arizona is dangerously close to slipping out of Romney’s reach, though he still predicted a victory here for the former Massachusetts governor in next Tuesday’s primary.

[...]

After watching Santorum address a mid-day luncheon sponsored by the Maricopa County Republican Party, Pullen said he admired the Pennsylvanian’s easy rapport with conservative activists and wished Romney had similar instincts.

“They really like the guy,” Pullen said of Santorum. “You saw the speech today. It comes from the heart. Santorum connects with people. Unfortunately, my guy has a hard time doing that.”

Romney needs to spend more time “connecting with the people on the grassroots level,” he said.

“He has all the right endorsements,” Pullen said of Romney. “He is getting money from all the right people. So he has done all that. But they somehow forgot that these people are the ones that vote. Their strategy has been to play one candidate off another, but it never really got them to a majority.”

“My guy needs to come out and connect with the people and just lay it out there,” he added. “Mitt gets too concerned about what he is saying and how he is saying it as opposed to connecting with people. I know he can do it, he just has to make the effort.” Source

Flora Duh on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

The conservatives who were polled hadn’t seen this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t4cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3GMEAAAAIBAJ&dq=santorum+progressive&pg=6015%2C5485825

Obama has Bush to blame for everything. Santorum has SATAN.

I understand that Santorum’s first act as President would be to send the Seals out to look for SATAN, who he thinks is our biggest enemy.

MadJayhawk on February 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Three separate polls in the last two days with WILDLY different results. And once again people put some sort of stock in them. Foolish in the extreme.

oldroy on February 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM

So if Obama wins another 4 years….is that an act of God? or Satin?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 22, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I think it will be an act of Satin…or tulle…or maybe flannel…but definitely not cotton, cuz that would be racist!

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Now Mitt can get the upper hand with SoCons and tell his people to knock it off on pulling down signs. Because if these are your supporters, then you don’t look all that hot.

ajacksonian on February 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

steebo77 on February 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I know. But, every time we bring up Romneycare and the raising of fees in cities and towns in Mass. to “balance” the state budget, we tend to get shouted down by the Invasion.

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Is Ed stuck in the spin cycle? –

In the general election? There’s actually not that much difference between Santorum and Romney:

Although this is Quinnipiac University’s first national poll this year, all of the numerous surveys of key states this year, including Florida, Ohio and Virginia, show Romney doing better against Obama than Santorum.

In this national poll, the president benefits from his 46 – 41 percent lead over Romney and 49 – 39 percent margin over Santorum among independent voters.

Buy Danish on February 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM

if santorum gets the nod, it will be a guaranteed four more years of obama.

fwm299 on February 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM

It’s not his adherence to Christianity that I’m worried with – it’s his insistence on mine.

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Please provide a link to where Santorum has stated that he will insist you have adhere to Christianity if he is elected.

Flora Duh on February 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Likewise, attacking Santorum for his religious belief are dumb and counterproductive. And, yes, they frequently reek of anti-catholic bigotry.

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

If Romney or his supporters were attacking Santorum because of his religious beliefs, I would agree. But that just flat-out isn’t true. Santorum is being held to task for his own statements about religion, Satan, and the moral decrepitude of Americans. You can agree with him, but that doesn’t make his statements any less divisive and inappropriate.

Priscilla on February 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I am a self-described Paulbot….but if the idea of Romney ever crossed my mind this did for me, in a addition to the Union b.s he was talking about yesterday.

“If you just cut — if all you’re thinking about is just cutting spending — why as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy, so you have to at the same time create pro-growth tax policies,” Romney said during a town hall meeting in Michigan.

left or right source…this came from his mouth!! URGH. Romney should drop now!!! We need a real alternative to Obama…the guy sounds just like the One…He is the Rom to me now!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I’m a Protestant woman who has used birth control, and though my preferred candidate is Gingrich, I would gladly vote for Santorum over Romney.

Flora Duh on February 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Same here.

bluefox on February 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM

But, every time we bring up Romneycare and the raising of fees in cities and towns in Mass. to “balance” the state budget, we tend to get shouted down by the Invasion.

kingsjester on February 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Hey, I lived in Mass too and I supported the raising of fees in cities and towns in Mass to balance the state budget. People need to learn to pay their own freight. Maybe then they’ll accept real cuts.

rhombus on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Obama has Bush to blame for everything. Santorum has SATAN.

I understand that Santorum’s first act as President would be to send the Seals out to look for SATAN, who he thinks is our biggest enemy.

MadJayhawk on February 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM

But think of the press conference. Taking out Satan is a sure-fire path to re-election!

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Because indies will not vote for him, as the poll shows. No indies? No win. Simple math.

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

If the conservative base does not come out, it is irrelevant what the Independents do. This is what happened to McCain.
Bush won in 2008 because millions of socially conservative voters went to the polls and voted, many for the first time.

I have been involved in politics a long time and no one wins without their base, no one. And Romney has done nothing to excite the base or given them a reason to vote for Obama light.

In the last few weeks, for the first time, I have seen conservatives actually excited about the prospect of Santorum being the nominee. Rick reflects their values.

fight like a girl on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

So if Obama wins another 4 years….is that an act of God? or Satin?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 22, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Zuul

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Now Mitt can get the upper hand with SoCons and tell his people to knock it off on pulling down signs. Because if these are your supporters, then you don’t look all that hot.

ajacksonian on February 22, 2012 at 10:58 AM

That was addressed last night in the QOTD thread. This was a response from a Romney supporter.

Hahahahaha! Did you listen to the whining crying Sanctorum supporters in that video?!

“Waaaaaaaa! They took down our signs! Waaaaaa!”

lol Good gravy! You would think the Sanctorum zealots would have learned from watching Gingrich implode that whining about being beaten in politics is a losing position to take!

Exactly what are they expecting from Obama? Beanbag?

LOL

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 2:51 AM

I guess whoever took those signs didn’t realize that it’s illegal to do so.

Flora Duh on February 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3